• Print
  • privacy accounts for 4 out of 736 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Caltagirone v Scozzari-Cloutier, [2007] OJ No 4003 (Sup Ct (Sm Cl))

6 questions to asks to determine whether it has been an actionable breach:
** 1. Would a reasonable person consider the information to be private?
** 2. Has the plaintiff consented to the collection of the information in some way?
** 3. Has the info been acquire for a legal process or public interest reason
** 4. Has the plaintiff consented to the disclosure or publication of that information?
** 5. If no consent, has the information been disclosed for legal or public interest reason?
** 6. Is the legal or public interest reason one that a reasonable person would consider to outweigh the interest of the individual in wanting to keep the information private

Hollinsworth v BCTV, [1999] 6 WWR 54; 59 BCLR (3d) 121 (BC CA)

A person is not liable under the Privacy Act when they act in honest and reasonable belief, and without knowledge that they are violating the privacy of another.

Motherwell et al v Motherwell (1976), 73 D.L.R. (3d) 62 (Alta. SC, App Div)

Invasions of privacy may warrant the creation of a new category of nuisance if it is sufficiently within the concept of the principles that the tort is trying to advance (not specifically defined as a common law tort of invasion of privacy).

R v Tessling, 2004 SCC 67, [2004] 3 SCR 432

The use of a FLIR device by the police does not constitute a violation of rights under s.8.

Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
** For something to be private in the realm of s.8, one must have a reasonable expectation of privacy; and if that expectation is violated by police, it could be in violation of s.8