Last Updated:
British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled that the woman’s images did not meet the definition of “intimate” and that the accused was reporting ‘sexual misconduct’.
The woman alleged that her ex-partner “acted with malicious intent” by leaking her images to “cause her reputational harm”. (AI-Generated Image)
In a bizarre case from Canada’s British Columbia, a woman was denied compensation after her ex-partner shared her intimate pictures, after the Civil Resolution Tribunal said her ex’s actions were in “public interest”.
The images depicting the complainant “exposing different private parts of her body and engaging in sexual acts” were sent by the ex to her employer, but British Columbia’s CRT member Megan Stewart said those images did not qualify as “intimate”.
CTV News reported, citing the tribunal’s decision published on Tuesday, that the complainant referred to as “MR” sent photos and videos of herself to her ex during their relationship that were taken “while the applicant was at work, and during regular business hours.”
After the relationship ended, the ex sent the images to the woman’s employer. “The respondent says he shared the images with the applicant’s employer to alert her superiors to her ‘workplace misconduct’,” said Stewart.
Here’s Why The Woman’s Plea Was Rejected
The woman accused that her ex-partner “acted with malicious intent to cause her embarrassment and reputational harm”. However, Canada’s Intimate Images Protection Act says the images shared must depict the subject in a sexual act, nearly nude or exposing their private parts.
Secondly, the subject of the image must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy when the images were taken. Stewart observed that while the first part was applicable, the second part was not.
“The evidence suggested at least some of the images were taken in parts of the office that were accessible to the public or other employees,” she said. While Stewart agreed that the woman had a reasonable expectation that her ex-partner would not share the images she sent to him with the public, that expectation does not extend to the employer.
“A person who takes otherwise intimate recordings of themselves at work does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those images to the extent they are shared with their employer for the purpose of investigating alleged misconduct, whatever the sharer’s motives,” read the decision.
Stewart ruled the images did not meet the definition of “intimate” and dismissed the case. Even if they had qualified as intimate, Stewart said there was no scope of compensation, as the complainant could have argued that distributing the images “was in the public interest and did not extend beyond what was in the public interest.”
“I find it was in the public interest for the respondent to share the applicant’s images with her employer,” Stewart added. “The evidence suggested the locations where the images were taken were not always secure and private, including one photo that was undisputedly taken while the applicant was at the ‘front counter’.”
Aveek Banerjee is a Senior Sub Editor at News18. Based in Noida with a Master’s in Global Studies, Aveek has more than three years of experience in digital media and news curation, specialising in international…Read More
Aveek Banerjee is a Senior Sub Editor at News18. Based in Noida with a Master’s in Global Studies, Aveek has more than three years of experience in digital media and news curation, specialising in international… Read More
- First Published:
