The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Can a Nonunion Employer Install Secret Video Cameras to Watch Employees?

by David Doorey June 30, 2009
written by David Doorey June 30, 2009

Last December, the Ontario Superior Court issued an interesting decision that I am just now getting round to posting.
The case is Colwell v. Cornerstone.  The facts are straightforward.  The employer installed a secret video camera in the office of one of its employees, and when the employee learned it was there, she quit and sued for constructive dismissal.  The difficulty she faced was that there is no privacy legislation in Ontario and the courts have been slow to recognize a common law, implied right to privacy at work.  So on what basis can she ground a constructive dismissal case.
She could have argued that the camera violated her trust and made the working conditions intolerable.  In Shah v. Xerox, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a constructive dismissal can occur even when the employer has not breached any term of the contract, as long as the employer’s conduct has made the work environment intolerable for the employee.   In fact, the employee does make this claim, arguing that she could not remain any longer because the employer’s behaviour had irreperably destroyed her trust in the employer.  The Court agrees with this sentiment when it finds that the employee was not required to continue to work for the employer as part of her duty to mitigate (as per the  Evans v. Teamsters decision).
However, the Court does not rely on the Shah decision, and never mentions it.  Instead, the court finds that the employer had breached  an implied term of the employment contract: “that each party would treat the other in good faith and fairly, throughout the existence  of the contract, as well as during termination”. Installing a secret camera, with no apparent reason, is a fundamental breach of that term.  The court could have simply applied the more broadly accepted implied duty to treat employees with decency, civility, respect, and dignity and skirted the controversy about whether there is an implied duty og good faith dealing (I have written about that latter term before).  In any event, the result appears to be same:  the implied duty of good faith incorporates a limited right to privacy into the employment relationship, although the court is pretty clear that the outcome might have been different if the employer could have pointed to some valid business reason why the camera was necessary.  In the result, the judge orders reasonable notice damages.
The court then gets confused about  the question of aggravated damages. It refuses to order those damages because “the law of invasion of privacy is still developing”.  This is odd, given that the court did not rely on any law of “invasion of privacy”; it found a breach of an implied term of good faith dealing.  Damages for that breach, if any, are presumably recoverable.  One reason this case confuses me is the court’s comments about aggravated damages. The court states: “Aggravated and/or punitive damages are only awarded based on the ‘manner’ in which the dismissal was conducted.  At least the surveillance in this case was an act performed ‘during’ employment rather than forming only a part of the constructive dismissal”.
That’s right. The employer breached a term of the contract during the term of employment by secretly installing cameras. The evidence indicated that, as a result of that breach, the employee required medical assistance for stress and was prescribed sedatives.  I’d have thought the court could have ordered damages in that case for breach of the term preventing a camera from being installed.  Contracts 101.
But, in any event, the case is interesting for its finding that nonunion employers are restricted in their right to install cameras in the workplace, a restriction unionized employers have had to deal with for years pursuant to labour arbitration law.

0 comment
2
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Top 10 Labour & Employment Law Articles (June 29)
next post
Introducing the New School of Human Resource Management

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
3h

My fingers are just too big to play an A chord on the #guitar.

Otherwise I would be a rock star. This is the only thing holding me back.

Reply on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Retweet on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Like on Twitter 1623109078431027200 12 Twitter 1623109078431027200
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
4h

Not seen comparable stats for Canada.There are terminations, but also better laws in most Canadian jurisdictions, including

- remedial certification
- interim reinstatement
- card-check/quick votes

“1 in 5 workers in US is fired for organizing a union” https://onlabor.org/labor-law-reform-is-needed-for-unions-to-succeed/

Reply on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Retweet on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Like on Twitter 1623103873161330688 1 Twitter 1623103873161330688
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
4h

This is Canada's federal Minister of Labour.

Bill 377 was a labor bill disguised as a tax law (so Cons could pretend it was federal jurisdiction) that buried unions in red tape & reporting requirements not applicable to any other orgs.

https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/411/Private/C-377/C-377_3/C-377_3.PDF

Bill 525 ...

1/2

Seamus O'Regan Jr @SeamusORegan

Bills 377 and 525 were two of the most anti-worker, union-bashing bills this country has ever seen - put forward by the Harper Conservatives.

We scrapped them. We believe in unions. We believe in workers.

Reply on Twitter 1623097471407644673 Retweet on Twitter 1623097471407644673 10 Like on Twitter 1623097471407644673 33 Twitter 1623097471407644673
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.