Is It Illegal to Record Someone Without Consent in Canada?

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), read together with section 183.1, creates what is commonly called the one-party consent rule: for the purposes of Part VI of the Criminal Code, the consent of one originator or intended recipient of a private communication is generally sufficient.

●       Section 162 defines voyeurism as surreptitious observation or recording of a person in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

●       R v Jarvis established that a person can retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public or semi-public place.

●       The Protecting Victims Act received Royal Assent on June 18, 2026, and most of its provisions came into force on July 18, 2026. It expanded the intimate-image offences and amended voyeurism and criminal harassment provisions.

●       Jones v Tsige recognised that in Ontario, a person can sue for serious invasions of privacy. This is separate from the criminal process, meaning you may be able to bring a civil lawsuit even if police are investigating or criminal charges are being pursued.

●       The Criminal Code applies in every province. Civil privacy claims differ province to province.

Pyzer Criminal Lawyers defends criminal charges in Toronto and across the Greater Toronto Area. This article explains how Canadian law treats recording without consent.

Which Criminal Code Sections Apply to Recording Without Consent?

Canadian law does not ban all recording made without consent. Several Criminal Code provisions may apply, and each addresses different conduct.

●       Section 184 governs the interception of private communications and generally asks whether an originator or intended recipient consented to the interception.

●       Section 193 may prohibit knowingly using or disclosing a private communication that was intercepted without the consent of an originator or intended recipient, subject to statutory exceptions.

●       Section 162.1 governs publishing, distributing, transmitting, selling, advertising or otherwise making an intimate image available without consent. Since July 2026, it also covers certain realistic AI-generated or digitally altered intimate images and threats to distribute an intimate image.

One set of facts can engage more than one provision, and a recording that is lawful under one section can still be an offence under another.

What Is the One-Party Consent Rule for Recording Conversations?

Section 184(1) of the Criminal Code states that every person who knowingly intercepts a private communication by means of an electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device commits an offence.

A “private communication” is generally a communication made in circumstances in which its originator reasonably expects that it will not be intercepted by anyone other than its intended recipient.

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 by any one of them is sufficient consent for Part VI of the Criminal Code.

Read together, those provisions generally mean that a participant may record their own conversation without informing the other participants. A person who is not participating may also be permitted to record if an originator or intended recipient consents, or if another statutory exception or judicial authorisation applies.

The central question is consent from an originator or intended recipient—not who owns the recording device or what subject the participants discussed. Other criminal, civil, employment or professional rules may still govern how the recording is used.

How Did R v Jarvis Change the Law on Recording in Public?

This section states the holding in R v Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10. Counsel to confirm the citation and the characterisation before publication. The decision was not read during drafting.

For years, people assumed that a person standing in a public place gave up any expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected that assumption in R v Jarvis, a case involving a teacher who used a camera concealed in a pen to record students at a school.

The Court held that privacy is contextual and is not an all-or-nothing concept. A person who can be seen by others may still reasonably expect not to be recorded in a particular manner or for a particular purpose.

Courts now weigh several factors together:

●       the location itself

●       whether the person was merely observed or was recorded

●       whether the person was aware of or consented to the particular observation or recording

●       the relationship between the person recording and the person recorded

●       what the recording captured, and how

●       the purpose behind the recording

●       any rules or policies governing the setting

●       the personal attributes of the person recorded, such as whether they were a child or young person

The list is not exhaustive, and no single factor automatically decides the case. Filming in public did not become automatically unlawful; the point is that location alone does not answer whether a reasonable expectation of privacy existed.

Pyzer Criminal Lawyers offers a free case evaluation, available 24 hours a day.

Charged with a recording or voyeurism offence?

Call USget a free consultation

Quick Reference: When Is Recording Legal in Canada?

 What Is Voyeurism Under Section 162?

Parliament added the voyeurism offence to the Criminal Code in 2005 to address the growing use of video cameras, mobile phones and surveillance systems.

Section 162(1) applies where a person surreptitiously observes or makes a visual recording of someone who is in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy and at least one of the following applies:

(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity;

(b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or

(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.

Surreptitiously means done secretly, in a way the person recorded is not 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.

Why Paragraph (c) Reaches Furthest

A change room and a washroom are the clearest examples of places covered by paragraph (a). Paragraph (c) is not limited to those locations or to a person being undressed. A fully clothed person in an ordinary or public place may still be the subject of voyeurism if the observation or visual recording was surreptitious, was made for a sexual purpose and occurred in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

A secret recording of a sexual encounter may also fall under section 162 where all of the offence’s elements are present. Consent to the activity does not, by itself, amount to consent to being recorded.

Sharing a Recording Is a Separate Offence

Section 162(4) creates a second offence. A person commits that offence 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.

A person who never operated a camera can therefore face a charge over what they did with the footage afterwards.

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 came into force on 18 July 2026. Five changes are particularly relevant to recording cases.

●       Section 162 now expressly includes circumstances involving a person who is “nearly nude,” and its language 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 using artificial intelligence that depicts an identifiable person in an intimate state and is likely to be mistaken for an actual visual 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 depicted person would not consent, or was reckless about consent. The offence does not require proof that the image was ultimately shared or that the accused demanded something in return.

●       The maximum sentence on indictment for voyeurism and distributing a voyeuristic recording increased from five to 10 years. The general maximum for publishing or distributing an intimate image without consent also increased to 10 years, with a 14-year maximum in the special circumstances specified in section 162.1(1)(a)(ii).

●       The criminal-harassment test changed. The Crown no longer has to prove that the complainant actually feared for their safety. It must instead prove, among the other elements, that the conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the complainant to believe that their safety, or the safety of someone known to them, was threatened. Section 264(2)(a.1) now expressly includes monitoring another person’s location, movements, actions, or social interactions.

Can Someone Record You at Home, at Work or at School?

Shared Housing and Rental Properties

A camera installed in a shared kitchen, hallway or living room raises two separate questions, and the audio is often the sharper one.

A shared kitchen is not 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 specified states or activities and requires the recording to target that state or activity. Paragraph (c) requires a sexual purpose. Every branch also requires a surreptitious observation or visual recording and circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Depending on the facts, the video may therefore fall outside section 162.

The audio may engage section 184(1) if it captures a private communication and no originator or intended recipient consented to the interception. The fact that a camera was installed in a shared home does not, by itself, determine whether the captured conversation was a private communication.

Workplaces and Employer-Issued Devices

An employer representative who participates in a conversation may generally consent to recording it under sections 184(2)(a) and 183.1. That does not necessarily resolve the employer’s obligations under privacy, employment, contractual or professional rules.

Monitoring software on a company device sits 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 therefore carries more weight than who paid for the hardware.

A GPS tracker records location data rather than the contents of a communication, so section 184 may not apply if the device records location only. Location monitoring may nevertheless form part of criminal harassment under section 264 where all the elements of that offence are proved. Other criminal, civil, employment, and privacy rules may also apply.

Privacy obligations may arise under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act where it applies. PIPEDA generally governs private-sector organisations that collect, use, or disclose personal information during commercial activities. Its employment provisions generally apply to employees of federally regulated businesses, not every Ontario workplace.

Schools

R. v. Jarvis arose in a school and provides the governing contextual framework. Students do not lose every reasonable expectation of privacy simply by attending school. The nature of the recording, the student’s awareness, school policies, the relationship between the parties, and the student’s age may all matter. The decision does not mean that every recording made in a classroom or on school property is unlawful.

What Are the Penalties for Recording and Voyeurism Offences?

You have been charged. You have not been convicted.

The Crown carries the burden of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt, and a court determines any sentence on the facts before it. The figures below are the maximums Parliament set, not typical outcomes, and no maximum tells a person what will happen in their own 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 applicable to summary-conviction offences. The Crown’s election depends on the circumstances and does not determine guilt.

 Orders a Court May Add

Section 162.2 gives a court a further power in intimate-image cases. When an offender is convicted, or conditionally discharged under section 730 of an offence under section 162.1, the court may prohibit the offender from using the Internet or another digital network except in accordance with conditions or exemptions set by the court. Breaching the order is a separate offence.

Pyzer Criminal Lawyers has defended criminal charges in Toronto since 2002. Consultations are free, confidential and carry no obligation.

Speak with a criminal defence lawyer

Call USget a free consultation

What Defences Apply to Recording and Voyeurism Charges?

The available 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

Every branch of section 162(1) requires circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, so the offence is not made out where the circumstances do not support one. The factors set out in R v Jarvis cut in both directions.

The Recording Was Not Surreptitious

Secrecy is an element, not a detail. Evidence that a camera was visible, notice was posted or the recording was made openly may undermine proof that it was surreptitious. None of those facts automatically decides the issue, however; the court must consider what the person knew and all 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 purpose is proved by inference from surrounding circumstances. What the device captured, how it was positioned, and what else is on it all bear on that inference. A sexual purpose is not required for the alternative forms of voyeurism described in paragraphs 162(1)(a) and (b).

A Participant Consented to the Interception

For a section 184 charge, the Crown must address the consent exception in section 184(2)(a). A participant who was an originator or intended recipient may generally consent to the interception, and section 183.1 makes one person’s consent sufficient for Part VI. A non-participant may also rely on consent from an originator or intended recipient. Participation is therefore important, but it is consent, not physical control of the device, that governs this exception.

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 do not extend beyond what serves the public good.

Section 162(7) makes it a question of law whether the conduct served the public good and whether there is evidence that it went beyond the public good. Whether the conduct actually extended beyond what served the public good is a question of fact. The accused’s motives are irrelevant to that particular defence, but the Crown must still prove every element of the charged offence.

Charter Challenges to Device Searches

Recording cases often depend on evidence obtained from phones, cameras and computers. The manner in which police seized and searched a device may raise section 8 Charter issues. Section 10(b) may also be engaged if the accused was arrested or detained and was not properly informed of or given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to counsel. If a Charter breach is established, exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) is possible but not automatic.

Can You Sue Someone for Recording You Without Permission?

Yes, in many cases, a civil claim is available, and it proceeds 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. Proof of economic loss is not required, but the intrusion must be deliberate and significant.

A civil claim and a criminal complaint answer to different decision-makers. Police investigate and may lay a charge, while the Crown determines 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 is a different retainer and a different area of practice, so a person considering that route should speak with counsel who practises civil litigation.

Consult a Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyer Today

No general rule decides a recording charge. What a device shows, how police obtained it, and the circumstances surrounding the recording will each bear on the result, and those details sit in the disclosure rather than on a page like this one. No lawyer can tell a person where their own case stands before reading it.

Pyzer Criminal Lawyers defends charges under sections 162, 162.1, and 184 of the Criminal Code throughout Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area, including Mississauga, Brampton, Scarborough, Vaughan, and Oshawa.

Call (416) 658-1818, available 24 hours a day, or request a free case evaluation. Consultations are confidential and carry no obligation.

Call USget a free consultation

Frequently Asked Questions 

Does the one-party consent rule apply outside Ontario?

Yes. The Criminal Code is federal legislation, so the same participant-consent provisions apply throughout Canada. Their application still depends on the facts of the particular communication.  The civil side differs: Ontario recognises intrusion upon seclusion through its courts, while some provinces have privacy statutes creating their own claims. A person considering a civil claim should get advice in the province where the events happened.

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 what 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) addresses whether recording the conversation was an offence, not what the person does with the recording afterwards. Depending on the facts, publishing or circulating a lawfully made recording may support a civil claim or breach a contractual, employment, professional or confidentiality obligation.

What if the recording happened before July 18, 2026?

The Protecting Victims Act is not retroactive. Conduct alleged to have occurred before its provisions came into force is prosecuted under the law as it read at the time, including the former five-year maximums for voyeurism and intimate-image distribution, and 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 a person is arrested or detained, section 10(b) of the Charter gives them the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right. A person who has not been detained may still obtain legal advice before deciding whether to participate in a voluntary police interview. In recording cases, questions about purpose, knowledge, and consent may go directly to elements the Crown would have to prove. Speaking with counsel first costs nothing here.

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.