Is Video Recording Without Consent Illegal in Canada?

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.

This guide explains:

• When you can legally record in public
• How video recording differs from recording private conversations (audio)
• When recording becomes criminal harassment or intimidation
• How privacy expectations work in workplaces, homes, and semi-private spaces
• When surreptitious recording becomes the offence of voyeurism
• How the Supreme Court of Canada approached privacy in R. v. Jarvis (2019 SCC 10)
• Potential penalties and long-term consequences
• How Mass Tsang LLP defends clients charged with recording-related offences

With decades of experience defending privacy-related and sexual offence allegations, the lawyers at Mass Tsang LLP understand how quickly an innocent recording can escalate into criminal charges.

Key Takeaways

• Recording someone without consent is not automatically illegal in Canada — it depends on context.
• People generally have a reduced expectation of privacy in public, but recording can still become illegal through harassment, intimidation, or voyeurism.
• Recording someone in a private or semi-private space without consent may violate privacy laws or criminal provisionsmay engage criminal provisions or civil privacy remedies.
• Surreptitious recording in circumstances of privacy — including recording for a sexual purpose — can lead to voyeurism charges under section 162 of the Criminal Code.
• Persistent recording that causes a person reasonably to fear for their safety may lead to criminal harassment charges (s. 264).
• Attempting to compel someone’s behaviour through recording may become criminal intimidation (s. 423).Using recording to compel someone to do something, or stop doing something they have a lawful right to do, may become criminal intimidation (s. 423).
• Voyeurism carries penalties of up to 5 years in prison, plus mandatory sex offender registration.Voyeurism is a hybrid offence with a maximum of five years’ imprisonment on indictment and may lead to SOIRA obligations depending on the case.
• Strong legal defence often focuses on intent, context, privacy expectations, and constitutional rights.

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.”

Public vs. Private Spaces — Why Context Matters

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.

Recording in Public Spaces

Examples of public spaces: streets, sidewalks, parks, public transit stations, stores or malls (unless restricted by policy).

In these areas, courts generally agree: People do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Video recording is usually legal.In these areas, courts generally find that people have a reduced expectation of privacy, and video recording is often lawful.

1. Persistent / obsessive recording — Criminal Harassment (s. 264)

Recording becomes illegal if it causes the person to fear for their safety or feel threatened.Recording may engage criminal harassment if the accused engages in prohibited 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.

2. Control / pressure — Criminal Intimidation (s. 423)

Revised toward statutory compulsion purpose language (wrongfully compelling someone to do/abstain from lawful acts).

Partner Robbie Tsang quote retained unchanged.

Recording in Private or Semi-Private Spaces

In these environments, individuals have a full expectation of privacy, and recording without consent is almost always illegal unless explicitly permitted.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.

Video vs. Audio: One-Party Consent for Private Conversations

New section summarizing s. 184 one-party consent for private communications, warning that participant audio recording is not a free pass for voyeuristic video, and noting workplace/civil consequences can still arise.

When Recording Becomes Voyeurism

Replaced summary bullets with the three statutory pathways in s. 162(1)(a)/(b)/(c), plus link to Justice Laws text.

Mid-body contextual link to sexual assault defence lawyers near voyeurism discussion.

Sexual Purpose and Semi-Public Spaces

Jarvis discussion retained; citation normalized to 2019 SCC 10; beach example kept with surreptitious/sexual-purpose caveats.

Penalties for Voyeurism

When prosecuted summarily: Up to 2 years less a day / Up to $5,000 fine

Hybrid framing retained (5 years indictment); summary described without the specific $5,000 figure; SOIRA described as possible/depending on case rather than mandatory.

Brian Brody quote retained unchanged.

Sharing Intimate Images Without Consent (s. 162.1)

New short section on intimate-image distribution, definition elements, and separation from voyeurism.

Consent in Private Places

Softened blanket “You cannot record: Hidden camera footage” into high-risk framing; tied non-consensual sharing explicitly to s. 162.1.

Common Scenarios

Added doorbell/security-camera scenario.

Civil Privacy Claims (Ontario)

Brief note on intrusion upon seclusion (Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32).

Defence Strategies

If the recording was not focused on intimate areas or motivated by sexual intent, voyeurism cannot be proven.

Crown must prove the applicable s. 162(1) pathway; absence of sexual purpose does not automatically defeat paragraphs (a) or (b).

Added narrow public-good defence reference (s. 162(6)).

Outcome language softened: negotiations “may explore” withdrawals/peace bonds; “cannot be guaranteed.”

Defence vs. Prosecution table

Updated row labeling from “The recording was sexual” to “applicable s. 162 pathway.”

When charges may not proceed

Withdrawals are common when…Resolutions short of conviction may be more realistic where… plus explicit “no outcome language should be read as a promise.”

How Mass Tsang protects clients

Softened “successfully handled hundreds” style claim to “extensive experience”; retained SA defence lawyers reference as hub-aligned without commercial title retarget.

FAQ

Existing five FAQs retained with light wording alignment.

• Is Canada a one-party consent jurisdiction for conversations?
• Can someone sue me for recording them?
• Can I film people at a public beach?
• Are doorbell or security cameras legal?