Invasion Of Privacy Tort
The Press Secretary sought an injunction that the Halifax Herald be barred from publishing the contents of a tape recording. The recording consisted of five hours of conversation between the Federal Minister of Natural Resources, Ms. Raitt and her Press Secretary. The conversation took place in a vehicle with a driver, an employee of the department. The recording was accidental and by inadvertence ended up in the hands of a reporter with the Halifax Herald.
The reporter notified the Minister but she failed to pick up the recording. Eventually, the reporter decided to publish it.
The Halifax Herald was successful and the court commented on the tort of invasion of privacy by citing previous cases but stopped short of providing any substantive comments other than, such a tort might emerge.
On the issue of privacy the court stated that:
I agree with the submission for the Herald that the recorded conversation was not private because some or all of it was heard by a department driver.
However, later the court acknowledges:
Privacy was invaded in January 2009 when the conversation was recorded, in February when the record was left in a press washroom, and in March when it was not retrieved as agreed. Ms. MacDonnell’s lack of knowledge that her recording device contained a record of the conversation cannot, to my mind, put Mr. Mahar in the position of an intentional invader.
Even if there was an invasion it seems in this case the court was not about to stifle freedom of the press:
Here is where I see the restriction on prior restraint having some place in
laws of invasion of privacy, if such a tort is to emerge. It is wrong to deprive the press, and the public it serves, of remarks made privately, but not confidentially in the sense of trade secrets or privileged communications, after those remarks became available because of poor record keeping or management.
The decision can be found here.
anytime for a free consultation