Technically Aubrey is a court "judgment", not a court "judgement" - Wikipedia has it wrong.
And it is founded on the privacy provisions in the Quebec Civil Code. The Quebec Civil Code is quasi-supreme on certain matters in the province of Quebec, and does not apply elsewhere.
But I would suggest caution about interpreting the exceptions in the decision.
If someone is at a public demonstration and are clearly integral to the subject of the photo, I would warn against publishing without consent.
If someone is off in a corner of an image, and not integral to the subject of the photo, it is probably safer.
And if the photograph is journalistic in nature, it is probably safer again.
And it is founded on the privacy provisions in the Quebec Civil Code. The Quebec Civil Code is quasi-supreme on certain matters in the province of Quebec, and does not apply elsewhere.
But I would suggest caution about interpreting the exceptions in the decision.
If someone is at a public demonstration and are clearly integral to the subject of the photo, I would warn against publishing without consent.
If someone is off in a corner of an image, and not integral to the subject of the photo, it is probably safer.
And if the photograph is journalistic in nature, it is probably safer again.
. At least I don't forget the "d" any more... 
.
I looked the other way and pointed my camera toward him using the waist level finder to compose and focus. Almost a year later we were introduced to a couple living near us (Miami) who wanted to see my photos from Egypt. It turned out the person I photographed was his first cousin. Small world!