On May 20, 2025, the Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec (the "Commission") rendered a decision regarding the legality of a video surveillance system collecting images inside delivery vehicle cabins.
Crane Supply (the "Company"), a distributor of pipes and valves across Canada, installed a video monitoring system in each of its vehicles in February 2023. Its fleet included heavy vehicles and heavy-duty pickup trucks.
The system was designed so that image recording (without audio) began when the engine was started and ended 20 minutes after it was turned off. During video recording, the system used AI-based event detection to identify predetermined events occurring within the vehicle cabins (using a cell phone while driving, not wearing a seatbelt, smoking in the cab) that could result in the generation of incident reports. The Company had restricted access to the images collected to certain managers designated in the Company's policy.
The Commission's CAI decision
Under the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector(the "Private Sector Act"), image collection of people inside vehicle cabins, as well as incident reports, constitutes a collection of personal information that must be justified by legitimate, real and important objectives. In addition, the Private Sector Act stipulates that there must be balance between the objectives pursued and the invasion of privacy posed by the collection of personal information.
Pursuit of legitimate, real and important objectives
In this case, the Commission ruled that the Company's five objectives for using a video surveillance system were legitimate and important, since they were aimed at:
- ensuring the safety of people and property;
- preventing and detecting breaches of the Highway Safety Code;
- defending the Company and its drivers in the event of legal action;
- assisting in incident and accident investigation; and
- improving driver training.
The Commission also specified that the development of these objectives must be constant, transparent and documented before information is collected. It is important to note that it underscored the inconsistency between the objectives of video surveillance in the Company's privacy policy and the objectives mentioned at the hearing.
Citing arbitration decisions, the Commission confirmed that to be real, the Company's objectives had to be linked to concrete situations or specific problems. For this reason, the Commission attached great importance to the nature of the vehicles in question to determine whether they had characteristics that could be described as intrinsically dangerous. The following factors were considered:
- The hazardous nature of the goods transported:
The nature and weight of a Company's vehicle loads can
contribute to the intrinsically dangerous nature of the vehicles
themselves. For example, it has already been shown that the
transport of liquid and gaseous hydrogen is dangerous,1
whereas the transport of foodstuffs, and therefore the vehicles
carrying them, is not.2
In the case at hand, the Company occasionally transported small quantities of flammable products. The Commission concluded that the transport of these products did not contribute to the hazardous nature of the vehicles.
- The intrinsic characteristics of the vehicles:
According to the Commission, heavy vehicles, such as delivery
trucks, are intrinsically dangerous for several reasons—they
are more difficult to maneuver, accidents involving such vehicles
present a heightened risk and their operation is subject to special
legal obligations.
Conversely, pickup trucks present a lower level of risk than heavy vehicles. However, the Commission concluded that the safety objective was nonetheless real for these vehicles, as there is a proven probability of accidents occurring, due to the greater statistical likelihood of pickup trucks being involved in serious or fatal accidents than other passenger vehicles.
Minimizing harm
Secondly, any employer wishing to use a video surveillance system must demonstrate that they have done everything in their power to minimize the invasion of employee privacy, in particular by using the least intrusive settings possible. The Commission considered the following factors in its analysis of the proportionality between collecting personal information and the purposes pursued:
- Continuous or sequential monitoring: Sequential monitoring involves limiting image collection to specific events detected by the system. For example, image collection can be configured based on the level of G-force exerted on the vehicle. Continuous monitoring involves collecting images without interruption throughout the vehicle's trip. The Commission ruled that this surveillance model was more intrusive and that the Company using it had therefore not demonstrated that it had taken sufficient measures to minimize the invasion of its employees' privacy.
- Image collection after the engine is turned off: The Commission also determined that continuing to record for 20 minutes after the engine was turned off was unjustified, as this setting meant that drivers were likely to be recorded during their breaks. This was an invasion of privacy that went beyond what was necessary to achieve the objectives pursued, and it was not tolerated.
Expectation of privacy
Lastly, as part of its analysis, the Commission assessed the balance between the invasion of drivers' right to privacy represented by in-cab video monitoring and the objective pursued. In this respect, the Commission concluded that the drivers' expectation of privacy was low, given that they were at their workplace, the vehicles were on the highway, trip duration was short and there was no sleeper berth in the vehicles. Thus, the Commission determined that the benefits associated with the Company's pursued objectives proportionately outweighed the potential harm to drivers.
Commission's conclusions
The Commission concluded that the Company had to limit in-vehicle image collection to a few seconds before and after an incident, and to stop recording inside vehicles once the engine was turned off, otherwise the Company would be required to stop using its video surveillance system.
The Commission required the Company to review its policy on the use of dashboard cameras, so as to limit access to and use of the images collected to cases of accidents or major incidents. It also ordered the destruction of existing footage inside the cabins beyond any sequence relating to a major accident or incident.
Lastly, we note that this is the Commission's second decision on video surveillance in 2025. This fact alone—combined with how thoroughly it analyzed the law and the facts at issue—demonstrates the regulator's high expectation that companies wishing to use video surveillance systems first carry out a thorough prior assessment of the privacy impact of such systems on the inpiduals concerned.
Key takeaways
In light of this decision, here are the key points that any employer wishing to set up an employee video surveillance system should keep in mind:
- Video surveillance must be necessary and justified by specific objectives and serious, legitimate interests, even if an employee consents to the collection of personal information. A specific, non-hypothetical problem must be identified to justify data collection.
- Employers must fully identify and document the objectives underlying the collection before it takes place.
- Employers must establish internal policies that clearly define the specific cases in which employees' personal information may be used, and who can access it. Internal policies must be consistent and coherent with the objectives of the collection.
- Employers are required to consider the least privacy-invasive way possible to achieve their objectives.
- With regard to the objectives of protecting property and people, employers must provide in-house training for employees and encourage good driving habits. Such measures must be taken before the collection of personal information is considered, and only if these means prove insufficient.
Footnotes
1. See Teamsters Local Union No. 2013, arbitral award of May 24, 2018, para. 104.
2. See Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses de Sysco-Québec (CSN) v. Sysco Services alimentaires du Québec, 2016 QCTA 455 (application for judicial review dismissed, 2017 QCCS 3791).
Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
