Respondent Ryan-Jarvis.Pdf

S.C.C. File No.: 37833 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ONTARIO) B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN APPELLANT -and- RYAN JARVIS RESPONDENT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, SAMUELSON-GLUSHKO CANADIAN INTERNET POLICY AND PUBLIC INTEREST CLINIC, PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF CANADA, CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO, WOMEN'S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND INC., CRIMINAL LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION (ONTARIO) INTERVENERS RESPONDENTS FACTUM (RYAN JARVIS, RESPONDENT) (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) URSEL PHILLIPS FELLOWS SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP HOPKINSON LLP 340 Gilmour Street, Suite 100 1200 – 555 Richmond Street West Ottawa, Ontario Toronto, Ontario K2P 0R3 Zachary Kerbel Marie-France Major Saman Wickramasinghe Tel: (613) 695-8855 Tel.: (416) 968-3333 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Fax: (416) 968-0325 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] Agent for the Respondent, Ryan Jarvis RYDER WRIGHT BLAIR & HOLMES LLP 333 Adelaide Street West, 3rd Floor Toronto| Ontario |M5V 1R5 Jennifer Micallef Tel: (416) 340-9070 x 227 Fax: (416) 340-9250 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Ryan Jarvis MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS GENERAL World Exchange Plaza Crown Law Office Criminal 100 Queen Street, Suite 1300 Ottawa, Ontario Christine Bartlett-Hughes K1P 1J9 Jennifer Epstein Tel: (416) 326-4600 Nadia Effendi Fax: (416) 326-4656 Tel: (613) 787-3562 Email: [email protected] Fax: (613) 230-8842 [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant, Her Majesty the Agent for the Counsel for the Appellant, Queen Her Majesty the Queen MINISTRY OF JUSTICE GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP 3rd Floor - 940 Blanchard Street 160 Elgin Street Victoria, British Columbia Suite 2600 V8W 3E6 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C3 Lara Vizsolyi Tel: (250) 387-0150 Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Fax: (250) 387-4262 Tel: (613) 783-8817 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (613) 788-3500 E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, General of British Columbia Attorney General of British Columbia UNIVERSITÉ D'OTTAWA Common Law Section 57 Louis Pasteur St. Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5 David Fewer Tel: (613) 562-5800 Ext: 2558 Fax: (613) 562-5417 E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Samuelson- Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic OFFICE OF THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF CANADA 30 Victoria Street Gatineau, Quebec K1A 1H3 Regan Morris James Nowlan Tel: (819) 994-5905 Fax: (819) 994-5424 E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Privacy Commissioner of Canada LAX O'SULLIVAN LISUS GOTTLIEB CONWAY BAXTER WILSON LLP LLP 400 - 411 Roosevelt Avenue 145 King Street West Ottawa, Ontario K2A 3X9 Suite 2750 Toronto, Ontario M5H 1J8 David P. Taylor Tel: (613) 691-0368 Jonathan C. Lisus Fax: (613) 688-0271 Zain Naqi E-mail: [email protected] Tel: (416) 598-1744 Fax: (416) 598-3730 E-mail: [email protected] Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Civil Canadian Civil Liberties Association Liberties Association MCCARTHY TÉTRAULT LLP GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP Box 48, TD Bank Tower 2600 - 160 Elgin Street 66 Wellington Street West, Suite 5300 P.O. Box 466, Stn. A Toronto, Ontario M5K 1E6 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C3 Caroline Zayid Adam Goldenberg Matthew Estabrooks Tel: (416) 362-1812 Tel: (613) 786-8695 Fax: (416) 868-0673 Fax: (613) 563-9869 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Ontario College Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, of Teachers Ontario College of Teachers INFORMATION AND PRIVACY BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP COMMISSIONER/ONTARIO World Exchange Plaza 1400 - 2 Bloor Street East 100 Queen Street, suite 1300 Toronto, Ontario M4W 1A8 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J9 Stephen McCammon Nadia Effendi Tel: (416) 326-1920 Tel: (613) 237-5160 Fax: (416) 325-9195 Fax: (613) 230-8842 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Counsel for the Intervener Information and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Privacy Commissioner of Ontario Ontario WOMEN'S LEGAL EDUCATION AND BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP ACTION FUND World Exchange Plaza 309- 260 Spadina Avenue 100 Queen Street, suite 1300 Toronto, Ontario M5T 2E4 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J9 Karen Segal Nadia Effendi Tel: (416) 595-7170 Tel: (613) 237-5160 Fax (416) 595-7191 Fax: (613) 230-8842 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Women's Legal Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Education and Action Fund Inc. Women's Legal Education and Action Fund Inc. HENEIN HUTCHISON LLP SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP 235 King Street East 100- 340 Gilmour Street 3rd Floor Ottawa, Ontario Toronto, Ontario M5A 1J9 K2P 0R3 Matthew Gourlay Marie-France Major Kate Robertson Tel: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 102 Tel: (416) 368-5000 Fax (613) 695-8580 Fax: (416) 368-6640 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART 1: OVERVIEW OF POSITION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ...........................1 A. Overview of the Respondent’s Position ......................................................................1 B. Facts ............................................................................................................................2 PART II: THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION ON THE QUESTION IN ISSUE ...............3 PART III: BRIEF OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................................3 A. Overview ..............................................................................................................3 B. The Majority of the Ontario Court Of Appeal was Correct in Concluding that the Students in this Case Were Not “In Circumstances That Give Rise to a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy .....................................................................6 (i) Introduction .................................................................................................6 (ii) Ordinary Meaning of the Phrase “In Circumstances that Give Rise to a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” ...........................................................7 (iii) Textual Analysis .........................................................................................9 (iv) Purposive Analysis......................................................................................13 (v) The Applicability of Section 8 Charter Jurisprudence to the Interpretation of Section 162(1) ............................................................19 (vi) Other interpretive considerations: Strict Construction and Restraint .....23 (a) The Presumption of Strict Construction ......................................23 (b) The Presumption of Restraint ......................................................25 (vii) Other Issues Raised by the Appellant ......................................................27 (viii) Application to the Facts of this Case .......................................................28 PART IV: COSTS .....................................................................................................................29 PART V: ORDER SOUGHT ...................................................................................................29 PART VI: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND LEGLISLATION ........................................30 Appendix A: Selected Hansard Pertaining to s.162 of the Criminal Code ......................35 Appendix B: Summary of the Legislative History of s.162 of the Criminal Code .........58 1 PART I: OVERVIEW OF POSITION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Overview of the Respondent’s Position 1. Are students in the classrooms or the common areas of a high school during school hours “in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy” for the purpose of the offence of voyeurism under s. 162(1) of the Criminal Code. This is the central question raised by this appeal. The Respondent submits that it should be answered in the negative and the Respondent’s acquittal should stand. 2. Section 162 of the Code provides no definition for the phrase “in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy”. Does it contemplate highly nuanced privacy interests that arise regardless of whether a person is plainly observable, as the Appellant argues it does? Or, does the phrase have a more ordinary meaning, such as that adopted by the majority in the Ontario Court of Appeal, a meaning which equates “circumstances” with those conditions that tend to insulate a person from observation by others and which give rise to a reasonable expectation that one cannot be observed? 3. The Respondent submits that the ordinary meaning of the word “privacy”, the legislative intent behind s. 162, the object of s. 162 and the text of section of s. 162 itself cumulatively indicate that Parliament intended the voyeurism offence to capture the actions, sometimes aided by modern technology, of “peeping Toms” – those who spy on people in circumstances where they believe they cannot be observed by others often, though not always, for a sexual purpose. Furthermore, the Respondent submits that the ephemeral and nebulous interpretation favoured by the Appellant, arrived at through the indiscriminate

Load more