In Jones v. Tsige, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized a new cause of action for certain kinds of invasions into personal privacy: intrusion into seclusion.

In the ground-breaking case, Tsige and Jones both worked at the Bank of Montreal in Toronto.  The two women didn’t know each other, but Tsige had began dating Jones’ ex-husband, with whom Jones was disputing over money owed for child support. Over a period of approximately four years Tsige checked Jones’ bank accounts at least 174 times (about once every 8 days!) allegedly for the purpose of checking whether Jones was receiving child support payments from her ex-husband.

When Jones became suspicious, she complained to the bank and, when confronted, Tsige confessed.  Professionally, Tsige was suspended for a week without pay and was denied her annual bonus.  To add injury to insult, Jones sued Tsige for invasion of privacy claiming $90,000 in damages.  The Court of Appeal recognized the new cause of action as, essentially, a sub-category of invasion of privacy, noting that it would only arise for “deliberate and significant invasions”.

To establish a claim based on intrusion into seclusion, a plaintiff must prove:

1.  An unauthorized intrusion;

2. The intrusion was highly offensive to a reasonable person;

3. The matter intruded upon was private; and

4.  The intrusion caused anguish and suffering (presumed in cases where the first three elements are established).

Damages will be measured by a modest conventional sum (economic loss is not an element of the cause of action), which the Court suggested would be up to $20,000 absent aggravated or punitive damages.

Jones was successful and was awarded $10,000 in damages.  In setting the amount, the Court considered that Tsige had apologized for her conduct and Jones suffered no public embarrassment or harm to her health, welfare, social, business, or financial position.

We’ll have to wait and see if the case is appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, but barring that, this represents a very significant change to privacy law in Ontario and is likely to create a wave of legislation review in other provinces.

The moral of the story:  Curiosity may not only kill the cat, but have him face a legal claim based on intrusion into seclusion!