Every few months a client asks whether we can put a drone up over a subject’s house. The question is reasonable: the equipment is cheap, the footage looks impressive, and the aerial perspective solves problems a car on a residential street cannot. The answer is almost always no, and not because drones are illegal. It is that a drone flight has to clear two separate gates, and the second is where most investigative drone ideas die.
Short answer: a drone flight in Canada has to pass two independent tests. Gate one is aviation law: Transport Canada’s Part IX rules on registration, pilot certification, altitude, distance from people, airspace and visual line-of-sight. Gate two is privacy and evidence law: reasonable expectation of privacy, voyeurism and civil exposure, PIPEDA obligations, and whether the footage survives authentication and proportionality challenges. Clearing one gate does nothing for the other. A perfectly legal flight can produce evidence a court refuses, and useful footage can still earn the operator a fine. In practice, drones earn their place documenting property, not following people.
The mistake underneath most of these requests is treating a pilot certificate as permission to observe. It is not. A gate-one failure costs money and a licence; a gate-two failure costs the case. This article turns on statutory interpretation across three bodies of law, so treat it as orientation and have a lawyer look at your specific facts.
Gate one: what Transport Canada actually requires
The rules changed on 4 November 2025, when the substantive parts of SOR/2025-70 (Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (RPAS, Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight and Other Operations), published in the Canada Gazette, Part II on 26 March 2025) came into force. They added medium drones, sheltered operations, extended visual line-of-sight and lower-risk beyond-visual-line-of-sight flight, plus a new pilot certificate. Anything predating November 2025 describes an incomplete picture.
Weight categories
| Category | Operating weight | Registration and pilot certificate |
|---|---|---|
| Microdrone | Under 250 g | Neither required |
| Small | 250 g up to and including 25 kg | Both required |
| Medium | Over 25 kg up to 150 kg | Both required, Advanced or Level 1 Complex |
| Large | Over 150 kg | Special permission required |
Almost every camera drone an investigator would realistically fly is a small drone, so registration, marking and a pilot certificate are mandatory. Microdrones under 250 g are the common workaround, and only a partial one. You still cannot operate any drone “in a reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger aviation safety or the safety of anyone,” you still have to stay clear of emergency sites, and an advertised event still needs a special flight operations certificate. Sub-250 g removes paperwork, not obligation, and none of gate two.
Pilot certificate levels and what each one buys you
| Certificate | Age | What it permits |
|---|---|---|
| Basic Operations | 14 | Small drones, uncontrolled airspace, visual line-of-sight, more than 30 m horizontally from uninvolved people, more than 5.6 km (3 NM) from a certified airport and 1.9 km (1 NM) from a heliport |
| Advanced Operations | 16 | Everything Basic allows, plus controlled airspace with air traffic services authorization, operations closer to and over people, sheltered operations, extended visual line-of-sight, and medium drones |
| Level 1 Complex | 18 | Lower-risk beyond-visual-line-of-sight in uncontrolled airspace, at or below 400 ft AGL, more than 9.3 km (5 NM) from aerodrome centres, under an RPAS Operator Certificate |
Advanced Operations is the practical working level for commercial documentation, and it takes more than an exam: the drone model itself has to be covered by a manufacturer’s safety assurance declaration for the operation you intend, and near-people and over-people operations sit in tiers under CAR 901.69. Level 1 Complex adds 20 hours of ground school, an exam, a flight review and an RPAS Operator Certificate, and is built for infrastructure inspection, not urban observation.
The hard operational limits
- Altitude. CAR 901.25 caps flight at 400 feet (122 m) above ground level, plus a less-quoted second limit in the same section: no more than 100 feet (30 m) above a building or structure when within 200 feet (61 m) horizontally of it.
- Distance from uninvolved people. CAR 901.26 sets 30 m horizontally for a small drone in visual line-of-sight, and 152.4 m (500 ft) for a medium drone.
- Controlled airspace. CAR 901.71 prohibits operating in controlled airspace without an authorization from the air traffic services provider. Much of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area sits under controlled airspace, and this is not something to discover at the site.
- Night. Night flight is permitted, but CAR 901.39 requires lights sufficient to keep the aircraft visible to the pilot or visual observer, turned on. The regulation that makes night flight legal is the regulation that makes the drone conspicuous in the dark.
- Records. CAR 901.48 requires the owner to keep a record of the pilots and crew on each flight and the flight times for 12 months, and maintenance records for 24 months. Treat that as a floor: those logs authenticate the footage later.
- Penalties. Transport Canada publishes fines up to $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations, with multiple penalties where more than one rule is broken. For a licensed agency the fine is the smaller problem. A regulatory finding is a cross-examination gift in every case it touches.
The rule that kills covert drone tailing
If you take one regulation from this article, take CAR 901.11: no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system unless the pilot or a visual observer has the aircraft in visual line-of-sight. There are narrow exceptions, including the new sheltered and complex operations provisions and a special flight operations certificate. The default is unambiguous.
Work through what that means physically. Keeping an aircraft in unaided visual line-of-sight generally means standing within a few hundred metres of it with a clear sightline. If you are that close, and the drone is close enough to a residence to see anything useful, you are parked in view of the address with a controller in your hands and the drone is within earshot of the people you are watching. Consumer drones are loud in the way a hovering appliance is loud, and visible against sky.
So the covert drone tail, the one that follows a car across town from 300 feet, fails on aviation law before privacy law gets a turn. The November 2025 amendments did open BVLOS flight, but the conditions (uncontrolled airspace, distance from populated areas and aerodromes, an operator certificate, a Level 1 Complex pilot) describe a pipeline right-of-way, not a subdivision. For following a person, conventional covert surveillance remains the tool.
Gate two: privacy, criminal exposure and civil risk
Assume a flight that is flawless under Part IX: registered aircraft, certified pilot, 120 m AGL, uncontrolled airspace, clear line-of-sight, logged. You can still be in serious trouble, for reasons that have nothing to do with aviation.
Expectation of privacy turns on the place and the persistence, not the altitude
The distinction that matters is between a location where a person has accepted public visibility and one where they have not. An open commercial lot, a construction site fronting a road, a parking area visible from the street: activity there is already exposed to ordinary view, and documenting it from above is close in character to photographing it from the sidewalk. A fenced backyard is the opposite. The fence is the expectation, expressed physically, and flying over it to see what it exists to conceal is the substance of the intrusion.
Canadian courts have looked at aerial observation of a home, in a context that does not transfer cleanly. In R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67, the Supreme Court held that police use of a forward-looking infrared camera from an aircraft did not breach the accused’s reasonable expectation of privacy, because heat patterns on a house’s external surfaces were not information he could objectively expect to keep private. Two cautions. Tessling is a Charter section 8 case about state actors, and section 8 does not bind a private investigator. And the Court rested explicitly on how little that technology revealed; a current camera on a hovering platform reveals far more.
The second variable is persistence. A transient overflight and a sustained targeted hover are different acts, even at the same altitude with the same camera. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner made the point in its March 2013 paper Drones in Canada, calling drone surveillance “surreptitious, cheap, efficient, persistent and agile” and warning that it “threatens to eradicate existing practical limits on aerial monitoring.” That paper is archived and predates the current regulations, but the analysis has not aged.
Criminal Code voyeurism
Criminal Code section 162 makes it an offence to surreptitiously observe, including by mechanical or electronic means, or to make a visual recording of a person in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, where any of three conditions is met: the person is in a place where they can reasonably be expected to be nude or engaged in sexual activity; the person is in such a state and the recording is made to record that; or the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose. On indictment the maximum is five years under section 162(5).
An investigator who puts a camera over a backyard pool, a hot tub, an uncovered window or a private deck is in the territory this section was drafted for, and a Part IX-compliant flight is no defence to it. Section 162(6) provides a public-good defence. No investigator should plan around needing it.
Trespass and nuisance
Ontario’s Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, is written around entry onto premises. Whether flying above a property at 100 metres constitutes entry has not been settled in a way anyone can rely on, and Canadian commentary has consistently described the remedies for drone intrusion as unclear and inconsistent between provinces.
The tort side is firmer. Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, recognized intrusion upon seclusion in Ontario: intentional or reckless conduct, invading private affairs without lawful justification, in a way a reasonable person would regard as highly offensive. Damages are conventionally modest, up to about $20,000, with $10,000 awarded in Jones itself. The money is not the risk. The finding is, in a file where your client is trying to establish that the other side behaved badly. Private nuisance is the other live theory: repeated low hovering over a residence interferes with the use and enjoyment of land.
PIPEDA applies to you, and it is not optional
An Ontario investigation agency is a commercial actor with no substantially similar provincial private-sector privacy law in front of it, so PIPEDA applies. The OPC has said plainly that where drones are used for commercial aims, “their use would be covered by the Personal Information Protection Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA),” and that “PIPEDA requires consent as a general rule, subject to only limited and specific exceptions.”
The exception investigative work relies on is PIPEDA section 7(1)(b): collection without knowledge or consent where it is reasonable to expect that seeking consent would compromise the availability or accuracy of the information, and the collection is reasonable for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province. Read the conditions. There must be an actual breach or contravention under investigation, so a flight with no articulated investigative question does not fit. Collateral collection is also worse with a drone than any ground camera: a wide-angle lens at altitude captures neighbours, children and unrelated households in every frame. Minimization is the condition of the exception holding up. Our note on PIPEDA and surveillance privacy in Ontario covers the framework in more detail.
How opposing counsel attacks drone footage
Assume both gates are cleared and the footage is relevant. It still has to survive a hearing, and drone material attracts three lines of attack.
- Authentication. Under Canada Evidence Act section 31.1, the party seeking to admit an electronic document bears the burden of proving it is what it purports to be, and section 31.2 satisfies the best evidence rule on proof of the integrity of the system that recorded it. For drone footage that means original files rather than exports, camera time verified against a known reference before the flight, and a flight log whose times, coordinates and altitudes match the video. A mismatch between log and metadata is a bad afternoon on the stand.
- Continuity. Drone footage is inherently fragmented. Battery life forces breaks every twenty to thirty minutes, and counsel will characterize each gap as the interesting part. The answer is a contemporaneous record of every launch, landing, battery swap and interruption, plus complete unedited files.
- Proportionality. This is the one that decides cases. Counsel will ask why a drone was necessary, what less intrusive method was considered, how long the aircraft stayed over the property, and who else was captured. If a ground observation would have answered the same question, the flight looks like an intrusion in search of a justification, and the tribunal’s view of the whole file shifts. It is the discipline that governs conventional surveillance evidence, applied to a tool that makes disproportion very easy.
A quieter fourth problem: reported Canadian decisions on private-sector drone footage remain scarce, so an investigator tendering it is often arguing without close precedent, and the burden falls back on the quality of the record.
Where drones genuinely earn their place
None of this makes drones useless. It makes them a documentation tool rather than an observation tool. When the subject of the flight is a place rather than a person, usually one the client controls, a drone does what nothing else can.
- Large rural, agricultural and industrial property. Boundaries, unauthorized structures, stored equipment, access routes and encroachments across a 200-acre parcel are visible from 100 metres and invisible from the driveway.
- Insurance loss and roof inspection. Hail, wind and fire damage, and the condition of upper storeys after a loss, documented safely and repeatably. The clearest case where a drone reduces risk rather than creating it, and it fits directly into insurance claim investigation.
- Scene mapping and measurement. Overhead imagery of a collision site, industrial incident or disputed boundary supports scaled measurement and a plan view no description conveys.
- Search support. Locating a person, vehicle or property across open terrain, where the area is large and speed matters.
- Construction and environmental documentation. Progress records, sequence disputes, spill extent, drainage and erosion, in dated series showing change in one consistent frame.
- Site security assessment. Sightlines, fence lines, blind spots, approach routes and camera coverage gaps, seen the way an intruder would plan them.
The common thread: short, purposeful flights over property the client controls or has a documented interest in, aimed at conditions rather than people. That is why they clear gate two. Our UAS investigative solutions work sits here by design.
Uses that are a bad idea regardless of legality
Some flights are technically arguable and still wrong. These are the ones we decline:
- Hovering over a residential yard to observe a person. The fact pattern that produces voyeurism exposure, nuisance claims and a tribunal that stops listening to your client.
- Looking into windows, from any distance or angle. There is no version of this that ends well.
- Following a vehicle or a person. Fails line-of-sight and airspace, and produces less usable evidence than a second investigator would.
- Filming children, schools, playgrounds or daycare property. Even with a legitimate question nearby, collateral collection makes the material unusable.
- Flying over an active emergency scene. Prohibited, and it interferes with aircraft carrying people.
- Any flight where the honest answer to “why a drone” is “because we have one.” If the aerial perspective is not required, it is an intrusion in search of a rationale, and that is how it will be characterized.
A pre-flight checklist you can actually use
Run this before every investigative flight. If any answer is no, do not launch.
Aviation
- Aircraft registered and marked, if 250 g or more?
- Pilot holds the right certificate for this operation, and has it on their person?
- Airspace class confirmed, with an air traffic services authorization if controlled, and clear of the airport and heliport distances for your certificate level?
- Whole flight at or below 400 ft AGL, and within 100 ft of a structure only when within 200 ft of it horizontally?
- Visual line-of-sight maintained by the pilot or a visual observer throughout?
- Required separation from uninvolved people maintained throughout?
- If night, required lights fitted and on?
- Clear of emergency scenes, wildfires and advertised events?
- Flight log ready to be completed contemporaneously, not reconstructed afterward?
Privacy and evidence
- Whose property is the flight over, and do you have the owner’s or occupier’s authority in writing?
- What specific investigative question does this flight answer, and could a less intrusive method answer it?
- Which PIPEDA basis applies, and does the section 7(1)(b) exception fit these facts?
- Who else will be captured, and what is your plan to minimize and handle that footage?
- Is any part of the flight path over a place where a person would reasonably expect privacy?
- Camera clock verified against a known time reference before launch?
- Originals retained, unedited, under a documented chain of custody?
- Can the pilot testify to every element of this flight from the record, twelve months from now?
Question 11 is the one that fails most proposed flights, and it should.
What to do next
Answer the two questions in order. Is there a lawful aviation path to the flight you have in mind? And, independently, is the observation defensible on privacy grounds and will the footage hold up? If the objective is documenting a property, a loss, a scene or a large search area, the answer to both is often yes. If it is watching a person at home, the answer is no, and the right recommendation is a ground-based approach or, sometimes, a lawyer rather than an investigator.
If you are on the receiving end and believe someone is flying over your property to observe you, document the dates, times and duration, photograph the aircraft if you can, and raise it with a lawyer. Both gates are available to you.
Investigation for hire in Ontario is licensed work under the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005 and O. Reg. 363/07, so drone work on a case file carries agency accountability on top of everything above. To discuss whether an aerial component fits your matter, or to hear honestly that it does not, contact us or assign a case. We would rather explain why a flight is the wrong tool than produce footage you cannot use.
This article is general information about investigative practice in Ontario, not legal advice. Laws change and every situation is different. For advice about your specific circumstances, consult a licensed Ontario lawyer or contact a licensed investigator directly.
Frequently asked questions
Can a private investigator legally fly a drone over someone’s property in Ontario?
Flying is regulated by Transport Canada under Part IX of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, and nothing in those rules grants a right to observe people on private property. A compliant flight can still expose an investigator to a privacy claim, a nuisance or trespass claim, or a Criminal Code voyeurism charge if the observation targets a place where someone reasonably expects privacy. Aviation compliance and privacy compliance are separate questions.
Do I need a licence to fly a drone for investigative work in Canada?
If the drone weighs 250 g or more, yes. It must be registered and marked with its registration number, and the pilot must hold a Transport Canada drone pilot certificate. Basic Operations covers uncontrolled airspace with at least 30 metres of separation from uninvolved people. Advanced Operations is required for controlled airspace or closer operations near people. Drones under 250 g need neither registration nor a certificate, but still must not be flown recklessly or near emergency sites.
Why can’t a drone be used to follow a subject covertly?
Canadian Aviation Regulations section 901.11 requires the pilot or a visual observer to keep the aircraft in visual line-of-sight. If you can see the drone well enough to comply, the drone is close enough that people on the ground can usually see and hear it too. Beyond-visual-line-of-sight flight is possible in Canada as of November 4, 2025, but it requires a Level 1 Complex pilot certificate, an operator certificate, uncontrolled airspace and distance from populated areas. Those conditions are the opposite of a residential tail.
Will a court accept drone footage as evidence?
It can, if the footage is lawfully obtained, authenticated and complete. Under Canada Evidence Act section 31.1, the party tendering an electronic record bears the burden of proving it is what it purports to be. In practice that means original files, verified timestamps, a documented chain of custody, flight logs that match the footage, and a pilot who can testify to what was flown and when. Footage that arrives as an edited clip with no supporting record is easy to attack.
What is the maximum height a drone can fly in Canada?
Section 901.25 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations caps altitude at 400 feet (122 metres) above ground level. There is a second limit: no more than 100 feet (30 metres) above a building or structure when operating within 200 feet (61 metres) horizontally of it. Going higher requires a special flight operations certificate, or an air traffic services authorization in controlled airspace.
When is a drone actually the right tool in an investigation?
When the objective is documenting a place rather than watching a person. Large rural or industrial properties, roof and storm damage for insurance files, scene mapping and measurement, construction progress and environmental documentation, and site security assessments are all cases where an overhead perspective produces evidence that ground-level photography cannot. In each of those, the flight is short, the subject is a property, and the client usually controls the land.