Lex Pundit
PrivacyRecognised 2012

Intrusion upon seclusion

Ontario law recognises a privacy tort for a highly offensive intentional intrusion into another's private affairs, without proof of economic loss.

Position current as of July 2026

Current position

Separate from the Charter, which binds the state, private-law privacy protects individuals against each other. In 2012 the Ontario Court of Appeal recognised the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

The tort has three elements: the defendant's conduct was intentional or reckless; it intruded, without lawful justification, on the plaintiff's private affairs; and a reasonable person would regard the intrusion as highly offensive, causing distress or anguish. Damages are available even without proven economic loss, though they are modest.

Governing authority
Jones v Tsige
2012 ONCA 32

Jones v Tsige created the tort in Ontario; its reception elsewhere in Canada remains uneven.

Key cases
Ontario Court of Appeal
Jones v Tsige
2012 ONCA 32 · Jan 18, 2012

The Court of Appeal recognised a new privacy tort — intrusion upon seclusion — allowing recovery where a defendant intentionally intrudes on another's private affairs in a way a reasonable person would find highly offensive, even without proof of economic loss.

How the law evolved
Pre-2012
No settled privacy tortPrior law
Common-law privacy claims between individuals have no clear home.
2012
Jones v TsigeLeading case
2012 ONCA 32
Ontario recognises intrusion upon seclusion and sets its three elements.
Today
Uneven adoption
Accepted in some provinces; other courts have declined to recognise related privacy torts.