Le fait qu'un policier dissimule sa véritable identité lors d'un appel avec un suspect ne transforme pas la nature de cette communication en interception

R. v. Beairsto, 2018 ABCA 118

Lien vers la décision

[25]           In my view, it is important to distinguish between the disclosure of found private communications and the interception of same. Where an investigation involves a basic deception as to whom the appellant is communicating with, absent intrusive technologies amounting to an “interference” between the recipient and the sender, no interception is made out. In R. v. Mills, 2017 NLCA 12 the Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that where there is direct communication between two parties, deception as to the identity of the recipient does not alter the nature of the communication or transform the “receipt by the intended recipient into an interception” (at paras. 13-16).[1] I respectfully agree.