The Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Developments in privacy law and writings of a Canadian privacy lawyer, containing information related to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (aka PIPEDA) and other Canadian and international laws.
Recent Posts
- National Post editorial against Lawful Access
- Colleges struggle to combat identity thieves
- Ontario government not doing enough to protect pri...
- Warning: These premises are under video surveillan...
- Taping of phone calls in the United States
- Security Breach Notification Chart
- Assistant Privacy Commissioner concludes that init...
- Findings from the Australian Privacy Commissioner
- OT: Another Nova Scotia lawyer joins the blogosphe...
- Fuss over fraud by hospital clerk
On Twitter
About this page and the author
The author of this blog,
David T.S. Fraser, is a Canadian privacy lawyer who practices with the
firm of McInnes Cooper. He is the author of the Physicians' Privacy Manual. He has a national and international practice advising corporations and individuals on matters related to Canadian privacy laws.
For full contact information and a brief bio, please see David's profile.
Please note that I am only able to provide legal advice to clients. I am not able to provide free legal advice. Any unsolicited information sent to David Fraser cannot be considered to be solicitor-client privileged.
Privacy Calendar
Archives
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
- April 2010
Links
Blogs I Follow
Small Print
The views expressed herein are solely the author's and should not be attributed to his employer or clients. Any postings on legal issues are provided as a public service, and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein or linked to. Nothing herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.
This web site is presented for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and David T.S. Fraser. If you are seeking specific advice related to Canadian privacy law or PIPEDA, contact the author, David T.S. Fraser.
Monday, August 22, 2005
The paparazzi snap back
Today's Globe & Mail, just in time for the film festival in Toronto, is running an article on paparazzi. The writer contacted me a little while ago and paraphrases my comments about halfway down the article:
The Globe and Mail: The paparazzi snap back:"... David Fraser, a privacy lawyer with the firm McInnes Cooper, believes that's because the Canadian media are just a whole lot kinder. At the same time, federal privacy laws specifically exclude journalists and protect freedom of the press, he says. Celebrities who run into problems with paparazzi must turn to trespassing and stalking laws, which may keep the rare pushy snappers at bay...."
I would add that some provinces have a statutory tort of invasion of privacy and the non-statutory tort is evolving in Canada. Even for journalistic purposes, invasions of privacy that are "undue" and "unreasonable" can be condemned by the courts in the form of money damages or an injunction. There just hasn't been a lot of cause in Canada for celebrities to invoke these laws.
Labels: information breaches
The Canadian Privacy Law Blog is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.
