CanadaCriminal Code, Interception of Private Communications
R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 184, 193, 194
In force.
An interception and recording consent rule binding public and private bodies.
- Obligation class
- Consent, Prohibition
What it requires
- Get the consent, express or implied, of the originator of a private communication or of the person the originator intended to receive it, before intercepting it by an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device; consent from either one of those two people is enough under federal law, so a business recording its own calls is not committing this offence.
- Before a recording or transcription vendor intercepts a call for you, give it your consent as a party to the call: the exemption covers any person who has a party's consent, not only the party.
- Do not knowingly use, disclose, or disclose the existence of, a private communication that was intercepted without the consent this rule requires.
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.
In the frameworks
- NIST Privacy Framework
- CT.PO-P1Policies, processes, and procedures for authorizing data processing (e.g., organizational decisions, individual consent), revoking authorizations, and maintaining authorizations are established and in place.
- FINOS AIGF
- AIR-PREV-005System Acceptance Testing
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
If you get it wrong
Criminal exposureYes
Private right of actionNo
Criminal exposure note
Interception under section 184 is an indictable offence carrying up to five years' imprisonment, or a summary-conviction offence; unauthorized use or disclosure of an intercepted communication under section 193 is an indictable offence carrying up to two years' imprisonment, or a summary-conviction offence.
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
Public prosecution by the Crown; a court that convicts an accused may additionally order punitive damages under section 194 on the application of a person aggrieved, but only after a conviction and only at sentencing, not as an independent civil suit.
Settledness
- As of
- Open questions
- Does a call that a business has told the caller in advance may be recorded remain a 'private communication' under section 183, given that the definition turns on whether it is 'reasonable for the originator to expect that it will not be intercepted by any person other than the person intended by the originator to receive it'?
What this law does
Section 184(1) makes it an offence, punishable by up to five years' imprisonment on indictable conviction or by summary conviction, to knowingly intercept a private communication by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device.
Section 184(2)(a) exempts a person who has the consent, express or implied, of the originator of the communication or of the person the originator intended to receive it, which makes Canada a one-party-consent jurisdiction; that exemption is not limited to a person who is themselves a party to the call, so a third party such as a recording or transcription vendor engaged by a business can rely on the same consent the business itself holds as a party to the call.
A further exemption in section 184(2)(c) covers a telecommunications service provider that intercepts a communication where necessary to provide the service, for service-quality monitoring, or to protect its own rights or property related to providing the service.
Section 193(1) separately makes it an offence, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment on indictable conviction or by summary conviction, to knowingly use, disclose, or disclose the existence of, a private communication that was intercepted without the consent of the originator or intended recipient.
Section 194 lets a court that has convicted an accused of an offence under section 184, 184.5, 193 or 193.1 order, on the application of the person aggrieved and at the time sentence is imposed, punitive damages of up to $5,000, unless that person has already commenced an action under Part II of the Crown Liability Act over the same conduct; the award, once made, can be registered and enforced as a civil judgment. The provisions this entry describes came into force on different days.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app records calls, records text chat or processes voice recordings.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .