Before I go on, I appreciate the discussion. I've made comments in other areas where I've been down voted simply because people disagreed and not because of the actual content. It's refreshing to have an open dialogue with the public.

Moving on; even though this man was Canadian, he is still subject to a customs exam, not an immigration one. He enters Canada by right, but his goods do not. This is where we are given the ability to search goods coming across the border, electronic data included. I don't work at the port nor do I know the details of the case. That being said, I would suspect that the individual involved is connected to other crimes being committed and it's possible that a flag was placed in order to alert officers. A similar flag was placed on the traveller connected with the Halifax incident just this past month.

Speaking hypothetically; a subject may be a person of concern for a drug trafficking case where large shipments are moving across the border. The drug ring is using a Canadian to import the goods because they know they will be less suspicious entering the country. Our intelligence sources put a flag telling us to search the vehicle progressively and gather intel from the electronic devices as they may contain other contacts, images, location data, etc. We can't exactly tell the man, "hey, we think you may be involved in some shady stuff, let me look at your phone" because then that intel gets burned. They'll know they're being investigated and they'll fall off the radar.

In this case in QC, the man will have his day in court. The agency will be required to articulate why it was so critical to look at the subjects phone. Whether or not the subject is told the reason why, I don't know. It's completely possible that the arresting officer was just badge heavy and arrested because legally you can (although you shouldn't).

As far as Canadians having a duty to unlock their phones; I would say no, they don't have a duty to do so. But there's a catch; you now look more suspicious and raise concerns because the average person doesn't have any issues with us going through their phone and you also run the risk of having your device seized and returned after some techies in Ottawa try to decrypt everything. Think of the phone as "Schrödinger's phone". Until opening up the device we don't know what it contains. It could be nothing, or it could be mass quantities of child pornography or statements related to drug or human trafficking. Until it's open, we don't know what's inside. Now instead of a phone, it's a locked box. You get to the border and you admit you have this box, but you won't tell us what's inside and you won't give us the combination to open it. It's lead lined and can't be x-rayed; how do I know it's not full of guns, drugs or dirty money? I don't.

I respect everyone's Charter Rights and their wishes of privacy, but until another court ruling overturns R vs Buss, I'm still operating within the law and the Charter.