February 20, 2019
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:
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.
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…
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…
Jan 26, 2023
In November 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively decided an organization whose information systems are breached by a malicious third…
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…
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…
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…
Jan 26, 2021
We udpated this publication on March 4, 2022. Privacy is critical to every business in every sector, including startups and growing…
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…
Mar 28, 2019
Organizations subject to Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) – those that collect, use or…
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…
Aug 20, 2018
Every organization subject to Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) - every organization that…
Aug 3, 2018
As of November 1, 2018, organizations in Canada subject to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) will face…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Feb 24, 2017
This publication has been updated as at January 12, 2023. Many organization (66%) store the personal information of customers. employees,…
Jan 25, 2017
Doing business with the public sector creates an often overlooked – but very real – risk that the confidential information a business…
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…
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…
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…
Jan 27, 2016
On January 21, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dramatically expanded the scope of legal privacy protection – and the liability…
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…
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…
Jul 29, 2015
On July 27, 2015, the Federal Court of Canada decided a lawsuit by medical marijuana program participants against the Federal Government…
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…
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…
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)…
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 –…
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…
Dec 1, 2014
The construction industry - project owners, contractors, subcontractors and trades - might be relaxing, ignoring the hype around Canada’s…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Mar 19, 2014
As organizations turn to cloud computing services, ensuring compliance with legislation and reducing privacy risks is key. In Canada, there is…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.