R v Tse, 2012 SCC 16 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the constitutionality of warrant-less wiretaps in emergency situations.

Generally, the police cannot intercept a person's private telecommunications (such as a wiretap), with certain exceptions, such as the consent of one of the parties to the communications in combination with judicial authorization, or with a warrant.

As a result of the wiretap evidence, Yat Fung Albert Tse, Nhan Trong Ly, Viet Bac Nguyen, Huong Dac Doan, Daniel Luis Soux and Myles Alexander Vandrick were charged with various offences related to the kidnapping.

This decision was part of a line of cases in the trial courts of British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario which found section 184.4 unconstitutional (but which differed in how to remedy the situation).

The Court first noted that as a general proposition, unauthorized wiretaps in emergency situations could be constitutional, if the authorization was legislated correctly.

The Court found that notice ensured that the police would not abuse their extraordinary powers, and provides transparency to the process.

As a result, the Court concluded that the lack of "after-the-fact" notice provisions rendered the current legislation unconstitutional.

Since the provisions were found unconstitutional due to the lack of accountability measures, the Court went on to decide where the legislation could be justified under the Oakes test for section 1 of the Charter.

Therefore, the Court declared the legislation unconstitutional, but stayed the effect of their ruling for 12 months to give time for Parliament to enact a new version.

[6] However, the Court declared that Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code [4] (interception in exceptional circumstances), which was enacted in 1993, was unconstitutional because it contained no accountability measures.

[citation needed] Unlike its predecessor, the new bill, C-55, simply responds to the guidance from the Supreme Court by adding the safeguards of "notification" and "reporting" to section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

"[12] When the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on March 6, 2013, it demanded changes to Bill C-55, which would allow emergency warrantless wiretaps of unlimited duration.

Despite this concern, the BCCLA’s proposed amendment was not accepted by Conservative committee members and Bill C-55 has been reported back to the House of Commons unamended.