Sandra Jones

The plaintiff in this reference is Sandra Jones, and the defendant is Winnie Tsige. What is field of study is about is Winnie Tsige, has been surreptitiously looking at Sandra Jones depositing records. 2. The possibility was heard September 29, 2011 by the court of appeal for Ontario, and the result at the original trial was does Ontario law recognize a in good order to bring a civil implement for damages for the invasion of personal privacy. 3. The court that heard the case in the attached file was Kevin M. V.Whitaker, of the Superior court of Justice, date March 23 2011, with reasons reported at 2011 ONSC 1475, 333 D. L. R (4TH) 566. 4. The important facts in this case is Tsige and Jones did not know each other, and Tsige was in a descent with Jones former husband. The other important fact were as a bank employee, Tsige had full entree code to Jones banking development and contrary to the banks policy, looked into Jones banking records at least 174 times over a period of quad years. . The issues that the court had to decide is whether the motion judge erred by granting summary judgment and dismissing Jones claim for damages on the ground that Ontario law does not recognize the tort of beach of primacy. 6. The court refer to other cases because Jones appeals to the court, natural elevation the following issue, did the motion judge err in holding that Ontario law does not recognize a cause of action for invasion of privacy. 7.The elements that are necessary in order to be successful with an action for intrusion upon secrecy is first, the defendants conduct must be intentional, within which I would accommodate reckless second that the defendant must have invaded, without lawful fairishification, the plaintiffs common soldier personal matters or concerns and third that a reasonable person would regard the invasion as super wretched causing distress, humiliation or anguish. . The limitations on an action for intrusion upon seclusion are it is on ly intrusions into matters such as ones financial or health records, sexual practices and orientation, employment, diary or private correspondence that, viewed objectively on the reasonable person standard, washbasin be described as highly offensive. 9.The factors that the court will consider in setting damages in an action for intrusion upon seclusion is Tsiges actions were deliberate and repeated and arose from complex web of domestic arrangements likely to provoke strong feelings and animosity, dickens Jones was understandably very upset by the intrusion into her private financial affairs, and Jones suffered no public confusion or suffering to her health, welfare, social, business or financial position and Tsige has apologized for her conduct and made genuine attempts to pull amends. 0. How this decision changes the law of intentional torts is intentional torts are actions by individuals or businesses that intentionally cause harm to others. When intentional torts occur in the workplace, they are often the result of employees losing their tempers, but in this case Tsige repeatedly examined the private bank records of Jones and did not take any money or any harm to her banking she just committed the tort of intrusion upon seclusion because Tsige looked at Jones banking records 174 over a four year period. 11.This case has a huge impact on privacy because Winnie Tsige, was looking at Sandra Jones banking records 174 time over a four year period and she never realized it, and because they worked at different branches of the Bank of Montreal, Tsige had full access to banking information, and contrary to the banks policy, so Tsige could do whatever she wanted to and no one would find out because in that respect are so many different branches for the Bank of Montreal. 12. This case is important because even though Tsige didnt harm Jones physically she still sis a lot of damages to her by looking at her banking records many time over a period of time.Anothe r reason this case is important is because Tsige had formed a common law relationship with Jones former husband and because Tsige was a employee at the Bank of Montreal, she had full access to jones banking records and anybody else she wanted to look at, and her Ex-husband was probably telling Tsige to look at Jones banking information and records to see her purchase, what shes doing with the alimony payments he is giving her ever month, and what she does with her money.I believe just cause you work at the bank you shouldnt have full access to banking information, you should only have that privilege if your high up in the bank, or if one of the tellers needs to look at someones banking information then the carriage theyre should have to put in a password that only he/she knows so they can get that information.