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".
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.
{{/usCountry}}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.
{{/usCountry}}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