From: | Eoin.Quill <Eoin.Quill@ul.ie> |
To: | hilaryanyoung@yahoo.ca |
obligations <obligations@uwo.ca> | |
Date: | 02/12/2022 11:43:30 UTC |
Subject: | RE: ODG: Intrusion upon Seclusion |
There are a couple of Irish cases slotting privacy violations into negligence; I don’t think the reasoning is very well thought through and the cases
are ones that would satisfy a more orthodox privacy violation claim (if there is such a thing)
Both case involved police leaking information about the claimants;
Hanahoe v Hussey [1998] 3 IR 69 (the existence of a duty was sort
of conceded by the State in this case, so not a very strong authority); the brief note of the case in Byrne & Binchy’s Annual Review of Irish Law 1997 doesn’t get into the issue in any depth
Gray v Minister for Justice [2007] IEHC 52; [2007] 2 IR 654 (one of
the plaintiffs also suffered recognised psychiatric harm in this case); similar short note in Byrne & Binchy; I did a brief critical comment in Koziol & Steininger (eds), European Tort Law 2007
I’m not against the idea of negligent, rather than intentional, violation being an actionable wrong in principle; my concern, like the point identified
by Hilary is whether is constitutes an injury for the purposes of negligence (I think Donal Nolan had an article in the MLR around the time on the issue of what constitutes Damage for a negligence claim – may have a different take on the issue)
The defamation issue has come up in Ireland too – we don’t generally let negligence circumvent defamation, but if an independent claim (e.g. for
pure economic loss) can be substantiated as a result of something said about a person’s character, then a claim in negligence may be permitted to proceed -
Jeffrey v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence [2019] IESC 27 (I have
a brief note on this in the Yearbook of European Tort Law 2019; Byrne & Binchy’s Annual Review also has a note on it)
Happy (or unhappy) hunting if you chose to delve into these,
Eoin Quill |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
University of Limerick, Limerick, V94 T9PX |
||||
Ollscoil Luimnigh, V94 T9PX, Éire |
||||
|
From: hilaryanyoung@yahoo.ca <hilaryanyoung@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Thursday 1 December 2022 15:09
To: obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: ODG: Intrusion upon Seclusion
EXTERNAL EMAIL:
This email originated from outside of the University of Limerick. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe.
|
|
Having just read
Owsianik, the result and reasoning seem correct (though I'm less interested in/knowledgeable about the threshold test for allowing the class action to be certified). Intrusion upon seclusion is an intentional tort; what was alleged here is effectively
negligence. There was no evidence that could realistically satisfy intent to invade privacy or recklessness as to that outcome.
But this did make me wonder about invasions of privacy as an injury that negligence law recognizes. Does anyone know of case law on this? It reminds me a bit of
Bella
v Young, though the tort there was defamation and issue was whether you could bring a negligence action when the wrong complained of looked like defamation. The court said you couldn't bring a negligence action for reputational harm alone but if you
can make out the elements of negligence, the fact that there was also reputational harm doesn't preclude a negligence remedy. Does anyone know of case law recognizing an invasion of privacy as an injury for the purposes of negligence law?
Hope everyone's well.
--Hilary
On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 10:16:24 a.m. AST, Stephen Pitel <spitel@uwo.ca> wrote:
This matter involved three appeals argued together. The more comprehensive reasons are in
Owsianik v Equifax Canada Co, 2022 ONCA 813.
Available here:
https://canlii.ca/t/jt681
Stephen
Professor Stephen G.A. Pitel
Faculty of Law, Western University
(519) 661-2111 ext 88433
President, Canadian Association for Legal Ethics/Association canadienne pour l’ethique juridique
From: Jason
W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>
Sent: December 1, 2022 8:42 AM
To: obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: ODG: Intrusion upon Seclusion
Dear Colleagues:
In
Obodo v. Trans Union of Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to extend the tort of Intrusion upon Seclusion to cover those whose fault allowed the intrusion, see
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca814/2022onca814.html.
Full details and reactions for the lawyers involved can be found here:
https://www.lawtimesnews.com/practice-areas/privacy-and-data/oca-refuses-to-extend-intrusion-upon-seclusion-liability-to-hacked-commercial-database-holders/371979?utm_source=GA&e=am5leWVyc0B1d28uY2E&utm_medium=20221201&utm_campaign=LTW-Newsletter-20221201&utm_content=FFC632EE-A4E3-441D-88E1-E0CB39998145&tu=FFC632EE-A4E3-441D-88E1-E0CB39998145.
Happy Reading,
Jason Neyers
Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
Law Building Rm 26
e. jneyers@uwo.ca
t. 519.661.2111 (x88435)
|
|
You're receiving this message because you're a member of the obligations group from The University of Western Ontario. To take part
in this conversation, reply all to this message. |
|
View group files | Leave group | Learn
more about Microsoft 365 Groups |
|