Jones V. Tsige Case Study

The tort system provides compensation to individuals who have been wronged or injured by the activity of another individual. Until the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Jones v. Tsige in 2012, resulting in the creation of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, the common law did not include torts that did not entail a personal or financial injury. It is essential the common law includes torts that do not entail actual injury to provide individuals the means of seeking remedies when they are wronged from the wrongdoer responsible for the action.

Had the OCA not recognized the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in the case of Jones v. Tsige, Jones would have had to sue her employer for compensation under PIPEDA, as BMO is a federally regulated organization, and Jones would not have had a case to sue Tsige directly. This brings the concern of to what extent are employers liable through vicarious liability for their employees actions and to what extent have they created and communicated company policies and procedures. Jones is
Nonetheless the courts have created approaches to determining their value and allow adjustments to be made given specific circumstances. The courts created a similar approach examining the specific circumstances of intrusion upon seclusion. For example, the Jones case was deemed a “mid-range” case based on the nature of the wrongful act, the relationship between the parties, and the distress, annoyance and embarrassment suffered by Jones arising from the wrong. The difficulty attaching value to injury that is not personal or financial is not significant enough that individuals should not be able to sue the individual responsible for their