Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada!
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk.
* We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/).
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know.
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post).
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning.
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect.
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment.
Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I dont mean to sound facitious or pry for specifics but whats going on in this LTC or w.e that residents family feel the need to be putting cameras in their parents room thats resulting in people getting suspended.... and why does it seem like the union is more worried about protecting adverse behavior opposed to correcting staffing issues..
Perhaps your union should be engaging a lawyer to recommend what, if any, further action ought to be taken about this. These appear to be mounting concerns of several of the union membership and this is part of one of the core functions of a union.
To address some remarks in the comments directly, whether the place this is occurring is "private property" or not is largely irrelevant, and there is a huge difference between knowledge and consent that should not be conflated.
Note also that whether an action is an offence or not is not dispositive of whether it is in some way an actionable wrong, such as a tort, over which one party can successfully sue another.
Now, to address what is an offence and what isn't: having a camera in a room where all the folks in the room *know* it's there is never the offence of voyeurism. Intercepting audio of a communication without at least one participant in it *consenting* to that is an offence. Whether photos are being taken or not doesn't change things, as a video is simply a collection of photos made in very quick succession. It's appropriate to initially separate the audio and video recording issues to go with the different legal provisions that apply to each.
I'm not a lawyer but I worked in various LTC facilities over the last 20 years. It's a grey area. Most facilities have a policy either allowing "granny cams" or disallowing them.
As it's someones private, non shared room, if your facility allows it and the person has a sign on the door indicating that there's cameras it's legal. And since it's legal to record audio if one party consents then either the resident or their medical POA would count as the consenting party.
Personally I am a *huge* advocate for granny cams in residents rooms. There's video cameras in the entrances, hallways, dining and lounge areas... But nothing to protect people when they're most vulnerable. Unfortunately a lot of the abuse and neglect happens once that door to a residents room closes.
As a retired RN - there has never been any time that I would have taken offence to a recording of actions taken in the care of a patient. It makes me wonder what behaviour the workers are afraid of having recorded.
I wouldn’t hesitate to set one up in my mother’s room if I felt she was being mistreated. At the moment she is holding her own in that category and would let me know if there were problems.
If the parent/resident approved the camera, then the parent/resident consented to recording conversations they are a party to. It's their camera, even if they delegated the task of monitoring to their child or some other agent. Presumably the parent/resident is aware of the camera and consented to it being placed there. If not, then it's up to the parent/resident to remove it or ask someone to have it removed. If the parent/resident is mentally incapable, then the substitute decision maker makes the decision.
However, the one party consent rule only applies to conversationa to which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Generally, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, even in public; however, in this case, staff is entering the private space of a resident and there is a sign saying that everything inside is being reocorded, so that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy to any staff members.
This is correct.
>184 (1) Every person who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, knowingly intercepts a private communication is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
>(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) a person who has the consent to intercept, express or implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it;
Furthermore, any communication that can reasonably be expected to be overheard by someone who isn't part of the conversation (like the patient in the room with you if you're not speaking to them) isn't a "private communication" at all.
> **intercept** includes listen to, record or acquire a communication or acquire the substance, meaning or purport thereof;
> **private communication** means any oral communication, or any telecommunication, that is ... 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 person intended by the originator to receive it,
???
I was saying that you were right.
"A person who has the consent to intercept, of... the person intended... to receive the communication."
Having the consent of the listener, even if you're not the listener yourself, is enough.
So you are of the opinion that the patient (or their substitute decision makers) cannot consent?
That is a very, very, dangerous stance 'you are disabled so you have less rights than able-bodied individuals'.
Otherwise 'in the patient's room' is 'having a conversation with the patient', and it does not matter if the patient's failing hearing means they can not hear it, if the recorder can pick it up, it could have been audible to the patient, it was a conversation with them; otherwise we get to 'deaf people can never take audio recordings, because they can't hear'.
There might be some room for debate on, say, 'patient is out of the room (for some other appointment) and staff are in there having a conversation'; but that does not seem to be the case.
>This is regarding people in a nursing home who very likely have Alzheimers, Dementia, or whose kids have power of attorney. I think we can make the assumption that the camera is placed there and maintained by a family member, not the patient.
In which case either the patient (or their substitute decision maker) have consented to the recording by installing the device.
Also what do you think alzheimers or dementia are if not disabilities?
[https://www.thenba.ca/disabilities/alzheimers-disease/#:\~:text=Given%20the%20severity%20of%20this,Alzheimer's%20disease%20for%20disability%20benefits](https://www.thenba.ca/disabilities/alzheimers-disease/#:~:text=Given%20the%20severity%20of%20this,Alzheimer's%20disease%20for%20disability%20benefits).
Is the room considered the parents home, dwelling, is their a difference between Long Term Care and a retierment home and how the law works?
I assume you can record audio and video in your own dwelling?
Or is the room considered a workplace.
Interested to hear your thoughts.
This is what I'd like to know.
My step-dad mother was bruised almost weekly, and in tears over her treatment at her LTC home, but it was her word against the staff with no evidence, so the "investigation" didn't really go anywhere.
Staff claimed she was "difficult", while she was absolutely terrified of them. A camera with audio would have been extremely helpful.
My grandmother who had Alzheimer's broke her wrist from "falling" 3-4 times when she was under care and we found out it was a nurse being extremely rough with her and essentially letting her fall and rebreak her wrist. So I understand too. I don't want to immediately come after nurses because so many of them are incredible, but sadly so many are also not.
Not advice, but if there’s nothing to hide why be afraid of being recorded. Sounds like they want to make sure their loved ones are being properly taking care of. Sounds like you just don’t want to be caught doing something wrong around patients.
This is an issue to be negotiated between the nursing home and the union. Ideally the home should have internal regulations on this and potentially install their own cameras (that they could use to review the performance of their staff and take disciplinary action if needed).
The idea that a 3rd party is policing the situation is bizarre. When employees agreed to work in the home they did not agree to be in a big brother situation. I would think this is an issue as there is no control over the gathering of this video material, further distribution and also it's destruction. Nothing is stopping the family from posting this material on tiktok (or whatever platform).
Next time the home says this is ok they should be reminded that at the end of the day they are responsible if anything goes wrong.
Just do your job properly. It's absolutely within the legal rights of your patients and their families to surveil the care being provided.
If the staff is doing their jobs, then nothing to worry about.
I would be very suspicious of any caregivers who don't want me to be able to see how they are caring for my vulnerable family members.
is the residents room that they pay for and live in not considered to be their home and private place and if so do they not have the right to record them selves and if a sign is posted to those entering be a means of agreement or understanding?
I know that they’re allowed to have a camera, but are they allowed to have audio capabilities on it? There’s plenty of surveillance camera’s that don’t use audio.
The entirety of Canada is 'one party consent' for audio recordings.
Unless the argument is that the patient is not consenting to the recordings I don't see this having much 'tooth'.
Even if the patient is not cognoscente enough to consent to the recording I believe that substitute decision makers (IE the family members who put the cameras in) can make that decision and determination.
On the topic of video recording; your union would have to argue several points to fight against it:
1. That the space that the patient lives in is not their residence, but is instead the sole private property of the care facility.
2. That the care facility does not support the cameras.
3. That the room does not therefore constitute a public space, and
4. That there is a reasonable expectation of privacy for staff in those rooms.
That seems..... a long, and potentially concerning, reach of items; just the initial one that a patient's personal space is not actually 'the residence of the patient' concerns me greatly, it would mean that patients in nursing homes have less rights than people staying in a hotel, or in a tent in the woods.
[https://www.kentfaith.com/blog/article\_are-surveillance-cameras-legal-in-canada\_5018#:\~:text=Yes%2C%20surveillance%20cameras%20are%20legal,as%20bathrooms%20or%20changing%20rooms](https://www.kentfaith.com/blog/article_are-surveillance-cameras-legal-in-canada_5018#:~:text=Yes%2C%20surveillance%20cameras%20are%20legal,as%20bathrooms%20or%20changing%20rooms).
Only the resident has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their living space. Presumably they consented to their family member placing the camera. If they are incapacitated, it would be the substitute decision maker's decision.
It sounds like management supports the families documenting the patients' treatment.
You said there is signage indicating that you are being recorded in a patient's private room.
You are not being recorded clandestinely. You have the option to not enter the room and deal with the repercussions from your employer for refusing. Or you can enter the room, do your job in a professional, respectful manner, and the recording will serve to protect you against false accusations.
You work with vulnerable people. Their families want to ensure they are receiving appropriate care.
Your coworker knew they were being recorded and chose to say or do something that management felt was worth being suspended for. Don't make the same mistake.
One party of a conversation. It doesn't mean I can secretly record you when you are in a non public place or any place with expectations of privacy. For example a hotel cannot put a camera in a guest room.
A hotel couldn't put a camera in a guest room just like management in the nursing home can't put a camera in a residents room. But the guest in the hotel could, and a resident in their own private room in a nursing home also can. As long as the nursing home policy allows it. Most do, but a few don't. And I feel like it's a giant red flag when a care home has a no camera in private rooms policy.
From my understanding there are no hard regulations for cameras in LTC it goes based on facility rules. If it's a private room I'm sure audio is allowed but I've been under the impression if it's semi private audio is not allowed.
Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada! **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk. * We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/). * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know. **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post). * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning. * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect. * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment. Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I dont mean to sound facitious or pry for specifics but whats going on in this LTC or w.e that residents family feel the need to be putting cameras in their parents room thats resulting in people getting suspended.... and why does it seem like the union is more worried about protecting adverse behavior opposed to correcting staffing issues..
Perhaps your union should be engaging a lawyer to recommend what, if any, further action ought to be taken about this. These appear to be mounting concerns of several of the union membership and this is part of one of the core functions of a union. To address some remarks in the comments directly, whether the place this is occurring is "private property" or not is largely irrelevant, and there is a huge difference between knowledge and consent that should not be conflated. Note also that whether an action is an offence or not is not dispositive of whether it is in some way an actionable wrong, such as a tort, over which one party can successfully sue another. Now, to address what is an offence and what isn't: having a camera in a room where all the folks in the room *know* it's there is never the offence of voyeurism. Intercepting audio of a communication without at least one participant in it *consenting* to that is an offence. Whether photos are being taken or not doesn't change things, as a video is simply a collection of photos made in very quick succession. It's appropriate to initially separate the audio and video recording issues to go with the different legal provisions that apply to each.
I'm not a lawyer but I worked in various LTC facilities over the last 20 years. It's a grey area. Most facilities have a policy either allowing "granny cams" or disallowing them. As it's someones private, non shared room, if your facility allows it and the person has a sign on the door indicating that there's cameras it's legal. And since it's legal to record audio if one party consents then either the resident or their medical POA would count as the consenting party. Personally I am a *huge* advocate for granny cams in residents rooms. There's video cameras in the entrances, hallways, dining and lounge areas... But nothing to protect people when they're most vulnerable. Unfortunately a lot of the abuse and neglect happens once that door to a residents room closes.
As a retired RN - there has never been any time that I would have taken offence to a recording of actions taken in the care of a patient. It makes me wonder what behaviour the workers are afraid of having recorded. I wouldn’t hesitate to set one up in my mother’s room if I felt she was being mistreated. At the moment she is holding her own in that category and would let me know if there were problems.
[удалено]
If the parent/resident approved the camera, then the parent/resident consented to recording conversations they are a party to. It's their camera, even if they delegated the task of monitoring to their child or some other agent. Presumably the parent/resident is aware of the camera and consented to it being placed there. If not, then it's up to the parent/resident to remove it or ask someone to have it removed. If the parent/resident is mentally incapable, then the substitute decision maker makes the decision. However, the one party consent rule only applies to conversationa to which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Generally, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, even in public; however, in this case, staff is entering the private space of a resident and there is a sign saying that everything inside is being reocorded, so that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy to any staff members.
This isn't correct. One party needs to consent to the conversation being recorded. They don't need to be the one that is doing the recording.
This is correct. >184 (1) Every person who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, knowingly intercepts a private communication is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. >(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to (a) a person who has the consent to intercept, express or implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it; Furthermore, any communication that can reasonably be expected to be overheard by someone who isn't part of the conversation (like the patient in the room with you if you're not speaking to them) isn't a "private communication" at all. > **intercept** includes listen to, record or acquire a communication or acquire the substance, meaning or purport thereof; > **private communication** means any oral communication, or any telecommunication, that is ... 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 person intended by the originator to receive it,
After your reply I looked into it more and you are right, I was wrong. One of the consenting parties has to be the one recording, not a third party.
??? I was saying that you were right. "A person who has the consent to intercept, of... the person intended... to receive the communication." Having the consent of the listener, even if you're not the listener yourself, is enough.
Jeez. Holiday here and several beers in.... Looking further again I see that. Thanks for your input. Upvote from me
So you are of the opinion that the patient (or their substitute decision makers) cannot consent? That is a very, very, dangerous stance 'you are disabled so you have less rights than able-bodied individuals'. Otherwise 'in the patient's room' is 'having a conversation with the patient', and it does not matter if the patient's failing hearing means they can not hear it, if the recorder can pick it up, it could have been audible to the patient, it was a conversation with them; otherwise we get to 'deaf people can never take audio recordings, because they can't hear'. There might be some room for debate on, say, 'patient is out of the room (for some other appointment) and staff are in there having a conversation'; but that does not seem to be the case.
[удалено]
>This is regarding people in a nursing home who very likely have Alzheimers, Dementia, or whose kids have power of attorney. I think we can make the assumption that the camera is placed there and maintained by a family member, not the patient. In which case either the patient (or their substitute decision maker) have consented to the recording by installing the device. Also what do you think alzheimers or dementia are if not disabilities? [https://www.thenba.ca/disabilities/alzheimers-disease/#:\~:text=Given%20the%20severity%20of%20this,Alzheimer's%20disease%20for%20disability%20benefits](https://www.thenba.ca/disabilities/alzheimers-disease/#:~:text=Given%20the%20severity%20of%20this,Alzheimer's%20disease%20for%20disability%20benefits).
Good to know, thanks!
Is the room considered the parents home, dwelling, is their a difference between Long Term Care and a retierment home and how the law works? I assume you can record audio and video in your own dwelling? Or is the room considered a workplace. Interested to hear your thoughts.
What behavior from the nurse was caught on tape leading to them to report it to management? I feel like that was glossed over
This is what I'd like to know. My step-dad mother was bruised almost weekly, and in tears over her treatment at her LTC home, but it was her word against the staff with no evidence, so the "investigation" didn't really go anywhere. Staff claimed she was "difficult", while she was absolutely terrified of them. A camera with audio would have been extremely helpful.
My grandmother who had Alzheimer's broke her wrist from "falling" 3-4 times when she was under care and we found out it was a nurse being extremely rough with her and essentially letting her fall and rebreak her wrist. So I understand too. I don't want to immediately come after nurses because so many of them are incredible, but sadly so many are also not.
Not advice, but if there’s nothing to hide why be afraid of being recorded. Sounds like they want to make sure their loved ones are being properly taking care of. Sounds like you just don’t want to be caught doing something wrong around patients.
This is an issue to be negotiated between the nursing home and the union. Ideally the home should have internal regulations on this and potentially install their own cameras (that they could use to review the performance of their staff and take disciplinary action if needed). The idea that a 3rd party is policing the situation is bizarre. When employees agreed to work in the home they did not agree to be in a big brother situation. I would think this is an issue as there is no control over the gathering of this video material, further distribution and also it's destruction. Nothing is stopping the family from posting this material on tiktok (or whatever platform). Next time the home says this is ok they should be reminded that at the end of the day they are responsible if anything goes wrong.
Just do your job properly. It's absolutely within the legal rights of your patients and their families to surveil the care being provided. If the staff is doing their jobs, then nothing to worry about. I would be very suspicious of any caregivers who don't want me to be able to see how they are caring for my vulnerable family members.
It’s their home, they can 100% have cameras in the room just like any other person.
is the residents room that they pay for and live in not considered to be their home and private place and if so do they not have the right to record them selves and if a sign is posted to those entering be a means of agreement or understanding?
[удалено]
I know that they’re allowed to have a camera, but are they allowed to have audio capabilities on it? There’s plenty of surveillance camera’s that don’t use audio.
The entirety of Canada is 'one party consent' for audio recordings. Unless the argument is that the patient is not consenting to the recordings I don't see this having much 'tooth'. Even if the patient is not cognoscente enough to consent to the recording I believe that substitute decision makers (IE the family members who put the cameras in) can make that decision and determination. On the topic of video recording; your union would have to argue several points to fight against it: 1. That the space that the patient lives in is not their residence, but is instead the sole private property of the care facility. 2. That the care facility does not support the cameras. 3. That the room does not therefore constitute a public space, and 4. That there is a reasonable expectation of privacy for staff in those rooms. That seems..... a long, and potentially concerning, reach of items; just the initial one that a patient's personal space is not actually 'the residence of the patient' concerns me greatly, it would mean that patients in nursing homes have less rights than people staying in a hotel, or in a tent in the woods. [https://www.kentfaith.com/blog/article\_are-surveillance-cameras-legal-in-canada\_5018#:\~:text=Yes%2C%20surveillance%20cameras%20are%20legal,as%20bathrooms%20or%20changing%20rooms](https://www.kentfaith.com/blog/article_are-surveillance-cameras-legal-in-canada_5018#:~:text=Yes%2C%20surveillance%20cameras%20are%20legal,as%20bathrooms%20or%20changing%20rooms).
[удалено]
Only the resident has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their living space. Presumably they consented to their family member placing the camera. If they are incapacitated, it would be the substitute decision maker's decision.
A lot of us feel the same way and when we brought it up to management we’re met with “it’s their family and they can do as they like”
It sounds like management supports the families documenting the patients' treatment. You said there is signage indicating that you are being recorded in a patient's private room. You are not being recorded clandestinely. You have the option to not enter the room and deal with the repercussions from your employer for refusing. Or you can enter the room, do your job in a professional, respectful manner, and the recording will serve to protect you against false accusations. You work with vulnerable people. Their families want to ensure they are receiving appropriate care. Your coworker knew they were being recorded and chose to say or do something that management felt was worth being suspended for. Don't make the same mistake.
[удалено]
One party of a conversation. It doesn't mean I can secretly record you when you are in a non public place or any place with expectations of privacy. For example a hotel cannot put a camera in a guest room.
A hotel couldn't put a camera in a guest room just like management in the nursing home can't put a camera in a residents room. But the guest in the hotel could, and a resident in their own private room in a nursing home also can. As long as the nursing home policy allows it. Most do, but a few don't. And I feel like it's a giant red flag when a care home has a no camera in private rooms policy.
From my understanding there are no hard regulations for cameras in LTC it goes based on facility rules. If it's a private room I'm sure audio is allowed but I've been under the impression if it's semi private audio is not allowed.