Cameras in Common Areas: What Tenants and Landlords Need to Know

Question: Can tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas of a rental building?

Answer: In Ontario, tenants generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in shared common areas, such as hallways or courtyards, as affirmed by recent court decisions like R. v. Hoang, 2024 ONCA 361. Landlords are advised to ensure their surveillance measures balance safety and privacy in line with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, thereby maintaining tenant rights and avoiding potential disputes. For further guidance, Success.Legal offers resources to navigate these complex issues effectively.

Introduction

As surveillance technology becomes more affordable and accessible, tenants and landlords increasingly find themselves at odds over the use of security cameras in residential rental complexes. Whether a camera is placed to monitor a doorway, a shared hallway, or an open courtyard, the key legal question is often this: Does a tenant have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of a residential building?

The answer, as recent Ontario decisions show, depends heavily on the context.

What Is a “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy”?

The foundational test for determining whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy comes from the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128. The Court established a multi-factor analysis, now referred to as the 'Edwards factors,' which include: control over the area, the ability to regulate access, ownership, and whether the person had a subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances.

These factors guide both constitutional and civil assessments of privacy.

No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Shared Common Areas

In a series of recent decisions from the Ontario Court of Appeal, courts have held that tenants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in shared common areas such as hallways, stairwells, and open courtyards.

In R. v. Hoang, 2024 ONCA 361, the Court concluded that hallway surveillance footage collected from an apartment building’s common area was admissible because the hallway was accessible to other residents and management. The Court noted that visibility to others and shared access significantly diminished any expectation of privacy.

Lease Agreements and the Residential Tenancies Act

While statutory and common law principles provide the general framework, the contractual elements of the tenancy agreement may introduce additional considerations. Lease agreements often contain provisions about tenant conduct, shared space use, or surveillance. However, these provisions are enforceable only if they comply with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA).

Under section 4 of the RTA:

“If a provision in a tenancy agreement is inconsistent with this Act or any other Act or a regulation made under this or any other Act, the provision is void.”

This means that landlords and tenants cannot contract out of the Act. Even if both parties agree to a lease clause, that clause will be unenforceable if it undermines statutory tenant protections or violates public policy.

Section 17 of the RTA affirms that common law principles of contract law—specifically, the interdependence of covenants—continue to apply unless the Act provides otherwise:

“Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the common law rules respecting the effect of a serious, substantial or fundamental breach of a material covenant by one party to a contract on the obligation to perform of the other party apply with respect to tenancy agreements.”

The Landlord and Tenant Board’s Approach: Surveillance as Interference?

While the Charter protects against state intrusion, the RTA governs relations between private landlords and tenants. Here, the issue is not always privacy in the constitutional sense, but rather whether surveillance substantially interferes with the tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the premises.

In Roele v. Sexton, 2023 ONLTB 46090, the Landlord and Tenant Board addressed a complaint by a landlord that the tenant’s video doorbell—pointed solely at her own front door—constituted an invasion of others' privacy. The Board dismissed the claim, finding no substantial interference. This ruling supports the view that focused, non-intrusive surveillance for self-protection may be justified under the RTA.

Condominiums and Surveillance: A Distinct Framework

It is important to distinguish between rental complexes governed by the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA), and condominiums governed by the Condominium Act, 1998. In condominium corporations, rules and bylaws passed by the board of directors often regulate the use of surveillance cameras, and enforcement is conducted through internal compliance mechanisms or the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

While unit owners and residents in condominiums may also install surveillance devices, they are typically subject to condominium rules and policies that may be more restrictive than the RTA. For example, a condominium board may prohibit doorbell cameras or require that any installation of surveillance equipment be approved in writing. Importantly, although the reasonable expectation of privacy in common elements such as hallways or lobbies remains low, the enforceability of restrictions is often higher in the condominium context due to the governance structure.

Application of the Edwards Factors to Common Areas

The Edwards factors, as articulated in R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128, provide a framework to assess whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular space. In the context of common areas within a rental complex—such as courtyards, hallways, stairwells, or laundry rooms—the application of these factors generally leads to the conclusion that no such expectation exists.

• Control Over the Area: Tenants typically do not have exclusive control over shared spaces. These areas are managed and maintained by the landlord or property manager.
• Ability to Regulate Access: Tenants cannot unilaterally exclude others from these areas, which are open to all residents, staff, and often guests or delivery personnel.
• Presence of Signage or Surveillance: The existence of posted surveillance signs or visible cameras further reduces any subjective expectation of privacy.
• Public Visibility: Common areas are frequently visible through windows or accessed by multiple tenants, further eroding any claim to privacy.
  

Taken together, the Edwards factors strongly support the conclusion reached in cases such as R. v. Hoang and R. v. Yu—that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in shared common areas of residential rental complexes.

Conclusion

The legality of surveillance cameras in rental housing hinges on location, purpose, and impact. While tenants cannot assume full privacy in shared spaces, they retain rights against harassment or substantial interference with their use of the rental unit. Likewise, landlords must balance safety and privacy concerns and comply with both statutory obligations and contractual limitations.

When disputes arise, clarity under the Residential Tenancies Act and guidance from recent case law can help resolve whether a camera’s placement is justified, unlawful, or an overreach.

Footnotes

1. R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128.

2. R. v. Hoang, 2024 ONCA 361 (CanLII).

3. R. v. Yu, 2019 ONCA 942 (CanLII).

4. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 17, s. 4.

5. Roele v. Sexton, 2023 ONLTB 46090 (CanLII).

6. Condominium Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 19.