All About Information reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that a teacher had no expectation of privacy in information stored on his work laptop.
Ontario Court Says No Expectation Of Privacy in Data On Work Computer
May 13, 2009
Share this post
3 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 271: Taking Stock of a Wild Week in Canadian Digital Policy With the Online Streaming Reversal, AI Strategy Release, and Lawful Access Review
byMichael Geist

May 25, 2026
Michael Geist
May 11, 2026
Michael Geist
May 4, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Taking Stock of Bill C-34: Five Things to Know About the Government’s Plan for a Kids’ Social Media Ban, Mandated Age Verification, and AI Chatbot Rules
The Exemption Illusion: Why the Government’s Plan to Fast Track Bill C-34’s Kids’ Social Media Ban Means No Standards, No Privacy Review, and No Enforcement
Unpacking Bill C-34: My Appearance on the Globe and Mail’s The Decibel Podcast
Liberal MP: Lawful Access “Has Nothing to Do With the Privacy of People and Their Information”
The Law to Be Named Later: Bill C-34 Punts 50 Key Decisions to Cabinet and a Digital Safety Commission That Does Not Yet Exist

Consultant
Rightly so.
Sr. Consultant
Agreed! There is and should not be any expecation of privacy at the office or when using company supplied devices/resources. The only expectation is that your employer would protect your data as much as it protects its own, where it is within the use of the law.
Consider this. I’d expect an employer to protect my banking info when I access my account online via their systems or any personal records I may store on their systems. However, if those systems were in use for illegal purposes then I’d have no expectation that I’d have protection.
But, there is a right to privacy for loaned property in one’s possession
But, there is a right to privacy for loaned property in one’s possession.
If I possess a briefcase supplied on loan by my employer, this gives them no right of access to its contents simply because the case belongs to them. However, if I return it to my employer for refurbishment, then I should expect that they will need to access its interior to make repairs. If I’ve have returned it locked by mistake, possibly with personal documents inside, then they should at least check with me whether they may use their master key.
In the case of a laptop, it needs to be established whether it is on loan for personal use (whether for business or not), or whether it is portable office equipment requiring continuous joint access by employee and employer.
Simply because a securable device belongs to another doesn’t prevent the possessor having a right to privacy (wrt device contents) whilst the device is in their exclusive possession.