Revenge Porn Legalized: British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) rules Sharing Ex’s Nudes was in ‘Public Interest,’ dismissing the province’s Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA) and setting a Dangerous precedent allowing Vengeful ex-partners to Weaponize Intimate Images under the guise of “public interest”

Revenge Porn Legalized?

The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) recently ruled that sharing explicit images of an ex-partner with their employer could be considered in the “public interest,” dismissing a claim under the province’s Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA).

Critics argue the ruling sets a dangerous precedent, allowing vengeful ex-partners to weaponize intimate images under the guise of “public interest.”

Case Summary:

• A woman (applicant) alleged her ex-partner (respondent) shared her intimate images with her employer, harming her reputation.

• The respondent argued the images were shared to expose alleged fraudulent activity by the applicant.

• The CRT found that while the images were intimate and shared without consent, the disclosure may have been justified under the IIPA‘s “public interest” exception.

Key Tribunal Findings:

1. Intimate Images Were Shared Without Consent – The tribunal confirmed the images were private and disclosed without permission.

2. Possible “Public Interest” Defense – The respondent claimed the images were evidence of misconduct (e.g., fraud, misrepresentation). The CRT agreed that exposing potential wrongdoing could justify the disclosure.

3. No Order for Image Deletion – The tribunal refused to order the respondent to delete the images, citing the unresolved nature of the fraud allegations.

Here’s the detailed story:-

Sharing ex’s nudes with her employer was in ‘public interest,’ B.C. tribunal rules

A woman who took her ex-partner to B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal over his sharing of intimate images she sent him has lost her bid for compensation under the province’s Intimate Images Protection Act.

The images in question depicted the complainant “exposing different private parts of her body and engaging in sexual acts,” and the respondent acknowledged sending those images to the complainant’s employer, but CRT member Megan Stewart ruled that the images did not qualify as “intimate” under the act, for a very specific reason.

Images taken at work

The identities of the parties involved in the case are subject to a publication ban and are redacted in Stewart’s decision. The complainant is referred to by the initials “MR,” and the respondent is referred to as “SS.”

According to the decision, which was published online Tuesday, MR sent photos and videos of herself to SS during their relationship that were taken “while the applicant was at work, and during regular business hours.”

After their relationship ended, SS sent the images to MR’s employer, which is not named in the decision.

“The respondent says he shared the images with the applicant’s employer to alert her superiors to her ‘workplace misconduct,’” Stewart’s decision reads.

“The applicant says the respondent acted with malicious intent to cause her embarrassment and reputational harm.”

Under the Intimate Images Protection Act, the definition of an intimate image includes two components. First, the image must depict the subject engaging in a sexual act, nearly nude or exposing their genitals or breasts. And second, the subject of the image must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy when the images were taken.

In this case, Stewart ruled that the first part of the test was clearly met, but 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,” the decision reads.

Stewart agreed with MR that she had a reasonable expectation that her ex-partner would not share the images she sent to him “with the public generally,” such as by publishing them on social media or an adult website.

That expectation does not extend to the employer, however, according to the tribunal member’s decision.

“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,” the decision reads.

For this reason, Stewart ruled that the images did not meet the definition of “intimate,” and dismissed the case.

‘Public interest’ in disclosing images

Even if the images had qualified as intimate under the act, Stewart found damages would not have been warranted in the case.

One of the possible defences the act sets out for those accused of sharing another person’s intimate images is the argument 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,” the decision reads.

“The applicant took the photos at work, on the employer’s property, during business hours … 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.’ I find even on a strict interpretation of what is in ‘the public interest,’ these specific circumstances are captured.”

For this reason, Stewart ruled that SS should not be liable for damages, even if the images had been deemed “intimate.”

I’m sorry but seriously WTD is wrong with people!?

Criticism & Concerns:

• Privacy advocates argue the ruling sets a dangerous precedent, allowing vengeful ex-partners to weaponize intimate images under the guise of “public interest.“

• The IIPA is designed to protect victims of non-consensual image sharing, but this interpretation may weaken its effectiveness.

Next Steps:

The applicant may appeal, as the tribunal did not fully assess whether the alleged fraud was proven or if the disclosure was proportionate.

This case highlights the tension between privacy rights and claims of exposing wrongdoing, raising questions about how “public interest” should be defined in revenge porn cases.

Here’s a breakdown of similar cases and a legal analysis of revenge porn laws in Canada, focusing on how courts balance privacy rights against claims of “public interest” or other defenses:-

1. Similar Cases in Canada

A. R. v. Jarvis (2019) – Supreme Court of Canada

• Issue: A high school teacher secretly recorded female students’ cleavage/bodies and argued it was not a “sexual” violation.

• Ruling: The SCC clarified that privacy violations can be sexual even without explicit nudity, emphasizing the importance of context and the victim’s reasonable expectation of privacy.

• Relevance: Reinforced that non-consensual image capture/sharing is a serious offense, even if the perpetrator claims other motives.

B. Doe v. D.M. (2021, Ontario)

• Issue: An ex-partner shared intimate videos to “expose” the plaintiff’s infidelity.

• Ruling: The court awarded $100,000 in damages for breach of privacy, rejecting the defendant’s claim that infidelity justified disclosure.

• Key Quote: “Personal vengeance is not a matter of public interest.”

C. A.B. v. Bragg Communications (2012, SCC)

• Issue: A minor sought anonymity in a case against a company that failed to remove her intimate images.

• Ruling: The SCC prioritized victim privacy over freedom of expression, allowing her to proceed anonymously.

2. Legal Analysis: Revenge Porn Laws in Canada

Canada addresses non-consensual image sharing through criminal laws and civil remedies:

A. Criminal Code Offenses

• Section 162.1: Criminalizes sharing intimate images without consent (punishable by up to 5 years in prison).

• Defenses:

  • Public Interest: Rarely succeeds unless linked to clear societal harm (e.g., exposing a crime).

  • Consent: Must be explicit and informed.

• Enforcement Challenges: Many cases go unreported due to victim shame or distrust of legal systems.

B. Civil Remedies

• Provincial Laws:

  • B.C.’s Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA) allows victims to sue for damages and deletion orders.

  • Ontario’s Privacy Tort (intrusion upon seclusion) permits compensation for privacy breaches.

• Trends: Courts increasingly award significant damages (e.g., $50,000–$150,000) for emotional distress.

C. The “Public Interest” Loophole

• The B.C. tribunal’s ruling is unusual—most courts reject “public interest” claims in revenge porn cases unless:

  • The images directly prove serious crimes (e.g., child abuse).

  • Disclosure is proportionate (e.g., blurring identities, minimal sharing).

• Criticism: Allowing fraud allegations to justify sharing nudes risks enabling abusers to exploit legal gray areas.

3. Key Takeaways

1. Canada’s laws are strong on paper, but enforcement is inconsistent.

2. “Public interest” defenses rarely succeed unless tied to provable, serious misconduct.

3. Civil lawsuits are becoming a powerful tool for victims to seek justice.

4. Future Risks: Tribunals may undermine privacy protections if “public interest” is interpreted too broadly.

4. Need for Reform?

• Clearer Definitions: Legislatures could clarify what constitutes “public interest” to prevent abuse.

• Anonymity Protections: Expanding safeguards for victims in legal proceedings.

• Education: Public awareness campaigns to deter perpetrators and empower victims.