Back to Bills

New Right to Sue for Privacy Invasions

Full Title:
Private Data Protection Act

Summary#

  • This bill creates a clear right to sue someone for invading your privacy in Nova Scotia.

  • You can bring a case even if you cannot show financial loss.

  • It explains when privacy is protected, gives examples like eavesdropping and surveillance, and sets limits and exceptions.

  • Key points:

    • A person who wilfully violates someone’s privacy without a legal right can be sued.
    • What counts as “private” depends on what is reasonable in the situation and the parties’ relationship.
    • Eavesdropping and surveillance can be privacy violations, even without trespassing.
    • Consent, lawful defense of people or property, court orders, and certain police or public officer work are exceptions.
    • Publishing matters in the public interest, fair comment, or legally privileged reporting is not a privacy violation, but getting the material by invading privacy still is.
    • Only the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia can hear these cases.
    • If the person whose privacy was invaded dies, the claim ends and cannot be brought or continued.

What it means for you#

  • Individuals

    • You can sue someone who wilfully invades your privacy, even if you did not lose money.
    • Your level of privacy depends on the setting. You have more at home than in a public place.
    • Eavesdropping on your calls, secretly recording you, or spying with cameras may be violations.
    • If you agreed to the act, or it was done under a valid court order or law, it is not a violation.
    • If you die before starting or finishing a case, your family cannot pursue this claim on your behalf.

  • Homeowners and tenants

    • Doorbell or security cameras that reasonably cover your property are more likely to be okay.
    • Pointing cameras into a neighbour’s home or yard in a targeted way could expose you to a lawsuit.

  • Workers and employers

    • Employers should avoid secret monitoring. Monitoring that is reasonable, explained to staff, and for a lawful purpose is less likely to be a problem.
    • Co-workers who snoop (for example, reading private messages or recording without consent) could face lawsuits.

  • Businesses and organizations

    • Build clear privacy practices. Get consent where needed and avoid unnecessary surveillance.
    • Even if a story about a customer is newsworthy, using invasive or secret methods to get it can still be unlawful.

  • Journalists and media

    • Publishing matters of public interest or fair comment is protected.
    • Legal privileges that apply in defamation law also protect some publications.
    • However, using intrusive methods to obtain information can still lead to a privacy lawsuit.

  • Law enforcement and public officers

    • Actions to prevent or investigate crimes, including provincial offences, are protected if they are not excessive and do not involve trespass, and are done in the course of duty.

  • Everyone going to court

    • These cases must be filed in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, which can be more formal and costly than small claims or lower courts.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

  • Creates a simple, direct way for people to protect their privacy.
  • Deters snooping and secret surveillance by making it easier to sue, even without proving money loss.
  • Uses a common-sense standard (what is reasonable) that can fit many real-life situations.
  • Keeps room for journalism and public interest reporting, while discouraging invasive newsgathering.
  • Supports police and public officers doing their jobs, with safeguards against excessive actions.

Opponents' View#

  • “Reasonable in the circumstances” is vague and could lead to uncertainty and more lawsuits.
  • Requiring cases to go to the Supreme Court may be costly and put justice out of reach for many people.
  • Could chill reporting or workplace practices, because people may fear being sued even when acting in good faith.
  • May invite nuisance suits, since no proof of financial harm is needed.
  • On the other hand, some may say it is too weak because it targets only wilful acts, leaving out careless or negligent privacy breaches.