Can police get my subscriber information without a warrant?

Generally no. In R. v. Spencer the Supreme Court held that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information linked to online activity, so police normally require a production order. A voluntary disclosure by a provider without lawful authority can support a section 8 application.

Does an IP address prove who was using the computer?

No. An IP address identifies an internet connection at a point in time. It does not identify which person in a household, workplace or open network used it. Bridging that gap requires further forensic evidence, and it is often the weakest link in the Crown case.

What is a preservation demand?

A preservation demand under section 487.012 requires a service provider to preserve data for a limited period so it is not deleted while police obtain a production order or warrant. It does not itself authorise disclosure of the data to police.

Specialized Prosecutions

Internet Crime Lawyer in Canada

An internet crime lawyer defends charges under Criminal Code, ss. 172.1, 342.1, 402.2 and 430(1.1), among others. This page sets out what this area covers, the charges most often laid, the penalties and consequences on conviction and the defences that are commonly available, then lists criminal defence firms you can contact.

Criminal Code, ss. 172.1, 342.1, 402.2 and 430(1.1), among others·hybrid offences

What Internet-Related Charges covers in Canadian criminal law

Internet-related charges cover a wide group of offences that share a digital evidentiary base rather than a single statutory home. They include luring a child under section 172.1, unauthorised use of a computer under section 342.1, mischief in relation to computer data under section 430(1.1), identity-related offences under sections 402.2 and 403, and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images under section 162.1.

What unites these prosecutions is the evidence: server logs, IP address attribution, production orders to service providers under sections 487.014 to 487.018, preservation demands, and forensic examination of phones and computers. The reliability of that evidence, and the lawfulness of how it was obtained, decide most of these cases.

The Supreme Court's decisions on digital privacy shape the defence work. R. v. Spencer established a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information tied to an IP address, and R. v. Fearon set the limits on searching a phone incident to arrest. Section 8 applications are the standard starting point.

Common charges in this area

The specific prohibited act, which varies by the section charged
Attribution of the online conduct to the accused rather than to an account or device
The required mental element, which for luring under section 172.1 includes the specific facilitating purpose
Lawful authority for the collection of subscriber, traffic and content data
Continuity and integrity of the seized digital evidence

Penalties and consequences

Custody, with mandatory minimums applying to luring under section 172.1
Prohibition orders restricting internet use under section 161 where the offence involves a young person
Forfeiture of computers, phones and other devices
Registration under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for the applicable offences
A criminal record with severe consequences for employment in technology and regulated fields

Common defences

Attribution: an IP address identifies a connection, not a person, and shared networks and devices create reasonable doubt
Section 8 Charter challenge to a production order or a warrantless request for subscriber information under R. v. Spencer
Challenging a phone search that exceeded the limits set in R. v. Fearon
Absence of the required specific intent, particularly in luring prosecutions
Entrapment, where the state conduct went beyond providing an opportunity to commit the offence
Section 24(2) exclusion of the digital evidence and everything derived from it

Internet crime lawyer: frequently asked questions

Can police get my subscriber information without a warrant?: Generally no. In R. v. Spencer the Supreme Court held that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information linked to online activity, so police normally require a production order. A voluntary disclosure by a provider without lawful authority can support a section 8 application.
Does an IP address prove who was using the computer?: No. An IP address identifies an internet connection at a point in time. It does not identify which person in a household, workplace or open network used it. Bridging that gap requires further forensic evidence, and it is often the weakest link in the Crown case.
What is a preservation demand?: A preservation demand under section 487.012 requires a service provider to preserve data for a limited period so it is not deleted while police obtain a production order or warrant. It does not itself authorise disclosure of the data to police.

Find an internet crime lawyer

These criminal defence firms handle Criminal Code matters and can advise on Internet-Related Charges charges. Confirm the scope of a firm’s practice before retaining counsel.