The court concluded that the section strikes an appropriate balance between privacy interests and public safety (para.94), but does not pass the second stage of the Oakes test. It serves a pressing and substantial objective, but the means used are not proportional to the limit on privacy. There is no use of a notice provision, such as that found in section 196(1), which gives notice after the fact to parties whose communications have been intercepted.
The provision of notice after the fact of the wiretap is an important measure for accountability for the police use of this exceptional power to invade privacy. Without that accountability the section is unconstitutional (para.98).
The declaration of invalidity is suspended for 12 months to give Parliament an opportunity to redraft the legislation. The matter of including section 184.4 in the notice provision already in force at section 196(1) might be a simple matter, but the court also raised issues, without deciding them, about the power of others who are not police officers to make use of the provision: a power that should raise the collective hackles of the citizenry.
Here is the decision:
http://scc.lexum.org/en/2012/2012scc16/2012scc16.html
