Photographs taken in common areas

Question

I took a photograph of a person letting his dog excrete in the common area of the society which is against the pet policy law in the society and sent it to the maintenance group to impose fine. Is that illegal?

Answer 1

The answer may very well depend on jurisdiction. I will answer about the law in Canada, itself which varies depending on province.

canada

The Criminal Code has no prohibitions that appear relevant to the scenario you have described.

Common law "intrusion upon seclusion" tort

There is no common law tort of general "breach of privacy" or "invasion of privacy." The tort that comes closest to relating to the hypothetical in your question is known as "intrusion upon seclusion."

This was described in Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, paragraphs 65 and onward. A key element to that tort is that the defendent must have "invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff's private affairs or concerns." Also, the tort is only made out if "a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive." This tort is about "deliberate and significant invasions of personal privacy." And "it is only intrusions into matters such as one's financial or health records, sexual practises and orientation, employment, diary or private correspondence that, viewed objectively on the reasonable person standard, can be described as highly offensive."

Statutory "invasion of privacy" tort

Four provinces do have a stautory tort of invasion of privacy (British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador). These all create a cause of action where a person "wilfully and without a claim of right... violate[s] the privacy of another." The degree of privacy to which a person is entitled is that which is reasonable in the circumstances. A person's reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space will be substantially less than in a private space. Some courts have even gone so far as to say "there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for actions taking place in public" (Milner v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, 2005 BCSC 1661, para. 77). And: "Even if actions take place on private property, the circumstances may suggest that there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy. ... Although the plaintiff was on private property, it was in full view of any passersby and therefore there was no reasonable expectation of privacy" (para. 78).