A Toronto tenant has accused MetCap Living Management Inc . of using security cameras that peek into private apartments at 105 Isabella St. An investigation by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) found the firm failed to meet federal privacy standards and ignored requests for information.
The 105 Isabella St. cameas that peeked inside
According to the report, security cameras installed in the hallways of 105 Isabella St. were angled in a way that captured footage of tenant interiors whenever apartment doors were opened. This breach was brought to light by Javier Ruiz-Soler, a tenant and civil servant with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, who began demanding answers from MetCap Living Management Inc. in late 2024.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) concluded in a June report that MetCap Living Management Inc. was non-compliant with federal law. Specifically, the OPC found that the company failed to prvoide information about its security footage in its privacy policy and ignored a tenant's request for his own personal private information. While Michael Guyette, vice-president of operations for MetCap, stated that camera angles were adjusted, the OPC report indicated that these changes still left parts of tenant apartments visible.
Why PIPEDA lacks the teeth to fine MetCap Living Management
The dispute highlights a significant weakness in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), the federal law governing privacy. As the report notes, PIPEDA does not grant the Privacy Commissioner the power to levy fines or issue binding orders. Instead, the commission is largely limited to making recommendations to companies.
David Elder, a chief privacy officer at the law firm Stikeman Elliot, explains that the commission's primary tool is "public shaming" through the release of investigation summaries. For a company like MetCap Living Management Inc., which manages over 22,000 apartments across hundreds of buildings, the lack of financial penalties means there is little legal pressure to comply beyond the risk of reputational damage.
The risk of cloud-based AI training on tenant footage
This incident occurs amidst a broader shift toward AI-integrated surveillance that makes 20-year-old laws like PIPEDA feel obsolete. Alejandra Brown of Kirke Management Consulting warns that modern video surveillance often involves cloud-based vendors who may store data in the United States, where privacy protections differ.. there is a growing concern that footage collected for "security" could be used by third-party vendors to train AI models without tenant consent.
The presence of AI and facial recognition software transforms a simple hallway camera into a sophisticated data collection tool. When a firm like MetCap Living Management Inc. fails to be transparent about its policies, tenants are left unaware of whether their likenesses are being processed by algorithms or stored in foreign jurisdictions.
The gap between MetCap's adjustments and the OPC's findings
Several critical questions remain regarding the current state of surveillance at 105 Isabella St. While Michael Guyette of MetCap Living Management Inc. claims that relevant camera angles were adjusted, he has declined to answer whether further changes were made after the OPC concluded in June that the interiors were still visible. It remains unclear exactly how many tenants were recorded and whether any of that footage was accessed or shared.
Furthermore, signage at the building indicates that a third-party contractor, SEQ Security Surveillance Services Inc., is collecting both video and audio. The report does not clarify the specific data-sharing agreement between MetCap Living Management Inc. and SEQ Security Surveillance Services Inc., nor does it confirm if audio recording—a highly invasive practice—was also capturing private conversations inside the apartments.
Comments 0