VANCOUVER – British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has dismissed a claim from a woman who sought $5,000 in damages from her ex-partner for showing sexual images of her to her employer.
The decision posted Tuesday says the woman sent her then-partner photos and videos of herself exposing body parts and engaging in sexual acts that were taken at her workplace during business hours.
The man told the tribunal that he later shared the images with the woman’s employer to expose her workplace misconduct, but the woman claimed it was done with malicious intent to cause her embarrassment and reputational harm.
The names of the man and woman are protected under a publication ban.
Tribunal member Megan Stewart says in the ruling that the woman didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the images were taken in an office accessible to others and that it was “in the public interest” for the employer to be told.
The tribunal dismissed the claim and determined the woman was not entitled to damages under the province’s Intimate Images Protection Act.
The act allows the tribunal to order compensation for aggravated or punitive damages of up to $5,000.
The decision says the applicant must first prove the respondent shared or threatened to share an “intimate image” depicting the applicant without their consent. If that is proven, then the applicant must show they are entitled to claim damages.
It says most of the images submitted in this case met the the first part of the test, but the second part was not.
Stewart says in her ruling that the applicant had a reasonable expectation that her partner would not share the images, but that it was in the public interest for her employer to be informed about the photos taken on company time.
“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,” the written ruling says.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 26, 2025.
