Surveillance Laws by Province in Canada [2026]

Canada has no single surveillance statute. Three overlapping legal layers govern every province: the federal Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, the federal PIPEDA, SC 2000, c 5, and — in Alberta, BC, and Quebec — a provincial privacy statute that displaces PIPEDA for intra-provincial work. Every province also licenses PIs under its own statute. As licensed PIs, we work across this patchwork daily — and the variation is larger than most clients expect.

What is surveillance law in Canada: the federal spine

Surveillance law in Canada is not a single statute. It is the intersection of the federal Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, federal or provincial privacy legislation, and each province’s private-investigator licensing regime. Together these three layers determine what surveillance conduct is criminal, what is civilly actionable, and what obligations a licensed PI carries in each jurisdiction.

For purposes of this article, “surveillance” means the covert or overt observation, recording, photographing, or location-tracking of a person — including fixed-point video, mobile photographic surveillance, and GPS device monitoring. Audio and electronic interception of private communications is a separate legal category governed by Criminal Code ss. 183–184.2 and is outside this article’s scope; for that regime, see our companion article on one-party consent recording in Canada. (Department of Justice Canada 2026)

The Criminal Code provisions relevant to surveillance apply equally in all ten provinces and three territories. Key sections for PI work are:

• s. 162 — Voyeurism: prohibits surreptitious visual recording of a person in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy; conviction on indictment carries up to five years imprisonment.
• s. 264 — Criminal harassment: prohibits repeatedly following, watching, or besetting a person where that conduct causes the victim to reasonably fear for their safety; up to ten years on indictment.
• s. 430 — Mischief: prohibits wilfully interfering with the lawful use or enjoyment of property — the provision that captures unauthorized GPS tracker installation on another person’s vehicle.
• s. 492.1 — Tracking device warrants: authorizes law enforcement — not private persons — to install tracking devices; requires reasonable grounds to suspect (for things) or reasonable grounds to believe (for individuals).

Above the Criminal Code floor, each province falls into one of two categories: those governed by federal PIPEDA for private-sector surveillance activity, and those where a substantially similar provincial statute displaces PIPEDA. The sections below map both layers across all ten provinces. For a detailed overview of how these rules apply to surveillance evidence in family proceedings, see our surveillance research hub.

Criminal Code provisions that apply across all provinces

The Criminal Code’s voyeurism provision, s. 162(1), was authoritatively interpreted by the Supreme Court in R. v. Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10. A teacher had secretly filmed students with a hidden pen-camera in classrooms and school hallways. The Court held unanimously that the students had a reasonable expectation of privacy even in those semi-public spaces — because the question is not whether the subject was visible to others, but whether the recording was made in circumstances giving rise to a privacy interest. Conviction on indictment carries up to five years imprisonment. (Supreme Court of Canada 2019)

The full nine-factor contextual test from Jarvis — including how the relationship between observer and observed bears on reasonable expectation of privacy — is examined in detail in our companion post on spousal surveillance laws in Canada.

Criminal Code s. 264 makes criminal harassment an offence carrying up to ten years on indictment. The four prohibited categories are: (1) repeatedly following a person from place to place; (2) repeatedly communicating with the person; (3) watching, besetting or besieging a person’s home, workplace, or any place they frequent; and (4) engaging in threatening conduct. A PI who conducts continuous close-range mobile surveillance that meets the “repeatedly following” or “watching and besetting” threshold — particularly if the subject reasonably fears for their safety — can engage s. 264 regardless of whether the PI holds a valid licence. (Department of Justice Canada 2026)

Section 492.1 governs tracking device warrants. Standard warrants last up to 60 days; warrants for organized crime or terrorism offences may last up to one year. The two-tier standard — reasonable grounds to suspect for things, reasonable grounds to believe for individuals — reflects the Court’s earlier direction in R. v. Wise, 1992 CanLII 125 (SCC), where installing a tracking device on a suspect’s vehicle without authorization was held to constitute an unreasonable search under s. 8 of the Charter. That ruling was the direct legislative catalyst for the s. 492.1 framework. Private investigators — unlike law enforcement — have no statutory authority to install tracking devices on vehicles they do not own; doing so may ground a criminal mischief charge under s. 430. (Department of Justice Canada 2026)

Which privacy statute governs: PIPEDA vs provincial equivalents

Under PIPEDA, SC 2000, c 5, s. 26(2)(b), the Governor in Council may exempt organizations from PIPEDA’s Part 1 where a province’s legislation is substantially similar. Three provinces have obtained that exemption: Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec. (OPC 2020)

In the seven provinces without substantially similar private-sector privacy legislation — Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador — PIPEDA governs all private-sector collection of personal information in the course of commercial activity, including PI surveillance work. The OPC enforces PIPEDA in those provinces and issues findings on complaints about improper surveillance.

British Columbia’s PIPA, SBC 2003, c 63, ss. 11 and 14 limits organizations to collecting only personal information whose collection “a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances” — a proportionality standard identical in spirit to PIPEDA’s. British Columbia is also the only Canadian province with a statutory tort of privacy. BC’s Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c 373, s. 1 creates a civil cause of action “actionable without proof of damage” for wilful, unjustified privacy violations. Section 1(4) explicitly extends the tort to “eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass” — meaning unlawful surveillance in BC creates civil liability independently of any Criminal Code exposure. (BC Laws 2026)

Quebec’s Act Respecting the Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector, CQLR c P-39.1, as amended by Law 25, is the strictest private-sector privacy statute in Canada. The Law 25 amendments came into force in three tranches — September 22, 2022; September 22, 2023; and September 22, 2024 (right to data portability). Section 8.1, in force since the September 22, 2023 tranche, requires that any technology capable of identifying, locating, or profiling a person must be disclosed to the individual and deactivated by default. This disclosure obligation directly affects PI firms in Quebec that use GPS tracking or location-based surveillance technology.

Surveillance law by province: a comparison

Sources: Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 (Department of Justice Canada 2026); OPC Provincial Laws page 2020; provincial CanLII statutes cited throughout.

How provincial privacy statutes interact with the Criminal Code

The Criminal Code sets a floor. Conduct that violates ss. 162 or 264 is criminal regardless of what any provincial privacy statute permits. Provincial privacy statutes — whether PIPEDA, BC PIPA, Alberta PIPA, or Quebec’s P-39.1 — operate on a separate civil and regulatory track. They govern whether a PI firm may lawfully collect, use, and disclose personal information in the course of commercial surveillance activity.

A PI can be compliant with a provincial privacy statute and still commit a Criminal Code offence. Compliance with PIPEDA’s legitimate-purpose test does not immunize the PI from s. 162 if the method of collection is surreptitious in a context where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Conversely, a method that avoids criminal liability (observing someone in a public park) can still violate a provincial privacy statute if the purpose for the collection cannot satisfy the proportionality requirement. (OPC 2015)

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s 2015 Guidance on Covert Video Surveillance in the Private Sector identifies three cumulative conditions that must all be met for covert video surveillance to be justified under PIPEDA: (1) there must be a demonstrable, evidentiary need — not mere suspicion; (2) the personal information must be clearly related to a legitimate business purpose; and (3) the loss of privacy must be proportional to the benefit gained, having considered whether less invasive alternatives exist. The OPC treats covert video surveillance as “an extremely privacy-invasive form of technology, the use of which should only be considered in the most limited cases.” These three conditions apply directly in the seven PIPEDA provinces; Alberta and BC PIPA incorporate the same proportionality logic under different statutory language.

Quebec’s s. 8.1 adds a layer absent from PIPEDA and the other provincial equivalents. Under that provision — confirmed in force from LégisQuébec, CQLR c P-39.1 — any technology that identifies, locates, or profiles a person must be disclosed to the individual and configured to deactivate by default. A PI firm in Quebec that uses a GPS tracking device during an investigation must satisfy this disclosure obligation in addition to the three-condition PIPEDA-equivalent test under the provincial Act.

R. v. Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 confirmed that a public or semi-public location does not automatically negate a privacy interest. Recording creates a permanent, easily shared artefact that intensifies privacy intrusion beyond mere observation. The Court’s holding applies to both criminal voyeurism analysis under s. 162 and civil privacy tort analysis under BC’s Privacy Act — meaning the same conduct can simultaneously engage criminal, civil, and regulatory liability.

What a licensed private investigator can and cannot do in each province

What a licensed PI may lawfully do — across all provinces:

• Conduct mobile photographic and video surveillance of a subject in publicly accessible spaces (streets, parking lots, shopping centres) where the subject does not have a contextual reasonable expectation of privacy, applying the Jarvis framework.
• Document movements, locations, and associations in locations where no privacy expectation applies — provided the surveillance does not rise to “repeatedly following” or “watching and besetting” under Criminal Code s. 264.
• Install a GPS tracking device on a vehicle the client solely owns, where the PI documents current registration confirming sole ownership — keeping the engagement within the PIPEDA or provincial-equivalent proportionality framework and outside s. 430 mischief risk. (For the full vehicle-ownership threshold analysis, see our spousal surveillance laws post.)
• Compile surveillance reports documenting a subject’s activities in a form that can be verified under oath at a subsequent hearing. (OPC 2015)

What a licensed PI may NOT do — across all provinces:

• Install a GPS tracking device on a vehicle they do not own, or that is jointly owned, without the co-owner’s consent. Doing so can constitute criminal mischief under Criminal Code s. 430 and is not authorized by any provincial PI-licensing statute.
• Conduct surveillance in circumstances where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy — for example, using a zoom lens into a private dwelling, or recording inside a medical facility.
• Intercept private audio communications under Criminal Code s. 184 — no provincial PI-licensing act provides this authority.
• Continue surveillance once the court outcome renders the purpose moot; an ongoing legitimate purpose is required to satisfy both the Criminal Code and PIPEDA or provincial-equivalent proportionality tests.

Quebec-specific additional obligations:

In Quebec specifically, PI firms must comply with the disclosure requirements of P-39.1, s. 8.1 when using any location-tracking technology — an obligation that has no equivalent in other provinces. (LégisQuébec 2024)

Ontario’s PSISA, SO 2005, c 34 and O Reg 363/07 (Code of Conduct) require every licensed PI to: act with honesty and integrity; comply with all federal, provincial, and municipal laws; treat all information received as confidential except where disclosure is required by the work or by law; and co-operate with police where required. These obligations supplement — they do not replace — the Criminal Code and PIPEDA floors.

Recent changes to Canadian surveillance law (2024-2026)

Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, 2026, is proposed legislation currently before Parliament. As of June 2026, it had passed second reading on April 20, 2026, and was before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU). It has not been enacted. (Parliament of Canada — LEGISinfo 2026)

If passed, Bill C-22 would amend the Criminal Code to modernize production orders, tracking warrants, and transmission data warrants. Specific proposed changes include: extending tracking warrants to cover devices not yet identified at the time of issue; extending transmission data warrants to cover communication means discovered after issue; introducing a new warrant for examining computer data in seized systems; and creating a “Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act” (Part 2) that would obligate core electronic service providers to maintain lawful-access capabilities and retain metadata for up to one year. (Department of Justice Canada — Charter Statement, C-22 2026)

For PI firms, the bill’s direct impact — if enacted — would be limited. PIs are not “core providers” under the proposed framework and cannot obtain tracking warrants under any version of s. 492.1. The broader significance is that an expanded judicial-oversight framework for law-enforcement tracking warrants sets the contextual background against which courts will continue to assess whether PI conduct falls within or outside acceptable limits.

Quebec’s Law 25 completed its three-year rollout on September 22, 2024, when the right to data portability came into force under CQLR c P-39.1. From that date, PI firms in Quebec must, on request, provide individuals with their personal information in a structured, commonly used technological format — and, where technically feasible, transfer it directly to another organization. This is the strictest data-subject rights regime in Canada. It applies to surveillance footage, GPS logs, and investigation reports that contain the subject’s personal information.

What this means for surveillance work across Canada

The practical compliance matrix for a PI firm operating nationally has five distinct layers.

The Criminal Code governs uniformly in all provinces. No PI may use surreptitious audio interception or install tracking devices on property they do not own — these prohibitions exist independently of any provincial licensing regime or privacy statute.

In Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, and Newfoundland and Labrador, PIPEDA’s three-condition test — demonstrable need, legitimate purpose, and proportionality — governs every surveillance video collection. The OPC’s covert-surveillance guidance is the operative enforcement standard in those seven provinces.

In BC, the additional statutory tort of privacy under RSBC 1996, c 373, s. 1(4) means that unlawful surveillance creates civil liability without proof of actual damage — a higher exposure than in PIPEDA provinces, where a complainant must demonstrate a breach through the OPC complaint process.

In Alberta, Alberta PIPA, SA 2003, c P-6.5 applies the same proportionality framework as PIPEDA but under OIPC Alberta enforcement. The practical compliance analysis mirrors PIPEDA’s three-condition test.

In Quebec, P-39.1 as amended by Law 25 imposes the strictest obligations of any Canadian jurisdiction — including s. 8.1 location-technology disclosure, privacy impact assessments, data breach notification obligations, and data portability rights that have no counterpart in PIPEDA or the other provincial statutes.

As licensed PIs, we structure every engagement around this five-layer matrix: confirming the province, identifying the applicable privacy statute, assessing the Criminal Code exposure of the proposed method, and documenting the legitimate purpose before surveillance begins. Clients who need surveillance investigation services across multiple provinces face structurally different compliance obligations depending on where the work is conducted — one reason a national-scope engagement requires province-by-province legal analysis, not a single blanket approach.

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. Canadian law varies by jurisdiction and changes over time. For advice specific to your situation, consult a lawyer licensed to practise in your province.