A British Columbia man has been awarded $35,000 in damages after his ex-girlfriend posted intimate images of him on social media in what a Civil Resolution Tribunal decision described as a targeted campaign to harass and torment him, ctvnews.ca reported. The ruling addresses a novel legal issue regarding how statutes of limitations apply to images remaining online.
Tribunal Orders $35,000 Payout for Online Harassment
The Civil Resolution Tribunal issued the decision last month following a four-year relationship between the couple, who were anonymized in the ruling as BW and SS. After the breakup, SS began posting intimate pictures of BW on fake social media accounts meant to impersonate him and people he knew.
Tribunal member Jeffrey Drozdiak found that the ongoing conduct demonstrated the respondent had no concern for how her actions affected the applicant. Her motivation appeared to be revenge for the relationship ending.
The tribunal awarded BW $30,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in aggravated damages. SS must also pay $444.20 to cover the cost of hiring a process server.
Breach of Protection Order During Months of Dissemination
In an earlier dispute, Drozdiak identified eight images meeting the definition of intimate, showing the man’s face and genitals. The tribunal member issued a protection order requiring SS to destroy the images and make every reasonable effort to make them unavailable.
Despite that order, Drozdiak found that SS continued sharing the images and breached the protection order 14 times between March and September of this year. BW stated that his ex also sent two images to his current partner, telling them her goal was to break the couple up and prevent another woman from getting close to him.
The applicant told the tribunal that SS left laughing reactions on posts across his business social media using a fake account featuring a naked image of him as the profile picture. Drozdiak noted that the respondent also evaded being served with the tribunal disputes, with the applicant stating she treated the process as a joke.
Statute of Limitations Applied Like a Nuisance Claim
The dispute raised a novel legal question regarding B.C.’s Limitation Act, which normally requires applicants to file claims within two years of an incident. One image in the claim was discovered by BW in January 2024, while the claim itself was filed in April 2026, which would typically exclude it.
However, BW provided proof that the image remained accessible online as of December 2025. Drozdiak determined that the statute of limitations for intimate images should function similarly to a nuisance claim, where fresh damage occurs each day a problem continues.
The tribunal ruled that an image shared online creates fresh damage every day it remains accessible, resetting the limitation period until the content is taken down. Applicants can claim damages for the two-year period immediately preceding the start of their claim.
Legal Framework Eliminates Need to Prove Harm
Under B.C.’s Intimate Images Protection Act, sharing such content without consent is illegal and actionable without requiring proof of damage. Drozdiak noted that applicants do not need to provide evidence of suffering because sharing intimate images without consent is widely recognized as harmful.
Accepting BW’s submission, Drozdiak acknowledged that the distribution of the pictures was ruining the man’s life and business. The tribunal’s significant financial award reflects the intentional and ongoing nature of the violations.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Tribunal Decision
How many times did the respondent breach the protection order?
Tribunal member Jeffrey Drozdiak found that SS breached the protection order 14 times between March and September of this year by continuing to share the intimate images.
What was the exact financial breakdown ordered by the tribunal?
The Civil Resolution Tribunal ordered SS to pay $30,000 in compensatory damages, $5,000 in aggravated damages, and $444.20 to compensate the applicant for hiring a process server.
When was the claim filed compared to when the images were discovered?
BW discovered one of the disputed images in January 2024 and filed the claim with the Civil Resolution Tribunal in April 2026.
Keep reading