Ex Leaks Nude Pics, Tribunal Says It's In 'Public Interest', Denies Compensation
The complainant referred to by the initials "MR", clicked the photos and videos during business hours with some of the media content filmed in publicly accessible areas like a front counter, according to a report in CTV News.
After the relationship broke down, the woman's ex-partner, referred to as "SS" in the court documents, sent the images to her employer, claiming that he was reporting her for "workplace misconduct". However, the complainant alleged that her ex was angry over their breakup and wanted to damage her reputation.
Civil Resolution Tribunal member Megan Stewart dismissed the claim, ruling the content shared with MR's employer didn't fully meet the criteria of "intimate" under the law.
"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," said Ms Stewart in the judgment.
"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," it added.
The Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA) under which the woman was seeking compensation, states that someone can't be found liable for sharing such images if it "was in the public interest and did not extend beyond what was in the public interest."
"I find even on a strict interpretation of what is in 'the public interest,' these specific circumstances are captured," Ms Stewart added.
Though Ms Steward agreed with MR that she had a reasonable expectation from her ex-partner not to share the images she sent to him 'with the public generally,' such as by publishing them on social media or an adult website. However, that expectation does not extend to the employer.
Even if the images had qualified as intimate under the act, Stewart found damages would not have been warranted in the case.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 days ago
- Time of India
55 Canadians detained by ICE as Ottawa demands urgent answers after shocking death in US custody
Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Anita Anand , confirmed Friday(June 27) that approximately 55 Canadians are currently being held by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), amid growing scrutiny of US immigration enforcement policies and following the death of a Canadian citizen in ICE custody earlier this week. 'Our work is to ensure that they're being treated fairly,' Anand told CTV News. 'That's the advocacy that consular officials from Global Affairs Canada do every day, not only in the United States, but around the world.' Canadian's death in ICE custody The minister's remarks come as both countries face mounting questions over the death of Johnny Noviello, a 49-year-old Canadian citizen who died in ICE custody on June 23 in Miami, Florida. According to ICE, Noviello had been detained since May 15, after being arrested at a Florida probation office for violating US drug laws. He had entered the US on a visa in 1988 and became a permanent resident three years later. He was convicted in eastern Florida of racketeering and drug trafficking and sentenced to 12 months in prison. Live Events Noviello's death was made known to Canadian officials on Thursday, prompting Anand to announce that Ottawa is urgently seeking more information from US authorities. The cause of death remains under investigation, according to ICE. Anand, speaking from The Hague, Netherlands, said Canadian consular officials had been in contact with Noviello throughout his detention but declined to release further details due to privacy laws. She also expressed condolences to Noviello's family. ICE operations have drawn growing criticism in recent weeks after Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, announced plans to dramatically escalate enforcement activity, targeting 3,000 arrests per day, a sharp rise from the 650 daily average during the first five months of President Trump's second term. The announcement has triggered widespread protests and curfews across major US cities, as immigrant advocacy groups warn of civil rights violations and lapses in medical care inside ICE facilities. For now, Canada says it will continue to press for transparency. 'We're following up with US officials,' Anand said. 'We take the safety and rights of Canadian citizens abroad extremely seriously.'
NDTV
6 days ago
- NDTV
Ex Leaks Nude Pics, Tribunal Says It's In 'Public Interest', Denies Compensation
A civil tribunal in Canada has denied compensation to a woman whose nude pictures were shared by her ex-partner. The images, clicked in the workplace premises by the woman, were sent to the ex, who later forwarded them to their employer when the two broke up. The court ruled that the ex's actions were in "public interest". The complainant referred to by the initials "MR", clicked the photos and videos during business hours with some of the media content filmed in publicly accessible areas like a front counter, according to a report in CTV News. After the relationship broke down, the woman's ex-partner, referred to as "SS" in the court documents, sent the images to her employer, claiming that he was reporting her for "workplace misconduct". However, the complainant alleged that her ex was angry over their breakup and wanted to damage her reputation. Civil Resolution Tribunal member Megan Stewart dismissed the claim, ruling the content shared with MR's employer didn't fully meet the criteria of "intimate" under the law. "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," said Ms Stewart in the judgment. "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," it added. The Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA) under which the woman was seeking compensation, states that someone can't be found liable for sharing such images if it "was in the public interest and did not extend beyond what was in the public interest." "I find even on a strict interpretation of what is in 'the public interest,' these specific circumstances are captured," Ms Stewart added. Though Ms Steward agreed with MR that she had a reasonable expectation from her ex-partner not to share the images she sent to him 'with the public generally,' such as by publishing them on social media or an adult website. However, that expectation does not extend to the employer. Even if the images had qualified as intimate under the act, Stewart found damages would not have been warranted in the case.
Hindustan Times
7 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Man shared ex's nudes with her employer in 'public interest', rules Canadian tribunal
A woman in Canada's British Columbia filed a complaint against her ex-partner for sharing her explicit images with her employer, but a civil court denied her compensation and ruled that her ex's actions were in "public interest". After their relationship ended, the woman's ex-partner sent images to her employer, claiming that he was reporting her for 'workplace misconduct.'(Representational) The case involved a woman referred to by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) as 'MR,' who had sent nude and sexually explicit images and videos of herself to her then-partner, 'SS,' during their relationship. The photos and videos were recorded during business hours and at her workplace, and some were filmed in publicly accessible areas like a front counter, the court was told. After their relationship ended, the woman's ex-partner sent the images to her employer, claiming that he was reporting her for 'workplace misconduct.' However, the woman alleged that her ex was angry over their breakup and wanted to damage her reputation. 'Public interest' The civil tribunal considered British Columbia's Intimate Images Protection Act, which says that for an image to qualify as 'intimate,' it must depict nudity or sexual activity and the subject must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy when the image was taken. Tribunal member Megan Stewart said that the first condition was met, but the second was not, as the woman chose to take the pictures in publicly accessible areas at her workplace. Stewart also ruled that even if the tribunal considered the images private, sharing them with the employer was justifiable as it was an issue of "public interest." 'I find it was in the public interest for the respondent to share the applicant's images with her employer,' her decision reads. The tribunal also added that since the images were taken on the employer's property and during work hours, especially in non-private areas, it is reasonable for the employer to be informed. The tribunal dismissed the case, denying any damages and did not offer the $5000 compensation to the woman
