A.Q. v. B.T., 2025 BCCRT 398
BC’s Intimate Image Protection Act helps people get intimate images off the internet — images that depict them “engaging in a sexual act”, “nude or nearly nude”, or exposing private areas of their body. A recent case seems to put some gloss on those categories.
An anti-trans activist posted an image of a trans woman’s face photoshopped onto a male body. According to the Tribunal, the image was “relatively benign” — apart from its hateful anti-trans message.
The Tribunal still awarded damages, even though it doesn’t sound like the image depicted the things mentioned in the legislation.
The image BT shared had a clear purpose of depicting AQ as a man by altering an image to show AQ’s head on a masculine body.
The harm associated with sharing the image does not come from anything particularly explicit or graphic in it. Rather, the image is harmful because it dehumanizes AQ and denies her gender identity. I accept AQ’s evidence that the image was hurtful, embarrassing, offensive, and distressing. I find that it is an offence to her dignity. BT also disseminated it publicly within an online context around other anti-trans messaging. I find that AQ is entitled to compensation under the IIPA for this harm.
Paras 15-16