Latest news with #IntimateImagesProtectionAct
NDTV
5 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.
Winnipeg Free Press
5 days ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
B.C. tribunal dismisses damage claim against man who shared ex's nudes with employer
VANCOUVER – British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal has dismissed a claim from a woman who sought $5,000 in damages from her ex-partner for showing sexual images of her to her employer. The decision posted Tuesday says the woman sent her then-partner photos and videos of herself exposing body parts and engaging in sexual acts that were taken at her workplace during business hours. The man told the tribunal that he later shared the images with the woman's employer to expose her workplace misconduct, but the woman claimed it was done with malicious intent to cause her embarrassment and reputational harm. The names of the man and woman are protected under a publication ban. Tribunal member Megan Stewart says in the ruling that the woman didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the images were taken in an office accessible to others and that it was 'in the public interest' for the employer to be told. The tribunal dismissed the claim and determined the woman was not entitled to damages under the province's Intimate Images Protection Act. The act allows the tribunal to order compensation for aggravated or punitive damages of up to $5,000. The decision says the applicant must first prove the respondent shared or threatened to share an 'intimate image' depicting the applicant without their consent. If that is proven, then the applicant must show they are entitled to claim damages. It says most of the images submitted in this case met the the first part of the test, but the second part was not. Stewart says in her ruling that the applicant had a reasonable expectation that her partner would not share the images, but that it was in the public interest for her employer to be informed about the photos taken on company time. 'In particular, I found 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 written ruling says. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 26, 2025.
Vancouver Sun
6 days ago
- Vancouver Sun
Woman who took 'nearly nude' photos at work can't sue ex who sent them to her bosses: B.C. ruling
A B.C. civil tribunal has ruled that a woman can't sue her ex-boyfriend for distributing intimate images to her employer because it was in the 'public's interest' for him to do so, since many of the photos and videos were captured while she was at work. One of which, the Civil Resolution Tribunal's Megan Stewart noted in a decision published Wednesday , was taken at the undisclosed employer's 'front counter.' With Stewart also ordering a publication ban under the B.C. Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA), the applicant and respondent are identified as MR and SS, respectively. The woman's employer is also withheld. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. According to the decision, while involved with SS, MR sent 'photos and videos of herself exposing different private parts of her body, and engaging in sexual acts' at her place of work during work hours. After the relationship ended, he forwarded the content to her bosses to notify them of her 'workplace misconduct.' MR, who was seeking up $5,000 in damages under the IIPA, argued that SS's true motive was to damage her reputation and embarrass her. Stewart dismissed the claim, ruling the content shared with MR's employer didn't fully meet the criteria of 'intimate' under the law. While the photos and video were intimate in that they 'showed the applicant engaged in a sexual act, nearly nude, or exposing her genitals or breasts,' that they were captured 'in parts of the office that were accessible to the public or other employees' essentially nullified their intimacy, Stewart determined. Her 'reasonable expectation' that SS wouldn't expose the images online or send them to her family didn't extend to her place of work. 'In particular, I found 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,' Stewart wrote. But MR's claim would have been dismissed even had she proven the images were intimate, Stewart ruled. The IIPA sets out 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.' Stewart decided it was, and cited her unpublished intimate image protection order decision, noting that '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.' Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
Vancouver Sun
6 days ago
- Vancouver Sun
Canadian woman who took 'nearly nude' photos at work can't sue ex who sent them to her bosses: ruling
A B.C. civil tribunal has ruled that a woman can't sue her ex-boyfriend for distributing intimate images to her employer because it was in the 'public's interest' for him to do so, since many of the photos and videos were captured while she was at work. One of which, the Civil Resolution Tribunal's Megan Stewart noted in a decision published Wednesday , was taken at the undisclosed employer's 'front counter.' With Stewart also ordering a publication ban under the B.C. Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA), the applicant and respondent are identified as MR and SS, respectively. The woman's employer is also withheld. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. According to the decision, while involved with SS, MR sent 'photos and videos of herself exposing different private parts of her body, and engaging in sexual acts' at her place of work during work hours. After the relationship ended, he forwarded the content to her bosses to notify them of her 'workplace misconduct.' MR, who was seeking up $5,000 in damages under the IIPA, argued that SS's true motive was to damage her reputation and embarrass her. Stewart dismissed the claim, ruling the content shared with MR's employer didn't fully meet the criteria of 'intimate' under the law. While the photos and video were intimate in that they 'showed the applicant engaged in a sexual act, nearly nude, or exposing her genitals or breasts,' that they were captured 'in parts of the office that were accessible to the public or other employees' essentially nullified their intimacy, Stewart determined. Her 'reasonable expectation' that SS wouldn't expose the images online or send them to her family didn't extend to her place of work. 'In particular, I found 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,' Stewart wrote. But MR's claim would have been dismissed even had she proven the images were intimate, Stewart ruled. The IIPA sets out 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.' Stewart decided it was, and cited her unpublished intimate image protection order decision, noting that '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.' Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
Hindustan Times
6 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
