Sandra Jones
1. The plaintiff in this case is Sandra Jones, and the defendant is Winnie Tsige. What is case is about is Winnie Tsige, has been surreptitiously looking at Sandra Jones banking records.
2. The case was heard September 29, 2011 by the court of appeal for Ontario, and the result at the original trial was does Ontario law recognize a right to bring a civil action for damages for the invasion of personal privacy.
3. The court that heard the case in the attached file was Kevin M.V. Whitaker, of the Superior court of Justice, date March 23 2011, with reasons reported at 2011 ONSC 1475, 333 D.L.R (4TH) 566.
4. The important facts in this case is Tsige and Jones did not know each other, and Tsige was in a relationship with Jones former husband. The other important fact were as a bank employee, Tsige had full access to Jones banking information and contrary to the bank’s policy, looked into Jones banking records at least 174 times over a period of four years.
5. The issues that the court had to decide is whether the motion judge erred by granting summary judgment and dismissing Jones claim for damages on the ground that Ontario law does not recognize the tort of beach of primacy.
6. The court refer to other cases because Jones appeals to the court, raising the following issue, did the motion judge err in holding that Ontario law does not recognize a cause of action for invasion of privacy.
7. The elements that are necessary in order to be successful with an action for intrusion upon seclusion is first, the defendant’s conduct must be intentional, within which I would include reckless; second that the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns; and third that a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish.
8. The limitations on an action for intrusion upon seclusion are it is only intrusions into matters such as
2. The case was heard September 29, 2011 by the court of appeal for Ontario, and the result at the original trial was does Ontario law recognize a right to bring a civil action for damages for the invasion of personal privacy.
3. The court that heard the case in the attached file was Kevin M.V. Whitaker, of the Superior court of Justice, date March 23 2011, with reasons reported at 2011 ONSC 1475, 333 D.L.R (4TH) 566.
4. The important facts in this case is Tsige and Jones did not know each other, and Tsige was in a relationship with Jones former husband. The other important fact were as a bank employee, Tsige had full access to Jones banking information and contrary to the bank’s policy, looked into Jones banking records at least 174 times over a period of four years.
5. The issues that the court had to decide is whether the motion judge erred by granting summary judgment and dismissing Jones claim for damages on the ground that Ontario law does not recognize the tort of beach of primacy.
6. The court refer to other cases because Jones appeals to the court, raising the following issue, did the motion judge err in holding that Ontario law does not recognize a cause of action for invasion of privacy.
7. The elements that are necessary in order to be successful with an action for intrusion upon seclusion is first, the defendant’s conduct must be intentional, within which I would include reckless; second that the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns; and third that a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish.
8. The limitations on an action for intrusion upon seclusion are it is only intrusions into matters such as