“Except for Quebec, a civil law jurisdiction, Canada has very few statutory provisions covering personality rights specifically.” — Daniel Anthony
Like New Zealand, Canada’s federal government and common law provinces do not recognize the general, US style “right of publicity” that protects personality rights—the right to control one’s name, image, likeness—as a property right.
“Except for Quebec, a civil law jurisdiction, protection for personality rights in Canada primarily flows from the common law,” says Daniel Anthony, a principal in the Ottawa office of Smart & Biggar, an IPH Network member. “While Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have recognized the common law remedy in their privacy legislation, British Columbia is the only province that has legislated the appropriation of personality as a ‘special tort’ with its own test.”
Apart from the above, additional legislation that exists is very narrow: in the federal context, the Criminal Code covers sexualized deepfakes. In the provincial realm, all the provinces but Ontario have intimate-image legislation, but none address deepfakes in a general way. In 2025, Manitoba enacted additional legislation to address deepfakes, but only in the elections context.
Common law test
Since 1973, Canadian courts recognized a specific and narrow tort of misappropriation of personality that differs substantially from the standalone right of publicity in the US: that common law right, however, protects only against commercial exploitation of personality traits without consent.
While the courts in the various provinces have not all had the opportunity to issue rulings on the issue, Anthony says that published decisions addressing the tort of misappropriation of personality—no more than 20 since it emerged in the country’s jurisprudence—have been “relatively consistent”.
Otherwise, the prohibition against “passing off” is nationally recognised. While it does not, strictly speaking, protect personality rights, courts may apply it in that context to prohibit misleading or false representations implying that an individual endorses a product. Nonetheless, the doctrine protects commercial goodwill only, and is not founded on property rights doctrine, as is the American regime.
Protections are strong, but gaps exist
Still, Anthony insists that, overall, Canada has “strong” protections in place.
“Our courts apply fundamental principles that prohibit the commercial use of recognisable or marketable personalities without consent,” he says. “If a publication or an advertisement suggests a strong tie-up between a personality and a product, we call that misappropriation.”
As Anthony sees it, Canadian law is clear and forceful enough to compel alleged offenders to withdraw their postings or publications as soon as a legitimate complaint is filed, often without the need for the object of the posting to initiate court proceedings.
He cites the example of an American movie star who was photographed carrying bags while leaving a store. The store then displayed the photograph on social media with the caption “So happy to have [the movie star] enjoying our store.”
“When the celebrity complained that this amounted to an endorsement, the store immediately withdrew the post,” Anthony says.
The role of privacy law
Privacy laws also come into play. Some provinces have enacted private sector privacy statutes, and some courts have recognized the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion”. While, again, outcomes differ between provinces, courts have used both to protect personality rights.
“Intrusion on seclusion includes the type of situation where someone is taking a film in a shopping mall full of people and turns that into a commercial product,” Anthony explains.
Anthony cites a 2017 case that involved a property developer releasing a marketing video that included a two-second image of a woman jogging on a public path in a forested area, purportedly in support of the developer’s claim that its new development was close to a beautiful running path.
“The company immediately took the video down, but the individual decided to sue anyhow, and the Small Claims Court found an invasion of privacy despite the fact that the developer’s cameras were clearly visible to the plaintiff,” Anthony says. “Some $4,100 in damages were awarded.”
Still, Anthony is clear that the commercial use of the video and the fact that it showed identifiable traits underlie the decision. Canadian courts have also made it clear that defamation protects reputation, but does not protect personality traits in themselves.
The upshot is that the extent to which individuals have control over their images in a non-commercial context remains uncertain in Canada.
Reform continues
In February 2026, the Law Commission of Ontario, cognisant of the fact that the province was the only one without any deepfake laws whatsoever, initiated an intimate images and deepfakes project that will define the terms “deepfake”, “creation”, and “distribution”, among others, to enhance clarity in legislation. It will also assess liability standards, identify responsible parties, determine the doctrinal basis on which deepfake protection should rest, and consider appropriate remedies for victims.
Otherwise, in August 2025, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) released new guidance for organisations that collect and use biometric identifiers. The guidelines treat such data as sensitive enough to require heightened protection. The upshot is that organisations must now justify their use of biometrics with specificity, ensure that is necessary, do it in a way that is minimally intrusive, and obtain express consent in most instances. Any usage expansion requires further express consent.
In 2025 as well, the Canadian Digital Regulators Forum, which includes the Canadian Radio-television and Communications Commission, the Competition Bureau, the OPC, and the Copyright Board, released a white paper on synthetic media.
The paper recognizes the significant risks that deepfakes and other synthetic media pose to privacy and copyright, among other things, and explores the imposition of labelling requirements on synthetic media to avoid deception. It also encourages increased collaboration internationally.
Our conclusion: the legal system, in Canada as elsewhere, will be struggling for awhile to keep abreast of technological change affecting privacy and personality.