Video recording has become a regular part of modern life. Phones, doorbell cameras, smart home devices, and workplace surveillance capture millions of moments every day. Most Canadians record or appear in recordings without thinking twice. But when someone feels uncomfortable or believes their privacy has been violated, one question quickly arises:
Is it illegal to record someone without their consent in Canada?
The answer depends entirely on where the recording occurs, how it is done, and for what purpose .
Canada does not ban all non-consensual recordings. However, several Criminal Code provisions — including criminal harassment, intimidation, and voyeurism — can make recording without consent a serious offence.
Importantly, a recording that seems legal in public may be criminal if it becomes threatening, persistent, sexually motivated, or targeted at a person with a reasonable expectation of privacy. With decades of experience defending privacy-related and sexual offence allegations, the lawyers at Mass Tsang LLP understand how quickly an innocent recording can turn into a criminal investigation.
As Managing Partner, Jeff Mass explains:
“People often assume that if they’re in public, anything goes. But Canadian law balances freedom of expression with privacy and safety. Context determines when a recording crosses the line.”
The legality of recording someone without their consent depends heavily on whether the person is in a public space or in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Examples of public spaces:
In these areas, courts generally find that people have a reduced expectation of privacy, and video recording is often lawful.
However, even in public spaces, recording can become criminal when:
1. It is persistent or obsessive — Criminal Harassment (s. 264)
Recording may engage criminal harassment if the accused engages in prohibited conduct (such as repeatedly following, watching, or threatening conduct) knowing that the other person is harassed, or being reckless as to that, and the conduct causes that person reasonably to fear for their safety or the safety of someone known to them.
Harassing behaviours can include:
Penalties:
2. It attempts to control or pressure someone — Criminal Intimidation (s. 423)
Intimidation can arise where a person, wrongfully and without lawful authority, uses prohibited conduct for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything they have a lawful right to do, or to do anything they have a lawful right to abstain from doing.
Examples:
Penalty:
Partner Robbie Tsang notes:
“Just because you’re holding a camera doesn’t mean you’re shielded from criminal responsibility. If the recording becomes threatening, the law responds.”
Private spaces commonly include:
In these environments, individuals often have a strong expectation of privacy. Secret or non-consensual recording can more readily engage criminal offences — particularly voyeurism — or civil privacy claims. Whether a specific recording is illegal still depends on the facts, including location, manner, purpose, and whether the recording was surreptitious.
Examples of high-risk conduct:
Recording in private places may lead to:
Many people searching about “recording without consent” are asking about audio — phone calls, in-person conversations, or virtual meetings — rather than video alone.
Under section 184 of the Criminal Code , it is generally an offence to knowingly intercept a private communication by means of a device. Canada follows a one-party consent rule: a person who is a party to the private communication may lawfully record it with their own consent, even if the other participant is unaware. Recording a private conversation you are not part of (for example, leaving a hidden audio device to capture others) can be illegal interception.
That audio rule does not give a free pass for video. A participant may lawfully record a conversation they are part of, yet still face risk if the visual recording is surreptitious in circumstances of privacy, focuses on intimate areas, or is done for a sexual purpose under section 162 — or if the conduct amounts to harassment or intimidation.
Workplace policies, professional obligations, and civil privacy claims can also create consequences even where the Criminal Code one-party consent rule is met. Video recording carries its own privacy and voyeurism risks regardless of how audio interception is treated.
Voyeurism under section 162 of the Criminal Code is committed when a person surreptitiously observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if one of the following applies:
Circumstances often associated with a reasonable expectation of privacy include bathrooms, change rooms, bedrooms, and other settings where a person does not expect intimate observation. “Visual recording” includes photographic, film, or video recording.
Because voyeurism allegations frequently overlap with other sexual offence concerns, people facing these charges often seek advice from experienced sexual assault criminal defence lawyers who regularly handle privacy-related prosecutions in Toronto and the GTA.
Voyeurism charges may still arise even when:
This approach is informed by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Jarvis , 2019 SCC 10.
The Court recognized that privacy includes freedom from unwanted sexualized scrutiny — even in some public or semi-public settings. Recording a person at a beach, for example, may raise voyeurism concerns if the recording is surreptitious and done for a sexual purpose, or otherwise meets the elements of section 162.
Voyeurism under s. 162(1) or related distribution under s. 162(4) is a hybrid offence:
Possible consequences can also include:
Lawyer Brian Brody notes:
“Voyeurism charges can change a person’s life overnight. Even misunderstandings or false allegations require immediate legal intervention.”
Even where a recording was originally made with consent, section 162.1 makes it an offence to knowingly publish, distribute, transmit, sell, make available, or advertise an intimate image of a person knowing that the person did not consent to that distribution, or being reckless as to consent.
An “intimate image” generally means a visual recording in which the person is nude, exposing intimate areas, or engaged in explicit sexual activity, where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time of recording and the person retains a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time of the alleged distribution. This offence is separate from voyeurism and also carries hybrid penalties of up to five years on indictment.
Yes — but consent should be:
High-risk conduct remains:
Even mutual intimacy recordings can become criminal under section 162.1 if later shared without consent.
These fact patterns show up repeatedly in harassment, intimidation, and voyeurism files — often where the person recording believed they were within their rights.
Criminal liability is not the only risk. In Ontario, courts have recognized the tort of intrusion upon seclusion ( Jones v. Tsige , 2012 ONCA 32). A person who intentionally intrudes upon another’s private affairs in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person may face a civil claim for damages. Civil and criminal processes are separate.
Common defence issues include:
Depending on the file, counsel may explore charge withdrawals, peace bonds, non-criminal resolutions, or strategies aimed at avoiding or limiting SOIRA consequences where legally available. Outcomes always depend on the evidence and cannot be guaranteed.
| Prosecution focus | Defence focus |
|---|---|
| The recording was surreptitious | The recording was open and visible |
| A privacy expectation existed | Privacy circumstances are not made out |
| The applicable s. 162 pathway is proven | Place, state, or sexual-purpose elements are missing |
| Recording caused reasonable fear (harassment) | Conduct was not threatening / mental element missing |
| Recording was used to compel (intimidation) | No compulsion purpose / exception applies |
| Digital evidence is reliable | Evidence is incomplete, altered, or misleading |
Resolutions short of conviction may be more realistic where, for example:
Every file is fact-specific. No outcome language should be read as a promise.
Our team focuses on:
Our sexual assault criminal defence lawyers have extensive experience with recording-related allegations, including harassment, intimidation, and voyeurism files.
It depends on the context. Recording in public is often lawful, but it can become illegal if it amounts to harassment, intimidation, or voyeurism, or occurs in circumstances where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Usually yes, unless the recording is persistent or threatening in a way that engages criminal harassment or intimidation, or meets the elements of voyeurism (for example, surreptitious recording for a sexual purpose).
Secretly recording someone in private or semi-private circumstances can be high-risk and may lead to voyeurism charges under section 162. Secret audio recording of a private conversation you are not part of can also engage section 184.
Voyeurism involves surreptitiously observing or visually recording a person in circumstances of a reasonable expectation of privacy where section 162(1)(a), (b), or (c) is met. It is a hybrid offence with a maximum of five years on indictment.
Recording for self-protection is often discussed in public settings, but it is not a blanket licence. You can still face risk if you record in private circumstances, record for a sexual purpose, or engage in harassing or intimidating conduct.
For private communications under section 184, yes — a participant may generally record a private conversation. That does not authorize voyeuristic video recording or non-participant interception.
Possibly. In Ontario, civil claims such as intrusion upon seclusion may be available in addition to any criminal process. Civil and criminal matters are separate.
Filming in a public place is often lawful, but surreptitious or sexualized recording focused on intimate areas can still raise voyeurism concerns after Jarvis .
Security cameras on your own property are commonly used, but risk increases if they intentionally capture private spaces where others have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Legal Content Disclaimer:
Legally Reviewed by
Jeff Mass
| Updated: August 26, 2026
