• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Blog Signup 📨

First Reference Talks

Discussions on Human Resources, Employment Law, Payroll and Internal Controls

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies

reasonable expectation of privacy

By Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD | 14 Minutes Read April 1, 2019

R v Jarvis: the Supreme Court of Canada clarifies the interpretation of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the context of section 162(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada

On February 14, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada made a landmark decision in R v Jarvis with its interpretation of the meaning of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the context of section 162(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada involving a criminal offence of voyeurism.

Article by Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD / Employee Relations, Human Rights, Privacy / employment law, reasonable expectation of privacy, voyeurism, workplace privacy

By Cristina Lavecchia | 4 Minutes Read September 26, 2016

Reasonable expectation of privacy and text messaging

The task of picking up the phone, dialing and anticipating a “hello” on the other end can be daunting for many people. Text messaging, compared to phone calls, has dominated the way we communicate with one another over the years. With the abundance of text messages exchanged between people, there stems an important question with respect to privacy. That is, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in a text message once it has been sent and received by the intended recipient? The Ontario Court of Appeal recently concluded that there is not. Thereby ruling that text messages seized from a recipient's phone can be used against the sender in court.

Article by Cristina Lavecchia / Business, Information Technology, Privacy / managing privacy in the workplace, privacy and text messaging, privacy legislation, reasonable expectation of privacy, reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages, text messages used in court

By Occasional Contributors | 6 Minutes Read January 27, 2016

Phone companies after R v. Rogers: Constitutional guardians or agents of the State?

People love their phones. Phones now accompany us pretty much wherever we go, whatever we do. People use their phones in church, in restaurants, at the theatre, and, apparently, while committing crimes. And our phones are leaving a trail behind us. Police know this. They also know that records are created every time our phones connect to cell towers to send and receive calls, SMS messages, or data. Every one of those records indicates that a phone (and, implicitly, the person carrying it) was in range of a particular cell tower, at a particular time. This could be useful information if, say, one wanted to identify the person (or people) responsible for a string of jewelry store robberies. The method will be familiar to many from movies and T.V. shows: all you need to do is to gather a list of every single person who was near each of the locations of interest at the time of interest and analyze the patterns. And, hey, that cell tower data can provide that list…. But is it legal?

Article by Occasional Contributors / Business, Information Technology, Privacy / canadian charter of rights and freedoms, cell tower data, Charter, criminal code, Fair Information Practice Principles, PIPEDA, production orders, reasonable expectation of privacy, Rogers and Telus, Telecommunications, The principle of limiting the collection of personal information, unreasonable search and seizure

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference is the leading publisher of up to date, practical and authoritative HR compliance and policy databases that are essential to ensure organizations meet their due diligence and duty of care requirements.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies

Main Menu

  • About First Reference
  • Resources
  • Contact us
  • 1 800 750 8175

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

We welcome your comments on our blog articles. However, we do not respond to specific legal questions in this space.
We do not provide any form of legal advice or legal opinion. Please consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction or try one of our products.


Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy