Voyeurism Charges Lawyer in Brampton, ON

Section 162(1) makes it an offence to surreptitiously observe — including by mechanical or electronic means — or to make a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, in any of three situations.

Section 162(2) defines a visual recording to include a photographic, film or video recording made by any means. Section 162(4) creates a separate offence of distributing, publishing, selling or possessing for those purposes a recording known to have been obtained by voyeurism.

Both are essential elements, and both are frequently the battleground.

Surreptitious means done secretly, in a way intended to avoid detection. Observation that is open, or recording done with the person's knowledge, does not meet this element even if the subject later objects.

A reasonable expectation of privacy does not depend simply on whether a place is public or private. Courts assess the totality of the circumstances, which is why recording in a semi-public space can still engage the section, and why the location alone rarely answers the question.

Under section 162(1)(c) the offence can be made out on sexual purpose alone, without the person being nude or in a private place. That branch is the broadest of the three.

Section 162(5) makes an offence under section 162(1) or (4) hybrid: up to 10 years on indictment, or summary conviction.

The sentence is not the whole of the consequence. Voyeurism is a designated offence for the purposes of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, so a SOIRA order is presumptive — though since the registry provisions were rewritten it is no longer automatic, and section 490.012(3) sets out a defined route to seek an exemption. A DNA order and prohibitions affecting work or volunteering with young people are also common.

Those collateral consequences frequently outlast any sentence and are the reason these cases need to be assessed on more than the likely custodial exposure.

Because the evidence is usually digital, the search of the phone or computer is where most of the defence work sits. If that search breached section 8, exclusion under section 24(2) will often end the prosecution.

See our page on unreasonable search and seizure for how those arguments work.