A B.C. man has been ordered to pay $5,000 to another man he’d never met for sharing intimate images of him online.
The decision is the Civil Resolution Tribunal’s first under .
According to the , BDS said MW shared intimate images of him without his consent and claimed $5,000 in damages.
Tribunal vice-chair Eric Regehr said MW admitted sharing the images of BDS, but said he dropped out anything sexual or intimate.
MW claimed he shared the images to help women on X (formerly Twitter) identify BDS, who MW considered a cyberbully.
MW asked Regehr to dismiss BDS’s claims.
The two met online in March 2021 and had what Regehr called a brief interaction.
“Their chat was flirtatious, and before long, they both shared numerous images, some nude and some not,” Regehr said.
Regehr said there were two photos in the dispute, photos BDS sent to MW. One shows BDS shirtless and in tight underwear while the other shows BDS pulling his underwear down to expose parts of his buttocks, again shirtless.
The tribunal's ruling said nothing happened with the photos until April 2023.
MW said about April 6, 2023 he came across an X account from a woman, EH, he had never met in person.
The woman complained she had been harassed online, and that she was so distressed she had considered self-harm.
“MW recognized the X account EH accused of harassment as BDS’s. MW thought he could help EH because BDS’s X account was anonymous, and MW knew BDS’s full name and had photos of him from their chat,” Regehr said.
MW provided a signed statement to the tribunal from EH.
“In that statement EH says that BDS had targeted her with abusive comments on X, calling her things like ‘human garbage,’ ‘monstrously evil,’ ‘a transphobe,’ ‘deranged,’ and other similar things,” Regehr said.
“BDS does not deny posting these things, although he considers his comments valid criticism and not cyberbullying because EH is a public figure,” Regehr said.
MW said he thought he could assist EW so she could pursue legal action against BDS.
Regehr noted MW also contacted another person, CS, a lawyer.
“The screenshots in evidence show CS was also a target of BDS on X,” Regehr said. “MW admits that he provided them both BDS’s name and some of the photos BDS had shared with him.”
One of the photos was later shared through a fake X account.
What is an intimate image?
Regehr first had to decide if the images could be considered intimate.
Under the legislation, he had to decide if an image “depicts or shows the applicant as engaging in a sexual act, nude or nearly nude, or exposing their genitals, anal region, or breasts,” and if the ”applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the image was recorded or livestreamed and also when it was shared, if it was shared.”
In this case, Regehr had to decide if the images captured the legislation’s definition of nearly nude.
“BDS’s underwear are small but not more revealing than many swimsuits,” Regehr said. “It is taken for a flirtatious or seductive purpose."
"Anyone seeing the photo would immediately recognize that it depicts a sexualized and private moment," he said. "The same can be said for the buttocks photo. The image is clearly taken for a sexual purpose and shows much of BDS’s buttocks. The IIPA is designed to protect a person’s autonomy over photos like these. I have no difficulty concluding that both photos depict BDS as “nearly nude.”
Regehr ruled BDS had a reasonable expectation of privacy when he took the photos and when MW shared them.
“The photos were taken at his home and he sent the photo only to MW as part of a private, intimate chat,” Regehr said. “He never gave MW consent to share them with anyone.”
BDS asked for a formal determination that MW shared his intimate images without his consent as well as a determination that it was unlawful for MW to do so.
“I find he is entitled to both orders,” Regehr said, ordering MW to pay BDS $5,000 in pecuniary damages.
Regehr also ordered the images destroyed.
