BC woman loses after tribunal rules ex’s comments on sharing nude photos only ‘offensive’

A BC woman has found that her ex’s comments that he would share nude photos of her online weren’t enough of a threat to warrant compensation.

According to a Feb. 20 BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, the ex’s statement was “manipulative and in extremely poor taste” but didn’t meet its definition of a threat.

In January 2024, the law in BC was changed allowing victims whose images had been shared online, or threatened to have been shared online, to take action through the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal.

In the current decision, which anonymized both names, the girlfriend took her ex to the Tribunal arguing for $5,000 compensation.

The girlfriend said that on Valentine’s Day 2024, they’d had an argument and she’d demanded her ex delete the two intimate images she had previously texted him.

He replied, “Too late, thousands of people have probably seen them by now.”

READ MORE: North Okanagan man sent to prison for revenge porn uploads

She asked him what he meant, “but he just stared at her with a wry smile.”

After she pushed it further and demanded an explanation, she said he “backtracked” and said he was joking.

“I find the statement, if the (ex-boyfriend) made it, was manipulative and in extremely poor taste,” the Tribunal ruled. “However, I find the statement alone is insufficient to constitute a threat to share (her) images.”

In the decision, the ex-boyfriend denied that he had ever shared or threatened to share any intimate image.

READ MORE: BC man who texted himself nude photos from mutual friend’s phone on the hook for $5K

The Tribunal ruled his statement suggested he’d already shared the nude photos, although there was no evidence presented to say he actually had.

“Overall, I find it likely the (ex-boyfriend’s) statement was simply an offensive antic or manipulation tactic,” the Tribunal ruled.

The Tribunal went on to say that it acknowledged the woman’s concerns about the potential sharing of the images, but to be granted compensation she had to prove he’d shared them or threatened to, which she hadn’t done.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the woman’s claim.