Intrusion Upon Seclusion. Ontario’s Highest Court Recognizes a Right to Privacy
Intrusion Upon Seclusion
On January 18, 2012 Ontario’s highest court recognized a common law right to privacy by recognizing a right of action for “intrusion upon seclusion”. This is an important decision that could have a significant impact on Ontario’s legal landscape.
The Case
In the case which brought on this decision, one bank employee, Ms. Tsige, looked at the private bank records of a co-worker, Ms. Jones, who was having a common law relationship with her former husband. The court ordered Ms. Tsige to pay Ms. Jones $10,000 in damages.
To obtain damages for this new tort, a person must prove:
- the actions were intentional;
- the person/entity must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff’s private
affairs or concerns; - a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish
A person is not required to prove any actual loss.
Impact of this New Tort on Ontario Workplaces
It is too early to tell how this decision will impact employment practices in Ontario. At the very minimum, it should give employers pause before monitoring an employee’s private email unless they has the explicit right to do so.
We will be following this case closely, including whether it is appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. If you have any questions about the right to privacy, please contact us at [email protected].
The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.
Recent Posts
Non-Compliance with Mandatory COVID Vaccine Policies
In the last month or two many (if not most) organizations have introduced a mandatory COVID vaccination or/or a COVID negative policy. A mandatory vaccination policy requires an employee to get double vaccinated, whereas a COVID negative policy requires an employee to...
Wrongful Dismissal: How To Reduce Litigation Risk
The best way to reduce litigation risk in relation to an employee termination is to agree in advance how much notice of termination (or pay in lieu of notice) an employee is entitled to receive. Employers rarely provide ANY notice of termination so the employee’s...
Mandatory COVID Vaccination Policies
Like most employment lawyers, I have been getting calls from employers asking whether they can require employees to get vaccinated for COVID before returning to the workplace.