"The situation would be quite different if the surveillance intruded into truly private or intimate situations such as bathroom or sexual activities," the authority's report said.
"But I do not consider that the covert filming of a meeting between two individuals to discuss the division of their matrimonial assets done with the appropriate consent would [find] either a breach of the [code of conduct] or a finding of misconduct as defined [by law]."
Mr Goodfellow made two other complaints against Mr Bowerman: that he failed to display his ID badge and that his letterhead did not include proper wording required by law.
The authority officially reprimanded Mr Bowerman for failing to include an accurate status that he was a private investigator on his letterhead, which had been amended before the findings were released.
It found Mr Bowerman was not required to present his ID badge because he also worked as a private investigator, "especially on the day in question'".
"While his licence gave him the right to carry on the work of both classes of activity his primary role seemed to be that of a private investigator," the authority found.