Voyeurism (Sentencing Cases)

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed November 2022. (Rev. # 96834)

• < Sentencing
• < Cases

Offence Wording

Voyeurism

162 (1) Every one commits an offence 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, if

(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity;

(b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or

(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.

Definition of “visual recording”

(2) In this section, “visual recording” includes a photographic, film or video recording made by any means.

Exemption

(3) Paragraphs (1)(a) [voyeurism – place where nudity expected] and (b) [voyeurism – victim is nude in private place] do not apply to a peace officer who, under the authority of a warrant issued under section 487.01 [general warrants], is carrying out any activity referred to in those paragraphs.

Printing, publication, etc., of voyeuristic recordings

(4) Every one commits an offence who, knowing that a recording was obtained by the commission of an offence under subsection (1) [voyeurism – forms of offence], prints, copies, publishes, distributes, circulates, sells, advertises or makes available the recording, or has the recording in his or her possession for the purpose of printing, copying, publishing, distributing, circulating, selling or advertising it or making it available.

Punishment

(5) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) [voyeurism – forms of offence] or (4) [voyeurism – offence for distribution of materials]

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

[omitted (6) and (7)]

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 162; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 4; 2005, c. 32, s. 6.
[annotation(s) added]

– CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)

---

Ranges

Case Name	Prv.	Crt.	Sentence	Summary
2023
R v SF, 2023 BCPC 223 (CanLII), per Wolf J	BC	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v Mikhail, 2023 ONCJ 432 (CanLII), per Fiorucci J	ON	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v King, 2023 ONSC 2305 (CanLII), per Nieckarz J	ON	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v JS, 2023 BCPC 160 (CanLII), per Preovolos J	BC	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v SA, 2023 ABCJ 111 (CanLII), per Stuffco J	AB	PC	12 months SS (voyeurism)	Find summaries of case.
2022
R v Germain, 2022 ABCA 257 (CanLII), per curiam	AB	CA		Find summaries of case.
R v GSH, 2022 BCPC 197 (CanLII), per Bennett J	BC	PC	1 year imprisonment	Find summaries of case.
R v Rhodes, 2022 ONCA 705 (CanLII), per curiam	ON	CA	18 months 3 years probation	Find summaries of case.
R v PR, 2022 ONCJ 491 (CanLII), per Monahan J	ON	PC	60 day CSO	Find summaries of case.
R v RR, 2022 ONCJ 407 (CanLII), per Jones J	ON	CJ		Find summaries of case.
R v Mehagan, 2022 ONCJ 673 (CanLII), per MacKinnon J	ON	PC		Find summaries of case.
2021
R v Leighton, 2021 BCPC 27 (CanLII), per Burnett J	BC	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v Myszka, 2021 ONCJ 586 (CanLII), per Harris J	ON	PC		Find summaries of case.
2020
R v Downes, 2020 BCSC 177 (CanLII), per MacNaughton J	BC	SC		This case "involved a 62-year-old first-time offender who received a suspended sentenced and was placed on probation for six months for the offence of voyeurism. He had surreptitiously photographed two teenage boys under the age of 18 in a sports arena dressing room. None of the photographs showed the boys nude and none of them were pornographic. It was an aggravating factor that the accused was in a position of trust (he was their coach) towards the victims and their age. The accused had lost future opportunities to referee adult hockey and adult slow pitch umpiring and had been subject to considerable publicity, was remorseful, and had taken full responsibility for his conduct." (Quoting from R v Leighton, 2021 BCPC 27 (CanLII)), at para 23 Find summaries of case.
R v LAA, 2020 ONCJ 556 (CanLII), per J	ON	PC		Find summaries of case.
2019
R v Russell, 2019 BCCA 51 (CanLII), per Stromberg-Stein JA	BC	CA	18 months imprisonment	This case "upheld an 18 month jail sentence for the offence of voyeurism. Mr. Russell had entered a guilty plea to the offence which involved him surreptitiously recording videos up the skirts of approximately 85 young women or girls. He had obtained the video recordings by secreting his digital camera in an open backpack which he would then place under the skirt of females as they either walked by him or stood in line at various locations in the Metrotown Mall. At the time of sentencing Mr. Russell was 71 years old and subject to a Long Term Supervision Order. He had prior convictions including convictions for sexual assault and possession of child pornography. A Psychological Assessment Report prepared in advance of sentencing had indicated that Mr. Russell represented a high risk to commit future sexual offences." (Quoting from R v Leighton, 2021 BCPC 27 (CanLII)), at para 21 Find summaries of case.
R v Percy, 2019 NSPC 12 (CanLII), per J	NS	PC	2 years imprisonment (sex assault) 6 months imprisonment (voyeurism)	Find summaries of case.
R v Jarvis, 2019 ONSC 4938 (CanLII), per Goodman J	ON	SC	6 months imprisonment	"Justice Goodman sentenced the accused to six months jail having found him guilty after a trial of surreptitiously recording numerous students through the use of a pen camera without their knowledge. The videos captured female students between the ages of 14 and 18 years old. None of the students were naked; however, many of the videos focused entirely on the female students cleavages often close up. Mr. Jarvis had no criminal record. He was a teacher and therefore in a position of trust with respect to the student victims. The defence sought a conditional sentence which was rejected by the court. The sentencing judge was not satisfied due to the significant number of aggravating factors and the accused’s late attempts to address his offending behaviour that serving a sentence in the community would address the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. The Court determined that it would be unfit and contrary to the public interest to impose a conditional sentence." (Quoting from R v Leighton, 2021 BCPC 27 (CanLII)), at para 19 Find summaries of case.
2018
R v DR, 2018 QCCQ 80 (CanLII), per Trudel J	QC	PC	Conditional Discharge	Find summaries of case.
R v Dastagir, 2018 MBPC 44 (CanLII), per Martin J	MB	PC	Suspended Sentence 18 months probation	Find summaries of case.
R v McFarlane, 2018 MBCA 48 (CanLII), [2018] 9 WWR 444, per Mainella JA	MB	CA	3 months imprisonment	"the accused (then age 19) surreptitiously video recorded the victim (then age 17) undressing and showering when she was in the bathroom of his family home. He kept, but did not share, the recording. He explained his conduct resulted from his interest in pornography relating to 'peeping toms' and that he was aroused when he was in 'control.'" Find summaries of case.
2017
R v BH, 2017 ONCJ 377 (CanLII), per Gee J	ON	PC	16 months CSO + 2 years probation	"A school vice-principal, admired in his community, had placed a camera in the ceiling of the male staff bathroom. Justice Gee performed a review of a number of cases, revealing a range from a suspended sentence to nine months’ imprisonment."[1] Find summaries of case.
R v Concepcion, 2017 BCPC 153 (CanLII), per Challenger J	BC	PC	Suspended Sentence	Find summaries of case.
2016
R v D.W.1, 2016 ONCJ 772 (CanLII), per West J	ON	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v McDonald, 2016 QCCQ 5288 (CanLII), per Beaulieu J	QC	PC	Conditional Discharge	Find summaries of case.
2015
R v Cyr, 2015 QCCQ 196 (CanLII), per Daoust J	QC	PC	12 months imprisonment + 12 months probation	The offender pleaded guilty to voyeurism. He owned a store and unsuccessfully tried to film an employee use the toilet. Find summaries of case.
R v Muggridge, 2015 CanLII 10931 (NL PC, per Gorman J	NL	PC	Suspended Sentence + 12 months probation	Find summaries of case.
R v Pierre, 2015 QCCQ 4512 (CanLII), per Leduc J	QC	PC	Conditional Discharge	Find summaries of case.
R v Aguas, 2015 ONSC 5732 (CanLII), per Campbell J	ON	SC	9 months imprisonment + 3 years probation	The offender was convicted of voyeurism and sexual assault. Find summaries of case.
R v White, 2015 MBPC 20 (CanLII), per Stewart J	MB	PC	2 years imprisonment	The offender plead guilty to nine counts voyeurism and nine counts making child pornography. Find summaries of case.
R v Argus, 2015 ONSC 5732 (CanLII), OJ No 4739, per Campbell J	ON	SC	14 months imprisonment	"the offender was a male nurse in an emergency ward. He took advantage of a patient who had been there to seek medical treatment. He had her disrobe and then took photographs of her naked breasts and genitals with his personal cell phone. He convinced her this was for legitimate medical purposes and to document her injuries. A search of his cell phone revealed a photograph taken of another woman, without her lawful consent, who had also been a patient at the hospital. He was convicted of both sexual assault and voyeurism, and sentenced to 14 months custody, less five months’ credit for pre-trial custody and stringent bail conditions: see para. 40. Justice Campbell found that the accused breached a position of trust. He had no prior criminal record." Find summaries of case.
R v Berry, 2015 BCCA 210 (CanLII), per Savage JA	BC	CA	9 months imprisonment	The offender was convicted of sexual assault and two counts of voyeurism. "Mr. Berry had an unrelated record and was considered a low to moderate risk to reoffend, but the offences involved a breach of trust." Find summaries of case.
2014
R v RB, 2014 ONCA 840 (CanLII)	ON	CA	6 months (voyeurism)	"the appellant was convicted of a number of child pornography offences and one count of voyeurism. He hid a video camera in his 13 year old niece’s bedroom and filmed her as she changed. On that count, he received a sentence of six months’ custody. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing decision and commented that consecutive sentences were appropriate as the offences engaged different legally protected interests: see para. 7." Find summaries of case.
R v Bosomworth, 2014 BCPC 311 (CanLII), per Dhillon J	BC	PC	Suspended Sentence	The offender pleaded guilty to voyeurism. He was found to be surreptitiously recording persons in the restroom of a small restaurant that he owned. He filmed 6 people. The defence sought a discharge. "Judge Dhillon was faced with determining whether to suspend the passing of sentence or grant the accused a conditional discharge arising from his guilty plea to a single count of voyeurism. The accused was a co-owner of a restaurant in the Gastown area of Vancouver. In December of 2012 he set up a small camera in the paper towel dispenser in the washroom of the restaurant. The washroom was used by both patrons and staff. His business partner discovered the recording device and reported it to the police. The accused was observed adjusting the camera on one of the videos recovered from the device. Over a period of five days six persons, four women and two men, had been video recorded using the washroom facility in some fashion. The Crown argued for a suspended sentence while the accused sought a conditional discharge. The Court was not persuaded that a conditional discharge would be appropriate as it would be contrary to the public interest. She acceded to the Crown’s sentencing position and suspended the passing of sentence and placed the accused on probation for a period of 12 months." (Quoting from R v Leighton, 2021 BCPC 27 (CanLII)), at para 25 Find summaries of case.
R v GM, 2014 MBPC 57 (CanLII), 125 WCB (2d) 430, per Lemaistre J	MB	PC		The offender plead to offences of voyeurism, invitation to sexual touching, making child pornography, and harassment. Find summaries of case.
R v Dekker, 2014 ABPC 61 (CanLII), per Redman J	AB	PC	9 months CSO	The offender pleaded guilty to voyeurism. He filmed approximately 80 people in four public washrooms and his home washroom. He captured 80 people, including men, women and children. There were 77 video clips for a total of 251 minutes of footage. He had a positive PSR and was considered "low risk". -- "An analysis of the images depicted on the videos revealed 77 video clips and a total of 251 minutes of video." Find summaries of case.
R v Schledermann, 2014 ONSC 674 (CanLII), per Kelly J	ON	SC	4 years imprisonment (each count)	The offender pleaded guilty to child pornography offences and voyeurism. He had 22,000+ images and 580+ videos of child pornography. Some pictures were of his step-grand daughter. The offender had 2 years, 4 months and 17 days on remand. He was 71 years old. Find summaries of case.
2013
R v Cassels, 2013 MBPC 47 (CanLII), per Wiebe J	MB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v Truong, 2013 ABCA 373 (CanLII), per curiam (2:1)	AB	CA	4 months imprisonment (voyeurism) 12 months (global)	The offender pleaded guilty to voyeurism in addition to other offences. The recording captured a sexual assault. The sex assault was not considered an aggravating factor. Find summaries of case.
R v Brandt, 2013 MBPC 39 (CanLII), per Lee Ann Martin J	MB	PC	18 months CSO	The offender pleaded guilty to voyeurism. He was obsessed with the victim and spied on her at work including while she was in the shower. He videotaped her twice while showering. The videos were discovered by his wife. He was 41 years old and married. He had no criminal record. Find summaries of case.
R v MSA, 2013 ABPC 66 (CanLII), per Redman J	AB	PC	5 months imprisonment w/ 2 years probation	The offender twice videotaped his 15-year-old stepdaughter in her bedroom while she undressed. He was in a position of trust. Find summaries of case.
2012
R v Rocha, 2012 ABPC 24 (CanLII), per Groves J	AB	PC	Suspended Sentence	Offender was fueler for airplanes at an airport. He took pictures up the skirt of a female passenger while she was standing at the baggage carousel. Find summaries of case.
R v Pan, 2012 ABPC 203 (CanLII), per Wheatley J	AB	PC	Conditional Discharge	"The accused was caught videotaping a sexual encounter between his roommate and his roommate’s girlfriend. The Crown proceeded summarily. The court found that the circumstances of that particular offence were at the low end of the spectrum of voyeurism offences."
2011
R v Keough, 2011 ABQB 312 (CanLII), per Manderscheid J	AB	SC	9 months imprisonment (voyeurism) 3 months imprisonment (copying)	Offender recorded sexual activity between 18 year old couple without consent. Find summaries of case.
R v D, MD, 2011 NWTTC 20 (CanLII), {{{4}}}, per Gorin J	NWT	SC	3 years imprisonment	Find summaries of case.
R c GC, 2011 QCCQ 13551 (CanLII), per Lamontagne J	QC	PC	55 months and 23 days	Offender set up a camera to film school yard as well as washroom. Also found to be making videos of him sexually abusing his granddaughter whom he was babysitting. The offender was 72 years old. Also made 161 Order for 20 years. Find summaries of case.
R v Gagné, 2011 QCCQ 6888 (CanLII), per Champoux J	QC	PC	3 years imprisonment (voyeurism) 40 months imprisonment (global)	Offender put a hidden camera in a public washroom. Sold video on the internet of young girl urinating. Was also found in possession of child pornography. Find summaries of case.
R v Desilva, 2011 ONCJ 133 (CanLII), per Robertson J	ON	PC	7 months imprisonment + 2 years probation	offender made videos of sexual activity between him and partner without consent. Offender posted videos on facebook, and sent links of video to friends. convicted at trial of voyeurism and criminal harassment. Prior record with violence. Find summaries of case.
R v FG, 2011 CanLII 13633 (NLPC), 308 Nfld & PEIR 59, per Hyslop ACJ	NL	PC	3 months CSO + 3 years probation	The offender secretly installed a video camera in 17 year old daughter’s bedroom, huge violation of privacy, recorded full frontal nudity, breach of trust, no record. "At all material times the accused was the stepfather of the complainant who was at the time of the offence a minor and was 17 years old. At the time of the offence, he was home alone with the young person who was in the shower. While the young person was in the shower, he entered her bedroom and installed a video recorder which was aimed toward the bed. The camera was installed in her closet in such a way that it offered a considerable view of the bed and vanity area. According to the account given by counsel for the accused, there had been some discipline problems in the house where the complainant had been alone in the bedroom with a boyfriend and the accused wanted to spy on her to see the extent of what was going on in the home when he was absent. In this case, the camera was set up for a long term recording." Find summaries of case.
2010
R v Mahabir, 2010 ONCJ 347 (CanLII), per De Filippis J	ON	PC	Suspended Sentence	"The accused had a relationship with the victim for some time. The relationship eventually ended and the victim moved on with a new partner. The accused, after finding out about the new boyfriend, convinced the victim he could move on if they had one last sexual encounter. She agreed. They had a consensual liaison during which the victim consented to be blindfolded. Towards the end of their sexual encounter the blindfold moved and the victim discovered that the accused had videotaped the entire session. She did not consent to this and demanded the pictures and video. He complied and gave it to her. She reported the matter to police. He was a 37 year old man with no criminal record. He was university educated with a successful business. He was extremely remorseful and had support from family friends and the business community. He was ultimately sentenced to an 18‑month suspended sentence." He videotaped consensual sexual activity between and his ex-finance in a hotel room." (Quoting from R v Cassels, 2013 MBPC 47 (CanLII)), at para 72 Find summaries of case.
R v SM, 2010 ONCJ 347 (CanLII), per De Filippis J	ON	PC	Suspended Sentence + 18 mo	The offender secretly videotaped consensual explicit sexual activity at a hotel room of ex-girlfriend. Hewas mature, well‑educated and successful. He had no prior criminal record. Offence required planning. Find summaries of case.
R v JHN, 2010 BCPC 155 (CanLII), per Rodgers J	BC	PC	Suspended Sentence	attended residence of two teenage girls repeatedly and watched them undress multiple times. No record, positive psych report. -- "A 32 year old accused with no prior criminal record repeatedly watched two young girls, aged 15 and 18, while they were at home, over a period of five months. On one occasion he trespassed on their property and climbed onto the roof." Find summaries of case.
R v RHC, 2010 BCPC 475 (CanLII), per Dossa J	BC	PC	Conditional Discharge	"The accused videotaped his 13 year old granddaughter. In that case, the accused had been sexually abused as a teenager. He had undergone counseling and was determined to be a very low risk for sexual recidivism. He had no criminal record and had begun counseling to address his behaviour." Find summaries of case.
2008
R v Laskaris, 2008 BCPC 130 (CanLII), per Gill J	BC	PC	Conditional Discharge + 1 years probation	The offender was a dentist who placed cameras in women’s washroom to monitor for theft from office, was in a position of trust, no record. Find summaries of case.
R v Grice, 2008 ONCJ 476 (CanLII), per Pugsley J	ON	PC	Suspended Sentence + 18 months probation	"The accused surreptitiously filmed his estranged wife while she was in the shower. The Crown proceeding summarily. In that case, the court found that given the personal circumstances of the accused and the complainant, the voyeurism was an abusive attack on the complainant’s personal privacy. The court rejected the Crown’s submissions that a custodial sentence was required, and imposed an 18 month suspended sentence." Find summaries of case.
2007
R v Weinheimer, 2007 ABPC 349 (CanLII), per Fradsham J	AB	PC	Suspended Sentence	offender secretly photographed 15 men at the urinal at his work. Images were stored on a computer with details on personal information including "names, birthdates, addresses, insurance account numbers and notes regarding the genitals of the victims on his computer". No evidence of distribution, positive psych report. "the accused was given a suspended sentence and placed on probation for two years. He had pled guilty to two charges of voyeurism arising from his surreptitiously photographing several men using the urinal at his workplace. He was 30 years old had no prior record and had difficulties in coming to terms with his homosexuality while residing in a small community. The Court determined that the primary objective of sentencing was rehabilitation of the offender with denunciation and deterrence being the secondary objectives." (Quoting from R v Leighton, 2021 BCPC 27 (CanLII)), at para 24 Find summaries of case.