Skip to content

“Revenge Porn” Case Goes Back to the Drawing Board

“Revenge Porn” Case Goes Back to the Drawing Board

A year ago I reported on a case in which a young woman had been awarded over $100,000 in damages from her former boyfriend, who had engaged in “revenge porn” after their break-up. Without her consent, he had posted explicit images of her online, and shared them with members of their mutual social circle, much to her extreme humiliation.

Because he had declined to participate in the lawsuit by filing any sort of defence, the woman was able to obtain a default court judgment in his absence, in which the ex-boyfriend was found liable under the civil law for the torts of breach of confidence, intentional infliction of mental distress, and invasion of privacy. He was held responsible to pay for her damages as assessed, with the breakdown being $50,000 for general damages, $25,000 for aggravated damages, and $25,000 for punitive damages, plus costs.

However, as a result of a recent decision by the Ontario Divisional Court, her lawsuit – which was launched four years ago – has now been put back to square one, and the now 24-year-old woman is awaiting a statement of defense from the man, so that a full trial can proceed with his participation.

The reversal is essentially based on procedure, not merit, so time will tell whether she is vindicated in the end.
In terms of the legal process, the matter has gone forward-then-back because the original order, by Justice Stinson, was later struck out by a second judge, Justice Dow, in order to give the man a chance to participate.

The woman asked unsuccessfully for permission to appeal that ruling, claiming that Justice Dow had noted that the ex-boyfriend was deliberately ignoring the lawsuit, but then went on to improperly consider other factors and give him a second chance anyway. Permission to appeal was denied in the most recent decision by Justice Kitely in January 2017, since she found no legal error in Justice Dow’s reasoning.

So, three judges’ rulings later, the matter has been sent back to essentially “start over” before a new judge.

But the significance of the case still lingers, because the original decision by Justice Stinson from a year ago was very legally noteworthy at the time, not only for implicit recognition of the invasion-of-privacy claim from this sort of on-line behaviour, but also due to the hefty damages liability imposed on the ex-boyfriend.

What are your thoughts on this case?

For the full text of the decision, see:

Jane Doe 464533 v N.D., 2017 ONSC 127 (CanLII)

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com