Senator Dalphond: Yes, I will be careful not to try to give an answer to colleagues that are still doing the work.

The first and most critical element will be the content of the regulations to be adopted by the minister or the government because they will provide some indicators — like taking notes and having a record of what was done in what type of circumstances — because what the courts will not accept is a process which is not reviewable by the court.

The word “reasonable,” within the rest of the sentence, normally refers to something that is an objective criterion. The court, in order to find if this objective criterion has been met, will have to get a record that shows, for example, how it was applied, what the questions were, whether the device was disconnected from the cloud — because you are entitled to search only the device, not outside the device — and whether there are notes taken because the officer may not remember because perhaps he has done hundreds since then. All factors that are critical will be found, unfortunately, not in the law, but in the regulations because the concept is undefined in the law. As I said, it will have to be fleshed out by the courts, and the courts will be careful to balance all the interests at stake.

You may end up with criteria that are a bit lower than reasonable suspicion but maybe not far from it.