Ontario Recording Laws: Is It Legal to Record? (2026)

You can record a conversation you are part of in Ontario because Canada operates under one-party consent nationwide: Criminal Code s. 184(2)(a) permits any party to a private communication to record it. Recording a private communication you are not part of (without any party's consent) is a federal offence punishable by up to five years in prison.

Is It Legal to Record in Ontario?

Recording law in Ontario is governed first and foremost by federal legislation. The Criminal Code of Canada (RSC 1985, c C-46) applies uniformly across every province and territory, including Ontario. There is no Ontario-specific consent statute for audio recording, and no Ontario law imposes a stricter standard than the federal rule.

The governing rule is one-party consent. Under s. 184(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, the interception offence in s. 184(1) does not apply to a person who has the consent (express or implied) of the originator of the private communication or of the person the originator intended to receive it. In plain terms: if you are a participant in the conversation, you already have the required consent and may lawfully record it without notifying or asking anyone else.

This rule has applied throughout Canada since the Criminal Code provisions came into force, and no province, including Ontario, has enacted a stricter two-party or all-party consent requirement for audio recording. This stands in contrast to several American states (such as California, Florida, and Illinois) that require all parties to consent. In Ontario, and across Canada, one party is enough.

Recording Conversations You Are Part Of

When you are one of the participants in a conversation (whether in person, over the phone, by video call, or through any other communication medium) you are a party to that communication within the meaning of the Criminal Code. Section 184(2)(a) applies directly. You do not need to announce that you are recording, obtain permission from other participants, or disclose the recording afterwards.

Section 183.1 extends this rule to multi-party communications: where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended to be received by more than one person, the consent of any one of those persons is sufficient for the purposes of Part VI of the Criminal Code. A group conversation in which you are a participant remains lawfully recordable by you alone.

The private communication definition in s. 183 requires that the communication be made under circumstances where it is reasonable for the originator to expect it will not be intercepted by anyone other than the intended recipient. A face-to-face meeting in a private office, a phone call, and a private video conference all qualify as private communications. A statement made at a public rally or on a crowded street likely does not, because no reasonable expectation of privacy attaches to it. In those situations s. 184(1) is not even engaged, and recording is unambiguously lawful regardless of whether you are a participant.

Recording Others: Private Communications You Are Not Part Of

The critical boundary is participation. If you are not a party to the conversation, and no party to it has consented, recording that conversation is an indictable offence under s. 184(1) of the Criminal Code, punishable by up to five years imprisonment or, alternatively, by summary conviction.

This covers a wide range of situations: placing a recording device in a room before a meeting you are not attending, intercepting someone else's phone calls, bugging a colleague's office, or using software to capture communications between others. None of the one-party exemptions apply where the person doing the recording is not a participant and has not obtained the consent of any party.

The definition of "intercept" in s. 183 is broad: it includes listening to, recording, acquiring, or acquiring the substance of a private communication by any means. The technology used (an audio recorder, a smartphone, a telephone tap, or digital software) does not affect the analysis.

Phone Calls

Recording a telephone call you are a party to is entirely lawful in Ontario under s. 184(2)(a). This applies to calls on mobile phones, landlines, voice-over-internet platforms, and any other telephone technology. You do not need to give prior notice, play a disclosure tone, or obtain verbal confirmation from the other party.

This is a source of frequent confusion for Ontario residents who are aware of American law. In US states such as California, recording a phone call requires all parties to consent. That rule has no equivalent in Canadian federal law and no Ontario statute creates one.

Recording a phone call you are not part of (for instance, a call between two colleagues that you are not connected to) is the intercepting-without-consent offence. The method is irrelevant: whether you use a wiretap, forward the call to a third device, or deploy monitoring software, the offence is the same.

Video and Public Recording: Voyeurism

Criminal Code s. 184(2)(a) is an audio-recording provision. Lawful audio recording does not automatically licence all forms of video recording.

Section 162(1) creates the voyeurism offence: every person who surreptitiously observes (including by mechanical or electronic means) or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy commits an offence. Three circumstances trigger the provision: the person is in a place where nudity or sexual activity is reasonably expected; the person is actually nude or exposing themselves and the purpose is to capture that state; or the observation or recording is made for a sexual purpose. The penalty is an indictable offence with up to five years imprisonment, or a summary conviction offence.

A home, a changing room, a washroom, and a private bedroom are paradigm locations carrying a reasonable expectation of privacy. Placing a hidden camera in any such location is a s. 162 offence regardless of whether any audio is captured.

In public spaces where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists (a street, a public park, a government building lobby) recording people generally does not engage s. 162 unless the recording is for a sexual purpose or captures nudity. Ontario courts apply the same reasonable-expectation-of-privacy standard used elsewhere in Canadian criminal law.

Recording police officers performing their duties in a publicly accessible space is generally lawful in Ontario. No Criminal Code provision prohibits it. The right flows from s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of expression and encompasses the collection of information in public. The only criminal limit is s. 129: physically obstructing a peace officer in the lawful execution of their duties is an offence. Officers cannot lawfully order a bystander to stop recording as a routine matter, and they cannot seize a recording device without a warrant or a recognised warrant exception.

Section 162.1 creates a separate offence for non-consensual distribution of intimate images: knowingly publishing, distributing, transmitting, or making available an intimate image of a person without their consent (or while reckless as to consent) is an indictable offence carrying up to five years, or a summary conviction offence. An "intimate image" is a visual recording where the person is nude or engaged in explicit sexual activity and had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time of both recording and distribution. This offence can apply even where the original recording was lawful (for example, intimate images shared consensually during a relationship and later distributed without consent after the relationship ends).

Workplace and Surreptitious Recording

Recording a conversation you are part of at work (with a manager, with colleagues, or in a formal disciplinary meeting) is lawful under s. 184(2)(a). The employment context does not change the Criminal Code analysis. Many Ontario employees record workplace conversations precisely because the law permits it: an accurate record can be valuable in disputes over what was said.

However, criminal-law permissibility does not shield an employee from employment consequences. Canadian courts and labour arbitrators have, in certain cases, upheld dismissal for cause where covert recording was found to be a serious breach of the employee's duties of trust, good faith, or fidelity to the employer, even where the recording was technically legal. The outcome depends heavily on context: the purpose of the recording, the degree of surreptitious conduct, whether the employee had a legitimate reason (such as documenting harassment), and whether the workplace had a policy prohibiting recording. Ontario employees should consult the specific terms of their employment contract and any applicable workplace policy before recording covertly.

An employer's use of recording technology (call monitoring systems, CCTV, or software that logs employee communications) raises separate questions under PIPEDA (discussed below). Employers engaged in commercial activity must comply with PIPEDA's requirements for collecting, using, and disclosing personal information, including implementing appropriate security safeguards and notifying employees of monitoring practices to the extent required by law.

Ontario Privacy Law and Civil Exposure

PIPEDA: Federal Privacy Law Applies in Ontario

Ontario does not have a general private-sector privacy statute of its own. British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec each have provincial privacy laws deemed "substantially similar" to PIPEDA by the Governor in Council, which displace PIPEDA for intra-provincial commercial activity in those provinces. Ontario is not in this group.

For commercial activity in Ontario, PIPEDA (the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5) applies. PIPEDA governs how private-sector organisations collect, use, and disclose personal information in the course of commercial activity. It requires organisations to obtain meaningful consent, limit collection to what is necessary, safeguard personal information, and allow individuals to access and correct their information. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (priv.gc.ca) investigates complaints and can make recommendations; binding orders are available through Federal Court.

Ontario does have the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA), which the federal government has recognised as substantially similar to PIPEDA for health information purposes. PHIPA governs how health information custodians (hospitals, physicians, pharmacists, and others) collect and use personal health information. If a recording captures personal health information held by a custodian, PHIPA's requirements apply in addition to the Criminal Code's consent rules.

PIPEDA does not apply to individuals recording their own conversations for strictly personal purposes. Your right to record a conversation you are part of is governed by Criminal Code s. 184, not by PIPEDA.

The Jones v. Tsige Tort: Intrusion Upon Seclusion

Ontario's most significant privacy development for individuals is the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, recognised by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32.

In that case, a bank employee repeatedly accessed her ex-partner's bank account records over several years for purely personal reasons. There was no disclosure to third parties and no financial harm to the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal held that Ontario common law should recognise intrusion upon seclusion as a cause of action. The court drew on the long history of privacy protection in common-law jurisdictions and noted that the existing torts of breach of confidence and intentional infliction of nervous shock did not adequately protect reasonable expectations of privacy.

The three-part test the court established is as follows: (1) the defendant's conduct must have been intentional or reckless; (2) the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff's private affairs or concerns; and (3) a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive, causing distress, humiliation, or anguish. All three elements must be present. There is no requirement to prove actual financial loss.

On damages, the court set a cap of approximately $20,000 for the intrinsic wrong itself, sometimes described as "symbolic" or "moral" damages. The court was explicit that the cap reflects the nature of privacy violations, which often produce no quantifiable economic harm but nonetheless deserve a remedy. In cases involving bad faith, malice, or aggravating circumstances, a court could in principle award additional damages for related heads of loss, but the intrusion upon seclusion tort itself is capped in that range.

The practical consequence for recording in Ontario is significant: a person who records another's private communications, personal affairs, or activities (even without causing provable economic damage) may face a civil claim under Jones v. Tsige. The conduct must be intentional or reckless and must meet the "highly offensive to a reasonable person" threshold; not every unwelcome recording or privacy annoyance will qualify. But targeted surveillance of a person's private life, or repeated interception of communications not directed to you, could satisfy the test.

Ontario courts have applied and extended Jones v. Tsige since 2012, and the tort is now well-established in Ontario civil procedure. Unlike the statutory privacy torts in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario's intrusion upon seclusion cause of action is purely judge-made common law, which means it continues to develop through case-by-case judicial decisions.

Penalties

The key penalties under federal law that apply in Ontario are as follows.

Intercepting a private communication without consent (s. 184(1)) is an indictable offence carrying up to five years imprisonment, or a summary conviction offence. This is the core recording-without-consent charge.

Disclosing or using an intercepted private communication (s. 193(1)) is a separate indictable offence, carrying up to two years imprisonment, or a summary conviction offence. Even if the original interception was carried out by someone else, knowingly using or disclosing the substance of the intercepted communication is itself a crime.

Voyeurism (s. 162(1)) is an indictable offence with up to five years imprisonment, or a summary conviction offence.

Non-consensual distribution of intimate images (s. 162.1(1)) is an indictable offence with up to five years imprisonment, or a summary conviction offence.

Obstructing a peace officer (s. 129) is a summary conviction offence.

On the civil side, a successful plaintiff in an intrusion upon seclusion claim under Jones v. Tsige can recover up to approximately $20,000 without proving any financial loss. PIPEDA enforcement against an organisation can result in orders to comply and recommendations from the Privacy Commissioner, with Federal Court orders available in appropriate cases.

Practical Tips

Verify you are a participant before recording. The lawfulness of recording under s. 184(2)(a) turns entirely on whether you are a party to the communication. If you are not, stop.

Keep recordings for legitimate purposes. The law allows recording; it does not protect against every downstream consequence. Use recordings for genuine purposes such as documenting evidence in a dispute, keeping an accurate record of a meeting, or protecting yourself against false allegations.

Do not share recordings of others carelessly. Section 193 criminalises the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications. Even if a recording was made legally, sharing it can attract civil liability (including defamation or the intrusion upon seclusion tort) depending on the content and context.

Be especially careful with video. Audio recording under one-party consent is straightforward. Visual recording in any location where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy requires careful thought. Hidden cameras in private spaces, regardless of audio content, risk the s. 162 voyeurism offence.

In the workplace, consider proportionality. If you need to record a workplace conversation for self-protection, document your reasons. Courts and arbitrators have accepted covert recording where an employee faced genuine risk of misconduct, harassment, or unfair treatment and had a credible reason to record. Purely speculative or retaliatory recording is more likely to be treated as a breach of trust.

For organisations, consult PIPEDA requirements. If your business collects, uses, or discloses audio or video recordings of customers or employees in Ontario in a commercial context, PIPEDA applies. Implement a written privacy policy, obtain consent appropriate to the sensitivity of the information, and establish appropriate safeguards.

Understand the Jones v. Tsige exposure. Ontario's intrusion upon seclusion tort means that a person who repeatedly records, surveys, or monitors another person's private affairs (even without disclosing the recordings) may face a civil damages claim. The approximately $20,000 cap is real, and no financial harm need be shown.

Sources

For the general rules that apply to all Canadian provinces, see the Canada Recording Laws hub and the World Recording Laws overview.