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.”
