Is it against the law for someone to film you without your knowledge???

Question

A jerk family member snuck up on me while I was disciplining my stubborn dog, and was filming me. He claims that I was abusing my dog and he says that hes going to send the video to people and show everyone he can think of. I wasn't hurting the dog, this relative is a stereotypical tree-hugger type of guy. He makes it sound to others as if I was an axe murderer! Is sending this video to others legal??? I had know idea that he was standing there. His sole purpose to show this video is to slander my reputation, by making me out to be this evil person that I'm not. I live in Canada, and I know that laws very from place to place, so any people who know a lot about Canadian law greatly be appreciated.

Answer 1

If you were not violating any animal rights laws, you could take him to court for harrassment. Same thing if he sends the tape to anyone else, it could be slander. If he feels you broke the law, he should send it to the Humane Society, no one else. His thinking is incorrect as he is not trying to help the animal, but to harass you.

Answer 2

I thought it was. I thought you could take someone to court for that if you had proof of the taping? I personally agree that it should be illegal; but you also have to place blame on the woman or man who participated; meaning he/she should practice better judgment in whom they chose 'to do the do' with and where. Most people who think with common since should know and understand (regardless of how drunk you are) that when you go home with someone from a club or after a few drinks at a bar, you have no idea what you're about to get yourself into, because you're leaving with someone you don't know. If this person is a total stranger, they could be psychotic and have a plan to kill you, he/she could have a recorder or webcam set up without your knowledge, or there could be an additional party member waiting at their place that you had no idea you where consenting too. So everyone should think about these things prior going home with a one night stand. Now days no one can 'look' honest or 'safe' and is capable of doing anything to you against your will when the two of you are alone.

Answer 3

Generally speaking, the only time it is permissable to video tape someone without their permission is when they are in a public place such as a baseball game, or mall, or some such place where the permission is considered "implied" by simply being in the public place. Good luck with this.

Answer 4

I don't know anything about Canadian law, but in general, anytime you are in a public place anyone can take your picture or take video of you, the person taking the picture/video owns it and has the right to do anything they want with it

If it was in a private place such as your own home, you are entitled to privacy. If it was your house he must ask your permission to film anything.

Answer 5

Nope. Now if they publish it or make it public then they need your permission/consent. If it is being sent to people that you know and NOT made viewable to mass public, there is nothing that you can do. Except maybe civil suit, but thats just too much work for something so small.

Answer 6

Not sure about leagality. Depending on where you were.

However were you treating your dog in a manner that you wouldn't want people to see??? If so maybe you need to rethink the way you treat your dog. If not then why do you care?

Answer 7

Video Surveillance Without Consent
Among those who do not have explicit consent, some take comfort from the "except where inappropriate" part of principle 3, but this vague expression has been replaced by the laundry list of consent exceptions contained in Section 7 of the Act. (A word of warning: Section 7 is a nightmare to follow.) From Subsection 7(1), an organization is able to collect personal information without knowledge or consent in the following circumstances:

7. (1) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may collect personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if

(a) the collection is clearly in the interests of the individual and consent cannot be obtained in a timely way;

(b) it is reasonable to expect that the collection with the knowledge or consent of the individual would compromise the availability or the accuracy of the information and the collection is reasonable for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province;

(c) the collection is solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes; or

(d) the information is publicly available and is specified by the regulations.

Usually, in the context of video surveillance, paragraph 7(1)(b) is seen as the most applicable. But it may not be applicable in all cases where video surveillance is commonly used. That paragraph of PIPEDA requires all of the following to be present, which is not always the case:

it is reasonable to expect that the collection with the knowledge or consent of the individual would compromise the availability or the accuracy of the information;
the collection is reasonable; and
the collection is for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province.
Cases of suspected fraud would arguably be "for purposes related to investigating ... a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province", but the collection would still need to be reasonable and it would be reasonable to suspect that getting consent would compromise the information. A recent decision from the labour arbitration context has applied this principle in relation to video surveillance. In Ross v. Rosedale Transport Ltd., [2003] C.L.A.D. No. 237, 2003 CarswellNat 3620 (Ont. Arb.), the employee in question was fired from his employment for misrepresenting his injuries to his employer. In February, the employee sustained a low-back injury when moving a pallet from a truck. He was off work and was then put on reduced duties to accommodate his back injury. After some months of reduced duties, during when the employee's physician opined he may be permanently disabled, the employee went on vacation. On the day before commencing his leave, the employee told his supervisor that he would be moving with his family. The employer hired an investigator who conducted video surveillance of the employee while he carried furniture. The employee was fired for fraud.

The arbitrator, surprisingly, found that the video evidence was not admissible because its collection violated section 7(1)(b) of PIPEDA:

¶ In the instant case, there was absolutely no evidence that Ross had ever been anything other than an honest employee. He had no disciplinary record. He had never submitted a false or fraudulent claim for insurance or other benefits. There were a number of other means that were available to the employer to test the true extent of Ross' restrictions and the bona fides of his recovery as of April 6, 2002. As late as March 21, 2002, Rosedale had in its possession, a statement from Ross' physician that he was only fit for clerical duties and that a prognosis for full recovery was questionable. If the employer really thought that Ross was malingering or pretending that he was not yet fully able to resume the duties of a driver/associate, it was open for Rosedale to ask for an independent medical examination a matter that was conceded by Topping. His failure to do so was left unexplained. This is a case, where an employer, without any evidence that the employee was malingering or had made misrepresentations or spread disinformation as to his physical abilities, orders a surreptitious video surveillance in the hope of trapping the unsuspecting employee during the course of moving furniture at his place of residence at a time and place that he had voluntarily disclosed to his employer. In this respect, the words of Arbitrator M. G. Picher in Canadian Pacific Ltd. and Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, (supra), are very appropriate:

'as a general rule, (the employer's interests) does not justify resort to random video surveillance in the form of an electronic web, cast like a net, to see what it might catch. Surveillance is an extraordinary step which can only be resorted to where there is, beforehand, reasonable and probable cause to justify it. What constitutes such cause is a matter to be determined on the facts of each case'.

¶ In my opinion, this is exactly what Topping attempted to do, namely, to cast an electronic web to see whether he could catch Ross while moving his family on April 6, 2002. In my view, the collection of this personal information in the form of the video surveillance tape was not reasonable for any purpose related to the investigation of a breach of the employment agreement. Its collection without the knowledge and consent of Ross violated Section 7(1)(b) of the Act. It was for these reasons that I ruled on the first day of the hearings that the videotape was not admissible in evidence.

Notwithstanding that the employer had a basis for suspicion and that the employee had committed fraud with respect to the employment contract, the arbitrator found the dismissal to be unjustified. There was no doubt that this related to an investigation of a breach of an agreement (the employment contract), but it failed because the arbitrator found it to be unreasonable in the circumstances. The lesson of Ross v. Rosedale Transport Ltd. for insurers is that, if they wish to rely on Section 7(1)(b) of PIPEDA, their basis for ordering surveillance must be reasonable. A mere desire to catch the claimant in a lie is probably not enough of a basis to order intrusive surveillance.

Answer 8

I bet people like Brittney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsey Lohan wish they could do something to stop people taking unwanted pictures and videos of them.

Answer 9

in public as long as it's no for profit you can be tapped i do know that... legality depends on where you are... best thing is to read this site... it's best one i could find on this topic hope it helps... http://www.privacylawyer.ca/blog/2004/02/canadian-privacy-law-and-video.html

Answer 10

Not as long as you are in a public area. Otherwise, COPS would not stay on the air.