Videos on convicted man’s devices recorded woman in work bathroom, plus 116 other people
In a proceeding involving a man convicted of voyeurism based on videos on his devices that recorded more than a hundred individuals, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench decided to recognize the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in the province.
On Mar. 24, 2020, an employee using a bathroom at an Alberta government office discovered the defendant hiding in a closet.
The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) searched the defendant’s cell phone and saw 111 voyeuristic video recordings taken over six years. Police also discovered additional videos on the defendant’s laptops.
EPS geolocated the videos. Of the 117 total victims, police identified 31 individuals, at least two of whom were under age 18. Using his job in plumbing, gas fitting, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), the defendant accessed private spaces to make secret recordings.
Video recording of the plaintiff
The plaintiff in BD v Germain, 2026 ABKB 590, worked for the Alberta government.
On Apr. 21, 2020, based on a video recording sent by the EPS, the plaintiff’s employer notified her about a secret recording of her in a bathroom at the workplace. The secret recordings also captured two other employees in this location.
On Apr. 26, 2020, at the EPS downtown division, the plaintiff watched the full video recording of her, which showed her undressing, using the toilet, and wiping her genitals with toilet paper. Police told her that the defendant was the one who recorded her.
Voyeurism proceeding
On Mar. 10, 2021, the defendant pled guilty to voyeurism under s 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, 1985. The court sentenced him to a 15-month conditional sentence order and two years’ probation.
In 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown’s sentence appeal.
Suit to recognize tort of intrusion upon seclusion
The plaintiff asked the court to recognize the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in Alberta.
On Sept. 23, 2025, Justice Aloneissi granted the plaintiff judgment for intrusion upon seclusion and intentional infliction of mental suffering. However, the judge ordered special chambers hearings focusing on the following:
- whether the province should generally recognize the tort of intrusion upon seclusion
- how much damages the plaintiff should get
Alberta Court of King’s Bench recognizes new tort
Justice E.C. Lew of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench found it appropriate to recognize the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in the province upon seeing the societal value in protecting individual privacy.
The court explained that a plaintiff could establish the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in Alberta upon proof of the following elements on a balance of probabilities:
- The defendant’s conduct was intentional or reckless
- The defendant invaded the plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns without lawful jurisdiction
- A reasonable person, in the position of the plaintiff, would regard the invasion as highly offensive, causing distress, humiliation, and anguish
The court acknowledged that the third element of the test for this tort in Ontario did not include the phrase “in the position of the plaintiff.”
Citing Campbell v MGN Ltd, [2004] UKHL 22, and ES v Shillington, 2021 ABQB 739, the court explained that it preferred the “reasonable person” to be the individual affected by the publication, not the viewer of such publication.
In deciding to recognize the tort in Alberta, the court ruled that the plaintiff satisfied the three parts of the test in Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, 2020 SCC 5, for recognizing a new tortious cause of action.
No adequate alternative remedies
First, upon reviewing the available statutory and tortious causes of action currently recognized in the province, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench saw no sufficient alternative remedies to address the harms to the plaintiff.
In particular, the court did not treat the torts of trespass, breach of confidence, and intentional infliction of mental distress as suitable alternative remedies.
New tort reflects and addresses a wrong
Second, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench found a need for a remedy for the defendant’s wrongs, which greatly harmed the plaintiff, who had been innocuously using a workplace bathroom.
The court noted that the plaintiff took a leave of absence from work, attended therapy sessions, and took medication for symptoms of depression and anxiety after what had happened. The court added that she:
- felt sick, exposed, and humiliated upon watching the video recording
- suffered great indignity and embarrassment
- was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, acute reaction to stress, and anxiety
- experienced issues with sleeping, concentrating, and dealing with stress
- had anxiety flare-ups and nightmares
- engaged in avoidance behaviours
- feared using public bathrooms, being filmed or watched, and encountering the defendant
- felt afraid when tradespeople entered her home or workplace
New tort won’t indeterminately or substantially change legal system
Third, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench described the new tort as a necessary tool for the province’s courts and as an incremental step in the common law.
“Courts in Ontario have recognized this tort for over a decade,” Justice Lew wrote in the reasons for the decision. “It is time for Alberta to recognize it as well.”
Court of King’s Bench of Alberta’s other injury cases
Here are some other Alberta Court of King’s Bench decisions involving injuries.
In a proceeding where the plaintiff’s history of addiction was relevant to her claim for damages arising from injuries, the court issued a Feb. 20 order for her to produce two undertakings and unredacted records originating from two hospitals.
In a case arising from a pedestrian motor vehicle accident, the court made a Feb. 3 decision dismissing the injured plaintiff’s application to compel the disclosure of a surveillance file, including a report, raw footage, and still photographs in the defendant’s possession.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury law news on the main page!
