Team Members ()

Publications ()

News ()

Pages ()

Services ()

  • Our Team

    Our Team

    • Lawyers & Clerks
    • Leadership Team
    • Board of Directors
    • People & Culture
    • Marketing & Business Development
    • Paraprofessional Services
  • Our Services

    Our Services

    • Service Areas
      • Aboriginal and Indigenous Law
      • Administrative Law
      • Agribusiness
      • Banking and Financial Services
      • Bankruptcy and Insolvency
      • Business Disputes
      • Business Immigration
      • Class Actions
      • Construction Law
      • Corporate and Business
      • Corporate Finance and Securities
      • Corporate Governance and Compliance
      • Cross-Border Law
      • Education Law
      • ESG (Environmental, Social, & Governance)
      • Estates and Trusts
      • Environmental Law
      • Foreign Direct Investment
      • Franchise Law
      • Health Law
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property
      • Labour and Employment
      • Litigation
      • Maritime Law
      • Media & Entertainment
      • Municipal Law
      • P3 and Infrastructure
      • Pensions and Benefits
      • Privacy, Data Protection and Cyber Security
      • Public Law
      • Real Estate
      • Regulation of Professions
      • SISIP LTD Allowances Class Action
      • Tax
      • Technology
      • View All
    • Industries
      • Cannabis
      • Construction & Property Development
      • Emerging & High Growth Companies
      • Energy & Natural Resources
      • Financial Services
      • Government & Institutions
      • Insurance
      • Manufacturing, Processing & Sales
      • Mining
      • Ocean Economy
      • Private Clients
      • Technology
      • View All
    • More Services
      • MC Advisory
      • MC Legal Lab
  • Our Insights
  • Our Firm

    Our Firm

    • Our Values
    • Our History
    • Our Representative Work
    • Our Global Reach
    • Our News
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
    • Pro Bono Program
  • Our Careers

    Our Careers

    • Lawyer Opportunities
    • Business Professional Opportunities
    • Paralegal & Legal Assistant Opportunities
    • Summer Student & Articling Opportunities
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Stay Updated
  • Contact Us
  • LexMundi World Ready
  • Privacy Policy
  • http://linkedin.com
  • http://facebook.com
  • http://twitter.com
  • 1.866.439.6246
Home > Our Insights > What did you expect? Supreme Court of Canada’s highly nuanced “expectation of privacy” analysis in R. v. Jarvis
Publication

What did you expect? Supreme Court of Canada’s highly nuanced “expectation of privacy” analysis in R. v. Jarvis

Published:

February 20, 2019

Author(s):

  • David Fraser

Share

Print

On February 14, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada decided yet another criminal law decision that will likely have broader ramifications for privacy law. In R. v. Jarvis, the Supreme Court of Canada builds on its criminal law decisions that developed the analysis of reasonable privacy expectations (including R. v. Cole, R. v. Vu, R. v. Fearon, and R. v. Spencer) with a highly nuanced, heavily contextualized framework for looking at whether there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances. And like those earlier cases, this decision won’t just inform other criminal cases in which an expectation of privacy is relevant (like the voyeurism offence that was the issue in this case); it will inform any situation that requires a look at a person’s expectations of privacy:

Privacy lawsuits & complaints. The decision will likely generate a more nuanced discussion about expectations of privacy in places that are generally public. This will likely inform court decisions in the context of civil privacy right lawsuits (like, for example, breach of privacy and “intrusion upon seclusion” claims). It could also inform Canada’s Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s assessment of the “appropriateness” of an organization’s collection, use or disclosure of personal under section 5(3) of the federal Personal Information and Protection of Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) in the context of a privacy complaint.

Business considerations. This means that businesses that collect, hold and distribute information about their customers, employees, or otherwise – such as employers that conduct surveillance in or outside of the workplace, or insurers that engage in surveillance of claimants – will need to consider more than merely whether their conduct complies with privacy legislation. They also need to consider the impact on their targets’ reasonable expectation of privacy more generally. And while this decision gives them a framework in which to do so, it’s one that’s highly contextualized and thus potentially tough to apply in any standardized way.

Target technology. The decision is also likely to force some hard thinking about the role of technology and its impact on privacy. Most would conclude the use of technology to conduct covert recording (as in this case) is at the most intrusive end of the spectrum. While the Court noted that recording is more intrusive than observation, and the target’s awareness or lack thereof is relevant, it’s not simply that what was recorded could be observed with bare eyes. Even “mere observation” with technology, like Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras said to equate to real-time monitoring, such as retail loss-prevention monitoring, could be a breach of privacy depending on the technology or how it’s used. For example, having a retail store loss-prevention employee monitor an area around fitting rooms with hard-to-spot cameras is more privacy intrusive than doing so with obvious cameras, which in turn is more intrusive than posting an employee in that same area looking for shoplifters.

In R. v. Jarvis, a high school teacher used a covert, miniature camera to videotape young female students’ chests in otherwise “public areas” of the school (i.e., not in washrooms or changing rooms). Police charged him under the Criminal Code’s relatively new voyeurism offence, an essential element of which is that there must be circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court of Canada decided the accused was guilty. In the course of its decision, the Court laid out a highly nuanced, heavily contextualized framework for determining when and where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists:

Totality of circumstances. The Court confirmed that ultimately, the question in each case is whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in the “totality of the circumstances” (the broad test the Court articulated in its 2012 decision in R. v. Cole).

Contextual analysis. The Court also confirmed that the inquiry into the existence of a reasonable expectation of privacy is a contextual one: the factors that are relevant, and the weight each factor carries, will vary from case to case depending on the context.

Nine contextual factors. The Court continued to list and describe nine factors that courts should consider in deciding whether a person who was observed or recorded was in circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, emphasizing both that the list is non-exhaustive and that not every factor will necessarily be relevant in every case:

  • Where they were observed or recorded. For example, whether they were in a place from which they sought to exclude all others, felt confident they weren’t being observed, or expected to be observed only by a select group of people.
  • Whether it was observation or recording. A recording is more privacy-intrusive than mere observation, so a person could have differing expectations for each in different contexts.
  • Awareness of or consent to potential observation or recording. Secretive observation or recording could be indicative that it’s contrary to the norms for privacy and recording in the context – but it’s only one consideration and it can’t “overwhelm” the reasonable expectation of privacy analysis. Surreptitious observation or recording might not breach a reasonable expectation of privacy – and open observation or recording might breach it (though in a criminal case, surreptitious observation or recording might be an element of a specific offence).
  • The manner in which the observation or recording was done. For example, whether it fleeting or sustained, aided or enhanced by technology and if so, the type of technology. The Court noted judicial recognition of the potential impact of new and evolving technologies on privacy generally and the need to consider a technology’s capabilities in assessing whether its use breached reasonable expectations of privacy – and explicitly cautioned that peoples’ reasonable privacy expectations don’t necessarily contract as technology expands third parties’ ability to collect, hold and distribute their information.
  • The subject matter or content of the observation or recording. The nature and quality of the information, such as whether a specific person or group was targeted, their activity when observed or recorded, and the focus of the observation or recording.
  • Any rules, regulations or policies that governed the observation or recording. However, formal rules, regulations or policies aren’t necessarily determinative and their weight will vary with the context.
  • The relationship between the person observed or recorded and the person who did the observing or recording. For example, a relationship characterized by trust or authority and whether the observation or recording constituted a breach or abuse of the trust or authority that characterized the relationship.
  • The purpose for which the observation or recording was done. A person’s reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to information about them will vary depending on the purpose for which the information is collected (though in a criminal case, proof of a specific purpose beyond a reasonable doubt might be an element of a specific offence).
  • The personal attributes of the person observed or recorded. For example, their age, gender or vulnerabilities.

Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of the Privacy Law Team  @ McInnes Cooper to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.


McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.

© McInnes Cooper, 2019. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.

Share

Print
View Related Content

Related Lawyers

  • David Fraser, Privacy Lawyer at McInnes Cooper, Halifax

    David Fraser

    Privacy Lawyer | Partner

Related Services

  • Privacy, Data Protection and Cyber Security

Related Publications

View All Publications
  • Webinar | Employee Monitoring & Surveillance: Out of Sight, Not Out of Mind

    Apr 27, 2023

    The benefits to employees, and often to employers, of remote work has made it a staple of today’s workplace. But the move to remote work…

    Read More
    Webinar
  • Privacy Commissioner Calls Retailer Out On Consent Requirements

    Feb 1, 2023

    On January 26, 2023, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) released a report of findings requiring companies using targeted…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Hacked Companies Can’t Be Tagged With “Intrusion Upon Seclusion”

    Jan 26, 2023

    In November 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively decided an organization whose information systems are breached by a malicious third…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Webinar | Preparing for Canada’s New Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA)

    Jul 20, 2022

    There’s a new privacy law coming to Canada. In June, the federal government introduced a complete overhaul of the privacy law regime that both…

    Read More
    Webinar
  • Canada’s New Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA): 12 PIPEDA Differences

    Jun 30, 2022

    On June 16, 2022, the federal government took a second shot at a complete overhaul of the private sector privacy law regime that both protects…

    Read More
    Webinar
  • 6 (Liability) Reasons to Mitigate Your Privacy & Data Breach Risks

    Dec 16, 2021

    We updated this publication on December 21, 2022. The name of the game is to have a plan to mitigate the risk that a data breach will happen…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 5 Key Privacy FAQs for Startups & Growing Businesses

    Jan 26, 2021

    We udpated this publication on March 4, 2022. Privacy is critical to every business in every sector, including startups and growing…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 10 Ways Canada’s Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA) Will Impact Privacy Practices

    Nov 19, 2020

    This publication has been updated as at June 30, 2022. NOTE: On June 16, 2022, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-27:  Digital…

    Read More
    Publication
  • What the Privacy Commissioner’s New PIPEDA “Meaningful Consent” Guidelines Mean for Organizations

    Mar 28, 2019

    Organizations subject to Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) – those that collect, use or…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Privacy Interest in Personal Computer Contents: Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Ownership Isn’t 9/10 of the Law in R. v. Reeves

    Dec 19, 2018

    On December 13, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that a third party can’t waive a person’s right to privacy or their rights under…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Digital Privacy Act Mandatory Data Breach Response Obligations: 5 Key Focus Areas For Your Compliance Plan

    Aug 20, 2018

    Every organization subject to Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) -  every organization that…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Digital Privacy Act: 5 FAQs About the Mandatory Data Breach Response Obligations Effective November 1, 2018

    Aug 3, 2018

    As of November 1, 2018, organizations in Canada subject to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) will face…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Defining the Boundaries: Protecting Privacy & Privilege of Digital Content @ the Canadian Border

    Jun 13, 2018

    Businesspeople (and their legal counsel) are on the road more than ever before: according to Statistics Canada, while Canada-U.S. traffic is…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Legal Reality: Canadian Appeal Court decides “Virtual Presence” is enough for production order for user information against non-Canadian company in British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Brecknell

    Jan 12, 2018

    Whether a provincial court will grant police a “production order” under the Criminal Code of Canada requiring a non-Canadian company to…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Go Global @ Home: Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Global Order to Remove Internet Content in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc.

    Jun 28, 2017

    On June 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed a Canadian court can issue an interlocutory injunction (an order requiring an entity or…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Like it or Not: Supreme Court of Canada decides class action against Facebook can go ahead in B.C. – despite its terms of use in Douez v. Facebook, Inc.

    Jun 23, 2017

    On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that in a contest between the choice of forum clause in Facebook’s online terms of use…

    Read More
    Publication
  • An Early Canada (Anti Spam Legislation) Day Gift! CASL Private Right of Action Repealed

    Jun 7, 2017

    On June 7, 2017, the federal government repealed the regulations that would have brought into effect the sections of Canada’s Anti Spam…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Daniel Watt and Sara Mahaney in Gard Update: Legal privilege in the corporate context in Canada

    Apr 6, 2017

    Adding a third jurisdiction to Gard Update’s comparison between privilege in the corporate context under U.S. and English law, McInnes Cooper…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Cyber Security: A 5-Step Data Breach Risk Mitigation Plan for Corporate Boards & Directors

    Feb 24, 2017

    This publication has been updated as at January 12, 2023. Many organization (66%) store the personal information of customers. employees,…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Confidentiality Risks of Doing Business With the Public Sector Just Got Riskier: Completed NS Access to Information Requests Go Online

    Jan 25, 2017

    Doing business with the public sector creates an often overlooked – but very real – risk that the confidential information a business…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Says Privilege Wins Again – Twice in Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada & Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary

    Nov 28, 2016

    On November 25, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided privilege wins again - twice. In two separate decisions - Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Warns Judgment Creditors: Implied Consent is Enough to Disclose Discharge Statement in Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang

    Nov 22, 2016

    On November 17, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada decided a mortgagee has the mortgagor’s implied consent to disclose its discharge statement…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Doing Business With the Public Sector: Key Confidentiality Risks & 3 Risk Management Strategies

    Mar 24, 2016

    When a business responds to a public sector Request for Proposal or Expression of Interest (both of which we’ll refer to as an RFP for these…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Doe 464533 v. D.: Business Implications of the Civil Privacy Claim for “Public Disclosure of Private Facts”

    Jan 27, 2016

    On January 21, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dramatically expanded the scope of legal privacy protection – and the liability…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Ontario Court Provides Guidelines to Balance Privacy Rights & “Tower Dumps” in R v. Rogers Communications

    Jan 18, 2016

    On January 14, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court decided that Canadians have a clear privacy interest in their records of their cellular…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL): The Top 3 Lessons Businesses Can Learn from Year 1

    Sep 29, 2015

    The anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-spam Legislation (CASL) took effect on July 1, 2014 amidst hype, controversy and dire warnings. Were…

    Read More
    Publication
  • A Glimpse Into The Future of Privacy Law: Medical Marijuana Privacy Breach Class Action Lawsuit Can Go Ahead in John Doe and Suzie Jones v. Her Majesty the Queen

    Jul 29, 2015

    On July 27, 2015, the Federal Court of Canada decided a lawsuit by medical marijuana program participants against the Federal Government…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The New NS Missing Persons Act: 5 Privacy Implications for Businesses, Organizations & Public Bodies

    Jun 2, 2015

    Effective April 22, 2015 the NS Government enacted the NS Missing Persons Act, lowering the threshold for police to get an order to access…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Wait a Minute Mr. Postman … 3 Lessons Health Canada’s Privacy Breach Delivers to the Private Sector

    Mar 25, 2015

    On March 3, 2015 Canada’s Privacy Commissioner determined that Health Canada breached privacy laws by mailing letters to over 40,000 Marihuana…

    Read More
    Publication
  • No Messing Around – $1.1M First Penalty for Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) Violations by Compu-Finder

    Mar 6, 2015

    On March 5, 2015, the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (the CRTC, the main agency charged with administering and enforcing most of CASL)…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Privacy in Basic Cell Phones: SCC Continues Trend of Privacy Protection in R. v. Fearon

    Dec 11, 2014

    On December 11, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada continued its trend to recognize privacy rights – and develop the law to protect them –…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) Software Installation Sections: 10 FAQs

    Dec 11, 2014

    On January 15, 2015, the software provisions of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) will take effect.  CASL’s anti-spam sections, touted…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Complying with Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL): A blueprint for the construction industry

    Dec 1, 2014

    The construction industry - project owners, contractors, subcontractors and trades - might be relaxing, ignoring the hype around Canada’s…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Complying With Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL): Protecting Directors & Officers from Personal Liability

    Oct 14, 2014

    CASL’s anti-spam sections came into force on July 1, 2014. Every organization that CASL affects should now be complying with it – and their…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Complying With Canada’s Anti-Spam Law (CASL) – Foreign Organizations Doing Business in Canada Need to Pay Attention

    Aug 1, 2014

    Most Canadians have heard about Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL): we’ve been bombarded with “CASL Compliant” emails asking us to…

    Read More
    Publication
  • SCC Protects Internet Users’ Expectation of Privacy In Online Activities in R. v. Spencer

    Jun 16, 2014

    On June 13, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Canadians have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their online activities, and…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Counting Down to Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) – The Last Minute Guide to Preparing For CASL

    Jun 12, 2014

    The countdown to CASL is almost over: there are only 13 business days until the anti-spam provisions of CASL – and most of the penalties for…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Counting Down to Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) –10 Steps to Prepare for CASL

    May 8, 2014

    On July 1, 2014 – less than two months from now - the anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) take effect. Individuals…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Counting Down to Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) – Does CASL Make You A “Spammer”?

    Apr 15, 2014

    The countdown to CASL is on: on July 1, 2014, the anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (“CASL”) take effect. Individuals…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Cloud Computing: A Privacy FAQ

    Mar 19, 2014

    As organizations turn to cloud computing services, ensuring compliance with legislation and reducing privacy risks is key. In Canada, there is…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Counting Down to Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL): 10 Reasons Why You Should Care About The Upcoming CASL Right Now

    Feb 28, 2014

    On July 1, 2014, the anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (aka “CASL”) will take effect. CASL is: Broad. It applies…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Counting Down to Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) – What You Need to Know Now

    Feb 28, 2014

    On July 1, 2014, the anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (aka “CASL”) take effect. CASL will apply to just about every…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Privacy in Computer Contents: Supreme Court of Canada Picks Up Where It Left Off in R. v. Vu

    Nov 8, 2013

    On November 7, 2013, the SCC decided police require specific authorization in a search warrant to search the data in a computer because of the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Employees May Have a Limited Reasonable Expectation of Privacy In Work Computer in R. v. Cole

    Nov 28, 2012

    On October 19, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decided that a teacher criminally charged with possession of child pornography and…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Legal Alert: SCC Finds Limited Reasonable Expectation of Privacy In Work Computer But Evidence Still Admissible

    Oct 22, 2012

    Mr. Cole was a high school teacher with an employer owned and issued laptop computer.  He also used it for incidental personal purposes, which…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Ontario Court of Appeal Finds Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Work Computer

    May 6, 2011

    In March 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that an employee had a limited expectation of privacy in the contents of a work computer. The…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Legal Update: Cloud Computing and Privacy FAQ

    Apr 7, 2011

    Note: Click here to read an updated version of this Legal Update in Cloud Computing: A Privacy FAQ as seen in as seen in CCCA Magazine, Spring…

    Read More
    Publication

Stay Updated

Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.

Connect With Us:
  • Follow us on Twitter @mcinnescooper
  • Like us on Facebook @mcinnescooperlaw
  • Join us on LinkedIn @mcinnes-cooper
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright © 2023 — McInnes Cooper
Lex Mundi Logo MC Advisory Logo