A Note on Language
In this toolkit, we will sometimes use the word woman/women and feminine pronouns for simplicity and to recognize the significant impact technology-facilitated violence has on women and girls. We recognize that TFGBV also impacts trans, non-binary, and Two-Spirit people. We hope that all people impacted by TFGBV will find these documents useful.
This information sheet is designed to assist survivors and frontline anti-violence workers to better understand the legal causes of action available in response to various forms of image-based abuse, a subset of technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV). It is strongly recommended that you review Legal Protections for TFGBV: What Laws Apply to You? before considering what specific legal remedies might apply to your case, as it provides a general overview of different forms of TFGBV and the key differences between the criminal and civil legal systems in Canada.
This sheet provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice. Legal advice or representation must come from a lawyer, who can advise you of your legal options concerning a specific case of image-based sexual abuse. See: Legal and Victim Service Supports and Resources.
Image-based abuse includes a wide range of behaviours involving a perpetrator recording or distributing sexualized images of their victims. This category of behaviour can include:
- An ex-partner posting intimate images of you online that they took or you sent to them during the relationship (sometimes called “revenge porn”)
- A perpetrator placing hidden cameras in places where you could be naked or engaged in sexual activity, such as your bedroom or bathroom
- A perpetrator threatening to distribute your intimate images unless you do something or refrain from doing something (when the demands are sexual, this behaviour is sometimes called “sextortion”)
- A perpetrator filming themselves sexually assaulting you and/or posting images of a sexual assault online
The behaviours listed above are just a few examples of the types of behaviours that can fall under this category of technology-facilitated violence. Further, there are many specific criminal laws targeting behaviours involving sexualized images of minors.
If you fear for your immediate safety, you should contact the police. You may also apply for a peace bond or, if the perpetrator is a family member such as a spouse or former spouse, for a family law protection order. These orders are intended to prevent perpetrators from engaging in future violent or criminal behaviours. For more information, see Peace Bonds and Protection Orders for Victims of Technology-Facilitated Violence.
Potentially Applicable Criminal Laws
The Criminal Code, which contains all of the offences listed below, applies across Canada. It does not matter where in Canada you are located, as the laws set out below apply to you. For general information on the criminal system concerning technology-facilitated violence, see Legal Protections for TFGBV: What Laws Apply to You?
Voyeurism (Criminal Code section 162)
Voyeurism is the “surreptitious” (secret) recording of a person in certain sexualized contexts. The Code’s voyeurism provisions are intended to prevent people from setting up hidden cameras or otherwise secretly filming people, whether strangers or someone they know, when they are nude or engaged in sexual activity.
For a court to find a perpetrator guilty of voyeurism against you, the Crown must prove:
- The perpetrator surreptitiously observed or recorded you;
- This was done in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy; AND
- You were in a place where a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, expose their genital organs, anal region, or breasts, or be engaged in sexual activity;
- You were nude, exposing your genital organs, anal region, or breasts, or were engaged in explicit sexual activity AND the recording was done for the purpose of observing you in such a state; OR
- The perpetrator observed or recorded you for a sexual purpose.
“Surreptitiously” means that the perpetrator must have intended for you to be unaware that they were recording you. 1 If the perpetrator was obvious about the fact they were filming you at the time, these provisions will not apply. To find that the recording took place in circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, the court must take into account all relevant circumstances, including the location where the recording took place, your relationship with the perpetrator, and other factors, and decide whether you were in circumstances “in which a person would reasonably expect not to be the subject of the type of observation or recording that has in fact occurred.” 2 If the recording was made in a public or semi-public place, that does not necessarily mean you did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time.
Some cases of TFGBV where a perpetrator has been convicted of voyeurism include:
- A perpetrator “up-skirted” (filmed under women’s skirts). 3
- A perpetrator used a hidden “Ring” camera to capture nude pictures of an ex-girlfriend in her bedroom. 4
- A perpetrator used a hidden camera in his office to secretly film himself having sex with women. 5
- A perpetrator took secret screenshots of his girlfriend while she was nude during sexual video chats over Skype. 1
- A perpetrator placed a hidden camera in his 10-year-old daughter’s bedroom that captured her nude on several occasions. 6
- A perpetrator secretly recorded sexual activity with a woman on his cell phone. 7
It is also an offence under section 162(4) of the Criminal Code for a perpetrator to distribute a recording they know was obtained through voyeurism. Therefore, if the perpetrator or anyone else distributes a voyeuristic recording of you, the Crown can bring additional charges against them for this behaviour. The Crown may, however, decide to charge the perpetrator under the Code’s non-consensual distribution provisions instead. As it may be easier to prove distribution of a voyeuristic recording than non-consensual distribution, you may want to ask the Crown or police if they have considered charging the perpetrator under this provision.
Publication of an Intimate Image without Consent (Criminal Code section 162.1)
The non-consensual distribution of intimate images is the sharing of an “intimate image” (i.e. an image or recording where a person is nude, exposing their genitals or breasts, or engaged in sexual activity) without their consent. What is commonly called “revenge porn” fits in this category of behaviour.
For a court to find a perpetrator guilty of the non-consensual distribution of an intimate image against you, the Crown must prove:
- The perpetrator knowingly distributed an intimate image of you AND
- The perpetrator knew you did not give your consent to that conduct OR the perpetrator was reckless as to whether you gave consent to that conduct,
This provision applies when a perpetrator publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, or makes available an intimate image. This includes anything from posting an image online for many people to view to sending or showing the image to just one other individual on their phone. The Crown also has to establish that the image in question meets the definition of an “intimate image.” An intimate image is defined in section 162.1(2) of the Criminal Code as:
- A visual image/recording of a person who is:
- Exposing their genital organs;
- Exposing their anal region;
- Exposing their breasts; OR
- Engaged in explicit sexual activity.
- In respect of which, at the time of the recording, there were circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy; AND
- In respect of which, the person depicted retains a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the offence is committed.
A “reasonable expectation of privacy” likely has the same meaning as in the voyeurism provisions above. Most nude or sexualized images taken during an intimate partnership should not have difficulty meeting the definition of “intimate image.”
Some cases of TFGBV where a perpetrator has been convicted of non-consensual distribution include:
- A perpetrator posted screenshots of a video depicting his ex-girlfriend performing oral sex on him to a pornography website. 8
- A perpetrator filmed a woman naked and vomiting using FaceTime. 9
- A perpetrator sent his girlfriend a picture of her with her vagina exposed during a fight via text message (even though he did not send this image to anyone else, he was convicted of non-consensual distribution, as the court found he did not have the girlfriend's consent to send the image to anyone, including her). 10
- A perpetrator posted a video of his ex-girlfriend performing oral sex on him on Facebook. 11
- A perpetrator posted videos of sexual activity with a girlfriend that were both consensually recorded and recorded using hidden cameras to a variety of pornography websites. 12
- A perpetrator sent a picture of himself engaged in sexual activity with his ex-girlfriend to her new boyfriend. 13
If a perpetrator is convicted of non-consensual distribution, after they have served their sentence, or if they are given a conditional sentence or discharge, the court can impose a restriction prohibiting them from using the Internet, although such orders are rarely made given how crucial the Internet is to daily life.
If someone has a copy of your intimate images and you are worried they may post them online, you can apply for a peace bond under Criminal Code section 810 to prohibit them from doing so. For more information on peace bonds, see Peace Bonds and Protection Orders for Victims of Technology-Facilitated Violence.
Extortion (Criminal Code section 346)
Extortion is exerting pressure on another person, usually through threats, to get them to do something or abstain from doing something. When a perpetrator uses threats to convince someone to engage in sexual activity, usually online, this is often called “sextortion,” although this is not a legal term.
For a court to find a perpetrator guilty of extorting you, the Crown must prove:
- The perpetrator induced or attempted to induce you to do something using threats, accusations, menaces, or violence AND
- The perpetrator was intending to obtain something.
You do not need to be the target of threats, accusations, menaces, or violence for the Crown to prove extortion. For example, if the threats were made against your children, this would still count. It is also an offence for a perpetrator to publish or threaten to publish, or to offer to abstain from publishing, a defamatory libel to extort money from you.
Some cases of image-based abuse where a perpetrator has been convicted of extortion include:
- A perpetrator threatened to distribute intimate images of his ex-girlfriend if she did not continue to have a relationship with him. 14
- A perpetrator threatened to send nude pictures of a girlfriend to everyone she knew if she did not call him back. 15
- A perpetrator threatened to share nude images of young women he had taken while pretending to be a photographer if they did not have sex with him. 16
- A perpetrator convinced underage girls to send sexually explicit photos to him online and then threatened to distribute those photos if they did not send more. 17
Intimidation (Criminal Code section 423)
Intimidation is attempting to get someone to do or abstain from doing something through intimidating tactics.
For a court to find a perpetrator guilty of intimidating you, the Crown must prove:
- The perpetrator:
- Used violence or threats of violence against you, your intimate partner, your children, or your property;
- Threatened that violence or other injury would be done or punishment or damage inflicted on you or a relative of yours;
- Persistently followed you;
- Hid, deprived you of, or hindered your use of any property owned or used by you; OR
- Beset or watched the place where you live, work, or happen to be.
- The perpetrator did this to compel you to do or abstain from doing something.
The vast majority of intimidation case law involves individuals using physical violence to compel someone to do something. However, at least in theory, conveying threats to distribute intimate images online, or watching you using surveillance technologies, could fall within intimidating behaviours if they are done to compel you to do or abstain from doing something. 18
Obscenity (Criminal Code section 163)
The Code’s obscenity provisions are aimed at prohibiting the public display of “obscene” materials. It does not prohibit the personal viewing of obscene materials.
For a court to find a perpetrator guilty of obscenity, the Crown must prove:
- The perpetrator made, printed, published, distributed, or circulated an obscene thing OR
- The perpetrator possessed an obscene thing for the purpose of publishing, distributing, or circulating it.
Something is “obscene” if its “dominant characteristic” is the undue exploitation of sex or of sex and any of the following: crime, horror, cruelty, or violence.
Obscenity charges have primarily been pursued against store owners selling obscene materials; however, there is some indication that individuals posting obscene videos online could be charged or convicted of this offence. 19 If a perpetrator posted a video of extreme violence or a violent sexual assault online, particularly if this was done for profit, they could potentially be charged with obscenity.
Child Pornography (Criminal Code section 163.1)
There are several offences related to child sexual abuse and exploitation materials, termed “child pornography” in the Criminal Code. “Child pornography” is defined as an image or recording:
- That shows a person who is or is depicted as being under eighteen and is engaged or is depicted as engaged in sexual activity OR
- The dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen.
Written material or audio recordings also fall within the definition of child pornography if they depict sexual activity with a person under the age of 18. It is a serious criminal offence to make, distribute, possess, or access child pornography. It is not a defence to any of these charges that the perpetrator believed the person depicted was over 18, unless the perpetrator took all reasonable steps to ensure the person was over 18 or the image/recording did not depict a person as being under 18.
If you are under 18, or a perpetrator has shared or is threatening to share sexual images of you that were recorded when you were under 18, these provisions may apply. If a perpetrator sends you child sexual abuse and exploitation images as part of their harassment or abuse, these provisions could also apply.
Child Luring and Sexual Exploitation
It is a criminal offence for an adult to have sexual contact with a person who is under the age of 16 (section 150.1). If an adult and a person under the age of 18 are in a relationship of trust or authority, or there is a relationship of dependence, it is a criminal offence for the adult to have sexual contact with the young person (section 153). It is an offence for an adult to communicate electronically with a young person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence, called “child luring” (section 172.1), to counsel a young person to sexually touch themselves or another person (section 152), or to make sexually explicit materials available to a young person (section 171.1).
Some cases of TFGBV where a perpetrator has been convicted under these provisions include:
- A perpetrator contacted a 15-year-old girl on Instagram seeking to engage in sexual activity and have the girl engage in sex work. 20
- A perpetrator posted an ad online seeking sex with underage girls, and engaged in sexualized email conversations and shared pornographic videos with a person who they believed to be a 14-year-old girl (who was actually an undercover police officer). 21
- A perpetrator showed a pornographic video on a cell phone to a young person. 22
- A perpetrator engaged in a long-term virtual sexual relationship with a young person (aged 14-17 during the duration of the offence), including sexualized emails, chats, and video calls. 23
Potentially Applicable Civil Laws: Federal
Canada’s copyright regime protects a person’s interests in their originally-created works. If a person non-consensually shares an intimate or sexual image or recording that you created (such as a selfie), the copyright regime could apply to protect your interests in that recording and allow you to sue someone who uses that recording without your consent.
If a person uses your self-created image or recording in a commercial context (such as posting it to a pornography website for profit), you can claim damages of between $500-$20,000 for each recording or image infringed. 24 If a person uses your image in a non-commercial context (such as posting it publicly on social media), you can claim damages of between $100-$5,000 for each recording or image infringed. 25
To date, there have not been any published cases in which a person has sued another individual for copyright infringement in relation to having their intimate images posted online.
If you notify an Internet Service Provider or search engine (such as Google) that one of their users is infringing your copyright, they must pass that notice on to the person responsible. 26 Many hosts of online content, including social media companies, are present in or operate out of the U.S. and abide by U.S. copyright legislation. American copyright laws require online hosts to remove content that infringes U.S. copyright legislation when they are notified of the alleged infringement. 27 This may be a useful tool if your primary goal is to have harmful content removed – if you report images that infringe your copyright to US-based website hosts, you should be able to have that content removed. 28
Potentially Applicable Civil Laws: Provincial/Territorial
Unlike criminal law, civil law varies significantly depending on where you are located in Canada. The “causes of action” (behaviours you can sue someone for in civil court) listed below may not apply in your province or territory, may be covered by specific legislation, or may be covered only by the “common law” (meaning there is no legislation, but a cause of action exists based on previous court decisions). Many civil causes of actions relate to claims in “tort,” meaning a civil wrong. You can review Legal Protections for TFGBV: What Laws Apply to You? for more information about the civil trial system. All of the cases discussed below state what province or territory they are from – if they are not from your province or territory, you may not be able to rely on them in your case.
Non-Consensual Distribution Legislation
Some provinces have legislation specifically prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, allowing victims to sue perpetrators in civil court for this behaviour. Remedies may include the removal of online content, compensation, alternative dispute resolution, and/or protection orders. The provinces/territories that have this legislation include:
- Alberta – Protecting Victims of Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Act, RSA 2017, c P-26.9
- Saskatchewan – the province’s Privacy Act, RSS 1978, c P-24 creates a right of action against people who distribute intimate images of a person without their consent
- Manitoba – The Intimate Image Protection Act, CCSM, c 187
- Nova Scotia – Intimate Images and Cyber-protection Act, SNS 2017, c 7. For information from the Nova Scotia government about rights under the Act, see: What you need to know about the Intimate Images & Cyber-Protection Act 29
- Newfoundland and Labrador - Intimate Images Protection Act, RSNL 2018, c I-22
- Prince Edward Island – Intimate Images Protection Act, RSPEI 1988, c I-9.1
The remaining provinces and territories do not have specific legislation covering the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, although non-consensual distribution legislation is being considered in British Columbia at the time of writing (August 2022). However, some claims under tort or privacy legislation likely cover non-consensual distribution in these provinces.
So far, there have been few reported cases where plaintiffs have successfully sued defendants for non-consensual distribution under provincial statutes. This is likely because this legislation is relatively new in most provinces. One successful case from Manitoba involved a defendant sharing intimate images of the plaintiff with a person who was considering employing the plaintiff. The defendant did this in retaliation for a relationship the plaintiff had with her boyfriend. 30
Breach of Confidence
Breach of confidence involves a person sharing something that was meant to be kept private. Breach of confidence is a “common law tort,” meaning it is not prohibited by any specific legislation. Rather, courts have recognized it as an actionable wrong, meaning a person can sue another person for this behaviour.
To convince a court that someone has engaged in a breach of confidence concerning you, you must show:
- The information was of a confidential (private) quality;
- The information was imparted in confidential circumstances; AND
- You suffered a detriment as a result of the defendant’s unauthorized use of the information.
“Information” can potentially include nude or sexualized images. Some cases where claims for breach of confidence have been successful regarding to image-based abuse include:
- [ON] A defendant pressured his girlfriend into sending him an intimate video and promising her that only he would view it, then posted it to a pornographic website and showing it to friends. 31
- [AB] A defendant hacked into his ex-girlfriend's Facebook account and posted boudoir photos without her consent that she had given to him as a gift, hacked into her email account and sent photos and a sexually explicit message to her new boyfriend, and posted sexually explicit photos of her to a pornographic website. 32
- 33[QC] The defendant shared nude pictures of his ex-wife to her current partner and threatened to share them online.34
Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress/Suffering
Intentional infliction of mental distress or suffering involves a person doing something to cause another person mental suffering. Intentional infliction of mental suffering is a “common law tort,” meaning it is not prohibited by any specific written laws. Rather, courts have recognized it as an actionable wrong, meaning a person can sue another person for this behaviour.
To convince a court that someone has intentionally inflicted mental distress or mental suffering on you, you must show:
- The defendant engaged in flagrant or outrageous conduct that was calculated to produce harm AND
- The behaviour resulted in you suffering from a visible and provable illness.
The harm to you must be something more than upsetting – if the defendant’s actions led to diagnosed anxiety or depression, this could meet the necessary criteria. While medical evidence is not essential, many claims for intentional infliction of mental distress fail if there is no external (i.e. not coming from the plaintiff) evidence of the illness. 35
In Ontario, a claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering for image-based abuse was successful with a defendant who posted an intimate video of his girlfriend to a pornography website and showed it to his friends, leaving the plaintiff emotionally devastated. 31
Intimidation involves a person compelling another person to do something through threats and is a tort prohibited by the common law. If someone threatened you in online communications to get you to do something (such as continue a relationship with them), this could potentially ground a claim for intimidation.
To convince a court that someone has intimidated you, you must show:
- The defendant communicated an unlawful threat to you;
- You complied with the threat (i.e. you did what they asked);
- The defendant intended to harm you; AND
- You were harmed as a result of your compliance with the threat.
There have not been any cases to date in which the tort of intimidation has been successfully pursued regarding image-based abuse.
Privacy Legislation and Privacy Torts
Image-based abuse, such as voyeurism and non-consensual distribution, represents serious privacy violations. There are two key ways you can bring a civil claim concerning the privacy harms of these behaviours: (1) a claim under your province’s or territory’s relevant privacy legislation or (2) through a claim in relation to the tort of invasion of privacy.
Some provinces and territories have privacy legislation that prohibits certain invasions of privacy. These generally mirror many of the common law privacy torts, which are applicable in other provinces and territories. The three key privacy invasions potentially applicable to image-based abuse described below (intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, and appropriation of likeness) will therefore be prohibited by legislation, by the common law, or not yet legally recognized as bases for liability, depending on what province or territory you are located in.
The provinces and territories with personal privacy legislation include:
- British Columbia – Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c 373
- Section 1 prohibits violating the privacy of another person
- Section 3 prohibits using the name or image of another for advertising property or services (see Appropriation of Likeness)
- Saskatchewan – Privacy Act, RSS 1978, c P-24
- Section 2 prohibits violating the privacy of another person
- Section 3(c) prohibits exploiting the name, image, or voice of an identifiable person (see Appropriation of Likeness)
- Section 7.3 prohibits the non-consensual disclosure of intimate images
- Manitoba – The Privacy Act, CCSM, c P125.
- Section 2 prohibits violating the privacy of another person
- Section 3(c) prohibits exploiting the name, image, or voice of an identifiable person (see Appropriation of Likeness)
- Newfoundland and Labrador – Privacy Act, RSNL 1990, c P-22.
- Section 3 prohibits violating the privacy of another person
- Section 4(c) prohibits using the name, image, or voice of an identifiable person (see Appropriation of Likeness), or using a person’s letters, diaries, or other personal documents
- Quebec – Civil Code of Québec, CQLR c CCQ-1991
- Section 35 prohibits invading the privacy of another person without their consent or without being authorized by the law
- Section 36 lists acts that are considered invasion of privacy of a person, such as using their name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other than the legitimate information of the public, or using their correspondence, manuscripts, or other personal documents.
Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI, Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut do not have personal privacy legislation. Some of the causes of action for privacy breaches discussed below have been recognized in those jurisdictions, and others have not. You will need to check the state of the law in your jurisdiction if you are unsure. See: Legal and Victim Service Supports and Resources.
Invasion of Privacy/Intrusion Upon Seclusion
Invading another person’s privacy is prohibited by privacy legislation in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Newfoundland abd Labrador (see above). A common law right of action for intrusion upon seclusion has been recognized in Alberta, 36 Ontario, 37 and Nova Scotia. 38
In general, to be successful in a claim for “intrusion upon seclusion” (the general rule against invading another person’s privacy), you must demonstrate to the court:
- The defendant invaded your private affairs or concerns without lawful justification;
- The defendant did so recklessly; AND
- A reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive, resulting in distress, humiliation, or anguish.
Invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion covers a wide variety of behaviours, whether governed by privacy legislation or the common law. Some cases where claims for invasion of privacy have been successful regarding image-based abuse include:
- [ON] The defendant posted an intimate video of his girlfriend to a pornography website and showed it to his friends 31
- [BC] Defendants filmed women using hidden cameras placed in bathrooms 39
- [ON] The defendant filmed his estranged intimate partner with a hidden camera that captured her bedroom and bathroom 40
- [BC] Defendants set up surveillance cameras that captured the plaintiffs’ residence and parts of their yard in the context of a dispute over a property line 41
Public Disclosure of Private Facts
While the test varies slightly from province to province, generally to convince a court that someone has publicly disclosed your private facts you must show:
- The defendant publicized an aspect of your private life;
- You did not consent to the publication;
- The matter publicized or its publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in your position; AND
- The publication was not of legitimate concern to the public.
The “aspect of your private life” can include your intimate images. Claims for public disclosure of private facts regarding image-based abuse have been successful in the following cases:
- [ON] The defendant uploaded a sexually explicit video of his girlfriend on a pornographic website to punish her for reporting his abusive behaviour to police. 45
- [AB] The defendant posted intimate images of his girlfriend to pornography websites without her knowledge and consent over several years. 46
- [AB] The defendant hacked into his ex-girlfriend's Facebook account and posted boudoir photos without her consent that she had given to him as a gift, hacked into her email account and sent photos and a sexually explicit message to her new boyfriend, and posted sexually explicit photos of her to a pornographic website. 32
Appropriation of Likeness/Personality
Appropriation of likeness/appropriation of personality involves a person exploiting another person’s identity for some ulterior motive. Privacy legislation in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador expressly prohibits this conduct, and the tort of appropriation of likeness has been recognized in Ontario 47 and Alberta, 48 though only in the context of commercial exploitation (i.e. appropriating someone’s image for profit). 49 However, there is potential that this tort could apply if a sexual image of you is posted on a pornography website without your consent for profit.
While there is some variation from province to province, generally to convince a court that someone has appropriated your likeness or personality, you must show:
- The defendant intentionally appropriated your persona AND
- The defendant did so for personal gain.
There have not been any cases to date in which the legislative action or tort of wrongful appropriation of personality has been successfully pursued regarding image-based abuse.
Quebec’s Civil Code & Human Rights Legislation
Civil Code of Québec, RLRQ c CCQ-1991
Art 1457 of Civil Code
Que Charter ss 4, 5, 49.
Section 1457 is the basic section regarding extra-contractual civil liability in Quebec (extra-contractual is when there is no contract between the parties). According to this provision, every person has a duty to repair the damage caused to another person by their fault.
The party claiming damages must, however, prove 3 important elements:
- Fault: the other party behaved in a manner that is contrary to what could reasonably be expected of a prudent and diligent individual in the same circumstances
- The prejudice: the negative consequence suffered (damage)
- The causal link: the damage is a logical, direct, and immediate consequence of the fault
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR c C-12
Quebec has its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects every person on its territory.
- Section 4 provides that every person has a right to the safeguard of their dignity, honour, and reputation.
- Section 5 provides that every person has a right to respect for their private life.
- Section 49 entitles the victim of an unlawful infringement of a right or freedom recognized by the Charter to obtain the cessation of the infringement as well as compensation for the damages suffered.
- In the case of unlawful and intentional infringement, the court may also condemn the party at fault to punitive damages. Punitive damages exceeded compensation and serve to punish behaviour that is found to be particularly harmful.
Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence (TFGBV) is part of a continuum of violence that can be both online and in-person. If you or someone you know is experiencing TFGBV, you are not alone. You can use sheltersafe.ca to find a shelter/transition house near you or call/text the Kids Help Phone to discuss options and create a safety plan. You don’t need to stay in a shelter to access free, confidential services and support.
We gratefully acknowledge Moira Aikenhead for providing expertise to update this toolkit. An earlier draft of this document was created by Julie Gaydar, JD Candidate, Peter A. Allard School of Law, UBC, and supported by the Pro Bono Students Canada Organization. We gratefully acknowledge this work and support.
Adapted with permission from BCSTH’s Technology Safety project, based on their resource Legal Remedies for Canadian Women Experiencing Technology Facilitated Violence.
- R v Trinchi, 2019 ONCA 356.
- R v Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 at para 30.
- R v Bahamonde, 2021 ONSC 7526
- R v Braithwaite, 2020 ONCA 513.
- R v De Jesus Carrasco, 2020 ONSC 4743
- R v ST, 2019 ONSC 1082.
- R v Percy, 2018 NSPC 57.
- R v OK, 2019 ONCJ 804.
- R v Walsh, 2021 ONCA 43.
- R v RR, (2021), 176 WCB (2d) 71.
- R v MTB, 2019 BCPC 77
- R v JS, 2018 ONCJ 82.
- R v Verner, 2017 ONCJ 415.
- R v Khamb, 2019 BCSC 1822.
- R v SLS,  OJ No 4874.
- R v Davis,  3 SCR 759.
- R v RW, 2016 ONCJ 325.
- R v Mirsayah, 2007 BCSC 1596
- R v Marek, 2016 ABQB 18.
- R v Mootoo, 2021 ONSC 5984.
- R v Collier, 2021 ONSC 6827.
- R v MK, 2021 ABQB 300.
- R v Rasiah, 2021 ONCJ 584.
- Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42, s 38.1(1)(a).
- Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42, s 38.1(1)(b).
- Copyright Act, s 41.25
- Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), Title 17 USC 512.
- See e.g. https://dmcadefender.com/dmca-..
- As of August 2022, the Nova Scotia government was undergoing a review of this legislation.
- Roque v Peters, 2022 MBQB 34. In total,the plaintiff was found to be entitled to $50,000 in damages.
- Jane Doe 464533 v ND, 2016 ONSC 541.
- LDS v SCA, 2021 ABQB 818.
- N.G. c. F.B., 2017 QCCS 5653
- See e.g. Lu v Shen,2020 BCSC 490 –years of flagrant and harmful comments about one another on social media were not found to meet the criteria for intentional infliction of emotional distress, as there was no external evidence of a visible and provable illness.
- Carbone v Burnett, 2019 ABQB 98.
- Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32.
- Doucette v Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 25.
- Malcolm v Fleming,  BCJ No 2400 (SC); LAM v JELI, 2008 BCSC 1147
- Patel v Sheth, 2016 ONSC 6964.
- Wasserman v Hall, 2009 BCSC 1318.
- Jane Doe v ND; Jane Doe v NM
- Racki v Racki, 2021 NSSC 46.
- EV v Shellington, 2021 ABQB 739
- Jane Doe 72511 v NM, 2018 ONSC 6607.
- EV v Shillington, 2021 ABQB 739.
- Krouse v Chrysler Canada Ltd, (1973) 1 OR (2d) 225 (CA).
- Athans v Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd. (1977), 17 OR (2d) 425 (HC); Hay v Platinum Equities Inc, 2012 ABQB 204.
- Hategan v Farber, 2021 ONSC 874.