The criminal justice system can be daunting, but you don’t need to go through it alone. Our Criminal lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.
Contact Our Firm
R. v. Suman, 2026 ONCA 378
R. v. Suman and the Limits of Section 8
Ontario’s Court of Appeal rules that a man who arranged paid sex with a 17-year-old via text message cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in those messages — and in doing so, clarifies an important and evolving area of Canadian constitutional law.
Joseph Neuberger, Michael Bury, and Diana Davison, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto · June 1, 2026
| Citation | R. v. Suman, 2026 ONCA 378 |
| Court | Court of Appeal for Ontario |
| Panel | Rouleau, Huscroft, and Trotter JJ.A. |
| Decision | June 1, 2026 |
| Charges | Child luring; obtaining sexual services from a person under 18; obtaining sexual services for consideration |
| Outcome | Crown appeal allowed — acquittals set aside — new trial ordered |
This article is a brief initial outline of what is a very important decision related to privacy rights in digital messages sent to a third-party recipient. We will provide further analysis on this and related cases in future articles.
01 • OVERVIEW
When a mother discovered that her 17-year-old daughter had been exchanging text messages with a man who paid her for sex, she did exactly what most parents would do: she photographed the messages and called the police. What followed was a legal battle not primarily about what happened in those conversations, but about whether the man on the other end of them — Suman, a 47-year-old who went by the name “Rico” — had a constitutional right to keep those text messages private.
The Ontario Court of Appeal’s unanimous answer, delivered on June 1, 2026, was an unambiguous no.
02 • THE FACTS
K.G. was a 17-year-old high school student living with her parents when she created a profile on “seekingarrangements.com,” listing herself as 18 or 19. She matched with Suman, who agreed to pay her $300 for sex. He sent an Uber to collect her from her family home late at night, and on at least two occasions the two met at his condominium for paid sexual encounters.
On the night of November 25, 2019, K.G.’s mother discovered her absence. When her daughter returned home at 2:30 a.m., the mother searched the phone she owned and paid for — and found the messages with “Rico.” She took screenshots and contacted police. Officers began reviewing the messages but stopped, deciding K.G.’s privacy was at stake. They seized the phone as potential evidence.
Initially reluctant to cooperate, K.G. later provided a videotaped statement and consented to a full search of her phone. That evidence led police to Suman — through Uber records, condominium records, and eventually a search of his home, where a second woman told police he had also paid her for sex.
03 • THE CHARTER BATTLE
Suman brought an application arguing that he had standing to challenge the warrantless review of the text messages on K.G.’s phone and that it violated his right under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The application judge agreed, finding that Suman had a reasonable expectation of privacy in those messages — a conclusion that triggered their exclusion under section 24(2), along with all evidence that flowed from them. The result: Suman was acquitted.
The Crown appealed.
“It would be more than surprising if the reasonable expectation of privacy should preclude the police from acting on this information, which was voluntarily shared with them.”
— Huscroft J.A., writing for the court
04 • WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL FOUND
Justice Huscroft, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, found that the application judge had erred in concluding that Suman possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances. The court’s reasoning ran along two parallel tracks.
The reasonable expectation of privacy is not a rigid rule — it is a normative concept, meaning courts ask not just whether a person expected privacy, but whether that expectation deserves to be constitutionally protected. On that question, the court concluded that the balance of values weighed decisively against Suman. Yes, the messages touched on intimate aspects of his life. But on the other side of the scale sat factors of considerably greater weight: K.G. was a 17-year-old stranger, met through a website explicitly designed to pair older men with younger women; Suman continued communicating after she confirmed her age; her mother owned the phone and had the password; and both K.G. and her mother had voluntarily provided the messages to police.
The court applied a growing line of Ontario authority holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic communications that are themselves the means of committing the offence against the recipient. Suman’s texts to K.G. were not merely connected to the alleged crime — they were, in part, the crime of child luring. As the court put it, recognizing his privacy rights in those circumstances would amount to conscripting the victim into protecting her own predator.
OUTCOME · Appeal Allowed — New Trial Ordered
05 • WHY THIS CASE MATTERS
The decision is significant for several reasons. It represents the latest step in the evolution of Canadian law on privacy in electronic communications since the Supreme Court’s landmark 2017 ruling in R. v. Marakah, which held that senders of text messages can, in principle, have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in messages stored on someone else’s phone.
Marakah was never intended to be absolute, but it left open the question of when competing interests might outweigh a sender’s privacy claim. Other cases — including R. v. Mills at the Supreme Court and R. v. Knelsen and R. v. P.M. at the Ontario Court of Appeal — have steadily filled in those contours in the context of sexual offences against children.
The Suman decision advances that project in two ways:
| 1 | It confirms that an offender’s initial ignorance of the victim’s age does not automatically ground a reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly where the offender sought out a young person and continued to do so after learning the truth about the young person’s age. |
| 2 | It reinforces the “offence-as-communication” exception beyond the specific context of child luring, connecting it to the broader family of sexual exploitation offences Parliament created following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bedford. |
06 • THE BIGGER PICTURE
There is something important in the court’s framing of the parental dimension of this case. K.G.’s mother owned the phone. She had the password. She monitored her daughter’s messages. When she found evidence of exploitation, she acted — and the court explicitly affirmed her right, even her moral duty, to do so.
That framing matters because it speaks to a concern courts have grappled with since Marakah: does robust privacy protection for text message senders inadvertently create a tool for those who exploit children? The court’s answer in Suman is that section 8, properly understood, does not require that result. The Charter protects genuine privacy interests in a free and democratic society — it does not protect the secrecy of communications used to victimize children.
The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial. Suman may seek leave to the Supreme Court, but if rejected, the matter will return for trial. The law surrounding privacy interests in messages sent via text or other digital formats has remained an important issue that courts have given guidance on. Much that was left unanswered in Marakah seems to be clarified now: privacy rights have limits, and those limits are reached when a court finds that recognizing them would do more harm than good.
Note: This case is subject to a publication ban under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code protecting the identity of the complainant. No identifying information about K.G. has been disclosed in this commentary.
READ THE DECISION HERE: R. v. Suman, 2026 ONCA 378
Legal Commentary & Analysis | R. v. Suman, 2026 ONCA 378 | Court of Appeal for Ontario | June 1, 2026 | All information drawn from the publicly available court decision.
This post is general legal commentary for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice.
