SELECTED CASE LAW

BRITISH COLUMBIA:

2009 BCPC 381

In 2009 BCPC 381, Mr. H, a chef and manager of a restaurant, installed a camera in a dry storage room without telling his employees and recorded a female employee changing. The cam-era was connected to Mr. H’s desktop computer, and Mr. H stored a video of his female employee changing into her uniform in a folder labelled “fun.wmv.” The recording was later dis-covered by a male employee, who reported it to the police.

At trial, the court held that although the multi-purpose storage room was sometimes used as a change-room, it was not clearly “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.”[1] The court found that the room was only used as a change-room, “as a matter of convenience and was not designed for it” and further noted that the room did not have a lock.[2] The court concluded that one of the requirements (“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”) for proving voyeurism was not made out and H was acquitted.

Also see: R v Hamilton, 2009 BCPC 272 (Voir Dire)



[1] 2009 BCPC 381 at para 34.
[2] As the court further writes, “None of the male employees removed their underwear when changing into their uni-form and did not expect the complainant to do so […] The complainant sometimes did not wear undergarments at work”: 2009 BCPC 381 at para 33.

 

Criminal Offence(s): Voyeurism