According to media report, Prince Harry has joined his wife Meghan Markle in North Saanich (Steve Parsons/pool photo via AP, File)

Lawyer lays out legalities for photography in public after paparazzi descend on North Saanich

British photographers were hiding in bushes before taking Markle’s pictures

A Victoria lawyer says existing Canadian case law offers little guidance when it comes to the legality of photographing and filming celebrities like Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle.

The couple said to be residing in North Saanich have threatened legal action against British paparazzi after they recently took pictures of Markle while taking a walk in North Saanich.

“The law isn’t that well tested in Canada on those issues,” said Bruce Hallsor, a Victoria-based lawyer. Hallsor said three aspects come into the play: the provincial privacy act, which broadly prohibits unreasonable violations of personal privacy; common law (trespassing and privacy); and criminal law (harassment).

“…the rules are essentially these,” he said. “It is an invasion of privacy to photograph or surveil somebody in their home, which would include a fenced-in or private outdoor space.”

Examples of exceptions to this broad rule include inviting attention while standing in a yard or even a window, he said. In other words, private property comes with a presumption of privacy, with some exceptions.

RELATED: Four things ‘not’ to do if you run into Prince Harry and Meghan in B.C.

RELATED: Local Monarchist says Saanich Peninsula would be a ‘great place’ for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

“On public property, the presumption would be the opposite, that you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in a public place, whether that is out shopping, at a store, whether you are going to the theatre, whether you are in a park. The presumption would be that you are in a public place and you are aware that somebody might take your photograph or watch you or come up and talk to you.”

While harassment is a criminal matter, the bar for it is “pretty high” in Canada, said Hallsor. “I’m not a UK lawyer, but there is a much more codified set of rules there for paparazzi about harassment, but that doesn’t exist here. It has never been adopted. But if you are stalking somebody, interfering with their daily routine, causing a safety concern — those would be things that would lead you to look at harassment.”

Ultimately, harassment revolves around the question of intent, said Hallsor. “Are you deliberately harming a person, knowingly causing mental distress, or causing physical safety issues? That is a pretty high test.”

Prince Harry has in the past spoken of “harassment” by media especially the notorious British yellow-sheets. His mother, Prince Diana, died along with her partner Dodi Fayed on Aug. 31, 1997 in car crash while paparazzi were pursuing them.

RELATED: Prince Harry reunites with Meghan and Archie in Victoria

RELATED: Prince Harry: ‘Powerful media’ is why he’s stepping away

Perhaps the defining case in Canadian law around these issues is the 1998 case of the Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa as ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada. The case revolves around a female Quebec celebrity, who sued a magazine for damages after a photographer had taken a picture of her without her consent in public.

The majority ruling in favour of woman found that the “artistic expression of the photograph cannot justify the infringement of the right to privacy it entails.”

“An artist’s right to publish his or her work is not absolute and cannot include the right to infringe, without any justification, a fundamental right of the subject whose image appears in the work,” it reads. “It has not been shown that the public’s interest in seeing this photograph is predominant.”

Writing a separate dissenting opinion, chief justice Antonio Lamer argued that the “public’s right to information, supported by freedom of expression, places limits on the right to respect for one’s private life in certain circumstances.”

He acknowledged that the publication of the photo without the woman’s permission constituted a violation of her privacy , and chided the photographer for failing to secure permission, but also questioned lower court efforts to limit the notion of public interest to the right to receive “socially useful” information.

RELATED: Anti-tax group calls for no federal funds for Prince Harry, Meghan Markle while in Canada

He acknowledged that the publication of the photo without the woman’s permission constituted a violation of her privacy, and chided the photographer for failing to secure permission, but also questioned lower court efforts to limit the notion of public interest to the right to receive “socially useful” information.

Hallsor is not sure how relevant that case might be for the royal couple.

“I don’t know how directly related it is to potential situation with [Prince Harry and Megan Markle],” he said. “I really think any case they bring forward about the things that they have complained about so far would really be a case of first instance in Canada. A lot of it might come down to how sympathetic [a] judge is with their situation or not.”

The provincial privacy act comes with a media proviso by saying that the “publication of a matter is not a violation of privacy if the matter published was of public interest or was fair comment on a matter of public interest.”

This raises the obvious question of whether Markle’s stroll through North Saanich Horth Hill Park was a matter of public interest or fair comment.

“I don’t think she has a reasonable expectation for privacy, if she is walking through a public park,” said Hallsor. “I understand that there is an accusation that somebody was hiding in the bush. That kind of behaviour, if it was systemic, might lead to harassment or something like it. But my quick take on it is it would be very difficult to prosecute for that.”

RELATED: Royal deal clears way for Harry, Meghan part-time Canada move

As William Kowalski of PEN Canada, the national branch of Poets, Playwrights, Editors, Essayists, Novelists, an international advocacy group for writers, has written, it is not a crime in Canada to photograph or film in any public place, or in any private place to which the public is admitted, then publish those pictures and films, subject to very limited constraints. The same broad principle also applies when it comes to taking pictures or filming in any government site other than areas with restricted access.


Like us on Facebook and follow @wolfgang_depner

Get local stories you won't find anywhere else right to your inbox.
Sign up here

Just Posted

BREAKING: Pat Bay Highway blockade underway

About 80 people blocking major highway

VIDEO: ‘Reconciliation is dead’: Wet’suwet’en supporters hold press conference on steps of legislature

Supporters say they will continue ongoing action to hold government accountable

Central Saanich Police prepared for afternoon shut-down of Highway 17

Sgt. Paul Brailey questions efficacy of protest

City of Langford rebrands, announces several projects

‘Langford, where it all happens’ is the City’s new slogan

WATCH: Sooke’s top stories

A round-up of this week’s top stories

Greater Victoria Crime Stoppers wanted list for the week of Feb. 25

Greater Victoria Crime Stoppers is seeking the public’s help in locating the… Continue reading

Donations pour in for family who lost father, son in fatal crash on B.C. highway

Mike Cochlin and sons Liam and Quinn were travelling on Highway 5A

Vancouver Island RCMP officer assaulted during traffic stop

On Feb. 21, a member of the Comox Valley RCMP was assaulted… Continue reading

B.C. man who pulled a gun on off-duty cop gets two years in prison

Encounter also led police to a home where 100 guns and explosives were found

Protecting privacy key to stopping spread of COVID-19, B.C. health officials say

The number of coronavirus cases in B.C. remains at seven

COLUMN: Forestry no longer close to top of B.C.’s economy

Our reactions to a forestry downturn reflect the past, not the present

Most Read