B.C. man awarded $5,000 in damages in first-of-it-kind intimate image case

In a first-of-its-kind case, a B.C. tribunal has ruled on a dispute involving the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, awarding damages and issuing orders that the photos be destroyed and taken offline.
The province introduced the Intimate Images Protection Act (opens in a new tab)earlier this year giving the Civil Resolution Tribunal the jurisdiction to address these types of claims to provide an alternative to the more difficult, lengthy and potentially costly options of trying to pursue redress through criminal or civil court.
The tribunal published its first decision online Tuesday(opens in a new tab) in a case where a “nearly nude” image of a man shared during a “flirtatious” exchange of direct messages was publicly posted by an anonymous account on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.
The plaintiff, identified by the initials B.D.S., brought the claim against a man who is identified by the initials M.W. This man, the decision says, was not responsible for the public social media post but was found to have shared images B.D.S sent him in a “private, intimate chat” without permission.
B.C. premier invokes Taylor Swift as province launches services to take down intimate images B.C. proposes new law to combat sharing of intimate images online without permission. Amanda Todd sextortion case sets precedent, but more needs to be done, experts say “The internet does not forget.
While M.W. did not post them, by sharing the images he lost control of them. Even if the images are removed from X, it is impossible for B.D.S. to be certain they will never resurface because it is impossible to know if anyone has copied them,” tribunal vice-chair Eric Regehr wrote in his decision.
What is a ‘nearly nude’ image?
The first question the tribunal had to answer in the case was whether or not the images B.D.S. shared were intimate ones – which the legislation defines as ones that “depict or show the applicant as engaging in a sexual act, nude or nearly nude, or exposing their genitals, anal region, or breasts.”
In the images, B.D.S. was shirtless but wearing underwear, he was not engaging in a sexual act nor was he exposing any of the
body parts listed, the decision noted.
“Nearly nude” is not precisely defined in the law and so Regehr was left to interpret its meaning and decide if it applied in this case.
Source:bc.ctvnews.ca