Privacy Torts in Ontario: Intrusion Upon Seclusion and Public Disclosure of Private Facts

Someone accessed your private banking records. A former partner shared intimate images without your consent. A colleague disclosed your medical history to your employer. These situations may not involve defamation — the information might even be true — but they still feel profoundly wrong. Ontario courts have responded by recognizing privacy torts: civil wrongs that exist to protect a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, independent of whether the information disclosed was false.

This article explains the two most significant privacy torts recognized in Ontario — intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts — and what you need to establish each claim.

Why Privacy Torts Are Distinct from Defamation

Defamation law requires a false statement. Privacy torts do not. You can have a strong privacy claim even where:

• The information disclosed was completely true.
• The disclosure did not damage your reputation in the community's eyes.
• The person who violated your privacy never made any public "statement" about you in the traditional sense.

The harm protected by privacy torts is the violation of your autonomy, dignity, and control over your own personal information.

Intrusion Upon Seclusion

What It Is

Ontario courts have recognized intrusion upon seclusion as a tort that protects a person's right to be free from deliberate and unjustified invasions into their private affairs or concerns.

The leading framework in Ontario requires a plaintiff to establish:

1. The defendant's conduct was intentional or reckless. Accidental access is generally not enough — the defendant must have deliberately or recklessly intruded.

1. The defendant intruded upon a matter in which the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Not every area of life is private. Courts consider social norms, context, and reasonable expectations. Private financial records, medical information, personal communications, home interiors, and intimate personal life are well within the zone of privacy.

1. The intrusion would be regarded as highly offensive to a reasonable person. This is an objective test — not every unwanted prying meets the standard, but deliberate access to financial records, private messages, medical history, or personal relationships typically does.

Common Examples

• Hacking or unauthorized access to email, bank accounts, or cloud storage.
• A landlord installing surveillance cameras in a tenant's private living areas.
• An employer secretly monitoring an employee's personal (not work) communications.
• A former partner accessing joint accounts after a relationship ends to track spending and activities.
• An unauthorized person viewing medical, tax, or legal records.

Damages for Intrusion Upon Seclusion

Courts have awarded general damages for intrusion upon seclusion even without proof of specific financial loss. As of writing, Ontario courts have recognized that damages in these cases can be awarded to vindicate the plaintiff's privacy interest and reflect the seriousness of the invasion — verify the current range of awards by discussing with a lawyer, as the law in this area continues to develop.

Factors affecting the quantum include:

• The sensitivity of the information accessed.
• Whether the defendant acted for personal gain or malice.
• The duration and extent of the intrusion.
• Whether the information was further disclosed to others.

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

What It Is

The second privacy tort — public disclosure of private facts — addresses a different harm: not the act of accessing private information, but the act of broadcasting it. This tort is in a more formative state in Ontario courts compared to intrusion upon seclusion, but its parameters are developing.

The elements courts have considered include:

1. The defendant publicized a matter concerning the plaintiff's private life.

• "Private life" means information outside what the plaintiff has voluntarily shared publicly.
• Mere disclosure to one person may not be sufficient — there should be some degree of broad communication.

1. The matter publicized is one that a reasonable person would find highly offensive to have disclosed.

• Medical conditions, sexual orientation (if not publicly disclosed), financial struggles, personal communications, intimate images, and similar sensitive matters qualify.
• Information already in the public domain does not.

1. The matter is not of legitimate public concern.

• This creates a tension between privacy and free expression. Matters of genuine public interest — the health of a world leader, the finances of a public official in their official capacity — may override the private interest. But prurient curiosity is not a public interest.

Common Examples

• Sharing intimate images of a former partner without consent (sometimes called "revenge porn").
• Disclosing someone's HIV-positive status to their employer or community.
• Publishing a person's therapy notes, mental-health diagnoses, or addiction history.
• Sharing private text messages or emails that reveal deeply personal matters.
• Revealing a family member's immigration status to people with no need to know.

Note on intimate images: Ontario also has specific statutory remedies for non-consensual distribution of intimate images under the Intimate Images and Cyber-violence Act. If intimate images were shared without your consent, both statutory and common-law remedies may be available — speak with a lawyer about all available paths.

Relationship Between Privacy Torts and PIPEDA / Provincial Privacy Law

Ontario residents are also protected by federal and provincial privacy legislation. Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) governs how organizations collect, use, and disclose personal information in commercial activities. Complaints about organizations (not individuals) that mishandle your data can be made to the federal Privacy Commissioner.

Civil litigation and regulatory complaints are not mutually exclusive. You may pursue both depending on who violated your privacy and how.

Frequently asked questions