CANADIAN LAW - Jeff is a senior engineer for Rogue Development Inc., a very large property developer in Ontario.He has a relatively senior role in the organization, reporting to the CEO directly. As a result, he has access to a considerable amount of information within the company.

Unfortunately, Jeff has been going through a rough time recently. He broke up with his partner Susanna 3 months ago, and is depressed. Coincidentally Susanna also works at Rogue, as a designer in its condominium development department.Susanna has told Jeff repeatedly that she no longer wants to have any personal interaction or relationship with him whatsoever, outside of work.She has recently started a leave of absence, apparently for health reasons, and there are rumours about this in the workplace.Jeff becomes obsessed with finding out what is happening in Susanna's life.So, he uses his access to the company's information systems to review Susanna's application for leave of absence as well as two medical reports prepared by her psychiatrist relating to her mental health, including some discussion of her former relationship with Jeff.Emotionally overwhelmed, Jeff then goes to Susanna's apartment to discuss this with her, and in that discussion, he admits what he did.

1. Suppose Susanna wants to take legal action against Jeff for looking at her medical records.She has been advised against filing a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.What sort of other legal claim can she make against Jeff?In other words, what is the legal cause of action
2. In this kind of claim, state the legal case that is the main precedent for this new legal cause of action, and explain the legal "test" that would apply.
3. Suppose that after Rogue Development Inc. finds out about Jeff's behaviour, rather than firing him, and because it is concerned about vicarious liability exposure in future cases, it decides to implement various forms of surveillance on him, including video surveillance.Jeff discovers this.He checks his contract and concludes that it says nothing that appears to be relevant to this situation.Is there any other contractual legal principle that constrains Rogue's right to do this?