Now having read the Quebec law and the actual Supreme Court of Canada decision mentioned in the Montreal Mirror article, I take back my off-the-cuff snide remark earlier on in this thread.
This is more an example of: (1) a well-intentioned law can have unintended consequences; and, (2) the lengths to which the rest of Canada will go to avoid having Quebec worry that its traditions and laws are being usurped.
The problem began with Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which says, among other things, that:
"Every person is the possessor of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association...Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation...Every person has a right to respect for his private life."
Well, that sounds awful nice when you read it. Somehow, a local Quebec judge got hold of that language and took it to the (il)logical extreme. The appellate courts let the decision stand, in part, because of a liberal reading of Quebec law but in part also because the decision was based on specific facts and trial judges are given a lot of discretion in deciding fact-based cases. An appellate court is reluctant to overturn a decision just because it disagrees with the trial judge's interpretation of facts. The appellate court has to find that the trial judge "abused" his/her "discretion" if they're going to overturn that judge's decision.
The only piece of good news about the Quebec law is that even if you've taken the photo, and you've published it, and the person was recognizable, and they didn't give permission, that person still has to show some type of damage or injury NOT from the taking of the photo but the publication of the photo. So, if they became rich from it, or garnered new respect they'd never enjoyed before, they'd have no grounds to sue. It's a regular private lawsuit where they have to show liability, causation and damages. It's nothing criminal or anything like that. Cold comfort when all you want to do is visit the place and have some snaps showing the trip.
Some on this thread have done a bit of French-bashing. While Quebec is far away from France and has nothing to do with France, Quebec law is nevertheless consciously affected by French law and French interpretatons of the civil law. The French have nothing to do with causing Quebec to do this of course, and can't be blamed for how Quebec chooses to interpret French law.
As for the Supreme Court of Canada going too far to show deference for Quebec laws, that's just my subjective opinion. In my view, it's something that Canadian politicians do too much of generally. But I will also say that I've read plenty of SCC decisions that dealt with Quebec law and, in my subjective personal opinion, the SCC shows undue deference to Quebec laws and traditions even when objectively they are objectionable; a deference that it does not show when it's commenting on the laws of other provinces.
