Mislav, thanks for the kind note. You are certainly right-- the Canadian Supreme Court may have offered a narrow reading of section 8 without any Fourth Amendment case law. In fact, my reference to a weak Canadian culture of privacy (that touches the judiciary) recognizes, by implication, that distinct possibility-- that courts, if they really don't think privacy is a big deal on normative level, they will resist-- intentionally or unintentionally-- broad interpretations of privacy norms. Still, given the evolution of section 8 jurisprudence, I don't think the Court intended section 8 to go the way it did; it likely adopted the Fourth Amendment test because it was a useful analytical framework to resolve complex privacy issues. But over time, this constitutional borrowing has borne out ill-considered doctrine. Privacy culture, no doubt, plays a part in that. But my j'accuse refuses the Fourth Amendment absolution.

Postscript: You should, by the way, post some links to Croatian privacy cases!

-- JonPenney - 08 May 2009