Skip to content

New Brunswick’s new Intimate Images Unlawful Distribution Act

Chad Sullivan and Tiffany Primmer

Increasingly, employers are finding themselves faced with addressing the uncomfortable situation of an employee who has shared an intimate image of another employee. While not directly applicable to what an employer can or cannot do in these circumstances, new legislation has been passed in New Brunswick that employers may wish to make victims aware of.

On April 1, 2022 the Intimate Images Unlawful Distribution Act (“IIUDA”) received royal assent in New Brunswick; following other provinces who have made legislative changes aimed at combating the growing trend of “revenge porn.”¹

The IIUDA creates a new statutory tort for the actual or threatened distribution of intimate images to which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

This effectively establishes civil liability for what is also a criminal code offence under section 162.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada, being the publishing or sharing of an intimate image without consent.

One of the goals of the IIUDA is to enable victims to exercise more control over the process by providing access to an expedited process for the removal of non-consensual intimate images from distribution, and the ability to claim compensation for damages suffered as a result.

The IIUDA begins, at section 2, by establishing a new actionable tort where a person “distributes or threatens to distribute an intimate image in relation to which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Significantly, the claimant need not prove any damages (as they would have to in an ordinary common law tort action).

Individuals can proceed with a fast-tracked process by making an application to court (under section 5). The court may order a number of remedies if it is satisfied that:

  • the image is an intimate image of the applicant;
  • the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the intimate image; and
  • the respondent distributed or threatened to distribute the intimate image.

The court may issue an order (under the section 5 – expedited process):

  • declaring the distribution (or threatened distribution) of the intimate image to be unlawful;
  • order the respondent to make all reasonable efforts to destroy the intimate image in their possession;
  • have the intimate image removed from an internet intermediary platform and de-indexed from any search engine;
  • award nominal damages; and
  • provide any other order the court considers appropriate in the circumstances.

This relief (under the section 5) is available without requiring the applicant to prove the respondent distributed the image intentionally and with the aim of causing harm.

The IIUDA further creates a more traditional fault-based tort (under section 6), where individuals can seek further damages (i.e. compensatory, aggravated and punitive damages) not available in the expedited process.

Of course, all of this would be for nothing if victims were fearful of bringing an action in open court and risking further notoriety by providing another platform for distribution. To combat this, the IIUDA imposes an automatic publication ban where applicants must instead apply to have the publication ban removed, if so desired. This is in keeping with the remedial nature of the IIUDA to provide a meaningful avenue for victims to limit the amount of emotional, reputational, and potential financial harm caused by the non-consensual distribution of an intimate image.

The IIUDA is another example of how privacy law continues to evolve including by the creation of new privacy related torts. When the sharing of intimate images occurs within the workplace or otherwise spills over into the work environment, in addition to investigating and potentially taking disciplinary action against the perpetrator, oftentimes employers advise victims of their rights to pursue such matters through making a complaint to the police or commencing a civil action. The IIUDA is another potential option for redress that seeks to remove some of the delay and difficulty associated with bringing a traditional civil action.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and Employment group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.


¹ Protecting Victims of Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Act, RSA 2017, c P-26.9; Intimate Image Protection Act, CCSM c 187; Intimate Images and Cyber-protection Act, SNS 2017, c 7; Intimate Images Protection Act, RSPEI 1988, c I-9.1; Intimate Images Protection Act, RSNL 2018, c I-22. Saskatchewan has opted to amend its privacy and other related legislation to address these concerns, see: Government of Saskatchewan, “Province Introduces New Measures To Address Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images”. Online here.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Land use planning in Prince Edward Island – the year in review

December 21, 2023

By Perlene Morrison, K.C., Hilary Newman & Curtis Doyle Once again, the time has come to review the year that was and to chart the course for the year ahead. For municipalities and planning professionals…

Read More

The Offshore Renewable Energy Area: Navigating offshore commitments in Newfoundland and Labrador

December 18, 2023

By Dave Randell, John Samms & Jayna Green A recent Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (“GNL”) announcement affirms the Province’s swift and ambitious approach to offshore wind development. While it may come as a shock…

Read More

Clean sweep: Federal Government tables legislation for Clean Technology Investment Tax Credit

December 15, 2023

By Sadira Jan, Dave Randell, Graham Haynes & Tyler Callahan On November 30, 2023, the Federal Government tabled Bill C-59, entitled An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament…

Read More

Forward focus: Canada’s ambitious immigration plan

December 14, 2023

By Brendan Sheridan The Government of Canada has continued their whirlwind year of immigration program announcements by revealing their plan to modernize and improve the country’s immigration system. This plan, known as “An Immigration System…

Read More

Preparing for Canada’s “Modern Slavery Act”: considerations and guidance for businesses

November 30, 2023

By Christine Pound, ICD.D, Rebecca Saturley, & Daniel Roth Canada’s anti-modern slavery legislation comes into force on January 1, 2024. To prepare for the first reporting deadline on May 31, 2024, organizations need to determine…

Read More

Replace-me-not: Bill C-58 proposes ban on replacement workers in federal strikes and lockouts

November 29, 2023

By Brian Johnston, K.C. and Richard Jordan On November 9, 2023, Minister of Labour, Seamus O’Regan, introduced Bill C-58 in the House of Commons to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of…

Read More

Final retail payment activities regulations released

November 28, 2023

By Kevin Landry & Eryka Gregory The Retail Payment Activities Regulations (“Regulations”) under the Retail Payment Activities Act (“RPAA”) were finalized and published in the Canada Gazette Part II on November 23, 2023. The RPAA was…

Read More

Nova Scotia offers new pension option to private sector employers

November 24, 2023

By Level Chan When proclaimed in force, the Nova Scotia Private Sector Pension Plan Transfer Act (the “Transfer Act”) enacted by Bill 339, Financial Measures (Fall 2023) Act will allow the transfer of private sector…

Read More

Bill C-365 calls for plan for implementation of open banking in Canada

November 17, 2023

By Kevin Landry On November 9 2023, Bill C-365, An Act respecting the implementation of a consumer-led banking system for Canadians (“C-365”), short titled as the ‘Consumer-led Banking Act’ was read in the House of…

Read More

More limits: NSCA tightens the test for disallowing a limitations defence

November 15, 2023

By Jennifer Taylor The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (“NSCA”) has issued an important decision clarifying the test to disallow a limitations defence. The decision, Halifax (Regional Municipality) v Carvery (“Carvery”), has real implications for personal…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top