(Canada vs
California, New York, Minnesota — for people trying to visit, study, work,
or immigrate to Canada)
Voyeurism cases
(secretly observing or recording someone nude or engaged in sexual activity)
are treated very seriously. A U.S. conviction involving surreptitious
recording or unlawful surveillance can lead to criminal
inadmissibility under IRPA s. 36 after Canadian equivalency is
assessed.
IRPA s. 36:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/section-36.html
Canada’s
offence (s. 162)
Criminal Code s.
162 prohibits surreptitiously observing or recording a person who is nude,
exposing genital organs, or engaged in explicit sexual activity in
circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy (including
recordings made for a sexual purpose).
Criminal Code s. 162:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-162.html
Equivalency
chart (typical comparisons)
U.S. state | Common
offence | Typical
Canadian match |
California | Invasion of
privacy / concealed recording (PC 647(j)) | Often Criminal
Code s. 162 |
New York | Unlawful
surveillance (PL 250.45) | Often s.
162 |
Minnesota | Interference
with privacy / surreptitious recording (MN 609.746) | Often s.
162 |
Call A&M
Canadian Immigration Law Corporation: (204) 442-2786
Disclaimer: Educational only, not legal advice; laws and policies can
change; U.S. laws vary by state.
Sources:
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes—criminal inadmissibility can affect temporary resident applications. (IRPA s. 36)
Recording itself can be enough, depending on the statute and facts.
