Jones V Tsige Case Study

You asked me to prepare an Objective Legal Analysis of how Jones v Tsige applies to the Cuthbert`s case. Specifically, how the Cuthbert`s use of the nanny cam may both invade and not invade their nanny's privacy.
Background Facts
The present case concerns Ryan and Angela Cuthbert. Ryan is a self-employed individual who operates a plumbing company, while his wife, Angela is presently on the maternity leave, but is scheduled to return to her previous employment at the CFO of a Crown Corporation at the beginning of March. The parties have hired a nanny for their infant daughter Sophie. Nanny is scheduled to commence her employment with the Cuthbert`s within the next week. However, Cuthbert`s have come to disagreement due to the fact that Mr. Cuthbert installed a hidden “nanny cam” in Sophie`s room. Mrs. Cuthbert objects the actions of her spouse and is disagreeable on the tactics her husband employs.
The use of “nanny cam” can both invade and not invade nanny`s privacy
One of the cases that is useful in exploring the aforementioned issues is the case of Jones v Tsige on invasion of privacy.
In order to examine whether Cuthbert`s use of the nanny cam would constitute or not constitute the invasion of privacy, it is necessary to use the Prosser`s “intrusion upon seclusion” test that was set out in Jones v Tsige, and which posits “One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the invasion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” In addition, this tort extends to the use of technological advices that are used to invade the privacy of an