In a new article, we will discuss this new and exciting tort from the Court of Appeal of Ontario referred to as the Tort of Intrusion of Seclusion.
A recent article in the BC Business e zine confirms the following:
While the court held that there was no tort of invasion of privacy in Ontario, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the existence of a tort as follows: one who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the seclusion or private affairs of another will be liable for the invasion of privacy, if the invasion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. This is helpful to many applicants who have been denied privacy rights with the mistaken notion that they had no remedy under the charter or common law. Section 7 of the charter and section 8 provide privacy protection rights as well as section 15. You could include section 12 with its ancillary protection of such privacy.
Unfortunately only state agents are the only actors that can be found liable for charter breaches but any actor can be found liable for breaches of privacy rights under the common law with the Tort of the Intrusion of Seclusion.
The case is Jones v Tsige (2012) ONCA and it should give comfort to many individuals who may have been the victims of unusual violations of their privacy such as being disrobed and left in an open place by a state agent for a significant and inordinate amount of time( see the case of Euteneier v. Lee, 2005 CanLII 33024 (ON CA) ).
In Euteneier, the plaintiff sued the police following a strip search where she remained bound and unclothed in a cell visible to passersby for twenty minutes. The plaintiff sought damages for negligence, assault, civil conspiracy and breaches of sections 7, 9, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Her claims under sections 9 and 15 were abandoned.
The elements of the new tort are as follows and cover various scenarios such as a young woman walking into a men's sailing club washroom, causing an old man or young man great distress with her poodle in tow. dyslexia as being unable to read Psalms 50, Psalms1 and 1st John 1:9;
1. That the defendant’s conduct must be intentional, within which I would include reckless;
2. That the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns; and
3.That a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish.
Further discussion is to follow in a new article.
A recent article in the BC Business e zine confirms the following:
While the court held that there was no tort of invasion of privacy in Ontario, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the existence of a tort as follows: one who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the seclusion or private affairs of another will be liable for the invasion of privacy, if the invasion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. This is helpful to many applicants who have been denied privacy rights with the mistaken notion that they had no remedy under the charter or common law. Section 7 of the charter and section 8 provide privacy protection rights as well as section 15. You could include section 12 with its ancillary protection of such privacy.
Unfortunately only state agents are the only actors that can be found liable for charter breaches but any actor can be found liable for breaches of privacy rights under the common law with the Tort of the Intrusion of Seclusion.
The case is Jones v Tsige (2012) ONCA and it should give comfort to many individuals who may have been the victims of unusual violations of their privacy such as being disrobed and left in an open place by a state agent for a significant and inordinate amount of time( see the case of Euteneier v. Lee, 2005 CanLII 33024 (ON CA) ).
In Euteneier, the plaintiff sued the police following a strip search where she remained bound and unclothed in a cell visible to passersby for twenty minutes. The plaintiff sought damages for negligence, assault, civil conspiracy and breaches of sections 7, 9, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Her claims under sections 9 and 15 were abandoned.
The elements of the new tort are as follows and cover various scenarios such as a young woman walking into a men's sailing club washroom, causing an old man or young man great distress with her poodle in tow. dyslexia as being unable to read Psalms 50, Psalms1 and 1st John 1:9;
1. That the defendant’s conduct must be intentional, within which I would include reckless;
2. That the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns; and
3.That a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish.
Further discussion is to follow in a new article.
Comments
Post a Comment