(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:
Written
by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian
Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
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.
