Global Freedom of Expression

Jones v. Tsige

Closed Mixed Outcome

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Non-verbal Expression
  • Date of Decision
    January 18, 2012
  • Outcome
    Remanded for Decision in Accordance with Ruling
  • Case Number
    2012 ONCA 32
  • Region & Country
    Canada, North America
  • Judicial Body
    Appellate Court
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law
  • Themes
    Privacy, Data Protection and Retention
  • Tags
    Data Protection and Retention

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Court of Appeal for Ontario recognized for the first time the common law tort of “intrusion on seclusion.” The Court found that the key component of this tort is the intent the intruder: an intruder must intentionally intrude upon the privacy of another and must do so in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.


Sandra Jones and Winnie Tsige are both employees of the Bank of Montreal.  Jones and Tsige did not personally know one another, nor had they ever worked together. However, Jones was involved in a romantic relationship with Tsige’s ex-husband.

Over the course of four years, in direct breach of her professional and ethical responsibilities to the bank, Tsige viewed Jones’ personal bank account information 174 times. Jones became suspicious that Tsige might be accessing her account information, so she complained to the bank. When confronted by the bank, Tsige admitted to viewing the information, apologized, and claimed she had done so because she was in a dispute with her ex-husband regarding child support payments and wanted to know whether he was giving money to Jones. Tsige never used the Jones’ bank account information for any purpose, and she never disclosed the information to any third parties.

The bank disciplined Tsige by suspending her for one week without pay and denying her a bonus. Jones brought a tort action against Tsige for invasion of privacy, claiming $90,000 in damages. The lower court dismissed the action in a summary judgment on the ground that Ontario courts had never recognized a tort for invasion of privacy. Jones appealed.

Decision Overview

The Court of Appeals for Ontario reversed and remanded the lower court’s decision, recognizing the common law tort of “intrusion on seclusion” for the first time in Ontario. In reaching its decision, the Court looked to general trends of Canadian and international law and concluded that both Canadian law and general legal trends are increasingly concerned with protecting the privacy interests of individuals. The Court also looked to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and concluded that the right to privacy set out in the Charter endorsed the Court’s recognition of a common law tort protecting privacy.

The Court articulated that, in order for a tort claim based on invasion of privacy to succeed, it must be brought against “[o]ne who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns.” Such an intruder will be “subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the invasion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Mixed Outcome

This decision recognizes the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion for the first time in the province of Ontario. The tort can be viewed as a contraction on expression because it contracts the ability of individuals to access information about other individuals through offensive invasions of privacy. However, this tort can also be viewed as an expansion on the freedom of expression because it protects individuals’ private information, causing individuals to be more candid in private expression.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

  • ICCPR, art. 17
  • UDHR, art. 12

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Can., Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sec. 8
  • Can., Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sec. 7
  • Can., Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sec. 9
  • Can., Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sec. 12
  • Can., Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sec. 15
  • Can., Ont. Freedom of Information and Privacy Act sec. 14
  • Can., Ont., Saccone v. Orr, 1981 CanLII 1708 (ON SC)
  • Can., Ont., Roth v. Roth, 1991 CanLII 7220 (ON SC)
  • Can., Ont., Athans v. Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd., 1977 CanLII 1255 (ON SC)
  • Can., Ont., Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd., 1973 CanLII 574 (ON CA)
  • Can., Ont., Somwar v. McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd., 2006 CanLII 202 (ON SC)
  • Can., Ont., Nitsopoulos v. Wong, 2008 CanLII 45407 (ON SC)
  • Can., Ont., Motherwell v. Motherwell, 1976 ALTASCAD 155 (CanLII)
  • Can., Hunter v. Southam Inc., 1984 CanLII 33 (SCC)
  • Can., R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417
  • Can., R. v. Tessling, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432
  • Can., R. v. S.A.B., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 678
  • Can., R. v. Law, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 227
  • Can., Hill v. Church of Scientology, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130
  • Can., RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573
  • Can., R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654
  • Can., Grant v. Torstar Corp., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640
  • Can., R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411
  • Can., RWDSU v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 156
  • Can., Ont., Provincial Partitions Inc. v. Ashcor Inplant Structures Ltd., 1993 CanLII 5579 (ON SC)
  • Can., B.C., Heckert v. 5470 Investments Ltd., [2008] B.C.J. No. 1854
  • Can., B.C., Watts v. Klaemt, [2007] B.C.J. No. 980

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

  • N.Z., Hosking v. Runting, [2004] NZCA 34
  • Austl., Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd v. Australian Broadcasting Corp., [2001] H.C.A. 63

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Canada is a common law country. The lower courts of Ontario will be bound by the appellate court’s decision in this case. Ontario’s trial courts must now recognize the tort of intrusion upon seclusion as articulated by this decision.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback