Jones v. Tsige, 346 DLR (4th) 34

• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: January 18, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 346 DLR (4th) 34;108 OR (3d) 241;287 OAC 56;[2012] OJ No 148 (QL);(2012), 287 O.A.C. 56 (CA);2012 ONCA 32

Jones v. Tsige (2012), 287 O.A.C. 56 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.015

Sandra Jones (plaintiff/appellant) v. Winnie Tsige (defendant/respondent)

(C53577; 2012 ONCA 32)

Indexed As: Jones v. Tsige

Ontario Court of Appeal

Winkler, C.J.O, Sharpe, J.A., and Cunningham, A.C.J.(ad hoc)

January 18, 2012.

Summary:

The plaintiff and defendant worked at different branches of the same bank. The defendant's common-law husband was the plaintiff's ex-husband. Over a four year period, the defendant surreptitiously looked at the plaintiff's personal bank accounts at least 174 times. The plaintiff sought summary judgment for damages against the defendant for breach of privacy. The defendant sought summary judgment dismissing the claim as unknown to law.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a judgment reported [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 1475, granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding that the law did not recognize the right to bring a civil action for damages for the invasion of personal privacy. The court awarded the defendant costs fixed at $35,000. The plaintiff appealed the finding that there was no actional tort of invasion of privacy and the costs award.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for invasion of personal privacy. The court assessed $10,000 general damages.

Actions - Topic 1511

Cause of action - General principles - New or extended cause of action - Opening of floodgates - [See first Torts - Topic 5545 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 647

Torts - Injury to the person - Invasion or breach of privacy - The plaintiff and defendant worked at different branches of the same bank - The defendant's common-law husband was the plaintiff's ex-husband - Over a four year period, the defendant surreptitiously looked at the plaintiff's personal bank accounts at least 174 times - The defendant did not otherwise use the information or disclose it to anyone else - The Ontario Court of Appeal assessed $10,000 damages, being the midpoint of a range of damages up to $20,000 - See paragraphs 89 to 90.

Damages - Topic 907.2

Aggravation - General - Aggravated damages - Invasion of privacy - [See Damages - Topic 2550 ].

Damages - Topic 1300.1

Exemplary or punitive damages - Violation of privacy - [See Damages - Topic 2550 ].

Damages - Topic 2550

Injury to the person - Particular damage claim - Invasion of privacy - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "damages for intrusion upon seclusion in cases where the plaintiff has suffered no pecuniary loss should be modest but sufficient to mark the wrong that has been done. I would fix the range at up to $20,000. ... [A] useful guide to assist in determining where in the range the case falls: 1. the nature, incidence and occasion of the defendant's wrongful act; 2. the effect of the wrong on the plaintiff's health, welfare, social, business or financial position; 3. any relationship, whether domestic or otherwise, between the parties; 4. any distress, annoyance or embarrassment suffered by the plaintiff arising from the wrong; and 5. the conduct of the parties, both before and after the wrong, including any apology or offer of amends made by the defendant. I would neither exclude nor encourage awards of aggravated or punitive damages. I would not exclude such awards as there are bound to be exceptional cases calling for exceptional remedies. However, I would not encourage such awards as, in may view, predictability and consistency are paramount values in an area where symbolic or moral damages are awarded and absent truly exceptional circumstances, plaintiffs should be held to the range I have identified." - See paragraphs 88 to 89.

Torts - Topic 5545

Invasion of privacy - Accessing, collecting and using personal information - Actions - Common law - The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the existence, at common law, of a civil action for damages for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, one of four distinct categories of torts for invasion of privacy - The elements of the action were: "first, that the defendant's conduct must be intentional, within which I would include reckless; second, that the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff's private affairs or concern; and third, that a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish. However, proof of harm to a recognized economic interest is not an element of the cause of action. ... I believe it important to emphasize that given the intangible nature of the interest protected, damages for intrusion upon seclusion will ordinarily be measured by a modest conventional sum. These elements make it clear that recognizing this cause of action will not open the floodgates. A claim for intrusion upon seclusion will arise only for deliberate and significant invasions of personal privacy. Claims from individuals who are sensitive or unusually concerned about their privacy are excluded: it is only intrusions into matters such as one's financial or health records, sexual practices and orientation, employment, diary or private correspondence that, viewed objectively on the reasonable person standard, can be described as highly offensive" - See paragraphs 71 to 72.

Torts - Topic 5545

Invasion of privacy - Accessing, collecting and using personal information - Actions - Common law - The plaintiff and defendant worked at different branches of the same bank - The defendant's common-law husband was the plaintiff's ex-husband - Over a four year period, the defendant surreptitiously looked at the plaintiff's personal bank accounts at least 174 times - The defendant did not otherwise use the information or disclose it to anyone else - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the defendant was liable in damages for the tort of intrusion of seclusion, one of the four categories of the tort of invasion of privacy - The invasion of privacy was intentional, it amounted to an unlawful invasion of the plaintiff's private affairs, it would be viewed as highly offensive to the reasonable person, and it caused the plaintiff distress, humiliation or anguish.

Torts - Topic 5545

Invasion of privacy - Accessing, collecting and using personal information - Actions - Common law - The Ontario Court of Appeal, in recognizing a common law right of action in tort for breach of privacy, accepted that "the general right to privacy embraces four distinct torts, each with it own considerations and rules, and that confusion may result from a failure to maintain appropriate analytic distinctions between the categories - The four categories were: "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. 4. Appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness." - See paragraphs 18 and 21.

Cases Noticed:

Euteneier v. Lee et al. (2005), 202 O.A.C. 278; 77 O.R.(3d) 621 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2006), 353 N.R. 194 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Dielemen (1994), 117 D.L.R.(4th) 449 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 15].

Saccone v. Orr (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 317 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

Roth v. Roth (1991), 4 O.R.(3d) 740 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

Athans v. Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd. (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 425 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 28].

Krouse v. Chrysler (1973), 1 O.R.(2d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Somwar v. McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd., [2006] O.T.C. 28; 79 O.R.(3d) 172 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

Nitsopoulos v. Wong et al., [2008] O.T.C. Uned. I36; 298 D.L.R.(4th) 265 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Capan v. Capan (1980), 14 C.C.L.T. 191 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Lipiec v. Borsa et al. (1996), 17 O.T.C. 64; 31 C.C.L.T.(2d) 294 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 32].

Shred-Tech Corp. v. Viveen et al., [2006] O.T.C. Uned. C84; 2006 CarswellOnt 7762 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Haskett v. Trans Union of Canada Inc. et al., [2001] O.T.C. 914; 10 C.C.L.T.(3d) 128 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Motherwell v. Motherwell (1976), 1 A.R. 47; 73 D.L.R.(3d) 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Dyne Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Royal Insurance Co. of Canada et al. (1996), 138 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 318; 431 A.P.R. 318; 135 D.L.R.(4th) 142 (P.E.I.C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1996), 206 N.R. 154 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Euteneier v. Lee et al. (2003), 113 C.R.R.(2d) 44 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter et al., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Tessling (W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432; 326 N.R. 228; 192 O.A.C. 168; 2004 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 41].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 45].

Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 558 et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 156; 280 N.R. 333; 217 Sask.R. 22; 265 W.A.C. 22; 2002 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 45].

Grant et al. v. Torstar Corp. et al., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640; 397 N.R. 1; 258 O.A.C. 285; 2009 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 45].

Robbins v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1957), 12 D.L.R.(2d) 37 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa Inc. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591; 224 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 53].

Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort Inc. (1997), 124 F(3d) 1221 (10th Cir.), refd to. [para. 57].

Evans v. Detlefsen (1988), 857 F(2d) 330 (6th Cir.), refd to. [para. 57].

Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, refd to. [para. 59].

Wainwright et al. v. Home Office, [2003] N.R. Uned. 246; 2003] 4 All E.R. 969; [2003] UKHL 53, refd to. [para. 61].

Campbell v. MGN Ltd., [2004] 2 A.C. 467; [2004] UKHL]; 321 N.R. 135, refd to. [para. 61].

Mosely v. News Group Newspapers Ltd., [2008] EWHC 1777 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 62].

Lenah Game Meats Property Ltd. v. Australian Broadcasting Corp., [2011] H.C.A. 63; 185 A.L.R. 1 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

Grosse v. Purvis, [2003] Q.D.C. 151; Aust. Torts Reports 81-706, refd to. [para. 63].

Hosking v. Runting, [2004] NZCA 34, refd to. [para. 64].

Dulude v. Canada (2000), 264 N.R. 1; 192 D.L.R.(4th) 714 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Provincial Partitions Inc. v. Ashcor Inplant Structures Ltd. (1993), 50 C.P.R. (3d) 497 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 78].

Mackay v. Buelow (1995), 24 C.C.L.T.(2d) 184 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 80].

Heckert v. 5470 Investments Ltd., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 925; 299 D.L.R.(4th) 689; 2008 BCSC 1298, refd to. [para. 83].

Watts v. Klaemt, [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. C89; 71 B.C.L.R.(4th) 362; 2007 BCSC 662, refd to. [para. 84].

Malcolm v. Fleming, 2000 CarswellBC 1316 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

Weber v. Jacobson et al. (1992), 87 D.L.R.(4th) 401 (B.C.S.C.), revd. (1994), 53 B.C.A.C. 75; 87 W.A.C. 75 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

Hollinsworth v. BCTV et al., [1996] B.C.T.C. Uned. H63; 34 C.C.L.T.(2d) 95 (S.C.), affd. (1998), 113 B.C.A.C. 304; 184 W.A.C. 304; 1998 BCCA 304, refd to. [para. 86].

Palad v. Pantaleon, [1989] O.J. No. 985 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix A].

S. & A. Nagy Farm v. Repsys, ]1987] O.J. No. 1987 (Dist.Ct.), refd to. [Appendix A].

Garrett v. Mikalachki, [2000] O.T.C. 248 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix A].

Pateman et al. v. Ross (1988), 68 Man.R.(2d) 181 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix B].

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Somosh (1983), 51 B.C.L.R. 344 (S.C.), refd to. [Appendix B].

Wasserman v. Hall, [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1318; 87 R.P.R.(4th) 184; 2009 BCSC 1318, refd to. [Appendix B].

Forbes v. Chappell et al. (1998), 103 B.C.A.C. 110; 169 W.A.C. 110; 45 B.C.L.R.(3d) 64 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1998), 231 N.R. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [Appendix B].

Watts v. Klaemt, [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. C89; 71 B.C.L.R.(4th) 362; 2007 BCSC 662, refd to. [Appendix B].

Nesbitt v. Neufeld, [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1605; [2011] B.C.W.L.D. 407; 2010 BCSC 1605, refd to. [Appendix B].

Authors and Works Noticed:

American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law (Second), Torts (2010), § 652B [para. 19].

Bell, Robyn, Tort of Invasion of Privacy - Has its Time Finally Come?, in Annual Review of Civil Litigation (2005), p. 225 [para. 49].

Burns, Peter, The Law and Privacy: the Canadian Experience (1976), 54 Can. Bar Rev. 1, p. 1 [para. 67].

Craig, John D.R., Invasion of Privacy and Charter Values: The Common Law Tort Awakens (1997), 42 McGill Law J. 355, generally [para. 46].

Gibson, D., Common Law Protection of Privacy: What to do Until the Legislators Arrive, in Studies in Canadian Tort Law (1977), p. 343 [para. 66].

Glenn, Patrick, The Right to Privacy in Quebec Law, in Aspects Privacy Law: Essays in Honour of John M. Sharp (1980), ch. 3 [para. 53].

Lee, J.D., and Lindahl, Barry A., Modern Tort Law: Liability & Litigation (2nd Ed. 2002) (looseleaf), § 48:6 [para. 58].,

Linden, Allen M., and Feldthusen, Bruce, Canadian Tort Law (9th Ed. 2011), p. 59 [para. 23].

McIsaac, Barbara, Shields, Rick, and Klien, Kris, The Law of Privacy in Canada (2000 looseleaf), p. 2.4 [para. 23].

McNairn, Colin H.H., and Scott, Alexander K., Privacy Law in Canada (2001), ch. 3 [para. 23].

Osborne, Philip, The Law of Torts (4th Ed. 2011), pp. 267 to 271 [para. 23].

Prosser, William L., Law of Torts (4th Ed. 1971), pp. 808 to 818 [para. 56].

Prosser, William L., Privacy (1960), 48 Cal. Law Rev. 383, p. 389 [para. 18].

Waddams, Stephen M., The Law of Damages (2001 Looseleaf), para. 10.50 [para. 75].

Warren, S.D., and Brandeis, L.D., The Right to Privacy (1890), 4 Harv. Law Rev. 193, pp. 195, 205, 207 [para. 17].

Westin, Alan, Privacy and Freedom (1967), generally [para. 67].

Winfield, P., Privacy (1931), 47 Law Q. Rev. 23, generally [para. 66].

Counsel:

Christopher Du Vernet and Carlin McGoogan, for the appellant;

Alex Cameron and N. Melanson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 29, 2011, before Winkler, C.J.O., Sharpe, J.A., and Cunningham, A.C.J.(ad hoc), of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On January 18, 2012, Sharpe, J.A., released the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.