Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

Drone Operators Risk Criminal Charges & Lawsuits

Drone Operators Risk Criminal Charges & Lawsuits


Posted December 29, 2017

Did you get a drone for Christmas? Well before you start flying it around the neighbourhood or at the local park there are a few things you need to know about the laws that govern drone operators.

I recommend that anyone intending to fly a drone in Ontario take a community college course to ensure that they are aware of and understand the regulations governing drone operations and the laws that protect privacy. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” and the urge to get out and play with your new “toy” before you fully understand your potential legal liability could land you and your drone in court and possibly jail.

Drones can fly almost anywhere, often have cameras and video capability, and may be able to instantaneously transmit images back to the operator. There are criminal laws against stalking, mischief, criminal harassment and voyeurism that may apply to a drone operator taking images of another person without their consent.

In addition to criminal charges drone operators also face the risk of being sued for privacy breaches because of the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion”. Privacy breaches can make the operator personally liable if they meet four criteria established by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2012 in the case of Jones v. Tsige.

Ms. Jones and Ms. Tsige worked at a bank. Jones was also a bank customer. Tsige accessed and reviewed Jones’ bank records. Jones sued Tsige and the Ontario Court of Appeal, in finding in favour of Jones, established personal liability for “intrusion upon seclusion”. The Court set out 4 criteria that have to be met in order for there to be liability for “intrusionon seclusion”:

First, the offending conduct must be “intentional”, which may include reckless actions.

Second, the offender must have “invaded, without lawful justification, the (other party’s) private affairs or concerns”.

Third, “a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish.”

Fourth, the claimant must have “suffered some anguish” because of the action.

The Court put a $20,000 cap on damages for “intrusion upon seclusion” and awarded Ms. Jones $10,000.

I have found 110 reported case decisions that include the phrase “intrusion upon seclusion” so it has gotten a lot of judicial attention since it was “created” by the Court of Appeal in 2012.

There have also been some cases involving property damage or personal injury caused by drones. In order for the party suffering the damage or injury to recover damages from the drone operator they must establish the 3 requirements of negligence:

First, there must be a duty of care owed by the drone operator to the aggrieved party. It is reasonable to assume the court will find that such a duty of care is owed to anyone who is at risk of injury by unsafe operation of the drone.

Second, it must be established that the standard of care that applies to drone operators was not met. An issue that is still undecided is what that “standard of care” is. Will the court apply the existing aviation regulations and Transport Canada publications that establish the knowledge requirement for aircraft pilots? Or will it be a lesser standard based on the drone operators courses offered at many community colleges?

Third, the claimant must show that the breach of the standard of care caused the personal injury or property damage. This should not difficult to establish if the drone has crash landed causing property damage or personal injury.

Drones are a popular “toy” but they come with the potential to invade the privacy of other people or to cause serious property damage and personal injuries. Everyone contemplating operating a drone needs to ensure that they know how to operate it safely and within the restrictions imposed by both the criminal law and the laws protecting privacy, property and persona well-being.

This blog post was written by Edward (Ted) Masters, a member of the Personal Injury team.  He can be reached at 613-566-2064 or at


More Resources

Blog |
Family Law


Posted November 29, 2022

When a Court is charged with structuring a parenting arrangement leading up to trial, the bench is often faced with conflicting and untested evidence about[...]
Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights


Posted November 24, 2022

The Employment Standards Act, 2000, “ESA” has been amended to require that Ontario employers create an electronic monitoring policy per the requirements of Bill 88,[...]
Blog |
Commercial Litigation


Posted November 22, 2022

In Ontario, the Small Claims Court offers parties a more expedient, cost-effective process for litigating smaller value claims, in comparison to the processes of the[...]
Blog |
Business Law


Posted November 14, 2022

Private corporations governed under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”) will soon be required to report certain information about individuals with significant control directly to[...]
Blog |
Environmental Law


Posted November 8, 2022

Biodiversity is immensely important to our ecosystem.  Species at risk face considerable threat to their continued existence, much of which results from human harm to[...]
Blog |
Estate Litigation, Wills, Trusts and Estates


Posted November 1, 2022

Disputes over funeral and burial arrangements can arise after the death of a loved one. These disputes may involve disagreements over the funeral arrangements, including[...]

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.