Breach of Confidence (Tort): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Category:Privacy Category:Tort Law Category:Small Claims ==[http://canlii.ca/t/gn23z Doe 464533 v N.D., 2016 ONSC 541 (CanLII)]==") |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/gn23z Doe 464533 v N.D., 2016 ONSC 541 (CanLII)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/gn23z Doe 464533 v N.D., 2016 ONSC 541 (CanLII)]== | ||
[18] In November 2015, the Province of Manitoba enacted legislation to create the tort of “non-consensual distribution of intimate images”: see The Intimate Image Protection Act, C.C.S.M. c. I87, s. 11, which came into force on January 15, 2016. No other legislature has so far passed similar legislation. This case, therefore, raises legal questions about the availability of a common law remedy for victims of this conduct, and the legal basis upon which such claims might be founded. Counsel for the plaintiff informed the court that she had been unable to locate any reported decision in Canada concerning a victim seeking civil damages on these or similar facts and my research has not revealed one. This case is possibly the first. | |||
[19] For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that there are both established and developing legal grounds that support the proposition that the courts can and should provide civil recourse for individuals who suffer harm arising from this misconduct and should intervene to prevent its repetition. | |||
Revision as of 04:03, 13 March 2020
Doe 464533 v N.D., 2016 ONSC 541 (CanLII)
[18] In November 2015, the Province of Manitoba enacted legislation to create the tort of “non-consensual distribution of intimate images”: see The Intimate Image Protection Act, C.C.S.M. c. I87, s. 11, which came into force on January 15, 2016. No other legislature has so far passed similar legislation. This case, therefore, raises legal questions about the availability of a common law remedy for victims of this conduct, and the legal basis upon which such claims might be founded. Counsel for the plaintiff informed the court that she had been unable to locate any reported decision in Canada concerning a victim seeking civil damages on these or similar facts and my research has not revealed one. This case is possibly the first.
[19] For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that there are both established and developing legal grounds that support the proposition that the courts can and should provide civil recourse for individuals who suffer harm arising from this misconduct and should intervene to prevent its repetition.
