Police no longer need a judge’s permission to keep holding data copied from seized phones and computers, a B.C. Supreme Court judge has ruled. That applies even to data that was already under court supervision before the law changed this summer.
Justice Duncan reached the conclusion in an unusual way: by turning down a Crown request for an extension order, on the grounds that no order is needed any more. The judge ruled from the bench on Sept. 23; written reasons dated Oct. 15 were posted this month.
What changed in July
Under the Criminal Code, things police seize normally pass through two linked provisions. Section 489.1 requires police to either return the item or report the seizure to a justice. That report is the “gateway” to section 490, under which a judge supervises how long police can keep what they seized. Beyond an initial period, police must go back to court and justify further detention.
Courts in B.C. and Ontario had held that this scheme covered data extracted from devices, not just the devices themselves. In B.C., the leading rulings were R v Teixeira (2022), also written by Justice Duncan, and R v Bottomley (2022). As a result, police filed reports to a justice for downloaded data and applied for extensions to keep it.
That changed with Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act, which received royal assent on June 18 and came into force July 18. It added a new subsection saying section 489.1 “does not apply with respect to computer data,” with an exception for virtual currency and other digital assets. A transitional provision says the change applies to any matter or proceeding ongoing on July 18.
The case
The application arose from an investigation into what the judgment describes only as “a serious criminal offence” that began in fall 2025. Police seized several electronic devices and extracted data from them, filing reports to a justice as the earlier rulings required.
In March, a Provincial Court judge extended the detention of the seized exhibits, including the downloaded data, to Sept. 24. Police filed three more reports on extracted data after that order.
When the extension was about to expire, the federal Department of Justice applied to extend detention of the other exhibits, but not the computer data. Separately, the B.C. Prosecution Service applied about the data “out of an abundance of caution.” The new law does not say what happens to data that was already under an extension order when the amendment took effect.
The application was made ex parte and in camera, meaning in a closed hearing with only the Crown present.
No “nuclear half life”
Justice Duncan dismissed the application, agreeing with the Crown that no further orders were required.
With the amendment, computer data “no longer passes through the gateway” to judicial supervision under section 490, the judge wrote. Parliament clearly intended the change to take effect immediately in all ongoing proceedings, the judge found.
Requiring continued extensions for data seized before July 18 would create two parallel systems, one for older data and one for newer data, the judge wrote. Doing so would “dilute Parliament’s clear intent” and create what the judge called a “nuclear half life” of section 490 applications for computer data.
“Parliament did not intend supervisory jurisdiction under s 490 to continue indefinitely for one class of computer data, solely because it was seized and the subject of ongoing reporting requirements before July 18, 2026,” Justice Duncan wrote.
What it means
The ruling does not affect the physical devices themselves, or virtual currency and digital assets, which remain under the existing return-or-report rules. But for the contents copied off phones, laptops and other devices, police no longer have to report to a justice or periodically justify to a court why they are still keeping the data. That now applies to both new seizures and investigations that were already underway.
The decision is from a single judge in an application heard only on the Crown’s side, so the question could still be argued differently in a future case.
Source: Further Detention of Things Seized (Re), 2026 BCSC 1996, Supreme Court of British Columbia, oral reasons for judgment, Oct. 15, 2026.
