Canada: The Ontario Court Of Appeal's Decision In Jones vs. Tsige - What Is All The Fuss About?

Last Updated: April 20 2012
Article by Tamara Hunter

There has been much written and said about the Ontario Court of Appeal's January 18th decision in Jones vs. Tsige.1

The case made the front page of The Lawyer's Weekly, February 3rd edition, and was described as a "new US-style common law cause of action" and a "potentially sweeping new tort for invasion of privacy".

In case you missed it, the Court recognized, at common law, the tort of "intrusion upon seclusion", which is a particular type of privacy breach.

The case arose when Sandra Jones, a customer and employee of the Bank of Montreal, became aware that another bank employee, Winnie Tsige, had snooped in Jones' personal financial records at the bank 174 times over a period of four years. Coincidentally (or not so coincidentally) Jones was the former spouse of an individual with whom Tsige was involved in a relationship. Jones and Tsige apparently did not know each other but Tsige took advantage of her employment at the bank to snoop in Jones' banking records. When Tsige was confronted with this allegation by Bank management, she apologized and reportedly offered financial compensation. Ms. Jones chose to litigate. Jones' claim was dismissed in the first instance because the Motions Judge found the common law in Ontario did not recognize a tort of invasion of privacy. The Judge was of the view that it was for legislators, and not the courts, to create the tort of breach of privacy if that was considered to be appropriate public policy.

Ms. Jones was not deterred and carried on to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the time had come to recognize, at common law, the tort of "intrusion upon seclusion". Writing for a unanimous Court, Mr. Justice Sharpe found that "it is appropriate for this Court to confirm the existence of a right of action for intrusion upon seclusion. Recognition of such a cause of action would amount to an incremental step that is consistent with the role of this Court to develop the common law in a manner consistent with the changing needs of society".2

The Court's rationale for recognizing this new tort at common law was as follows:

  • while the case law was far from conclusive, the trend in the case law was to support the existence of such a cause of action;
  • privacy has long been recognized as an important underlying and animating value of various traditional causes of action to protect personal and territorial privacy;
  • jurisprudence under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") recognizes privacy as a fundamental value in our law and identifies informational privacy as worthy of protection;
  • many legal scholars and writers who have considered the issue support recognition of a right of action for breach of privacy;
  • in modern times, the pace of technological change has accelerated exponentially and a pressing need to preserve privacy has emerged given that science and technology have threatened privacy "to the point of surrender" (quoting legal scholar Peter Burns); and
  • the case before the Court presented facts that "cry out for a remedy" .3

The Court adopted the following as the required elements of the action for "intrusion upon seclusion":

  • the defendant's conduct must be intentional (which includes recklessness);
  • the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff's private affairs or concerns;
  • a reasonable person must regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish; and
  • proof of harm to a recognized economic interest is not an element of the cause of action and damages for intrusion upon seclusion would ordinarily be measured by a modest conventional sum (i.e. damages should normally fall in a range up to $20,000).

The Court awarded $10,000 damages to Ms. Jones, declined to award punitive damages and required each party to bear her own costs.

So, the question arises: is this a major development in Canadian tort law that is likely to result in a flood of litigation?

It should first be noted that the decision in Jones vs. Tsige is of less interest to British Columbians, Saskatchewanians, Manitobans, Québecers and Newfoundlanders than it is to Albertans, Ontarians, Nova Scotians, Yukoners, New Brunswickers, Prince Edward Islanders and Nunavummiuts (yes, I had to look that one up!).

British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundand and Québec have, for some time, had legislation allowing for a civil action for a violation of privacy to be brought in certain circumstances4. So, for example, in British Columbia, Ms. Jones could have brought her claim against Ms. Tsige under the BC Privacy Act. Unlike under the common law tort of "intrusion upon seclusion" recognized by the Ontario Court of Appeal, it would not have been necessary for Ms. Jones to establish that the invasion of her privacy was "highly offensive" in order to make out the statutory cause of action for breach of privacy under the BC Privacy Act, (only that her privacy had been unreasonably invaded in all of the circumstances)5. Ms. Jones also would not be limited to a $20,000 maximum damage claim in British Columbia. While there have not been a large number of successful breach of privacy claims brought under the BC Privacy Act, damage awards have been made for sums ranging from $100 to $60,000.

So, at least in five Canadian provinces, the decision in Jones vs. Tsige seems unlikely to bring about a significant increase in civil privacy claims.

Secondly, although it is always interesting to lawyers when a court recognizes a new tort at common law (especially a tort with such a catchy name), given that the Ontario Court of Appeal limited the damages available for intrusion upon seclusion, it seems unlikely that a flood of "one-off" litigation claims will now follow in Ontario, given the significant costs involved in bringing a case to trial. Having said that, there may be an increase in small claims of this nature that either settle relatively quickly or languish in the registries.6

There is certainly a potential for class action suits to be brought under this new tort7, even though the damages per plaintiff would be limited. Indeed, class actions are often brought precisely because the damages per claimant are minimal, particularly in circumstances where liability is relatively clear. However, for a class action to be viable, there would need to be a relatively large class of individuals whose seclusion had been intruded upon in a fairly similar fashion. Otherwise, presumably, there would be difficulty in having a court certify the case as a class action. Moreover, a class action would not appear to be viable unless the identified defendant was an individual or entity with relatively large pockets.

Thirdly, while it has been posited that the decision in Jones vs. Tsige could result in claims being brought for things like individuals accessing their spouse's or children's correspondence or diaries without permission or employers surreptitiously monitoring employee computer use, the experience in British Columbia, where the statutory civil action for breach of privacy has been available since 19688, is that there has not been a large number of actions involving these kinds of situations. This may indicate that children are still unlikely to sue their parents and that employee concerns are largely dealt with through more traditional labour and employment channels (or through the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C.). This may also, in part, be due to the fact that a tort claim for breach of privacy under the BC Privacy Act must be brought in the British Columbia Supreme Court and cannot be brought in Small Claims Court9. Section 4 of the BC Privacy Act states as follows:

Despite anything contained in another act, an action under this Act must be heard and determined by the Supreme Court.

Given the increased cost of pursuing a case in the superior courts, it is not all that surprising that there are a relatively small number of reported decisions involving claims by employees or between family members under the BC Privacy Act.

It will be interesting to see whether our British Columbia Small Claims Court will be asked to hear a common law claim for intrusion upon seclusion, based on Jones vs. Tsige. While the British Columbia Small Claims Court would not, of course, be bound by the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, a provincial court judge in British Columbia might be inclined to leave open the possibility that a civil claim could theoretically be brought in British Columbia under the tort of intrusion upon seclusion but nonetheless find that the clear intention of the British Columbia Legislature in enacting the Privacy Act was to supplant any such common law tort with the statutory cause of action. Applying such an analysis, it would seem likely that the British Columbia Provincial Court (Small Claims) would find that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a common law claim for intrusion upon seclusion.

Fourth, the Ontario Court of Appeal has only recognized a particular type of breach of privacy in Jones vs. Tsige. It is interesting to note that the Court accepted Professor Prosser's view that the general right to privacy embraced four distinct torts, each with its own considerations and rules10. The four torts delineated by Professor Prosser were summarized by the Court as follows:

  1. Intrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude or into his private affairs;
  2. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff;
  3. Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye; and
  4. Appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness.

The Court noted that Ontario had already accepted the existence of a tort claim for appropriation of personality. The Court was also careful to say that it was restricting itself to the particular issues posed by the facts of the case before it and was not attempting to decide more than was strictly necessary. It would seem to follow from this that the two remaining types of privacy breaches identified by Professor Prosser, namely public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff and publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye, are not encompassed in the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion recognized in Jones vs. Tsige. Accordingly, there would be room, for example, for a media outlet to argue that its publication of information about a celebrity is not actionable based on Jones vs. Tsige and would fall within a different type of tort which has not yet been recognized by the Court.

Finally it is important to note that the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized that one's right to seclusion is not absolute; in some instances, there could be competing claims such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press or other interests or duties which could override the right to seclusion11. While those issues did not arise on the facts in Jones vs. Tsige, the Court clearly recognized that not every intrusion upon seclusion will result in liability.

In light of all of the above, it would seem that the greatest potential for litigation arising from Jones vs. Tsige lies in the possibility for class actions in situations where an organization intrudes into the private information of a large number of individuals in a similar fashion (in circumstances where the invasion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person). With this in mind, one wonders if some social media providers may be taking a closer look at some of their practices12. From this writer's perspective, even if this is the only significant development to come out of Jones vs. Tsige, it will have been well worth the fuss!

There is no doubt that Jones vs. Tsige is a reminder to all organizations that information security breaches do not always involve sophisticated computer hacking from outside sources. Sometimes a security threat arises simply from human nature, uncontrolled curiosity and poor judgment. It would seem that the only way to minimize those kinds of security threats is to:

  • model good privacy practices from top management down;
  • train, train and train again; and
  • perform random audits, followed by warnings and appropriate disciplinary action where warranted.

Footnotes

1 2012 ONCA 32.

2 Ibid at para 65.

3 The Court noted that the discipline administered by BMO against Tsige (i.e. one week suspension and denial of bonus) was governed by principles of employment law and the employer's interests, and did not provide a direct response to the wrong that had been done to Jones.

4 British Columbia, Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c 373; Manitoba, Privacy Act, CCSM c P125; Saskatchewan, Privacy Act, RSS 1978, c P-24; Newfoundland, Privacy Act, RSNL 1990, c P-22; and Québec, Civil Code of Québec arts 3 and 35-37, and Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, RSQ c C-12, s 5.

5 Under the BC Privacy Act, the nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled is "that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interest of others". Further, in determining whether the act or conduct is a violation of another's privacy, regard must be given "to the nature, incidence and occasion of the act or conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties".

6 It seems unlikely that a large number of small claims actions for this tort would go all the way to trial, as the money limit for small claims in Ontario is $25,000 (this is also the case for BC). 7As in British Columbia, a class action in Ontario cannot be brought in Small Claims Court and must be commenced in Superior Court.

8 Privacy Act, SBC 1968, c 39.

9 This is also the case, for example, in Manitoba

10 Supra note 1 at para. 21.

11 For example, would a nanny who discovered a hidden nanny camera in his or her employer's home have a valid claim for intrusion upon seclusion? From the parents' perspective, their moral and legal obligation to protect their child's well-being should certainly be given due weight when considering competing interests to the nanny's desire for privacy. It is interesting in this regard to note that BC Personal Information Protection Act does not apply to the collection, use or disclosure of personal information for the personal or domestic purposes of the individual collecting the information. The situation appears to be different in the USA however - a mother who sewed a digital recorder into her daughter's teddy bear because she suspected her ex-husband of abusing the child was recently fined $60,000 under US federal wiretap law: Lewton vs. Divignzzo, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (2011)

12 It was recently reported that Facebook is facing a class action lawsuit for breach of privacy and breach of the USA federal wiretap law in a Northern California District Court.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Tamara Hunter
 
In association with
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
Accounting and Audit
Anti-trust/Competition Law
Consumer Protection
Corporate/Commercial Law
Criminal Law
Employment and HR
Energy and Natural Resources
Environment
Family and Matrimonial
Finance and Banking
Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Government, Public Sector
Immigration
Insolvency/Bankruptcy, Re-structuring
Insurance
Intellectual Property
International Law
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Privacy
Real Estate and Construction
Strategy
Tax
Transport
Wealth Management
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.