B.C. hospital employee who claimed intimate photo was shared without consent has complaint dismissed

CBC News

· Posted: May 21, 2025 9:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: May 21

A B.C. infirmary worker who alleges an ex-partner of his shared a nude photograph of him without his consent has been told helium had nary tenable anticipation of privateness for the representation helium took of himself portion astatine work.

His ailment was dismissed by the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) successful a determination issued in April, with the tribunal subordinate adding that the man's picture could beryllium interpreted arsenic indecent accumulation successful public, contrary to the Criminal Code.

The antheral filed a ailment done the CRT nether the Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA) and sought $5,000 successful damages from his ex, who is besides his coworker astatine a B.C. hospital.

The enactment allows radical who've had nude photos of themselves shared by others without their permission, among different things, to question fiscal compensation done ineligible channels.

According to the CRT decision, the man, known arsenic GW, utilized to beryllium romantically progressive with the woman, DM. Both of their names are protected by a work ban.

While they were together, GW sent DM a afloat nude photograph successful which helium exposed his genitals.

The antheral told the tribunal that helium took the representation portion unsocial successful a room, connected a enactment break, during a nighttime displacement erstwhile patients were elsewhere and hooked up to their monitoring machines. Since it was night, helium said, determination weren't galore others astir successful the infirmary unit, but helium utilized a woody doorway stopper to clasp the doorway closed.

"He says his mean signifier is to station a motion connected the doorway saying 'Do not disturb' and that helium draws the curtain," reads the decision.

The determination describes that astir a twelvemonth later, idiosyncratic complained astir GW, alleging inappropriate behaviour astatine a objective tract connected the job. His leader investigated and received a transcript of the photo. GW was suspended and enactment connected enactment probation.

GW alleged that DM indispensable person been the 1 to stock the photograph with his employer, and that lone she and different erstwhile spouse had copies of the photo.

Not an intimate image

DM denied the claims against her. She besides argued that by taking the representation GW broke respective workplace rules and that helium took the photograph successful a nationalist hospital, portion connected displacement when another worker oregon diligent could person accessed the room.

The tribunal subordinate ruled that GW did not person a tenable anticipation of privateness erstwhile the representation was shared, which means it was not an "intimate image" arsenic defined by the IIPA, and truthful helium isn't entitled to question fiscal damages.

"I recovered that it was not objectively tenable for an worker to expect privateness implicit an intimate representation taken astatine work, specifically erstwhile shared with that person's leader arsenic portion of an probe into the employee's conduct," reads Andrea Ritchie's CRT decision.

But the determination didn't halt there. Ritchie went connected to explicate that adjacent if she had considered the representation to beryllium an intimate image, she inactive wouldn't person ruled successful favour of GW.

Public interest

The IIPA, she said, lays retired reasons that a idiosyncratic shouldn't beryllium held liable for sharing an intimate image. This includes a script successful which a idiosyncratic shares an intimate representation successful a constricted mode retired of interest for nationalist interest.

The information that GW's workplace photograph "could reasonably beryllium interpreted arsenic indecent accumulation successful a nationalist place" nether the Criminal Code, Ritchie said, would apt conscionable that bar. 

"I find that nary substance who shared the representation with the applicant's employer, it was successful the nationalist involvement … and [DM] is not liable for damages," the determination reads.

Ritchie, who noted she did not person capable grounds to determine which of GW's exes had shared the picture, said that whoever did stock the nude photograph didn't look to person shared it with anyone different than the employer.

The IIPA, introduced successful January 2024, covers non-consensual organisation oregon threats of organisation of intimate images, including near-nude images, videos, livestreams and digitally altered images. In a connection laying retired how the IIPA works, the Canadian Bar Association says that the non-consensual sharing of intimate images "can beryllium a devastating signifier of harm."