The Supreme Court of Canada's judgment in R. v Cole underscores the importance of putting in place policies governing the use of workplace computers, since well-publicized policies will diminish – although not entirely eliminate – an employee's reasonable expectation of privacy where the information concerns the most intimate details of an individual's "biographical core."

The case concerned a school board's right to monitor materials on a teacher's school-issued laptop and the further right to hand over to police pornographic materials discovered on it, in the absence of a warrant. The court clearly distinguished between the two issues.

It cautioned that privacy policies and the ownership of computer equipment are not necessarily determinative of privacy rights; even where the employer owns the network or hardware, employees have a reasonable, but diminished, expectation of privacy in their personal information residing on workplace computers.

Those expectations increase with the intimacy or closeness of the information to the biographical core of the employee and the employee's direct personal (as opposed to business) interest in that information. On the other hand, expectations of privacy to intimate personal information can be diminished by other circumstances prevailing in the workplace, such as the disclosure of privacy policies providing for monitoring employee communications where monitoring is reasonable for protecting legitimate business interests.

The court took care to emphasize that expectations of privacy will depend on all the circumstances. It refrained, however, from opining on whether those expectations increase where the employee uses his or her own device (BYODs) for work purposes.

Under all the circumstances of the Cole case, the school had the right to monitor and seize the pornographic material. These circumstances included the policies and practices in place as well as regular reminders of them to the staff. While the school had a duty to advise the police of the material's existence, the police had no right to seize or copy that information without a search warrant, even though the equipment belonged to the school, which clearly consented to the seizure.

Consequently, an employer's ability to hand over highly personal (as opposed to business) information to law enforcement authorities must be done pursuant to lawful authority, such as a search warrant.

Norton Rose Group

Norton Rose Group is a leading international legal practice. We offer a full business law service to many of the world's pre-eminent financial institutions and corporations from offices in Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Central Asia.

Knowing how our clients' businesses work and understanding what drives their industries is fundamental to us. Our lawyers share industry knowledge and sector expertise across borders, enabling us to support our clients anywhere in the world. We are strong in financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and pharmaceuticals and life sciences.

We have more than 2900 lawyers operating from 43 offices in Abu Dhabi, Almaty, Amsterdam, Athens, Bahrain, Bangkok, Beijing, Bogotá, Brisbane, Brussels, Calgary, Canberra, Cape Town, Caracas, Casablanca, Dubai, Durban, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Johannesburg, London, Melbourne, Milan, Montréal, Moscow, Munich, Ottawa, Paris, Perth, Piraeus, Prague, Québec, Rome, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto and Warsaw; and from associate offices in Dar es Salaam, Ho Chi Minh City and Jakarta.

Norton Rose Group comprises Norton Rose LLP, Norton Rose Australia, Norton Rose Canada LLP, Norton Rose South Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc), and their respective affiliates.

On January 1, 2012, Macleod Dixon joined Norton Rose Group adding strength and depth in Canada, Latin America and around the world. For more information please visit nortonrose.com.

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.