SELECTED CASE LAW
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.” 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. 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)
 2009 BCPC 381 at para 34.
 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