Rules around workplace surveillance clarified in Québec ruling – Canadian HR Reporter Rules around workplace surveillance clarified in Québec ruling – Canadian HR Reporter

A recent decision by the Commission d’accès à l’information (CAI) of Québec has brought some clarity around workplace surveillance and what is “reasonable” when it comes to in-cab monitoring, says Adam LaRoche, a partner in the Privacy and Data Management and Employment and Labour groups, quoted in an interview with Canadian HR Reporter.

In early 2023, Crane Supply installed a video surveillance system in all its vehicles, allowing for the collection of images from both outside and inside of its vehicles. AI-driven features also detected certain events occurring within the vehicle cabins — such as a driver smoking, tailgating or excessive speed — and generated incident reports.

The CAI decided Crane Supply was overstepping its surveillance and was not sufficiently minimizing the invasion of privacy represented by its collection of personal information. The company was ordered to limit image collection inside vehicle cabins to only brief periods before and after a specific incident, or to cease such collections altogether.

“One of the really important parts of this finding is the ultimate determination that the practice itself is reasonable or necessary from a Québec perspective,” says Adam. However, the CAI’s finding should not be seen as an open invitation for all kinds of surveillance. “I would caution employers from reading this decision as a blanket authorization to conduct in-cab monitoring,” he notes.

Adam says using advanced technology for workplace surveillance is a hot topic that continues to evolve. A key issue for employers is knowing exactly how these tools work. Some forms of technology are going to be invasive and intrusive, such as using a biometric aspect to confirm a driver’s identity, or a voice transcription capturing audio. “That’s a higher-risk practice than a system that is only measuring acceleration, deceleration, harsh braking and other telemetric data rather than facial or voice data,” says Adam.

The human element is an important consideration here. “It’s important — as with all AI-related aspects — for employers to actually review the footage on a limited basis to determine that someone was in fact in breach of a workplace rule, and don’t take the system at its word when in fact [the worker was] using a lollipop to quit smoking,” says Adam.

Read the full article by Sarah Dobson posted on July 9, 2025