SELECTED CASE LAW
ONTARIO:
2014 ONSC 344
In 2014 ONSC 344, Mr. W used a hidden camera to surreptitiously film his 15-year-old step-daughter. The camera transmitted the image wirelessly and was caught on a contractor’s wire-less back up cam as he was driving past the house for work. At one point the images being transmitted included a video of a girl changing in her bedroom and the contractor told some-one in the neighbourhood, who reported it to the police. The police found two hidden cameras in the home. Both were installed in clock radios, one was pointed at his stepdaughter’s bed and one at the bed in the master bedroom. The police did not find the receiving computer or device that would capture the images, however. The court found that:
[The trial judge] found that the appellant surreptitiously placed the hidden camera in his stepdaughter’s bedroom to transmit images of her for sexual purposes. The hidden camera was placed in a strategic location in her bedroom; it was connected to an electrical outlet; and, the unit was turned on. The hidden camera did, in. fact, transmit at least one image of her in the nude observed by Mr. Ehlers. The only “step” left for the Crown to have proven for the substantive offence was evidence that the appellant had observed a transmission from that hidden camera.
[…]
The trial judge was entitled to and did make a “common sense” determination on where on the continuum the appellant’s conduct fell and there was evidence for him to make the determination that he did. There was no error in the trial judge’s reasoning.[1]
Mr. W was sentenced to 90 days, served intermittently, 3 years of probation and his appeal was dismissed.
Also see: 2011 ONCJ 656 (Trial)
[1] 2014 ONSC 344 at para 23, 26.
Criminal Offence(s): Voyeurism