Intrusion Upon Seclusion: Difference between revisions
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
== | ==Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 (CanLII)<ref name="Jones">== | ||
Issue 1. Does Ontario law recognize a cause of action for invasion of privacy? | Issue 1. Does Ontario law recognize a cause of action for invasion of privacy? | ||
:(a) Introduction | :(a) Introduction | ||
[18] Professor Prosser's article picked up the threads of the American jurisprudence that had developed in the 70 years following the influential Warren and Brandeis article. Prosser argued that what had emerged from the hundreds of cases he canvassed was not one tort, but four, tied together by a common theme and name, but comprising different elements and protecting different interests. Prosser delineated a four-tort catalogue, summarized as follows, at p. 389: | [18] Professor Prosser's article picked up the threads of the American jurisprudence that had developed in the 70 years following the influential Warren and Brandeis article. Prosser argued that what had emerged from the hundreds of cases he canvassed was not one tort, but four, tied together by a common theme and name, but comprising different elements and protecting different interests. Prosser delineated a four-tort catalogue, summarized as follows, at p. 389: | ||
| Line 50: | Line 49: | ||
:::(d) any distress, annoyance or embarrassment suffered by that person or his family arising from the violation of privacy; and | :::(d) any distress, annoyance or embarrassment suffered by that person or his family arising from the violation of privacy; and | ||
:::(e) the conduct of that person and the defendant, both before and after the commission of the violation of privacy, including any apology or offer of amends made by the defendant. | :::(e) the conduct of that person and the defendant, both before and after the commission of the violation of privacy, including any apology or offer of amends made by the defendant. | ||
<ref name="Jones">Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fpnld>, retrieved on 2020-08-05</ref> | |||
==TST-80383-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 142740 (ON LTB)<ref name="TST-80383-16"/>== | ==TST-80383-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 142740 (ON LTB)<ref name="TST-80383-16"/>== | ||
Revision as of 04:45, 5 August 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.
==Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 (CanLII)Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag
TST-80383-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 142740 (ON LTB)[1]
39. I believe that the Ontario Court of Appeal’s commentary concerning invasion of privacy in the case of Jones v. Tsige 2012 ONCA 32 (CanLII), has resonance here:
- “One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise upon the seclusion of another or his [or her] private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his [or her] privacy, if the invasion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person”.
40. I found AG to be sincere and straightforward in her evidence that she genuinely meant no harm to the Tenant in taking photographs through her window. Nonetheless, at the same time, I think a reasonable person would consider a covert campaign by a landlord to take photographs through a tenant’s windows –whatever the rationale - to be, as outlined by the Tenant’s representative, to be “…egregious and unacceptable”, particularly given the specific context of the Tenant, who suffered a recurrence of anxiety and panic as a result.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 TST-80383-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 142740 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/hrx95>, retrieved on 2020-08-05
