 In our modern society we have ongoing concerns about our privacy, especially when our privacy is breached. There is an ongoing legal question as to whether or not someone can sue for a breach of privacy, whether there is a tort for a breach of privacy. In 2012 the Ontario Court of Appeal, which is the highest court in Ontario, dealt with that issue in the case of Jones and Tessig. In that case, the facts involve a Sandra Jones. Sandra Jones had sued Winnie Tessig. Both of them worked at Bank of Montreal. Winnie had surreptitiously looked at Jones' or Sandra's banking records because Winnie, as a part of her job, had access to these records. Sandra and Winnie didn't know each other, but Winnie did know that Sandra was now living with her former husband. Winnie was curious about Sandra's financial situation. She used her access as an employee to look at Sandra's banking records at least 174 times over a period of four years. When Sandra discovered what had gone on, obviously she was very upset and she sued Winnie. Sandra says that her privacy interest in her confidential banking information has been irreversibly destroyed and she claimed damages of $70,000 for invasion of privacy. The legal issue that the court had to deal with here was, does Ontario law recognize a cause of action for invasion of privacy? Or in other words, is there a tort for invasion of privacy? They talked about the fact that this issue actually has been debated for the past 120 years and has never been fully resolved by the courts. The court did determine that there can be a tort for breach of privacy. They call it a tort of intrusion upon seclusion. It has a nice ring to it, intrusion upon seclusion. So the court set out a number of different requirements for this tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The first requirement is that the defendant's conduct must be intentional. The second requirement is that the defendant must have invaded with a lawful justification that the plaintiff's private affairs are concerns. And the third and last requirement is that a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive, causing distress, humiliation or anguish. So the court applied that legal test to the facts and it came to the obvious conclusion that Winnie to Sigg had committed the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The three elements of the tort had been satisfied. What Winnie did was intentional and it amounted to an unlawful invasion of Jones's private affairs and it is viewed as highly offensive to a reasonable person and caused distress, humiliation or anguish.