Intrusion Upon Seclusion: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "Category:Tort Law ==[http://canlii.ca/t/h6mhb Larizza v. The Royal Bank of Canada, 2017 ONSC 6140 (CanLII)]== [51] The elements of intrusion upon seclusion are: ::a. The...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Tort Law]] | [[Category:Tort Law]] | ||
[[Category:Privacy]] | |||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/h6mhb Larizza v. The Royal Bank of Canada, 2017 ONSC 6140 (CanLII)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/h6mhb Larizza v. The Royal Bank of Canada, 2017 ONSC 6140 (CanLII)]== | ||
Revision as of 03:28, 7 February 2020
Larizza v. The Royal Bank of Canada, 2017 ONSC 6140 (CanLII)
[51] The elements of intrusion upon seclusion are:
- a. The defendant’s conduct must be intentional or reckless;
- b. The defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns; and
- c. A reasonable person would regard invasion as highly offensive, causing humiliation, or anguish.
(See Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 at paras. 70-71.)
[52] Proof of damages is not required, but the Court of Appeal has emphasized that “given the intangible nature of the interest protected, damages for intrusion upon seclusion will ordinarily be measured by a modest conventional sum”: Jones v. Tsige, supra, at para. 71. Therefore, if the plaintiff can establish the three elements of the tort, she may be entitled to a modest amount of damages.
