A man has been ordered to pay $5,200 to another man after sharing his nearly nude images with at least one other person on social media.

Civil Resolution Tribunal vice-chair Eric Regehr ordered MW to pay $5,000 in damages and $200 in tribunal fees to BDS for sharing intimate images of BDS, according to the decision released April 30. Both mensa国际传媒檚 names are protected under a publication ban.

MW and BDS never met in person, only interacting via direct messages on X (formerly Twitter). The interaction was brief, Regehr said, all taking place on March 21, 2021.

Regehr said the chat was flirtatious and both men shared images sa国际传媒� some nude and some not.

In the two disputed photos, one shows BDS sa国际传媒渟hirtless and in tight underwear with the outline of his erect penis clearly visible,sa国际传媒� while a second photo was taken from the side showing BDS sa国际传媒減ulling his underwear down to expose parts of his buttocks.sa国际传媒�

Regehr said there was no evidence anything happened with the photos until April 2023.

Around April 6, 2023, MW said he came across an X post from a person called EH that claimed she was being harassed by another X user who allegedly called her sa国际传媒渉uman garbage, sa国际传媒渕onstrously evil,sa国际传媒� a transphobe and deranged.

MW said he recognized the accused account as BDS, and contacted EH to identify the account so she could pursue legal action against him. He also contacted another person, a lawyer who represented several women who claimed BDS had harassed them online, and shared BDSsa国际传媒檚 name and some photos with them as well.

Both MW and EH initially told the tribunal that MW shared with EH cropped photos of BDS that only showed his torso and face. Neither initially provided screenshots of their direct messages, and BDS asked Regehr to order X to provide MWsa国际传媒檚 message history.

EH eventually was able to provide screenshots of her entire conversation with MW. In the screenshots, it showed MW shared the BDS underwear photo and the buttocks photo, with neither imaged cropped to just the torso and face.

MW sent three additional photos to EH of BDS that were originally nudes, but had been cropped.

B.C.sa国际传媒檚 Intimate Images Protection Act came into effect on Jan. 29, which defines an intimate image as sexual, nude or nearly nude with a person having the reasonable expectation of privacy when the image was recorded, livestreamed or shared.

This was the first published decision since the Intimate Images Protection Act came into effect on Jan. 29, but the tribunal has already made more than 30 decision under the act since then.

READ MORE:

Regehr said the act doesnsa国际传媒檛 define nearly nude and is sa国际传媒渟omewhat ambiguous,sa国际传媒� but the term nearly nude is not characterized by the amount of clothing alone, but also the context of the image.

sa国际传媒淔ootage from a changeroom of a woman trying on a bikini would likely be an intimate image, whereas a photo of a public beach that includes a distant shot of the same woman in the same bikini likely would not be.sa国际传媒�

Regehr said that while BDSsa国际传媒檚 underwear in the first photo is small, but not more revealing than many swimsuits, sa国际传媒渢he photo is very different than a photo of a man at the beach.sa国际传媒�

sa国际传媒淚t is taken for a flirtatious or seductive purpose. The outline of BDSsa国际传媒檚 erect penis is plain to see. Anyone seeing the photo would immediately recognize that it depicts a sexualized and private moment.sa国际传媒�

He said the same could be said for the buttocks photo, adding that BDS had a reasonable expectation of privacy when taking and sending the photos to MW.

In his decision, Regehr also ordered MW and any other person who shared the photos of BDS to delete or destroy copies, as well as make every reasonable effort to make the photos unavailable to others.