Is It Illegal to Record Someone Without Consent in Canada? [2026 Guide]

It is not illegal in Canada to record a private conversation if you are a participant and at least one party consents. However, recording a conversation you are not part of, or secretly intercepting a private communication, is illegal under…

ChatGPT Claude Google Perplexity

Public vs. Private Recording: When Is It Legal?

Recording in public spaces, such as streets, parks, and malls, is generally legal because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Recording in private spaces, such as homes, bathrooms, changing rooms, and bedrooms, without consent is almost always illegal. Semi-private spaces, including workplaces and shared areas, require careful consideration of privacy expectations.

Even a legal public recording can become illegal if it constitutes harassment, intimidation, or targets intimate areas. The key legal principle to determine whether a recording is legal or not is whether the person being recorded had a “reasonable expectation of privacy”.

Security cameras and doorbell cameras are generally legal on your own property, but they must not intentionally capture areas where others have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as inside a neighbour’s home.

One-Party Consent: Recording Conversations in Canada

Under Section 184 of the Criminal Code, it is a criminal offence to intercept a private communication without consent. The offence is hybrid and carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment if prosecuted by indictment.

Canada follows a one-party consent rule. If you are a participant in the conversation, you may lawfully record it without informing the other person. However, recording a conversation you are not part of, such as eavesdropping on others, is illegal.

These rules also apply to phone calls, video meetings, virtual meetings, and in-person conversations. Organizations that record calls must comply with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). This is why businesses typically notify the caller that the conversation is being recorded. While the one-party consent rule applies federally across Canada, provincial laws may have their own requirements.

Voyeurism Laws in Canada (Criminal Code s.162)

Voyeurism is a serious criminal offence in Canada and was added to the Criminal Code in 2005 in response to increased use of recording technologies.

Under Section 162(1) of the Criminal Code, voyeurism occurs when a person surreptitiously observes or records someone with a reasonable expectation of privacy. This usually occurs in situations where the person recorded is nude, exposed to intimate body parts, or engaged in sexual activity.

Recording for sexual purposes, even when the person is fully clothed, is illegal when it involves surreptitious recording and the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.. Additionally, if the person being recorded consents and is aware of the recording, it will not qualify as voyeurism.

Locations that prioritize privacy include bathrooms, changing rooms, bedrooms, and hotel rooms. The use of hidden cameras in private residences, hotels, and Airbnbs still constitutes voyeurism, even if the accused owns the space.

Voyeurism offences may be prosecuted summarily with up to two years’ imprisonment, or by indictment with up to five years’ imprisonment. It may also result in a mandatory sex offender registry, along with long-term consequences impacting employment, travel, and reputation.

Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images (s.162.1)

It is a criminal offence to publish, distribute, or share intimate images without the subject’s consent. An “intimate image” refers to any photo or video recording that displays nudity, exposed private areas, or sexual activity in circumstances where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy.. The offence still applies even if the image or video was created with consent.

Sharing images via text message, social media, email, or other private messaging all constitute distribution. This offence is commonly referred to as “revenge porn”, but the Criminal Code does not require proof of malice or a revenge motive. Penalties can include imprisonment for up to 5 years. Consent from all parties must be obtained before sharing intimate content.

Criminal Harassment and Intimidation Through Recording

Under the Criminal Code, Section 264, persistent recording that causes fear for a person’s safety may form part of the offence of criminal harassment if it involves repeated following, watching, or other prohibited conduct and the accused knows or is reckless as to whether the conduct causes that fear. Stalking behaviour refers to following someone repeatedly with a camera or refusing to stop despite requests. This may constitute harassment, and penalties include up to 10 years’ imprisonment. Recordings used to pressure someone in a threatening or coercive manner may amount to intimidation under Section 423 of the Criminal Code. Intimidation can also involve surrounding someone with cameras during protests or disputes, which carries a penalty of up to 5 years in prison.

R. v. Jarvis: The Supreme Court’s Privacy Test

R. v. Jarvis (2019 SCC 10) is a landmark Supreme Court case that clarified how reasonable expectations of privacy apply in voyeurism and recording cases.. The case involved a high school teacher secretly recording his students using a hidden camera focused on their intimate body areas.

The Court ruled that even in semi-public areas, privacy can include protection from unwanted sexualized scrutiny. When considering reasonable expectations for privacy, Courts look at a non-exhaustive list of contextual factors, often described as a 9-factor analysis, which includes: location, nature of conduct, awareness, manner, subject matter, rules, relationships, purpose, and personal characteristics.

The decision makes it clear that context and intent matter just as much as location. For example, recording at a public beach may constitute voyeurism if the recording is surreptitious and focused on intimate body parts for a sexual purpose. Overall, R. v. Jarvis significantly expanded protections against covert sexualized recording.

Recording in the Workplace

As discussed earlier, employees can generally record conversations they participate in under the one-party consent rule. However, secret workplace recordings may violate company policies and justify termination. Employers must disclose workplace surveillance practices to employees in accordance with applicable privacy legislation.

Meetings that are recorded with HR or management are legal; however, they may have professional consequences. Unionized environments and regulated industries may also have specific record-keeping requirements. Oftentimes, may be admitted in employment tribunals but given limited weight, particularly if obtained in a way that damages trust in the employment relationship. Always consider the legal and workplace policies before recording at work.

Provincial Privacy Laws and Variations

Ontario

In Ontario, the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” was established in Jones v. Tsige (2012 ONCA 32). Civil damages of up to $20,000 may be awarded for privacy violations.

British Columbia

In British Columbia, the Privacy Act (RSBC 1996, c. 373) creates a statutory tort for privacy violations. The Intimate Images Protection Act provides civil remedies through the Civil Resolution Tribunal, which has monetary jurisdiction up to $5,000, in addition to court remedies in higher courts. Remedies can include damages and orders requiring the removal of intimate content.

Alberta

The Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) governs the collection of private-sector data. Organizations must obtain consent for collecting, using, and disclosing personal information, including certain workplace recordings, subject to statutory exceptions..

Quebec

The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms includes privacy protections, and the Civil Code of Québec provisions protect against invasion of privacy.

Penalties and Consequences for Illegal Recording

Voyeurism (s.162): Up to 5 years imprisonment as an indictable offence; or 2 years less a day for a summary offence.

Intimate Image Distribution (s.162.1): Up to 5 years imprisonment.

Interception of Private Communications (s.184): Up to 5 years imprisonment

Criminal Harassment (s.264): Up to 10 years imprisonment.

Intimidation (s.423): Up to 5 years imprisonment.

Sex offender registration may be mandatory for voyeurism and intimate image offences. Civil lawsuits can result in damages awards, which are separate from criminal penalties. Having a criminal record may affect employment, travel, and professional licensing.

Potential Defences for Recording and Voyeurism Charges

If you have been charged with recording-related offences, available defence strategies depend on the specific charge and the facts of the case. In many situations, the defence focuses on whether the Crown can prove each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Our goal is to seek charge withdrawals, negotiate peace bonds where appropriate, pursue non-criminal resolutions, and, where possible, avoid sex offender registration and long-term consequences.

Privacy Expectations

A key issue in voyeurism and interception cases is whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances. That said, public visibility alone does not automatically eliminate privacy expectations. Courts examine the full context, including location, purpose, and manner of recording.. If the location did not give rise to a legally protected privacy interest, or if the person was openly visible to the general public in a manner inconsistent with privacy, this may undermine the Crown’s case.

Nature of the Recording

For voyeurism offences, the recording must generally be surreptitious. If the camera was visible or the recording was open and obvious, this may undermine the allegation that it was covert. The duration and nature of the recording may also be relevant, particularly in harassment allegations where persistence is required.

Purpose and Intent

Certain offences require proof of intent. For example, voyeurism may require proof of a sexual purpose in some circumstances. If there was no sexual purpose, no intent to harass or intimidate, and the recording was misinterpreted, this may be relevant to the defence. In some cases, recordings may have been made for legitimate self-protection or evidentiary purposes. Accidental or incidental recordings may also raise reasonable doubt.

Evidence Issues

Digital evidence may be incomplete, edited, or taken out of context. The defence may challenge the reliability, authenticity, or integrity of recordings and screenshots. The complainant’s credibility and the context in which the police interpreted the events may also be relevant.

Charter Defence (Constitutional Violations)

If police violated constitutional rights during the investigation, this may affect the admissibility of evidence. For example:

Section 10(b) deals with the right to counsel.

Section 8 violation – unreasonable search and seizure

Section 9 violation – arbitrary detention

If a Charter breach is established, the court may exclude improperly obtained evidence under Section 24(2) of the Charter.

Statutory Defence

Section 162 includes a limited statutory defence where the recording served the public good and did not extend beyond what served the public good. This defence is narrowly interpreted and depends heavily on the circumstances.

Consent

Consent may be a defence in certain circumstances. If the person recorded consented to the recording, this may negate elements of voyeurism. In interception cases under Section 184, one-party consent may apply if the recorder was a participant in the communication. The absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy or the absence of a sexual purpose may also undermine the prosecution’s case.

These are possible defences if you have been charged with a recording violation. We negotiate charge withdrawals, peace bonds, and alternatives to conviction. Our goal is to avoid sex offender registration and minimise long-term consequences.

Illegally recorded or accused of illegal recording?

Protect your rights & future with a Free, Confidential Case Evaluation.

Call US

Questions About Video Voyeurism

Q: Can Someone Record You Without Your Permission in Canada?

A: In Canada, recording private conversations is legal provided one of the participants consents to the recording. This means that if two participants are involved in a call, one of the participants can record the call without informing the other of the recording. Non-participants, however, are not allowed to listen in or record the conversation. In sum, yes, somebody can record you without your permission if they are part of the conversation, but not if they are eavesdropping or a non-participant..

Q: Can Somebody Sue Me for Recording Them Without Their Consent?

A: Along with being criminally charged for voyeurism, there is the possibility of being sued civilly for damages. In Jones v Tsige, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion”. The tort is described as “one who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the invasion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person”. An individual’s privacy is ultimately recognized by Ontario courts, and you can be sued for damages if it has been violated, depending on the circumstances of the case. This is separate from a criminal charge, and you will have to seek a lawyer familiar with tort law. If you have been criminally charged with voyeurism, you should consult a criminal defence lawyer to discuss your legal options.

Q: Can I Film Other People at a Public Beach?

A: In Canada, you can legally film on public property where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This would include a public beach. However, filming in a manner that is surreptitious or focused on intimate body parts for a sexual purpose may constitute voyeurism, even in a public setting.

Q: Is it legal to have security cameras on my property in Canada?

A: Yes, it is legal to have security cameras on your property in Canada, provided they do not intentionally capture areas where others have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as inside neighbouring homes or private spaces.

Q: Is Ontario a one-party consent province?

A: Yes, the one-party consent rule applies across Canada under federal law.

Q: What are the penalties for voyeurism in Canada?

A: The penalties for voyeurism in Canada are up to 5 years imprisonment and potential sex offender registration.

Q: Can I record a conversation with my boss without telling them?

A: Yes, you can legally record a conversation with your boss under the one-party consent. However, it may violate workplace policy and could lead to professional consequences, including termination. Always review your workplace policy before recording.

Q: What is the Criminal Code section for recording without consent?

A: Section 184 of the Criminal Code covers audio interception, and Section 162 covers voyeurism.

Q: Can recordings be used as evidence in court?

A: Lawfully obtained recordings are generally admissible if they are relevant to the case. Secretly obtained recordings may be challenged, and courts will consider how the evidence was obtained and whether any Charter rights were violated. It is advisable to seek legal advice before relying on covert recordings.

Q: What should I do if someone recorded me without consent?

A: If someone recorded you without your consent, document the incident, preserve evidence, and consult a lawyer about criminal and civil options. Only the Crown can lay criminal charges, but you may report the incident to the police for investigation.

This article provides general legal information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Laws and their interpretation may change, and the application of law to specific circumstances requires professional legal assessment. If you have questions about a legal matter, please contact us for a free consultation.

Jonathan Pyzer

Jonathan Pyzer, B.A., L.L.B., is an experienced criminal defence lawyer and distinguished alumnus of McGill University and the University of Western Ontario. As the founder of Pyzer Criminal Lawyers, he brings over two decades of experience to his practice, having successfully represented hundreds of clients facing criminal charges throughout Toronto.