Not any more.
In the Supreme Court of Canada case of Ryan Jarvis, the Supreme Court of Canada said that it depends on the privacy expectations of the subject, the way in which the pictures are taken, and the purpose of taking the pictures.
“ Circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy for the purposes of s. 162(1) of the Criminal Code are circumstances in which a person would reasonably expect not to be the subject of the type of observation or recording that in fact occurred. The inquiry should take into account the entire context in which the impugned observation or recording took place. Relevant considerations may include (1) the location the person was in when she was observed or recorded, (2) the nature of the impugned conduct (whether it consisted of observation or recording), (3) awareness of or consent to potential observation or recording, (4) the manner in which the observation or recording was done, (5) the subject matter or content of the observation or recording, (6) any rules, regulations or policies that governed the observation or recording in question, (7) the relationship between the person who was observed or recorded and the person who did the observing or recording, (8) the purpose for which the observation or recording was done, and (9) the personal attributes of the person who was observed or recorded. This list of considerations is not exhaustive and not every consideration will be relevant in every case.”
The case involved a high school teacher who secretively took pictures and video of his clothed students, at the school, using a pen camera. (The students were clothed, but some shots were of cleavage, others of chest areas.) Everyone would likely agree he is a creepy perv who should be fired. What was at issue was whether his behaviour violated the voyeurism section in Canada’s Criminal Code. The Ontario Court of Appeal said it did not, holding that the students did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the school. It pointed to the fact that there were security cameras around the school as one indication of that. The Supreme Court of Canada was clear that the presence of cameras in the school for surveillance did not mean there was no expectation of privacy.
It introduces a lot of uncertainty into the area. What is surreptitious, for one. Spy cameras are obvious. What about hipshots? Long telephoto lenses? Framing without the camera at eye-level; quickly raising the camera to shoot, and then bringing it back down?
Although it concerned voyeurism, where sexual purpose is an element, it is likely that its analysis of privacy will be extended to other areas.
Definitely not light reading, but for those interested, the case is here:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17515/index.do
