Telematics and In-Cab Video Surveillance: Trends and Tips for Employers

Quick Hits

• Fleet telematics and video surveillance are now common across commercial vehicle operations, especially in safety-sensitive industries.
• Regulators across Canada, particularly in Québec, are emphasizing the need to justify driver-facing camera surveillance with real, demonstrable risks.
• A recent Québec decision offers a clear framework to assess the legality and reasonableness of driver-facing monitoring.

Telematics, referring to the integrated use of telecommunications and informatics, including GPS tracking, vehicle diagnostics, and real-time data collection, enables employers to monitor vehicle location, driver behaviour, and operational efficiency. Increasingly, these systems are paired with video surveillance, via a dashcam (generally a camera that can be road-facing, driver-facing or both), to enhance safety, protect assets, and support compliance.

The Rise of Telematics and Video Surveillance in Fleet Vehicles

Telematics systems, which combine GPS tracking, vehicle diagnostics, and data analytics, have become essential for modern fleet management. When integrated with video surveillance, such as cameras facing the road and/or facing drivers, these technologies can help prevent accidents, investigate incidents, and improve driver training. Employers cite objectives such as enhancing road safety, protecting the public, protecting company assets, defending against false claims, and ensuring compliance with legal obligations. Regulators, even in jurisdictions with stringent privacy laws, often recognize that objectives like safety, compliance, and asset protection can justify the use of in-vehicle monitoring tools.

Driver-facing video cameras may be considered appropriate in certain contexts, particularly for higher-risk vehicles such as heavy trucks, where visual evidence is necessary to understand driver behaviour and investigate incidents. However, audio recording is far more intrusive and is rarely justified, especially when video surveillance alone can provide sufficient context to determine what occurred. As the scope and sensitivity of data collection increase, so does the obligation to demonstrate that the measures are necessary, proportionate, and the least privacy-invasive option available.

Surveillance Type Analysis Chart

Type of Surveillance	Data Sensitivity	Risk Analysis Considerations	Key Questions
Telematics (GPS, speed, diagnostics)	Low to Moderate	Tracks location and vehicle performance, may constitute personal information, but not as sensitive.	Is this data necessary to meet safety, maintenance, or efficiency goals? Can it be limited to working hours only? How is GPS activated ?
Dash Camera (outward-facing)	Moderate	Captures footage of road and surroundings. Helps with accident investigation and false claims. If only outward facing may capture the driver entering and leaving vehicle.	Does this serve a clear safety or liability objective? Is the footage securely stored and accessed only when necessary? When is the camera activated ? Can it be limited to only when the car is on?
Driver-facing camera	High	Monitors driver behavior (e.g., distractions, fatigue). Raises privacy concerns, especially during breaks or off-duty periods. May be justified for heavy/high-risk vehicles.	Is there a documented safety risk that justifies this level of monitoring? Have less intrusive options been considered? What vehicles will be subject to these recordings (all or heavy vehicles)?
Driver-facing Camera with Audio Recording	Very High	Captures conversations and sounds, increasing intrusion. Often seen as excessive when video alone provides adequate context. Legal justification must be very strong.	Is audio essential to achieve the stated purpose, or is video sufficient? Can the objective be met without recording private conversations or sensitive verbal cues? What was notice/consent obtained to this recording?

Canadian Legal Trends: What Is Appropriate and Necessary?

Recent Canadian cases and regulatory guidance have clarified the boundaries of lawful and appropriate use of these technologies. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) of Canada has accepted that dash cameras and telematics can serve legitimate business interests, including road safety and asset protection. However, the OPC found that continuous audio and video recording, especially when drivers are off-duty, is disproportionately intrusive. The OPC recommended limiting recording to on-duty periods and restricting access to recorded data to only those with a demonstrable need.

Across western Canada, adjudicators and courts apply a contextual “reasonableness” analysis to decide whether telematics or in-cab video systems lawfully balance an employer’s safety interests with drivers’ privacy rights. In both British Columbia and Alberta, decision-makers first ask whether the employer’s safety or efficiency objective is bona fide, then whether there is a direct nexus between that objective and the data collected, and finally whether the collection is proportionate, minimally intrusive, and supported by clear notice to affected workers. The Alberta privacy tribunal has held that a GPS-enabled program will generally pass this test where its sole purpose is lone-worker safety, the devices can be shut off outside working hours, and employees are told exactly what is being gathered, why, and for how long. By contrast, a recent British Columbia labour arbitration subsequently left undisturbed on appeal found that outward- and driver-facing cameras with continuous audio recording failed the proportionality test: the system captured off-duty conversations, notice to drivers was delayed by seven months, and the employer could not show that less-intrusive measures had been considered. The arbitrator awarded general damages of $4,000 per driver for the privacy breach, emphasizing that constant, audio-enabled surveillance of travel time is “highly intrusive,” particularly where employees are paid but not actively performing core job duties during those periods.

Similarly, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner has issued guidelines emphasizing that video surveillance must be necessary, proportionate, and minimally intrusive. Employers must demonstrate that less invasive alternatives have been considered and found insufficient, and that the benefits of surveillance outweigh the privacy impact. Although there is no applicable privacy legislation in Ontario for employees outside of federal works, the Employment Standards Act requires that provincially regulated employers with twenty-five or more employees must now maintain a stand-alone electronic monitoring policy that describes how, when, and why any electronic tracking occurs, thereby operationalizing the same transparency and proportionality principles that underpin the British Columbia and Alberta reasonableness tests. Together, these developments signal that the lawful deployment of fleet telematics hinges on documented necessity, narrowly tailored data collection, and upfront disclosure to the workforce.

Quebec’s Leading Example

A recent decision by the Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec is a landmark in defining the limits of driver-facing video surveillance. In this case, a company installed bidirectional cameras in all delivery vehicles, capturing both road- and driver-facing cameras with AI-driven event detection (e.g., use of mobile phones, seatbelt compliance, smoking, and collisions). The Commission’s analysis focused on whether the collection of personal information was necessary, proportionate, and justified by real risks.

Key findings from the decision include:

• Justification May Need to Be Real and Documented: General references to safety or compliance may not be sufficient. Employers may want to consider documenting specific, evidence-based reasons for implementing in-cab monitoring, such as past incidents (even in another jurisdiction), insurance or client requirements, or high-risk driving environments.
• Continuous Surveillance May Be Viewed as Disproportionate: In this case, the Commission considered ongoing in-cab recording to be excessive. Employers may want to consider limiting video capture to short periods surrounding specific risk events (e.g., collisions or traffic violations).
• Recording After Engine Shutdown May Raise Concerns: The Commission rejected the collection of footage after the engine was turned off. This suggests that surveillance extending into off-duty or break periods may be seen as encroaching on personal privacy.
• Policy and Access Controls: The company’s policy limited access to recorded images to a small group of managers and restricted use to specific purposes (e.g., accident investigation, safety alerts). The Commission recommended further tightening of policy language to ensure images are only accessed in cases of significant incidents.
• Employee Privacy: The decision recognised that while the expectation of privacy in a vehicle cabin is lower than in private spaces, it is not eliminated. Surveillance must not extend to periods when drivers are on break or off-duty, and the psychological impact of being constantly monitored may need to be considered.
• Privacy Notices May Require Specificity Regarding Use in Evaluations: The Commission reviewed the employer’s privacy notice closely and noted the absence of language specifying that recorded data could be used in performance evaluations or disciplinary processes. Employers may want to consider clearly stating such uses in their privacy communications, as using this data for disciplinary purposes without prior disclosure may be challenged.
• Consent May Not Always Be Required Where Exceptions Apply: Another important consideration is that consent may not be necessary in all situations, particularly where a legitimate business interest, safety concern, or security issue justifies the collection and use of surveillance data. Employers may want to assess whether an exception to consent applies in their specific context and ensure that the rationale is well documented.

Practical Guidelines for Employers

Based on these trends and decisions, employers considering telematics and video surveillance in fleet vehicles may want to consider the following actions:

• Conducting a Privacy Impact Assessment: Evaluating the necessity and proportionality of surveillance, considering less intrusive alternatives.
• Defining Clear Objectives: Surveillance works best if it is tied to specific, legitimate, and demonstrable risks.
• Limiting Scope and Duration: Avoiding continuous recording; restrict surveillance to periods of heightened risk or specific incidents.
• Implementing Robust Policies: Clearly defining who can access recorded data, for what purposes, and under what circumstances. Regularly reviewing and updating policies to reflect current practices and legal requirements.
• Providing Notice and Transparency: Informing employees about the nature, purpose, and extent of surveillance, including potential disciplinary uses.
• Safeguarding Data: Limiting access to those with a genuine need, using technological safeguards, and ensuring timely deletion of unnecessary data.

Key Takeaways

The use of telematics and video surveillance in fleet management is likely to continue growing, driven by safety, efficiency, and compliance needs. However, employers will want to remain vigilant in respecting employee privacy and adhering to evolving legal standards. Recent decisions in Canada, along with accompanying guidance from regulators, provide a practical roadmap for implementing these technologies lawfully and responsibly.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the Cross-Border, Cybersecurity and Privacy, Trucking & Logistics, and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts