Voyeurism: man found guilty of filming his 17-year-old stepdaughter in the bathroom

A man has been found guilty of voyeurism for hiding two recording devices in the family bathroom to film his 17-year-old stepdaughter. The judgment recalls a little-known rule: for voyeurism, the victim need not be nude, nor must the accused have acted for a sexual purpose.

In R. v. T.J., 2026 QCCQ 2903, the Court of Québec, Criminal and Penal Division, finds a man guilty of voyeurism (s. 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code). The evidence satisfied the court, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had placed two cameras in the bathroom intending to record his stepdaughter while she showered.

Out of respect for those involved: the victim was a minor at the time, and a publication ban (s. 486.4 Cr.C.) protects her identity and that of the witnesses. The judgment is anonymized by the court; this article publishes no identifying information and does not describe the images at issue.

I — The facts

Two cameras discovered before the shower

On January 17, 2024, the teenager is about to shower when an unusual reflection catches her eye: a smartphone is hidden inside a pile of clothes on the counter, only its lens showing, recording and pointed at her. Looking further, she finds a second device, a tablet, hidden on the edge of the bathtub behind a plant and bath toys — also recording.

Shaken, she alerts her 15-year-old brother. Together with their six-year-old brother, they leave the house and take refuge at a friend’s father’s home, who calls 911. The next day, police search the home and seize the two devices: forensic analysis reveals they had been reset to factory settings, erasing their contents.

II — The defence

The dog explanation

The accused offered a very different account: he claimed he had set up the cameras not to film the teenager, but to prove that it was the children’s dog — and not his — that was leaving excrement in the bathroom, a source of family disputes for four years. According to him, the lenses were pointed at the floor and the devices in plain sight.

III — The law

What voyeurism is — and is not

Section 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code targets anyone who surreptitiously observes or records a person in a place where it is reasonable to expect that a person may be nude, while that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Downes and Jarvis, the court recalls two key points: it is not necessary that the victim was actually nude, nor that the accused acted for a sexual purpose. It is enough that the person is in a place — such as a bathroom — where such privacy is expected.

IV — The analysis

An account found implausible

Faced with two conflicting versions, the judge applies the well-known framework from W.(D.): believe the accused and acquit; have a doubt and acquit; or — if his version is rejected — determine whether the rest of the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the court finds the accused’s account implausible: the positioning of the devices did not match the claimed goal of filming the floor, and an honest person would have placed the cameras on the floor and warned the occupants.

Above all, on learning that he was accused of filming, the accused did not keep the recordings to clear himself: he reset his devices.

Conversely, the court accepts the victim’s testimony, given « calmly and soberly », without any spirit of revenge or any attempt to fill gaps in her memory with invented answers — testimony found credible and corroborated on certain points by her brother’s account.

Conclusion

A verdict, with sentencing to come

The court concludes that the evidence establishes both elements of the offence — the act and the intent — beyond a reasonable doubt, and finds the accused guilty of voyeurism. This is the verdict on guilt; sentencing will be dealt with at a separate stage.

Beyond the case itself, the ruling is a reminder that the law protects privacy in places where everyone is entitled to take it for granted — and that privacy is measured not by what was captured, but by the intrusion itself.