Judges Can Order Device Unlocks for Serious Crimes

Summary#

This bill would let a judge order a person to unlock an electronic device, but only in investigations of specific serious crimes. Police must already have lawful authority to examine the device’s contents and show why the order is needed. The bill also creates a new offence for refusing such an order without a reasonable excuse and sets rules on how these orders work.

• Applies only to a set list of serious offences, including terrorism, child sexual offences, murder, human trafficking, abduction, and crimes under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (Bill, “offence” in subs. (1)).
• Police need prior lawful authority to examine the device’s contents before asking for an unlock order (Bill, subs. (2)).
• A judge must find necessity or urgency and that the target is a “user” of the device (Bill, subs. (2)).
• Orders can be issued remotely by telewarrant and executed anywhere in Canada (Bill, subs. (4)–(5)).
• Refusing to comply without reasonable excuse is a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison or by summary conviction (Bill, subs. (6)).
• The fact a person could unlock the device cannot be used to prove they owned it or knew its contents (Bill, subs. (7)).

What it means for you#

• Households and device users

  • A judge could order you to unlock a phone, computer, or storage device if you are a “user” and police already have lawful authority to search it, in investigations of listed serious crimes (Bill, subs. (1)–(2)).
  • “Electronic device” is defined broadly to include computer programs, systems, data, and storage devices (Bill, subs. (1)).
  • If you do not comply and lack a “reasonable excuse,” you could face criminal penalties. The bill does not define “reasonable excuse” (Bill, subs. (6)).
  • The order can include conditions to make execution reasonable, such as limiting scope, time, or place (Bill, subs. (3)).

• Parents and minors

  • The bill does not exempt minors. A judge could order a young person who is a “user” of a device to unlock it, subject to the same safeguards (Bill, subs. (2)–(3)). Data unavailable on any special procedures for youth.

• Workers and employers

  • An employee who is a “user” of a work device could be ordered to unlock it if police already have lawful authority to examine it and the investigation concerns a listed offence (Bill, subs. (1)–(2)).
  • The bill does not define “user,” which may affect shared or pooled devices (Bill, subs. (2)).

• Victims and witnesses

  • Police may use unlock orders to seek evidence more quickly in serious cases, subject to judicial approval and necessity or urgency tests (Bill, subs. (2), (5)).
  • The court can set terms to reduce intrusion, such as limiting access to specified data (Bill, subs. (3)).

• Law enforcement and courts

  • Police can apply ex parte (without the person present) and by telewarrant when in-person appearance is impracticable (Bill, subs. (2), (5)).
  • Orders are enforceable anywhere in Canada, but must be executed by officers with authority in the place of execution (Bill, subs. (4)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No direct appropriations or fees in the bill text. Any costs would stem from police applications, court time, and enforcement. Data unavailable.
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.
• Creates a new offence for non-compliance, which could affect prosecution and legal aid workloads. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Improves access to critical digital evidence in cases like terrorism, child exploitation, and human trafficking, where delays can harm investigations (Bill, “offence” in subs. (1); subs. (2)).
• Builds in safeguards: prior lawful authority to search, judicial oversight, necessity/urgency, and tailored terms to ensure reasonableness (Bill, subs. (2)–(3)).
• Limits scope to specified serious offences, reducing risk of use in routine cases (Bill, “offence” in subs. (1)).
• Protects against unfair inferences: the act of unlocking cannot be used to prove device ownership or knowledge of its contents (Bill, subs. (7)).
• Telewarrant option helps rural and urgent operations, speeding lawful access while maintaining judicial control (Bill, subs. (5)).

Opponents' View#

• Compelled unlocking may raise self-incrimination and privacy concerns; “user” is not defined, creating uncertainty for shared devices and bystanders (Bill, subs. (2)).
• The new penalty is severe—up to 10 years—without clear guidance on what counts as a “reasonable excuse” (e.g., forgotten passcode, biometric failure), risking uneven application (Bill, subs. (6)).
• Applications are ex parte, so the person cannot contest the order before issuance; challenges would come only after the fact (Bill, subs. (2)).
• Broad device definition (programs, systems, data, storage) could pull in third-party or unrelated data, despite the court’s duty to set reasonable terms (Bill, subs. (1), (3)).
• Nationwide execution and telewarrants increase reach and speed, but also raise implementation and training burdens for police and courts. Data unavailable.