PO 209 Case Brief
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Wilfrid Laurier University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
209
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by CoachUniverseKomodoDragon32
Jones v. Tsige
Case Brief
Meghan Machado
211546970
Oct 2
nd
2023
Introduction:
The case to be analyzed is that of Jones v. Tsige (2012 ONCA 32), this case handles the matter of privacy law in the instance of invasion of the individual’s privacy with the context of personal banking records. This case brief is created for senior partner Wilma Willwe for the purpose of legal research in the building of a privacy rights case for a prospective client. This brief is created to address the precedence that Jones v. Tsige has for the client’s case as well as measuring the weight of good law still present. This case brief will navigate through the intrusion
tort, analyse the courts holding and look into the courts rational behind its decision. The examination of this case will show its importance to Canadian privacy law and the importance of
an individual’s right to privacy. Case citation:
Jones v. Tsige Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 (CanLII), <
https://canlii.ca/t/fpnld
>, retrieved on 2023-09-28 Operative Facts: Sandra Jones and Winnie Tsige where co-workers at BMO (Bank of Montreal), Winnie Tsige previously had the relationship of common law with Sandra Jones’s ex-husband. Without the consent or knowledge of Jones, Tsige accessed Jones’s personal bank account information on multiple occasions, around 174 times over a 4-year period, using their banks computer system. The case states that Tsige’s actions were fueled by curiosity of her ex-partners child support payments and not to distribute or generate any financial gain. The details in Jones’s account held information on her transactions, financial statements, date of birth, marital status and current
address. At some point Jones became aware of the multiple intrusions that Tsige made, leading her to take legal action against Tsige for the damages of invasion of privacy. Procedural History:
The plaintiff
Sandra Jones filed her lawsuit at a lower court in Ontario, Canada. The lower courts judgment was to grant the defendant Winnie Tsige the dismissal she requested. This was on the grounds that there exists no tort for invasion of privacy at common law of Ontario. The plaintiff Jones appealed, and the appeal was granted. An article by Professor Prosser was considered in the trial, an article that started to shape privacy tort in Canada for the better, this article outlined that Jones’s claim aligned with one of the 4 tied together torts. This tort being intrusion upon seclusion, meaning “One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the invasion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person” (
Jones v. Tsige. 2012). As Tsige intentionally intruded on Jones’s private affairs with her ex-
husband’s child support matters, on multiple occasions, it was found that Jones had grounds to sue for damages as it pertains to invasion of privacy. The Legal Issue: The legal issue present in the case is if there is recognition in Ontario law for cause of action as it pertains to invasion of privacy. The case posed a challenged traditional Canadian Tort
law that did not recognise a distinctive privacy tort. The legal issue of this case revolved around the unauthorized access defendant Tsige had to the plaintiff Jones’s bank account, without
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
consent or purpose. The court had to consider the adaption of past precedent to fit modern technology and the new ways to invade personal privacy. PIPEDA is an act to promote and support electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances. BMO is subjected to PIPEDA due to the information they hold for clients, but this act does not hold to individuals. As this framework does not work on individuals in a case, the court is forced to adopt something more personal for the matter. The issue at hand is how to handle the case as there is no tort that aligns with the factors of Jones’s case. Holdings:
ONCA established that previous frameworks, such as PIPEDA do not apply to this case, the court made the decision to that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion found favour for Sandra Jones. Tsige’s actions where invasive as she invaded Sandra Jones’s private affairs without proper cause. The judge ruled in favor of Jones, and the plaintiff was awarded $10,000 in damages, it was held that Tsige invaded the privacy of Sandra Jones. Legal Analysis Applied: The courts conclusion revolved around reignition of intrusion upon seclusion as a tort. The analysis consisted of Intentional intrusion, meaning the defendants actions where deliberate, Tsige intentionally accessed Jones’s accounts 174 times over 4 years. Invasion of privacy, Tsige invaded into Jones’s account to find information on her affairs with her ex-husband. Lack of lawful justification, Tsige had no legitimate purpose to access the information of Ms. Jones. All these factors combined where the reason for the ruling against Tsige.
Treatment: Jones v. Tsige has since served as precedent for other privacy related cases in Canada, one of the most recent cases it was used as such was that of Roque v. Peters, 2022 MBQB 34. In this case where Roque’s ex-boyfriend had possession of explicit photos she had sent while they were still engaged in a relationship. Friesen’s now wife Peters found these images and threatened
to distribute them. Jones v. Tsige was used to show that accessing private information that shows the personal affairs of an individual and using that private information to embarrass that same individual leaves them liable to the damages they inflict. In the end Roque received general damages of $45,000 and aggravated damages of $15,000.