Manitoba Recording Laws: One-Party Consent & Privacy Act

Manitoba follows Canada's nationwide one-party consent rule: if you are a party to a conversation, you may record it without notifying the other participants. Recording a private communication you are not part of (without any party's consent) is a federal criminal offence. Manitoba also has a provincial statutory tort under The Privacy Act, C.C.S.M. c. P125, which means a person whose privacy is substantially and unreasonably violated can sue for damages without proving any financial loss.

Is It Legal to Record Conversations in Manitoba?

Yes, with a critical boundary. Canada operates under a federal one-party consent rule embedded in Part VI of the Criminal Code. Section 184(2)(a) of the Criminal Code provides that the general interception offence in s. 184(1) does not apply to a person who has the consent (express or implied) of the originator of a private communication or of the person intended to receive it. Because you yourself are a party to any conversation you are participating in, your own participation constitutes consent. You do not need the other party's knowledge or agreement.

This rule is federal and uniform. It applies identically in Winnipeg, Brandon, Thompson, and every other part of Manitoba. No provincial legislation overrides it. Manitoba has not enacted a stricter two-party consent rule for audio recording, as some US states have done.

The consent rule extends to multi-party conversations. Section 183.1 of the Criminal Code provides that where a private communication involves more than two people, consent by any one of those persons is sufficient for the purposes of Part VI. If you are on a conference call with four participants, your own consent is enough to record lawfully.

The foundation of the rule is the definition of "private communication" in s. 183: an oral communication or telecommunication made under circumstances in which it is reasonable for the originator to expect that it will not be intercepted by any person other than the intended recipient. When you are the intended recipient (or originator), that reasonable expectation does not extend to exclude you.

Recording Conversations You Are a Party To

When you are a participant in a conversation (in person, by telephone, by video call, or through any messaging platform) you may record that exchange in Manitoba without disclosing your intention to record. The Criminal Code imposes no notification requirement. There is no provincial statute that changes this.

Practically, this covers a wide range of situations: recording a business meeting to keep an accurate record, capturing a dispute with a landlord, preserving a phone call with a customer service representative, or documenting a conversation with a supervisor. Each of these is lawful under s. 184(2)(a) provided you are an actual participant.

The lawfulness of the recording is, however, separate from how you use the recording afterward. Section 193(1) of the Criminal Code makes it an offence (punishable by up to two years imprisonment or by summary conviction) to knowingly use or disclose the substance of a private communication that was intercepted without the consent of all parties. This provision applies to unlawfully obtained recordings; a lawfully made one-party recording does not fall within s. 193. But wider legal considerations (defamation, contempt, civil liability) may arise depending on what you do with the recording.

Manitoba's Privacy Act adds a further civil dimension discussed below.

Recording Others: Private Communications You Are Not Part Of

If you are not a party to a private communication and no party has consented to the interception, recording it is a criminal offence under s. 184(1): an indictable offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment, or an offence punishable on summary conviction. There is no ambiguity here. The Criminal Code's protection of private communications is robust.

This applies to all forms of interception: audio recording, telephonic monitoring, digital interception, and any electro-magnetic, acoustic, or mechanical device. Placing a listening device in someone else's home, intercepting a phone call between two other people, or accessing a private voicemail without authorisation all constitute offences.

The phrase "private communication" requires that the originator have a reasonable expectation that the communication will not be intercepted by a third party. In a genuinely private setting (a one-on-one conversation in a private office, a phone call between two individuals) that expectation clearly exists.

Recording Phone Calls in Manitoba

Phone calls in Manitoba are private communications under s. 183 of the Criminal Code. The one-party consent rule applies fully: if you are a party to the call, you may record it. If you are not a party and no party consents, recording is a criminal offence under s. 184(1).

Manitoba's Privacy Act reinforces this on the civil side. Section 3(b) of the Act identifies as an example of a violation of privacy the "listening to or recording of a conversation in which that person participates, or messages to or from that person, passing along, over or through any telephone lines, otherwise than as a lawful party thereto or under lawful authority." A covert interception of someone else's phone call therefore carries both criminal exposure and civil tort liability under provincial law.

When businesses record customer calls in Manitoba, they are subject to PIPEDA's accountability requirements. Organisations conducting commercial activity in Manitoba must comply with PIPEDA, which requires that individuals be notified of the purposes for which their personal information is collected and that consent be obtained. Standard practice is the recorded-call announcement played at the start of a customer service call.

Video Recording and Voyeurism

The one-party consent rule applies to audio interception of private communications. Video recording is governed by separate provisions and raises distinct considerations.

In public spaces where people have no reasonable expectation of privacy, video recording is generally lawful. A person walking on a public street in Winnipeg, speaking at an outdoor event, or sitting in a public park has no reasonable expectation against being filmed.

Section 162(1) of the Criminal Code creates the voyeurism offence, which applies where a person surreptitiously observes or makes a visual recording of another person who is in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The three triggering circumstances are: a location where nudity or sexual exposure is reasonably expected (a bathroom, changing room, bedroom); a situation where the person is actually in a state of nudity and the purpose is to record that state; or a recording made for a sexual purpose. Voyeurism is an indictable offence carrying up to five years imprisonment, or a summary conviction offence.

Section 162.1(1) adds a related offence: non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Publishing, distributing, transmitting, or making available a visual recording of a person in a state of nudity or engaged in explicit sexual activity (knowing the person did not consent to distribution, or being reckless as to consent) carries up to five years imprisonment on indictment.

These provisions apply regardless of how the image was obtained. Even a consensually recorded intimate image, if later distributed without consent, falls within s. 162.1.

Workplace and Surreptitious Recording in Manitoba

Covert recording in the workplace is an area where legal permission and practical consequences diverge significantly. Under Criminal Code s. 184(2)(a), an employee who records a meeting with their manager, a disciplinary hearing, or a conversation with a co-worker is acting lawfully, provided the employee is an actual participant in the exchange.

However, Manitoba employment law and labour arbitration jurisprudence have repeatedly held that covert recording, even when technically lawful, can constitute a breach of the duty of good faith and fidelity owed to an employer. Courts and arbitrators assess whether the recording was proportionate to a legitimate purpose, whether it breached an express or implied duty of confidentiality, and whether it was incompatible with the continuing employment relationship. Dismissal for cause has been upheld in cases where covert recording was found to be a betrayal of workplace trust, even absent a specific policy prohibition.

Manitoba employees considering recording a workplace conversation should therefore understand the distinction between criminal permission and employment risk. Documenting a genuine safety concern or preserving evidence of harassment may be defensible. Indiscriminate covert recording of colleagues in the ordinary course of work carries real dismissal risk.

An employer who deploys call-recording systems, CCTV, or audio monitoring of employees in the course of commercial activity must comply with PIPEDA's accountability and consent requirements.

Manitoba Privacy Law: The Privacy Act and PIPEDA

Manitoba has two overlapping privacy frameworks relevant to recording: the federal PIPEDA statute governing organisations, and the provincial Privacy Act creating a civil tort for individuals.

PIPEDA and Private-Sector Organisations

Manitoba does not have a private-sector privacy law deemed substantially similar to PIPEDA by the Governor in Council. British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec each have such laws that displace PIPEDA for intra-provincial commercial activity in those provinces. Manitoba does not. PIPEDA therefore governs commercial organisations operating in Manitoba with respect to the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information.

PIPEDA does not apply to individuals recording conversations for personal purposes. The Act's exemption for "an individual's collection, use or disclosure of personal information strictly for personal purposes" means that an individual's right (or prohibition) to record is determined by the Criminal Code, not PIPEDA. PIPEDA matters to Manitoba businesses deploying surveillance systems, call-recording infrastructure, or data-processing operations; it does not apply to individuals exercising or violating the Criminal Code's consent rule.

Complaints under PIPEDA are investigated by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

Manitoba Privacy Act: The Statutory Tort

Manitoba's Privacy Act, C.C.S.M. c. P125, is one of four provincial statutes in Canada (alongside British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador) that create a statutory civil tort of violation of privacy. This is the distinctive feature of Manitoba's privacy landscape.

Section 2(1) of the Act provides: a person who substantially, unreasonably, and without claim of right, violates the privacy of another person, commits a tort against that other person.

Section 2(2) expressly states that this tort is actionable without proof of damage. You do not need to show financial loss or any quantifiable harm to succeed in a civil claim.

The Manitoba Act's mental element differs from British Columbia's Privacy Act in an important respect. BC's statute requires that the violation be "wilful" (a deliberate act). Manitoba's s. 2(1) uses no equivalent wilfulness requirement. The standard is whether the violation was substantial and unreasonable. A person who records another's private communications carelessly or recklessly (without any specific intention to invade privacy) may nonetheless be liable under the Manitoba Act.

Section 3 of the Act gives illustrative examples of conduct that may constitute a violation of privacy. These include:

Surveillance (visual or auditory) "by any means including eavesdropping, watching, spying, besetting or following." This encompasses the use of electronic devices to monitor another person's activities or communications.

Section 3(b): "listening to or recording of a conversation in which that person participates, or messages to or from that person, passing along, over or through any telephone lines, otherwise than as a lawful party thereto or under lawful authority." This is the telephone-specific recording example. It maps directly to the Criminal Code's consent structure for telephone communications: recording a call you are not a lawful party to is both a criminal offence and a recognised example of a privacy violation under the provincial tort. In-person covert audio surveillance falls under s. 3(a), which covers surveillance "by any means including eavesdropping."

Unauthorised use of a person's name, likeness, or voice for commercial purposes.

Use of letters, diaries, and other personal documents without the person's consent.

The defences under s. 5 of the Act include consent, reasonable diligence (where the defendant had lawful authority), statutory authority, peace officer or investigator conduct in the public interest, and publication privileges where the information is of legitimate public interest. These defences reflect the balancing function built into the tort; not every observation or record of another person is actionable.

Remedies under s. 4 include damages, injunctive relief where just and reasonable, an accounting of profits, and delivery of articles or documents obtained in violation of the Act. In assessing damages, courts consider the nature and circumstances of the violation, the effect on the plaintiff's health, welfare, and relationships, the distress caused, and the defendant's conduct including any apologies.

The combined effect of the Manitoba Privacy Act and Criminal Code s. 184(1) means that a covert recording of another person's private communications in Manitoba carries both criminal exposure (up to five years on indictment) and civil liability (tort damages without proof of financial loss) for the recorder.

Recording Police and Public Officials in Manitoba

Recording police officers and other public officials performing their duties in publicly accessible spaces is generally lawful in Manitoba. No provision of the Criminal Code prohibits it. The legal basis is s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects freedom of expression including the gathering of information of public interest. Filming a police interaction in a public space (an arrest on a city street, a protest response, a roadside stop) falls within that protection.

Two limits apply. First, s. 129 of the Criminal Code prohibits wilfully obstructing or resisting a peace officer in the execution of their duties. Physically interfering with an arrest, moving into the operational area of an emergency scene, or using a device to impede an officer's movement can constitute obstruction regardless of the recording purpose. The right to record does not include the right to obstruct.

Second, officers cannot as a routine matter order bystanders to stop recording, and cannot lawfully seize a recording device without a warrant (absent a recognised warrant exception such as the device being evidence of an offence). If an officer attempts to delete footage or confiscate a device without legal authority, the Civil Resolution Tribunal and civil courts have provided remedies in comparable contexts.

Penalties for Unlawful Recording in Manitoba

The consequences for illegally recording in Manitoba are serious and operate on two levels.

At the federal criminal level, interception of a private communication without consent under Criminal Code s. 184(1) is an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, or a summary conviction offence. Disclosure of an unlawfully intercepted private communication under s. 193(1) is a separate indictable offence, punishable by up to two years imprisonment, or a summary conviction offence. Voyeurism under s. 162(1) carries up to five years imprisonment on indictment. Non-consensual distribution of intimate images under s. 162.1(1) also carries up to five years on indictment.

At the provincial civil level, a person whose privacy is substantially and unreasonably violated under Manitoba's Privacy Act can sue for damages without proving financial loss. Courts assess damages on the nature of the violation, the distress caused, and the defendant's conduct. Injunctions and accounts of profits are also available.

There is no minimum sentence for criminal interception offences; the range from summary conviction (carrying lesser maximum penalties) to five-year indictable reflects the spectrum of severity.

Practical Tips for Recording in Manitoba

Before recording any conversation in Manitoba, work through the following:

Are you a party to the conversation? If yes, the Criminal Code permits the recording under s. 184(2)(a). If no, recording requires the express or implied consent of at least one party; otherwise it is a criminal offence.

Is this a workplace recording? Legal permission under the Criminal Code does not eliminate employment risk. Assess whether there is a legitimate and proportionate purpose before covertly recording colleagues or supervisors.

Is the subject matter an audio conversation or a video recording? The one-party consent rule applies to audio interception of private communications. Video recording in private spaces, or surreptitious filming for a sexual purpose, engages the voyeurism provisions of s. 162 regardless of whether you are a party to any conversation.

Does your intended use of the recording engage s. 193? Sharing a lawfully obtained recording publicly (in media, on social platforms, or in proceedings) may engage defamation, contempt, or civil privacy claims even if the initial recording was lawful.

Does the Manitoba Privacy Act apply? Recording a telephone conversation or telephone messages without being a lawful party is an illustrative example of a privacy violation under s. 3(b) of the Act; covert audio surveillance by any means (including in-person eavesdropping) falls under s. 3(a). Even if the criminal threshold is somehow not met, civil liability without proof of damage may follow.

Are you an organisation? If you are a business operating in Manitoba, PIPEDA applies to any recording, monitoring, or data collection in the course of commercial activity. Notify individuals and obtain consent as required.

Sources