British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) has awarded a man $5,000 after a sexually explicit video featuring him and a man he met on the dating app Grindr was posted online without his consent.
It is one of the first tribunal decisions made public under B.C.’s recently passed Intimate Images Protection Act, which helps residents remove non-consensual intimate images of themselves circulating online.
A man, known only as JG in tribunal documents, found out that a video of him having sexual intercourse with another man, RC, had appeared on RC’s OnlyFans and Just for Fans accounts. He’s been awarded the maximum amount allowed under the CRT.
Lawyers say the tribunal process highlights a tradeoff between a quick process and a high payout, as dozens of people apply to remove images and videos under B.C. legislation.
Friday’s tribunal decision said it took JG two years to find out about the video, which he had assumed would be private. He applied to the CRT for damages, with RC admitting liability in the case.
Video posted on OnlyFans and X
According to the decision, the two men met on Grindr and agreed to film an approximately five-minute-long video of them having sexual intercourse in RC’s bedroom. The tribunal decision did not state when the video was recorded.
The video was subsequently sent to JG — but then later shared to RC’s subscriber-only accounts on Just for Fans and OnlyFans, sites where fans pay creators for their photos and videos. The CRT said he appeared to have around 100 subscribers on each of the sites.
RC also posted short clips of the video to the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.
One of those accounts, according to the decision, has more than 100,000 followers.
RC claimed that he thought JG knew the videos would be shared online, based on a verbal conversation they shared.
The tribunal ruled that JG had a reasonable expectation of privacy during the encounter.
“[JG] says it is horrifying to know that a video showing him having sex, with his face shown, has been on the internet for over two years,” the CRT decision reads.
“He says although the video has now been removed, the violation continues to cause him mental distress in general and anxiety around sex and intimacy, specifically.”
While JG asked for the profits that RC received for posting the video, RC says that no harm was intended — and that profits were minimal. RC had suggested paying $2,000 in damages due to the emotional damage that was caused.
JG also sought damages in order to pay for therapy — however, the tribunal had already awarded him the maximum of $5,000.
RC has been ordered to pay JG that sum of money, along with tribunal fees, and remove the videos from all platforms. He has also been told to de-index it from search engines and delete any copies he may have.
A new law in B.C. allows residents who have had images posted online without their consent to apply through the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal to have photos, videos or deep fakes removed. Data privacy and cybersecurity lawyer Claire Feltrin tells BC Today host Michelle Eliot that while this is good news, she’ll be watching how it is enforced for cases where the identity of the person posting the images is unknown or anonymous.
$5,000 cap
The CRT is faster and less expensive than pursuing such cases in criminal or civil court but some lawyers are questioning whether the $5,000 cap is enough. They say people can experience psychological or reputational harm when their intimate images are shared without their consent.
“There have been various cases across the country that recognize that people may have out-of-pocket expenses and just emotional harm, humiliation, psychological distress,” said Toronto privacy lawyer Molly Reynolds.
Canadian courts have awarded anywhere from $45,000 to $85,000 to victims for the non-consensual disclosure of intimate images — not including aggravated and punitive damages. In one case, an Alberta woman was awarded nearly $160,000.
Suzie Dunn, assistant professor at Dalhousie’s Schulich School of Law who specializes in technology-based violence, said the cost of removing images should be taken into consideration.
In cases where the tribunal orders a video or image to be removed, there’s potential that copies that have already been made could be posted online, Dunn said.
“The person whose images have been released … may need to spend a lifetime managing the release of those images,” Dunn said.
It’s ultimately up to the provincial government to make legislative changes to increase the award amounts, lawyers who spoke to CBC News said.
Claire Feltrin, a Vancouver data privacy and cybersecurity lawyer who helped advise the tribunal over intimate images cases, said damages were discussed during consultations.
“The rationale for having the limit under the CRT is that there are other avenues of recourse,” Feltrin explained.
CBC has reached out to B.C.’s attorney general for comment.