SELECTED CASE LAW
In 2017 ONCJ 58, Mr. M, a 47-year-old actor, placed a BlueRay Player equipped with a hidden camera in his living room which he had constant access to via an internet transmission. He later rented that apartment to two women in their twenties, despite his lease forbidding her rent out the space. Mr. M also did not inform the women of the hidden camera. At trial, he claimed that he installed the camera for security purposes. However, his text messages to the tenants alerted them to the fact that he was somehow watching them from inside the apartment and one of the tenants discovered the camera. The court stated:
Does the lawful enjoyment of residential premises include a right to be free of surreptitious surveillance, or as Mr. Manoux called it a nannycam, a security camera hidden in the middle of the living space, set up to be available to his remote viewing at any time? Can Mr. Manoux claim an honest belief in a state of fact, which amounts to a colour of right? In my view the answer is clearly no, as the right to privacy is nowhere as significant as in one’s home.
He was not charged with voyeurism offences but was convicted with two counts of mischief to private property.
 2017 ONCJ 58 at para 54.
Criminal Offence(s): Voyeurism