Voyeurism is a serious sexual offence in Canada, but it is also highly fact-specific. Successful defences often focus on whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether the observation or recording was truly surreptitious, and whether it was done for a sexual purpose. If even one of these elements is not proven, the charge cannot stand.
In today’s digital world, cameras are everywhere. Smartphones, home security systems, nanny cams, and wearable devices have made recording easier than ever. While most recording is legal, secretly observing or recording someone in private circumstances can quickly cross into criminal territory.
If police believe that images or videos were captured surreptitiously and for a sexual purpose, a person may be charged with voyeurism. This sexual offence carries severe legal and personal consequences. A conviction can result not only in jail time or fines, but also mandatory registration on sex offender registries, which can follow someone for life.
Voyeurism is defined under section 162 of the Criminal Code. The offence covers the secret observation or recording of a person in circumstances where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly where nudity or sexual activity is involved.
Voyeurism is classified as a hybrid offence, meaning the Crown may proceed either summarily or by indictment.
Regardless of how the Crown proceeds, a conviction will typically result in:
These collateral consequences often outweigh the sentence itself.
To convict someone of voyeurism, the Crown must prove all three of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
The alleged victim must have been in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is no longer limited to prominent locations like bathrooms or change rooms.
Following a major Supreme Court decision, privacy now includes freedom from unwanted scrutiny, even in places that may be publicly accessible in some contexts. This expansion has made the analysis more nuanced and fact-dependent.
That said, privacy is not automatic. Courts still examine:
This remains one of the most heavily litigated aspects of voyeurism cases.
Voyeurism requires that the observation or recording be secretive. Open or obvious recording, while potentially inappropriate, does not automatically meet this threshold.
Defence strategies may focus on whether:
In some cases, what appears suspicious at first glance may lack the secrecy required for a conviction.
The Crown must also prove that the observation or recording was done for a sexual purpose.
This is often the most subjective element. Courts cannot read minds, so sexual purpose must be inferred from:
If the recording can reasonably be explained as non-sexual, accidental, or unrelated to sexual gratification, this element may fail.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of privacy has complicated the prosecution of voyeurism cases. While the broader definition assists the Crown in some cases, it also requires careful contextual analysis.
Defence lawyers continue to challenge:
Voyeurism cases now turn less on rigid categories and more on detailed factual scrutiny.
Voyeurism investigations often involve digital evidence, such as phones, computers, cloud storage, or surveillance devices. This raises serious Charter issues, particularly under section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure).
If police:
The defence may seek to have the evidence excluded. In many cases, exclusion of key evidence is enough to result in withdrawn charges or acquittal.
Voyeurism charges carry immediate stigma and long-term consequences. Decisions made early — including how evidence is preserved, how police interactions are handled, and whether Charter breaches are identified — often determine the outcome.
Because these cases are highly technical and fact-driven, generic defences rarely succeed. Each element must be analyzed independently, and weaknesses in the Crown’s case must be identified early.
A voyeurism charge is not something to take lightly. Beyond the risk of jail or fines, the impact on reputation, employment, and personal life can be devastating.
The criminal defence lawyers at Mass Tsang have decades of experience defending clients across the Greater Toronto Area against sexual offence allegations, including voyeurism. Their approach focuses on strategic, evidence-based defence, tailored to the unique facts of each case.
If you are facing voyeurism charges, experienced legal guidance can make the difference between a conviction that follows you for life and a case that does not proceed at all.
Voyeurism is a criminal offence under section 162 of the Criminal Code. It involves secretly observing or recording a person in circumstances where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly when nudity or sexual activity is involved, and where the conduct is done for a sexual purpose.
Yes. Voyeurism is classified as a sexual offence and carries serious consequences, including the possibility of imprisonment and mandatory registration on sex offender registries if convicted.
The Crown must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Yes. Voyeurism charges can be defeated if the defence raises a reasonable doubt about any required element, such as privacy, intent, or secrecy. Successful defences often focus on factual context, lack of sexual purpose, or Charter violations.
Not necessarily. Accidental or incidental recordings that lack secrecy or sexual intent may not meet the legal threshold for voyeurism. Each case depends heavily on the surrounding facts and evidence.
The Supreme Court expanded the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy” to include freedom from unwanted scrutiny, even in some non-traditional locations. This made the analysis more fact-specific rather than strictly location-based.
Yes. Voyeurism cases often involve digital evidence. If police violate Charter protections — such as conducting unlawful searches or exceeding warrant authority — key evidence may be excluded, leading to withdrawn charges or acquittal.
Voyeurism is a hybrid offence. If prosecuted by indictment, it carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Summary conviction can result in jail time, fines, or both, along with mandatory sex offender registration.
