Niemela v. Malamas Page 14 (4) Without limiting subsections (1) to (3), privacy may be violated by eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass. This statutory tort requires a reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the plaintiff. There is no factual pleading in the notice of civil claim that could give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in this case and none is alleged. [45] Section 1(2) of the Privacy Act provides that “[t]he nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled … is that which is reasonable in the circumstances….” Mr. Niemela can have no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to how he performs his professional work. Work is in general a public aspect of a person’s life. While there are exceptions, such as solicitor-client privilege, a lawyer’s work with clients is conducted in a public forum. In reality, Mr. Niemela’s complaint is not that the articles describe an area of his life that he expects to be kept private and sheltered from public view, but rather that they are unflattering and false descriptions of his work performance. [46] The cases Mr. Niemela relies on to support an expectation of privacy are easily distinguishable from the present one. In Griffin v. Sullivan, 2008 BCSC 827, both the plaintiff and defendant were members of a group of about 100 people who posted messages to an internet news group called “alt.suicide.holiday”. Most members of the group had experienced or were experiencing thoughts of committing suicide and sought support online from other members. While some people identified themselves in their postings, most used a pseudonym, including the plaintiff. Halfyard J. observed at para. 81: The people who posted messages to ASH were either depressed or suicidal or both. Many of the messages disclosed highly confidential personal feelings. Many of the postings used language of extreme profanity to respond to messages sent by other members of the group, and to make accusations and counter-accusations against other members of the group. The plaintiff testified that it was extremely important to him that his identity be concealed. [47] The defendant and the plaintiff had heated exchanges on the website. The defendant prevailed upon the plaintiff’s former girlfriend to provide him with the 2015 BCSC 1024 (CanLII) [44]