Another New Privacy Tort for Ontario
Last week saw a rather striking decision issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. 2102 saw the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” recognized; in 2016, we now have the tort of “public disclosure of private facts”. Unlike the 2012 decision, this one came with a large damage award.
New Privacy Tort Empowers “Revenge Porn” Victims
Manitoba’s Intimate Image Protection Act came into force on 15 January 2016. The statute does something that I think is especially noteworthy – it creates a new privacy tort concerning the “non-consensual distribution of intimate images”.In short, Manitoba becomes the first Canadian province to provide victims of revenge porn with a common law remedy and […]
The Canadian Privacy Cases of 2014
As we move more into 2015, I thought I’d put together my own list of the more interesting Canadian privacy cases of 2014. These are judicial decisions so there’s no Commissioner findings or orders here. Some of these I’ve blogged about; others I’ve simply noted for future reference. I’ve not seen a similar list so feel […]
Revenge Porn & Canadian Law
Whenever a new technology arrives, society always plays “catch up” to determine what norms to apply to the use of that technology. It’s probably how we got traffic lights after the advent of automobiles. One “by-product” of smartphone cameras and the Internet is “revenge porn”. The Internet didn’t invent the problem but it sure magnifies it […]
Federal Private Sector: Not just one regulator anymore?
Throughout history, no matter what country, the scope and application of constitutional power can be best described as a “contact sport”. In Canada, the game is played by two levels of government operating under a division of power that has evolved through constitutional case law since 1867. A recent decision in Québec raises a new […]
The Importance of Exceptions
When it comes to privacy and data protection, I often tell people that that while “rules” are important, the “exceptions” matter more. A recent decision out of the Ontario Court of Appeal illustrates this point rather nicely. It concerns two banks, a debt, a mortgage discharge statement and PIPEDA.
Fearon: Police Searches & Mobile Phones
Today, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) issued a significant decision with respect to another piece of technology that we commonly carry on our person – mobile phones. The court in R. v. Fearon addressed whether the police can search such phones under the common law power to “search incident to a lawful arrest”. In doing so, the […]
R.v Spencer: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Who knew six months could pass so quickly? The last blog post seemed like yesterday. After getting the shoulder better and renewing an intent to blog on a more regular basis, here is part 2 of the R v. Spencer blog post. In the last post, my focus was on the meaning of “lawful authority”. […]
Spencer, PIPEDA & Lawful Authority
A busy practice combined with a very bad shoulder injury will, regretfully, move blogging down the priority list. As we reach mid-2014 there have been a few interesting privacy law developments this year but, in my view, no real “blockbusters”. That all changed today. Today, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) came out with R […]
Toronto Hydro Surveillance?
I can’t help but think there’s a movie in this somewhere. Love, devotion and allegations of betrayal are all present. Mix in smart meters and privacy and it becomes obvious why I’m blogging about this. It’s quite a fascinating story and it comes from, of all places, an unpublished Ontario IPC report, issued in September […]