Sometimes. You can legally record a conversation you’re part of because section 184 of the Criminal Code lets one participant consent on behalf of everyone. Secretly intercepting a private conversation you’re not part of without anyone’s consent is usually a crime. Video is a separate question. Voyeurism and intimate-image laws apply to visual recording even where the audio rules would allow it.
Here’s how Canadian law treats recording without consent, and where the lines sit.
Key Takeaways
- Section 184(1) of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to knowingly intercept a private communication using a device.
- Section 184(2)(a) and section 183.1 together create the one-party consent rule. Consent from one originator or intended recipient of a conversation is enough.
- Section 162 makes it voyeurism to secretly observe or record someone in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- R v Jarvis confirmed that a person can keep a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public or semi-public place.
- Section 162.1 makes sharing an intimate image without consent a separate crime.
- Filming that turns persistent, threatening or coercive may support charges of criminal harassment under section 264 or intimidation under section 423.
- The Protecting Victims Act received Royal Assent on 18 June 2026, and most of its provisions took effect on 18 July 2026. It raised maximum penalties, expanded the intimate-image offences, and amended the voyeurism and criminal harassment provisions.
- Jones v Tsige recognised that people in Ontario can sue for serious invasions of privacy. A civil claim runs separately from any police investigation or criminal charge.
- The Criminal Code applies across all provinces. Civil privacy claims vary by province.
Which Criminal Code Sections Apply to Recording Without Consent?
No single Canadian law bans all recording without consent. Several Criminal Code sections may apply, each targeting different conduct.
- Section 184 covers intercepting private communications. The key question is whether an originator or intended recipient consented.
- Section 193 may prohibit knowingly using or disclosing a private communication that was intercepted without that consent, subject to exceptions set out in the Code.
- Section 162 covers voyeurism, meaning secret observation or visual recording where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Section 162.1 covers sharing an intimate image without consent. Since July 2026, it also reaches certain realistic AI-generated images and threats to share an image.
- Section 264 covers criminal harassment, which may include repeated filming or monitoring.
- Section 423 covers intimidation, which may include using recording to pressure someone.
One set of facts can trigger more than one section. A recording that’s lawful under one section can still be an offence under another.
Is It Legal to Film or Record Someone in Public in Canada?
In most cases, yes. Streets, parks and malls are places where people expect to be seen, so filming there is lawful in most situations. Washrooms, change rooms and bedrooms are the opposite. Recording someone in those places without consent will almost always raise criminal issues. Semi-private spaces sit in between. Workplaces, shared housing and school hallways all need a closer look at the facts.
Two warnings, though.
Being visible doesn’t mean giving up all privacy. The Supreme Court made that clear in R v Jarvis, covered below.
A lawful public recording can also become criminal. Filming that zeroes in on intimate areas for a sexual purpose may be voyeurism. Filming someone again and again, in a way that could reasonably make them believe their safety is threatened, may be criminal harassment.
The question courts keep coming back to is simple. Did the person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that moment?
Security Cameras and Doorbell Cameras
Security cameras and doorbell cameras on your own property are legal in Canada. Trouble starts when a camera points somewhere it shouldn’t. A lens aimed through a neighbour’s window, or at a spot where people undress, can make a home security setup a voyeurism problem.
Audio is the part people forget. A camera that picks up private conversations between other people may engage section 184, even where the video itself is fine.
What Is the One-Party Consent Rule Under Section 184?
Section 184(1) of the Criminal Code states that anyone who knowingly intercepts a private communication by means of an electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical, or other device commits an offence.
A “private communication” is one made in circumstances where the person speaking reasonably expects that no one other than the intended recipient will intercept it.
Two provisions create the exception that makes most everyday recording lawful.
- Section 184(2)(a) removes the offence where the person has the consent, express or implied, of the originator of the communication or of the person the originator intended to receive it.
- Section 183.1 provides that where a private communication involves more than one person, consent from any one of them is sufficient consent for Part VI of the Criminal Code.
Read together, those provisions mean you can record your own conversation without telling the other people in it. Someone not taking part may also record if an originator or intended recipient consents, or if another statutory exception or a judge’s authorisation applies.
The deciding question is consent from an originator or intended recipient. Who owns the recording device doesn’t decide it. Neither does the subject of the conversation. Other criminal, civil, employment or professional rules may still govern how you use the recording afterwards. Courts apply similar privacy-expectation thinking to digital messages, as our article on privacy in outgoing text messages explains.
Phone Calls, Video Calls and Virtual Meetings
One-party consent works the same way for phone calls, video calls, online meetings, or face-to-face chats. If you’re part of the conversation, you can record it.
Businesses are a different story. An organisation that records customer calls must follow privacy legislation. In most provinces, that means the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec have similar private-sector laws. That’s why so many customer service lines open with a notice that the call may be recorded. The notice comes from privacy law, not the Criminal Code.
Is Eavesdropping Illegal in Canada?
It can be. Hiding a recorder in a room, tapping a phone line, or running an app that captures other people’s calls are all ways of intercepting a conversation you’re not part of. If the conversation is private and no one consents, it’s an offence under section 184(1), punishable by up to five years on indictment.
Overhearing people talk is not the offence. Section 184 requires a device that intercepts the communication.
How Did R v Jarvis Change the Law on Recording in Public?
For years, people assumed that anyone standing in a public place gave up any expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected that idea in R v Jarvis (2019 SCC 10). The case involved a high school teacher who used a camera hidden in a pen to record female students at school secretly.
The Court held that privacy isn’t all-or-nothing. A person who others can see may still reasonably expect not to be recorded in a particular way or for a particular purpose.
Courts now weigh nine factors together.
- The location.
- Whether the person was observed or recorded.
- Whether the person knew about or agreed to the observation or recording.
- How the observation or recording was done.
- What the recording captured.
- Any rules, regulations or policies governing the setting.
- The relationship between the person recording and the person recorded.
- The purpose behind the recording.
- The personal characteristics of the person recorded, including whether they were a child or young person.
The list isn’t exhaustive, and no single factor decides a case. Filming in public didn’t become unlawful overnight. Location alone doesn’t settle the question.
A public beach shows how this works in practice. Filming the shoreline is fine. Secretly zooming in on people’s bodies for a sexual purpose may be voyeurism, beach or not.
Quick Reference Guide to Recording Laws in Canada
| Situation | Position | Provision |
| Recording a conversation you take part in | Generally lawful under Part VI if you consent to the interception, although other laws may govern how you use it | s. 184(2)(a), s. 183.1 |
| Recording a conversation between other people | May be an offence if it’s a private communication, no originator or intended recipient consents, and no other exception or authorisation applies | s. 184(1) |
| A security or doorbell camera on your own property | Lawful, provided it doesn’t capture places where others reasonably expect privacy or intercept other people’s private conversations | s. 162, s. 184 |
| A hidden camera in a washroom, change room or bedroom | May constitute voyeurism where the recording is surreptitious, the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and one of the circumstances in s. 162(1)(a) to (c) applies | s. 162(1)(a) |
| A surreptitious visual recording made for a sexual purpose | May constitute voyeurism where the person recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy | s. 162(1)(c) |
| Filming people in a public place | Depends on the circumstances | s. 162, R v Jarvis |
| Repeatedly filming someone who wants you to stop | May be criminal harassment where the other elements of the offence are proved | s. 264 |
| Sharing a recording known to come from a voyeurism offence | Separate offence | s. 162(4) |
| Sharing an intimate image without the consent of the person depicted | An offence where the other statutory elements are proved | s. 162.1(1) |
| Threatening to share an intimate image without consent | A separate offence where the statutory intent and knowledge or recklessness requirements are proved | s. 162.1(1.1) |
What Is Voyeurism Under Section 162?
Parliament added the voyeurism offence to the Criminal Code in 2005, as video cameras, mobile phones and surveillance systems became part of daily life.
Section 162(1) applies where a person surreptitiously observes or makes a visual recording of someone who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and at least one of the following applies.
- (a) The person is in a place where a person can reasonably be expected to be nude or nearly nude, to expose their sexual organs, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity.
- (b) The person is nude, is nearly nude, is exposing their sexual organs, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in that state or activity.
- (c) The observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.
Surreptitiously means secretly, in a way the person being recorded isn’t aware of.
Note: For these offences, the Criminal Code now defines “sexual organs” as including genital organs, breasts that are or appear to be female breasts, and the anal region.
For a fuller breakdown of how these charges work, read our guide to voyeurism law in Canada. If you’ve been charged, our voyeurism defence page explains how we approach these cases.
Why Paragraph (c) Reaches Furthest
Change rooms and washrooms are the clearest examples of places covered by paragraph (a). Paragraph (c) isn’t limited to those places, or to a person who is undressed. A fully clothed person in an ordinary or public place may still be the subject of voyeurism if the observation or recording was surreptitious, was made for a sexual purpose, and happened in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Secretly Recording a Sexual Encounter
Agreeing to sex is not agreeing to be filmed. A person who secretly records a sexual encounter may be charged with voyeurism under section 162 where every element of the offence is present, even though the other person consented to the sexual activity itself.
Consent in Canadian criminal law is specific. It applies to a particular act, not everything that happens around it. Our article on sexual consent explains how that works.
Sharing that footage afterwards creates further offences, covered next.
Sharing a Recording Is a Separate Offence
Section 162(4) creates a second offence. A person commits it by copying, publishing, distributing, circulating, selling, advertising or making available a recording they know came from a section 162(1) offence. Possessing the recording for any of those purposes is enough.
So someone who never touched a camera can still be charged based on what they did with the footage afterwards.
When Is Sharing an Intimate Image a Crime in Canada?
Section 162.1 makes it a crime to publish, distribute, transmit, sell, or make available an intimate image of a person, knowing the person didn’t consent or being reckless as to whether they did.
An intimate image is a photo or video showing a person nude, nearly nude, exposing their sexual organs, or engaged in explicit sexual activity, where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy when it was made and still had one when it was shared. Since July 2026, the definition also reaches certain realistic AI-generated or digitally altered images. The 2026 changes are set out in more detail below.
A few points catch people off guard.
- Consent to taking the image isn’t consent to sharing it.
- A private message counts as distribution. So does a post, an email or a group chat.
- People call it “revenge porn,” but the Crown doesn’t have to prove revenge or malice.
- Threatening to share an intimate image is now its own offence under section 162.1(1.1).
Our article on publishing intimate images without consent goes deeper. If you’re facing this charge, see our intimate image defence page.
When Can Recording Become Criminal Harassment or Intimidation?
Most recording is about keeping evidence or a memory. Sometimes it becomes a way to pressure someone. Two Criminal Code sections deal with that.
Criminal harassment under section 264
Repeatedly following, watching or communicating with someone, including by filming them, may amount to criminal harassment. Since 18 July 2026, the Crown must prove, among other things, that the accused intended to harass the person, or knew or was reckless about whether their conduct would be harassing. It must also prove that the conduct could reasonably be expected to make the person believe their safety, or the safety of someone they know, was threatened. The Crown no longer has to prove the person was actually afraid. Section 264 expressly includes monitoring someone’s location, movements, actions or social interactions. The maximum on indictment is 10 years. Our criminal harassment page explains how to defend against these charges.
Intimidation under section 423
Using threats, persistently following someone, or watching and besetting their home or workplace to force them to do something, or stop doing something they have a lawful right to do, may be intimidation. Watching someone’s home with cameras to pressure them into dropping a complaint is one example. The maximum on indictment under section 423 is five years.
Neither offence needs a hidden camera. Filming in plain view can still cross the line.
What Changed Under the Protecting Victims Act in 2026?
Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act, received Royal Assent on 18 June 2026, and most of its provisions took effect on 18 July 2026. Five changes matter most for recording cases.
- Section 162 now expressly covers circumstances involving a person who is “nearly nude,” and its wording now refers to the exposure of sexual organs.
- Certain realistic intimate deepfakes are now covered. The definition of “intimate image” includes an electronically or mechanically created visual representation, including one made with artificial intelligence, that depicts an identifiable person in an intimate state and is likely to be mistaken for a real recording of that person.
- Threatening to share an intimate image is now a separate offence under section 162.1(1.1). The Crown must prove, among other elements, an intent to intimidate or to be taken seriously, and that the accused knew the person depicted wouldn’t consent or was reckless about consent. The Crown doesn’t have to prove the image was ever shared, or that the accused demanded anything in return.
- The maximum sentence on indictment for voyeurism and for distributing a voyeuristic recording rose from five to 10 years. The general maximum for publishing or distributing an intimate image without consent also rose to 10 years, with a 14-year maximum in the special circumstances set out in section 162.1(1)(a)(ii).
- The criminal harassment test changed, and location monitoring is now expressly covered. The section on harassment and intimidation above explains both changes.
Can Someone Record You at Home, at Work or at School?
Shared Housing, Rentals and Short Stays
A camera in a shared kitchen, hallway or living room raises two separate questions, and in many cases the audio is the sharper one.
A shared kitchen isn’t automatically a place where a person can reasonably be expected to be nude or nearly nude, so paragraph (a) of section 162(1) may not apply. Paragraph (b) requires the person to be in one of the listed states or activities, and requires the recording to target that state or activity. Paragraph (c) requires a sexual purpose. Every branch also requires surreptitious observation or visual recording, and circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Depending on the facts, the video may fall outside section 162 altogether.
The audio may engage section 184(1) if it captures a private communication and no originator or intended recipient consented. Installing a camera in a shared home doesn’t, on its own, determine whether a captured conversation was a private communication.
Hidden cameras in hotel rooms, Airbnbs, rental bathrooms and guest bedrooms are a different matter. These are textbook places where people expect to undress. Owning the property isn’t a defence. A landlord or host who hides a camera in those spaces faces the same voyeurism exposure as anyone else.
Workplaces and Company Devices
An employer representative who takes part in a conversation may consent to recording it under sections 184(2)(a) and 183.1. That doesn’t settle the employer’s obligations under privacy, employment, contract or professional rules.
Monitoring software on a company device works differently. Section 184(2)(e) exempts a person in control of a computer system who intercepts communications passing through it, but only where the interception is reasonably necessary for managing quality of service or protecting the system against certain offences. What the monitoring was for matters more than who paid for the hardware.
A GPS tracker raises a different issue, because it records where someone goes rather than what they say. Location monitoring may form part of criminal harassment under section 264, which since July 2026 expressly covers monitoring a person’s location and movements, where every element of that offence is proved. Privacy and employment rules may also apply.
PIPEDA may also apply. Its employee-privacy rules cover federally regulated businesses, not every Ontario workplace.
Employees record too. If you’re in the meeting, one-party consent lets you record a conversation with your manager or HR. That doesn’t make it a good idea. A secret recording may break workplace policy and lead to discipline, up to and including termination. Unionised and regulated workplaces may have their own rules. An employment tribunal may admit the recording but give it little weight, especially if how it was made damaged trust in the working relationship.
Schools
R v Jarvis arose in a school, and it sets the framework here. Students don’t lose every reasonable expectation of privacy when they walk through school doors. The nature of the recording, the student’s awareness, school policies, the relationship between the people involved, and the student’s age may all matter. The decision doesn’t mean every recording made in a classroom or on school property is unlawful.
What Are the Penalties for Recording and Voyeurism Offences?
Being charged is not the same as being convicted. The Crown must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court decides any sentence based on the facts. The figures below are the maximums Parliament set. They aren’t typical outcomes, and no maximum tells you what will happen in a particular case.
Each offence is hybrid, meaning the Crown chooses how to proceed. An indictable prosecution carries the higher maximum shown below. A summary prosecution carries the lower penalties that apply to summary conviction offences. The Crown’s election depends on the circumstances and says nothing about guilt.
| Offence | Provision | Maximum on indictment |
| Intercepting a private communication | s. 184(1) | 5 years |
| Using or disclosing an unlawfully intercepted private communication | s. 193(1) | 2 years |
| Voyeurism | s. 162(1) | 10 years |
| Distributing a voyeuristic recording | s. 162(4) | 10 years |
| Publishing an intimate image without consent | s. 162.1(1) | 10 years, generally. 14 years where the accused knew or ought to have known the image was made while an aggravated sexual assault was being, or had just been, committed against the person depicted (s. 162.1(1)(a)(ii)) |
| Threatening to publish or distribute an intimate image | s. 162.1(1.1) | 10 years |
| Criminal harassment | s. 264 | 10 years |
| Intimidation | s. 423 | 5 years |
Orders a Court May Add
Section 162.2 gives the court additional power in intimate-image cases. If an offender is convicted of publishing or distributing an intimate image without consent, or receives a conditional discharge under section 730, the court may prohibit them from using the Internet or another digital network, subject to conditions or exemptions the court sets. Breaching that order is a separate offence.
A conviction for voyeurism or an intimate-image offence may also lead to an order under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. Since 2023, registration is no longer automatic in every case. For most of these offences, the court must still make the order unless the offender shows it would serve no purpose or be grossly disproportionate. Our article on the sex offender registry explains what an order involves.
Consequences Beyond the Sentence
A criminal record follows you. It may show up on employment background checks, affect professional licences, and make travel to the United States harder. For anyone working with children or vulnerable people, a sexual offence on their record can end a career.
That’s why the way a case resolves matters as much as the verdict. Depending on the facts and the Crown’s position, outcomes short of a conviction, including a withdrawal or a peace bond, are sometimes possible. No outcome is guaranteed. Early legal advice gives you the clearest picture of what’s realistic in your case.
What Defences Apply to Recording and Voyeurism Charges?
The right defence depends on the charge and the evidence. In many cases, the central issue is whether the Crown can prove every required element beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Complainant Had No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Each branch of section 162(1) requires circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Where the circumstances don’t support one, the offence isn’t made out. The Jarvis factors cut both ways.
The Recording Was Not Surreptitious
Secrecy is an element of the offence, not a detail. A visible camera, a posted notice, or an openly made recording may undermine proof that it was surreptitious. None of those facts automatically settles the issue. The court must consider what the person knew and the circumstances surrounding the recording.
The Crown Cannot Establish a Sexual Purpose
Where a charge rests on paragraph (c), purpose is the whole case, and it’s proved by inference from the surrounding circumstances. What the device captured, how it was positioned, and what else it stored all bear on that inference. A recording made by accident, or for a genuine non-sexual reason like documenting a dispute, may also raise a reasonable doubt about purpose. A sexual purpose isn’t required for the forms of voyeurism in paragraphs 162(1)(a) and (b).
A Participant Consented to the Interception
For a section 184 charge, the Crown has to deal with the consent exception in section 184(2)(a). A participant who was an originator or intended recipient may consent to the interception, and section 183.1 makes one person’s consent enough for Part VI. A non-participant may also rely on consent from an originator or intended recipient. Participation matters, but this exception depends on consent, not on who held the device.
Problems With the Digital Evidence
Digital evidence isn’t always what it looks like. Clips may be incomplete, edited, cropped or taken out of context. Screenshots can be altered. The defence may challenge where a file came from, whether it was changed, and whether it shows the full picture. The complainant’s credibility, and how police interpreted the footage, may also be in issue.
The Public Good Defence
Section 162(6) provides that no person shall be convicted under section 162 where the acts alleged serve the public good and don’t extend beyond what serves the public good.
Under section 162(7), whether the conduct served the public good and whether evidence shows it went further are questions of law. Whether it did go further is a question of fact. The accused’s motives are irrelevant to this defence, but the Crown must still prove every element of the offence charged.
Charter Challenges to Device Searches
Many recording cases turn on evidence taken from phones, cameras and computers. How police seized and searched a device may raise section 8 Charter issues, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Our articles on section 8 and on phone searches on arrest cover this in more detail.
Section 9 may be engaged if the accused was arbitrarily detained. Section 10(b) may be engaged if the accused was arrested or detained and wasn’t properly told about, or given a reasonable chance to use, the right to counsel.
If a Charter breach is established, the court may exclude the evidence under section 24(2). Exclusion is possible but not automatic. Our article on what happens when police breach your rights explains how courts decide.
Can You Sue Someone for Recording You Without Permission?
In many cases, yes. You can bring a civil claim, and it runs separately from anything the police or the Crown may do.
In Jones v Tsige, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognised the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. A tort is a civil wrong that one person can sue another over. The claim requires intentional or reckless conduct; an invasion, without lawful justification, of the claimant’s private affairs or concerns; and an intrusion that a reasonable person would regard as highly offensive and as causing distress, humiliation, or anguish. The claimant doesn’t need to prove financial loss, but the intrusion must be deliberate and significant. Without financial loss, damages are modest, capped at around $20,000.
Other provinces take different routes. British Columbia’s Privacy Act makes violating someone’s privacy a statutory tort, and its Intimate Images Protection Act lets people seek removal orders and damages, including through the Civil Resolution Tribunal. Quebec protects privacy through its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Code of Québec. Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act governs how private-sector organisations collect, use and disclose personal information, including some workplace recordings.
A civil claim and a criminal complaint answer to different decision-makers. Police investigate and may lay a charge, and the Crown decides whether and how to prosecute. A civil claim belongs to the affected person, who starts the proceeding and must prove it on the civil standard.
Pyzer Criminal Lawyers defends criminal charges. A civil privacy claim requires a separate retainer and falls under a different area of practice, so anyone considering that route should speak with a lawyer who practises civil litigation.
Speak With a Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyer About a Recording Charge
No general rule decides a recording charge. What the device shows, how police obtained it, and the circumstances around the recording all affect the outcome. Those details sit in the disclosure, not on a page like this one. No lawyer can tell you where your case stands before reading it.
Pyzer Criminal Lawyers defends charges under sections 162, 162.1, 184, and 264 of the Criminal Code across Toronto, the GTA, and nearby cities, including Mississauga, Brampton, Scarborough, Newmarket, Oshawa, Hamilton, and Barrie. Consultations are free, confidential and carry no obligation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Ontario a One-Party Consent Province?
Yes. The one-party consent rule comes from the Criminal Code, a federal law, so it applies in Ontario and across Canada. How it applies still depends on the facts of the particular conversation. The civil side is different. Ontario recognises intrusion upon seclusion through its courts, while some provinces have privacy statutes that create their own claims. Anyone considering a civil claim should get advice in the province where the events happened.
Can I Record a Conversation With My Boss Without Telling Them?
Under the Criminal Code, yes, if you’re part of the conversation. One-party consent covers it. The workplace consequences are a separate question. A secret recording may breach workplace policy and could lead to discipline or termination, so check your employer’s policies first.
Which Criminal Code Section Covers Recording Without Consent?
It depends on what was recorded. Section 184 covers intercepting private conversations. Section 162 covers voyeurism, meaning secret visual recording where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Section 162.1 covers sharing intimate images without consent. Section 264 may apply where recording forms part of criminal harassment.
Is a Lawful Recording Always Useful as Evidence?
No. Whether making the recording was an offence is one question. Whether a court will admit it, and how much weight a judge gives it, is another. Employment policies, professional obligations and family law proceedings each bring their own considerations, and a recording that broke no criminal law can still cause a person difficulty in those settings.
Can I Be Sued If I Recorded a Conversation I Took Part In?
Possibly. Section 184(2)(a) answers whether recording the conversation was an offence. It doesn’t cover what you do with the recording afterwards. Depending on the facts, publishing or circulating a lawfully made recording may support a civil claim, or breach a contract, employment, professional or confidentiality obligation.
What Should I Do If Someone Recorded Me Without Consent?
Write down what happened while it’s fresh, and keep any evidence you have, including messages, links or screenshots. You can report the matter to the police, who decide whether to investigate and lay a charge. The Crown then decides whether to prosecute. A civil claim is a separate route that you control, so it’s worth speaking with a civil litigation lawyer about that option.
What If the Recording Happened Before 18 July 2026?
The Protecting Victims Act isn’t retroactive. Courts prosecute conduct alleged to have occurred before its provisions took effect under the law in force at the time. That includes the former five-year maximums for voyeurism and intimate-image distribution. No charge is available under section 162.1(1.1) for a threat alleged to predate that section. Where a maximum penalty changed between the alleged offence and sentencing, section 11(i) of the Charter entitles the accused to the lesser punishment.
Should I Speak to Police Before Getting Legal Advice?
If you’re arrested or detained, section 10(b) of the Charter gives you the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, and to be told about that right. If you haven’t been detained, you can still get legal advice before deciding whether to take part in a voluntary police interview. In recording cases, questions about purpose, knowledge and consent can go straight to the elements the Crown would have to prove. Speaking with a lawyer first costs nothing, and our first consultation is free.
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.
