May 29, 2018
Counsel Molly Reynolds has spoken with Law Times regarding the Supreme Court of Canada decision on a recent electronic privacy case.
This article discusses R. v. Marakah and its companion case R. v. Jones, in which "the country’s highest court found that the accused men had a reasonable expectation of privacy and police couldn’t access their texts without the proper authority."
In Marakah, that expectation of privacy was extended to messages found on someone else’s phone.
Because of the relatively new nature of such cases in the digital age, jurisprudence to refer to is limited; however, there are groundbreaking cases that are beginning to provide more clarity on some of these issues, including Jane Doe 464533 v. N.D., where a man was ordered to pay damages for posting a sexually explicit video of his former girlfriend to a porn site without her consent. Molly is part of the team representing Doe.
Molly spoke to Law Times about the emerging area of civil litigation that porn cases such as Doe are falling under and said a common argument made is that the receiver of an intimate image can do with it what they like. She added that a person has an expectation of privacy even when the information is transferred to the recipient.
“Getting guidance from the Supreme Court on this expectation of privacy not being entirely removed once you’ve sent something electronically will really reinforce that and hopefully will help develop the law in the civil context there,” Molly said.
For more information regarding Torys' Privacy work, head to its practice page.