Law Times

Page 16 April 10, 2017 • lAw Times www.lawtimesnews.com FAMILY LAW Every time you refer a client to our firm, you are putting your reputation on the line. It is all about trust well placed. TRUST Thomson, Rogers Lawyers YOUR ADVANTAGE, in and out of the courtroom. TF: 1.888.223.0448 T: 416.868.3100 www.thomsonrogers.com Since 1936 Thomson, Rogers has built a strong, trusting, and collegial relationship with hundreds of lawyers across the province. As a law firm specializing in civil litigation, we have a record of accomplishment second to none. With a group of 30 litigators and a support staff of over 100 people, we have the resources to achieve the best possible result for your client. We welcome the chance to speak or meet with you about any potential referral. We look forward to creating a solid relationship with you that will benefit the clients we serve. ROBERT BEN | LEONARD KUNKA | ALAN FARRER Untitled-5 1 2017-04-03 3:39 PM AnyWhere AnyTime AnyDevice DM Tools Cloud for child and spousal support calculations. Pay-per-use and annual subscription options available. www.divorcemate.com āċĉĀĀċćĆăċĀĊĂĆƫ40ċƫąĀĈƫđƫ/(!/Į %2+.!)0!ċ+) Essential Tools for Family Law Professionals Straightforward, easy-to-understand printout. Instant, secure access to all of your client files at home, at work, at court. Untitled-1 1 2016-11-03 9:18 AM Privacy law important for family lawyers BY MICHAEL MCKIERNAN For Law Times F amily lawyers are boost- ing their privacy law knowledge to keep up with their clients' desire to make claims against former partners. In the recent case of Patel v. Sheth, a family court judge ordered a husband to pay his estranged wife $15,000 in dam- ages for invasion of privacy after he admitted to surreptitiously planting a camera in the pair's bedroom during an attempted reconciliation. And Marta Si- emiarczuk, a family lawyer with Nelligan Payne O'Brien LLP in Ottawa, says she expects many more awards like it in the com- ing years as cases make their way through the court system. The Court of Appeal for On- tario only recognized the exis- tence of an invasion of privacy tort, formally known as intru- sion upon seclusion, in January 2012, when it delivered its ver- dict in the case of Jones v. Tsige. That case involved a bank employee who repeatedly spied on a colleague's banking records over the course of four years. The parties had never actually met each other, although their relationship — the defendant had become romantically in- volved with the plaintiff 's for- mer spouse — provided at least a tangential connection to family law. Still, Siemiarczuk says, since the decision came down con- firming the privacy tort's exis- tence, few groups have embraced the concept as enthusiastically as family law litigants. "Since Jones, it comes up more and more. You see lots of people bringing that claim in family law proceedings, and the Patel decision is a great example of that," she says. Siemiarczuk says family law matters have al- ways been prone to complaints about privacy invasion, thanks to the shared history of the people involved and the intertwined na- ture of their lives. "When couples are separat- ing, it's not unusual for them to still be living together under the same roof for a number of years. They're often trying to get infor- mation out of each other, and you'll hear about people going through documents and com- puter files trying to figure out what the other person is doing," she says. Russell Alexander, a Lindsay, Ont.-based family lawyer, says that, historically, allegations of privacy invasions might have tainted a judge's perception of one party to a dispute. However, he says there were rarely con- crete repercussions unless one spouse breached the solicitor- client privilege of the other. "There's lots of case law say- ing that you've gone too far when you intercept an email from your spouse's lawyer and read the ad- vice that they've given and that there are consequences for cross- ing that line," he says. However, he says decisions such as Tsige and Patel have drawn new lines in the sand that family lawyers must warn their clients about. "The message the court is try- ing to get out is that separating spouses are still entitled to enjoy their privacy. It's sort of contrary to what you normally experience in the context of family law, be- cause, ordinarily, the situation is one of full disclosure of all assets and everything else," Alexander says. "But courts will always step in when parties cross the line, and with each decision, they're defining that line and making it a bit clearer." In Patel, the couple initially separated in 2012, about two years into their marriage, after an argument that resulted in an assault charge being laid against the husband. The charge was later withdrawn and the pair reconciled in 2013, moving back in together. However, they split up again in early 2014, this time for good. According to Ontario Supe- rior Court Justice Joseph Frago- meni's Dec. 9 judgment, later in 2014, the wife discovered a key chain containing a camera that her husband had installed in their bedroom, facing the bath- room. He claimed it was done to protect himself from false as- sault allegations, that he had only turned it on for a couple of days and that he had never down- loaded the images in any cases. But in his decision, Fragomeni said the husband's explanation "makes no sense." After finding the privacy claim established, Fragomeni settled on $15,000 as an appropriate damage award. "If you look at the damages awarded, I don't think they're trying to start a growth industry in privacy claims," Alexander says. "But being found to have breached someone's privacy comes with a certain amount of stigma, so, hopefully, decisions like this will help reduce some of these high-conf lict cases." LT Russell Alexander says that, historically, allegations of privacy invasions might have tainted a judge's perception of one party to a dispute.

• Cover