## Facts

- Sandra Jones and Winnie Tsige worked for different branches of the same bank; Tsige was in a common-law relationship with Jones’s ex-husband.
- Over roughly four years, Tsige used employee access to view Jones’s personal banking information at least 174 times, contrary to bank policy and without authorization.
- Tsige did not copy, publish, distribute, or otherwise use the information beyond viewing it.
- When confronted, Tsige admitted the access, said she was checking whether her partner was giving money to Jones in a child-support dispute, apologized, and was disciplined by the bank (unpaid suspension and loss of bonus).
- Jones sued seeking damages for invasion of privacy, including punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Ontario common law recognizes a civil cause of action for invasion of privacy, specifically the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.
2. If recognized, whether Tsige’s conduct satisfied the elements of that tort.
3. What damages were appropriate where no pecuniary loss was proven, and how prior costs should be treated.

## Decision

- The appellate court recognized a common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion.
- The court held Tsige liable because her repeated, unauthorized viewing of Jones’s private banking records was intentional, unjustified, and highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- The court awarded Jones $10,000 in general damages for non-pecuniary harm.
- The court allowed the appeal, granted summary judgment to Jones, and set aside the prior dismissal and costs award against her.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion is established where:
  - the defendant’s conduct is intentional or reckless;
  - the defendant, without lawful justification, invades the plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns; and
  - a reasonable person would view the invasion as highly offensive, causing distress, humiliation, or anguish.
- Proof of economic loss is not required; the tort protects informational privacy interests.
- Liability is confined to deliberate and significant intrusions; trivial claims and claims resting on unusual sensitivity are excluded.
- Where no pecuniary loss is proven, general damages should be modest, ordinarily within a range up to $20,000, assessed with reference to factors including:
  - the nature and frequency of the intrusion,
  - effects on the plaintiff’s life and well-being,
  - the parties’ relationship,
  - the plaintiff’s distress, and
  - the defendant’s conduct after the intrusion (including apology or amends).

## Conclusion

The court created a common-law remedy for intentional, highly offensive intrusions into private affairs without lawful justification, held that repeated unauthorized access to banking records meets that standard, and set a restrained framework for non-pecuniary damages, awarding $10,000 on the facts.


Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, 108 O.R. (3d) 241 (Ont. C.A. 2012)