Latest news with #intimateimages
CBC
03-07-2025
- CBC
Sentencing in 'extraordinary' revenge porn, sex assault case proceeds as convict absconds from justice
A judge is now considering what sentence to hand down to a U.S. man convicted in Ottawa of sexually assaulting a young woman, then, after she had left him, embarking on a campaign of criminal harassment against her, her family and her former boyfriend, as well as publishing her intimate images online. It comes after David Bukoski was found to be absconding justice when he failed to show up in person to Superior Court Justice Adriana Doyle's judgment back in March, in which she found him guilty of eight of the 13 charges he faced in a case she called "unusual and extraordinary." The sentencing phase is proceeding in absentia. Bukoski's trial was mammoth, sitting for about 60 days over the course of three years. He had been given permission to attend virtually from his home in Pennsylvania while the evidence was heard due to his health problems, and even to testify remotely. That permission was revoked ahead of Doyle's judgment but he showed up online anyway, then failed to return at all after the lunch break. After the judgment, defence lawyer Mellington Godoy removed himself as counsel, given that Bukoski was found to be absconding and Doyle was signing a warrant for his arrest. Godoy participated in Wednesday's sentencing as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court. Bukoski has not been arrested for absconding. Sentencing is expected to be completed ahead of the arrest and extradition proceedings, which could take months. The Crown is asking for a 10-year prison sentence, among other orders. Godoy said the range is five years on the low end and 10 on the high end. 'Stole my teenage years' The now 25-year-old victim, who cannot be identified due to a routine publication ban protecting her, read a long impact statement in court Wednesday, with her support dog at her side and her family in the gallery behind her. She met Bukoski online just before she turned 13, when she was "impressionable, naive, and unaware of how vulnerable I truly was." He was around 18, "had power," and "knew exactly how to manipulate, how to exploit and how to keep control." She said the trauma inflicted on her as a child "stole my teenage years" and continues "to affect my relationships, my health, my trust in people and my ability to feel safe in the world." Bukoski sexually assaulted her in the summer of 2017. He took her virginity, forcefully penetrated her "and left me with no concept of what a positive or consensual sexual experience was supposed to feel like," she told court. As a result, her two subsequent long-term relationships have suffered. After she left him, Bukoski began his harassment and she contacted police. She told court that "unlike the abuse I had endured in silence since I was 13, this time it wasn't just directed at me — it spilled into every corner of my life." He sent unwanted food deliveries to her home, made threats against her family and targeted their workplaces, and contacted her school and employer. He hacked her online accounts and posted her private information online, including her Social Insurance Number, banking details, school records and her family's employment information. He faked his own suicide twice to torment her. After the first suicide hoax he posted her intimate images online and sent an email to her school accusing her of sleeping with teachers in exchange for grades. 'It was a multi-year trauma' Then Bukoski called in a fake threat involving her then boyfriend, who was arrested at gunpoint and held in custody for hours. Weeks later, the boyfriend's car was firebombed in the driveway of his family's home. Bukoski was charged in connection to an alleged firebombing plot and attempted murder — and a man testified that he had planted a bomb at Bukoski's behest — but Bukoski was found not guilty of all those charges. While the court found it probable that Bukoski provided information to the man and may have manipulated him, it ruled the evidence did not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The man's testimony contained inconsistencies and there was no corroborating evidence linking Bukoski directly to the attack. The former boyfriend read his own victim impact statement Wednesday, saying he genuinely thought he was going to die when screaming police arrested him with their guns drawn, that the firebombing robbed him and his family of their sense of safety, and that the emotional scars haven't faded. "This wasn't just a period of stress or discomfort. It was a multi-year trauma. The defendant's actions hijacked my life. They invaded my home, my relationships, my ability to trust, my sleep, my mental health and my future," he said. Everything stopped when Bukoski was arrested in July 2018. Ending her statement, the assault victim said her mental health, education and career paths and ability to grow her family have all been negatively affected by Bukoski and the trauma he caused. The Crown is seeking about $30,700 in restitution for her. Won't return hacked email account Court heard Wednesday that Bukoski is continuing to prevent the victim from accessing her Gmail account, which the judge found he had hacked. While the court waited for the judge to come back to court to address the issue, Crown prosecutor James Cavanagh told the victim in the courtroom that Godoy had asked Bukoski for the password to the account earlier Wednesday, and that Bukoski had replied and declined. When Doyle returned, Cavanagh asked her to write an endorsement asking Google to consider returning the account to the victim's control. He said someone from the Crown's office would pass that on to Google, with whom the office apparently has a "good working relationship," according to assistant Crown prosecutor Matthew Brown. "I just don't like this person to continue to have a tie on my life," the victim told the judge, when asked for her comments. Doyle said she would write the endorsement. Doyle's sentencing decision is expected in September.
CBC
03-07-2025
- CBC
Sentencing in 'extraordinary' revenge porn, sex assault case proceeds as convict absconds justice
A judge is now considering what sentence to hand down to a U.S. man convicted in Ottawa of sexually assaulting a young woman, then, after she had left him, embarking on a campaign of criminal harassment against her, her family and her former boyfriend, as well as publishing her intimate images online. It comes after David Bukoski was found to be absconding justice when he failed to show up in person to Superior Court Justice Adriana Doyle's judgment back in March, in which she found him guilty of eight of the 13 charges he faced in a case she called "unusual and extraordinary." The sentencing phase is proceeding in absentia. Bukoski's trial was mammoth, sitting for about 60 days over the course of three years. He had been given permission to attend virtually from his home in Pennsylvania while the evidence was heard due to his health problems, and even to testify remotely. That permission was revoked ahead of Doyle's judgment but he showed up online anyway, then failed to return at all after the lunch break. After the judgment, defence lawyer Mellington Godoy removed himself as counsel, given that Bukoski was found to be absconding and Doyle was signing a warrant for his arrest. Godoy participated in Wednesday's sentencing as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court. Bukoski has not been arrested for absconding. Sentencing is expected to be completed ahead of the arrest and extradition proceedings, which could take months. The Crown is asking for a 10-year prison sentence, among other orders. Godoy said the range is five years on the low end and 10 on the high end. 'Stole my teenage years' The now 25-year-old victim, who cannot be identified due to a routine publication ban protecting her, read a long impact statement in court Wednesday, with her support dog at her side and her family in the gallery behind her. She met Bukoski online just before she turned 13, when she was "impressionable, naive, and unaware of how vulnerable I truly was." He was around 18, "had power," and "knew exactly how to manipulate, how to exploit and how to keep control." She said the trauma inflicted on her as a child "stole my teenage years" and continues "to affect my relationships, my health, my trust in people and my ability to feel safe in the world." Bukoski sexually assaulted her in the summer of 2017. He took her virginity, forcefully penetrated her "and left me with no concept of what a positive or consensual sexual experience was supposed to feel like," she told court. As a result, her two subsequent long-term relationships have suffered. After she left him, Bukoski began his harassment and she contacted police. She told court that "unlike the abuse I had endured in silence since I was 13, this time it wasn't just directed at me — it spilled into every corner of my life." He sent unwanted food deliveries to her home, made threats against her family and targeted their workplaces, and contacted her school and employer. He hacked her online accounts and posted her private information online, including her Social Insurance Number, banking details, school records and her family's employment information. He faked his own suicide twice to torment her. After the first suicide hoax he posted her intimate images online and sent an email to her school accusing her of sleeping with teachers in exchange for grades. 'It was a multi-year trauma' Then Bukoski called in a fake threat involving her then boyfriend, who was arrested at gunpoint and held in custody for hours. Weeks later, the boyfriend's car was firebombed in the driveway of his family's home. Bukoski was charged in connection to an alleged firebombing plot and attempted murder — and a man testified that he had planted a bomb at Bukoski's behest — but Bukoski was found not guilty of all those charges. While the court found it probable that Bukoski provided information to the man and may have manipulated him, it ruled the evidence did not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The man's testimony contained inconsistencies and there was no corroborating evidence linking Bukoski directly to the attack. The former boyfriend read his own victim impact statement Wednesday, saying he genuinely thought he was going to die when screaming police arrested him with their guns drawn, that the firebombing robbed him and his family of their sense of safety, and that the emotional scars haven't faded. "This wasn't just a period of stress or discomfort. It was a multi-year trauma. The defendant's actions hijacked my life. They invaded my home, my relationships, my ability to trust, my sleep, my mental health and my future," he said. Everything stopped when Bukoski was arrested in July 2018. Ending her statement, the assault victim said her mental health, education and career paths and ability to grow her family have all been negatively affected by Bukoski and the trauma he caused. The Crown is seeking about $30,700 in restitution for her. Won't return hacked email account Court heard Wednesday that Bukoski is continuing to prevent the victim from accessing her Gmail account, which the judge found he had hacked. While the court waited for the judge to come back to court to address the issue, Crown prosecutor James Cavanagh told the victim in the courtroom that Godoy had asked Bukoski for the password to the account earlier Wednesday, and that Bukoski had replied and declined. When Doyle returned, Cavanagh asked her to write an endorsement asking Google to consider returning the account to the victim's control. He said someone from the Crown's office would pass that on to Google, with whom the office apparently has a "good working relationship," according to assistant Crown prosecutor Matthew Brown. "I just don't like this person to continue to have a tie on my life," the victim told the judge, when asked for her comments. Doyle said she would write the endorsement. Doyle's sentencing decision is expected in September.
National Post
26-06-2025
- National Post
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. Article content 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.' Article content Article content Article content 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. Article content Article content 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. Article content 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. Article content 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. Article content Article content 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. Article content Article content '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. Article content But MR's claim would have been dismissed even had she proven the images were intimate, Stewart ruled. Article content 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.' Article content 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.' Article content 'I find even on a strict interpretation of what is in 'the public interest,' these specific circumstances are captured.'
CTV News
26-06-2025
- CTV News
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.'
CNA
19-06-2025
- CNA
Jail for woman who spread intimate images, videos of boyfriend's ex-girlfriend after finding them on his phone
SINGAPORE: Upset that her boyfriend had intimate pictures and recordings of his ex-girlfriend, a woman decided to distribute the compromising material while impersonating the ex-girlfriend. Li Shengnan pretended to be the ex-girlfriend on Instagram, Telegram and the dating app Pure. She then messaged people who knew the victim, in addition to random men. Li, 38, was jailed for 17 months on Thursday (Jun 19) after pleading guilty to one count of distributing intimate images or recordings. Two charges of unauthorised access to and modification of computer material were taken into consideration for sentencing. The identities of the victim and Li's now ex-boyfriend are protected by a gag order. HOW LI FOUND THE MATERIAL Li was then a broker in the reinsurance industry. She was staying at her then boyfriend's residence in 2022 when she picked up his phone. While he was in the shower, Li looked through his phone's photo gallery without his permission. She then saw the intimate videos and images of his ex-girlfriend. This ex-girlfriend had been in a relationship with the man from around 2020 to 2021. Recognising the victim as someone her boyfriend used to date, Li became upset at the content. She did not know the victim personally. Li then transferred the intimate images and videos to her own phone before deleting them from her boyfriend's phone. She did not tell him about what she had done. PRETENDED TO BE VICTIM Later, Li impersonated the victim on Instagram, Telegram and Pure. She created four accounts on Instagram, and also changed her name on Telegram to the victim's name, and inserted the victim's actual Instagram account name in the details of her Telegram account. Li then went through the victim's actual Instagram account and picked out several of her followers. Using her fake accounts, Li distributed the compromising material to these followers via direct messages. On Telegram, Li used the "people nearby" function to find random users. She contacted at least two such users over Telegram and distributed videos and images of the victim to them. Li also impersonated the victim on Pure and contacted multiple unknown males. She conversed with them while claiming to be the victim, and gave them the victim's mobile phone number. She asked them to contact her on WhatsApp instead. Li distributed an intimate image of the victim to one of these men. Between Nov 22, 2022 and Nov 29, 2022, Li distributed at least four videos, ranging from 5 seconds to 57 seconds in length, and at least three images, across seven occasions. The victim was undressed and engaged in sexual acts in these videos and images, and she was identifiable. The victim found out about the distribution from individuals who received her images and videos. She received messages from at least two people on WhatsApp. These individuals informed her that they had been conversing with someone purporting to be her on Pure. She lodged a police report on Nov 27, 2022. Investigators identified Li by tracing the IP addresses used to log into the false Instagram accounts. SENTENCING During sentencing, the prosecution and the defence argued at length over Li's psychiatric reports, disagreeing about how much weight should be attributed to them. The prosecution said that no weight ought to be given to the reports, which indicated that Li had symptoms of mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, which evolved into persistent depressive disorder between August 2022 and October 2024. Reports also indicated that Li married in March 2024 and gave birth to a son in September that year. The prosecution argued that the defence had failed to prove that Li had suffered from a psychiatric condition that materially contributed to her offending. It added that it offered to convene a hearing for the psychiatrist to give evidence and defend his expert opinion on Li's condition, but the defence had rejected this offer. Li was represented by lawyer Gino Hardial Singh. Mr Singh contended that his client was suffering from depressive disorder prior to the commission of the offences, and this was diagnosed in as early as August 2022. Principal District Judge Toh Han Li declined to accord mitigatory weight based on the psychiatric reports, noting contradictions between a finding which stated that Li's rational judgement was impaired and subsequent statements that Li was aware of what she was doing. Pointing to the significant amount of planning and premeditation in the lead-up to the offences, such as the steps Li took to transfer the material to her own phone and then impersonate the victim, Judge Toh said that the offence was not committed on the spur of the moment. He also noted that the offence persisted over seven days.
