EMPLOYMENT LAW CONFERENCE 2020 PAPER 3.1 ALL EYES ON YOU: PRIVACY IN THE WORKPLACE A REVIEW OF THE LAW AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS These materials were prepared by Kristen Woo and Matthew Larsen of Fasken and Fiona H. McFarlane of Kent Employment Law, who were assisted by Marissa Di Lorenzo (articled student at Fasken), with editing by Wendy Woloshyn, Kent Employment Law, for the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, September 2020. © Kristen Woo, Fiona H. McFarlane and Matthew Larson - 2 - ALL EYES ON YOU: PRIVACY IN THE WORKPLACE A REVIEW OF THE LAW AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3 II. Evolution of the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy ................................................................. 4 A. Supreme Court of Canada Decisions .................................................................................................. 7 1. Cole .................................................................................................................................................. 7 2. Simpson............................................................................................................................................ 7 3. Jarvis ................................................................................................................................................ 8 III. The Tort of “Intrusion Upon Seclusion” ................................................................................ 10 IV. The Tort of “Publicity Which Places a Person in a False Light” .......................................... 10 A. The Ontario Case of Yenovkian v. Gulian ........................................................................................ 10 B. Applicability in British Columbia ..................................................................................................... 14 V. Employee Surveillance and Monitoring ................................................................................. 14 A. PIPA .................................................................................................................................................. 14 B. Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner Guidance and Interpretation......................... 15 1. Video Surveillance (Teck Coal Limited) ....................................................................................... 16 2. Monitoring Software (District of Saanich) .................................................................................... 17 3. GPS Tracking Devices (Schindler Elevator, KONE and TKE) ..................................................... 19 C. Labour Arbitration ............................................................................................................................. 20 1. Vernon Professional Firefighters Assn. ......................................................................................... 20 D. Key Takeaways .................................................................................................................................. 22 VI. Privacy and the Admissibility in Litigation of Evidence....................................................... 23 A. OIPC ................................................................................................................................................. 23 B. British Columbia Courts .................................................................................................................... 23 1. Richardson v. Davis Wire Industries ............................................................................................. 23 2. Treatment of Richardson ................................................................................................................ 25 3. Non-Employment Law Decisions .................................................................................................. 25 4. Charter Values ............................................................................................................................... 26 5. Conclusion: British Columbia Courts ............................................................................................ 27 C. British Columbia Workplace Tribunals ............................................................................................ 28 1. Administrative Tribunals Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 45 ......................................................................... 28 2. BC Human Rights Tribunal ........................................................................................................... 28 - 3 - 3. BC Labour Relations Board ........................................................................................................... 29 4. BC Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal ................................................................................ 30 5. BC Employment Standards Tribunal ............................................................................................. 31 6. Conclusion: British Columbia Workplace Tribunals ..................................................................... 31 D. British Columbia Labour Arbitration ................................................................................................ 31 1. Arbitral Case Law .......................................................................................................................... 32 2. Conclusion: British Columbia Labour Arbitration ......................................................................... 32 VII. Final Thoughts ...................................................................................................................... 33 APPENDIX - RELEVANT SECTIONS OF PIPA ..................................................................... 34 I. Introduction We live in a world in which privacy is a hot topic. Employers have access to more technologies than ever before to monitor employees’ performance and conduct in the workplace. Employees’ privacy rights are often pitted against an employer’s right to manage their workforce, leaving the courts and other decision makers to grapple with balancing these conflicting interests in light of endless technological advancements and changing attitudes on what privacy means in a digital age. This paper discusses the following topics, with a focus on provincial private-sector privacy laws in British Columbia: evolution of the reasonable expectation of privacy, the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, the tort of “publicity which places a person in a false light”, employee surveillance and monitoring, and privacy and the admissibility in litigation of evidence obtained in contravention of an individual’s privacy rights. - 4 - II. Evolution of the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy The Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 373 establishes the statutory tort of invasion of privacy in British Columbia. Section 1 states: (1) It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person, wilfully and without a claim of right, to violate the privacy of another. (2) The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled in a situation or in relation to a matter is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others. (3) In determining whether the act or conduct of a person is a violation of another's privacy, regard must be given to the nature, incidence and occasion of the act or conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties. (4) Without limiting subsections (1) to (3), privacy may be violated by eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass. Section 1 contains a few noteworthy elements. First, the tort is actionable without proof of damage, meaning that a plaintiff can commence an action without having suffered any actual loss or damages, such as termination of employment. Therefore, where the plaintiff has suffered no pecuniary loss, only “symbolic” or “moral” damages may be appropriate to acknowledge the wrong done. Damage awards under the Privacy Act have generally ranged from $5,000 to $35,000, although there have been some cases in which smaller and larger amounts of damages were awarded. Second, the analysis of whether there has been an invasion of privacy relies heavily on context, and specifically, “the nature, incidence and occasion of the act or conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties” and what is “reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others”. The absence of a strict legal test for an invasion of privacy may assist both plaintiffs and defendants in crafting arguments to suit their circumstances. As stated by Justice Sharpe of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 (“Jones v. Tsige”), the legislature in British Columbia “proclaimed a sweeping right to privacy and left it to the courts to define the contours of that right” (para. 54). By virtue of subsection 1(2), the concept of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” is codified within Section 1 of the Privacy Act, and its evolution can be traced throughout the case law in British Columbia. Below is a table that summarizes a selection of decisions in British Columbia concerning the statutory tort of invasion of privacy and each decision’s potential relevance to employer-employee relationships (or its relevance to the law generally): - 5 - Case Summary Relevance to Employer-Employee