If you wouldn’t post it public, don’t do it, things change…

Doe 464533 v N.D., 2016 ONSC 541 (CanLII) http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2016/2016onsc541/2016onsc541.html

[27] A malicious purpose is not required in order to establish this tort (see Prinzo, supra, at para. 44) although on the facts of this case I am prepared to infer that the defendant was motivated by malice, especially in light of the fact that he posted the video on the same day it was sent to him and further in light of his subsequent conduct.
(i) Flagrant and outrageous conduct

[28] The first question to ask is whether the defendant’s conduct was flagrant and outrageous. The following facts are relevant to this issue. To begin with, the defendant knew that the plaintiff had been reluctant to make the video. He also knew that the plaintiff was hesitant to share with him such intimate and private images of herself. He persuaded her to do so on the basis of his express assurance that he alone would view the video. On the very day she forwarded it to him, the defendant posted the video online, in violation of the terms upon which he had received it. He also shared the video with his friends. This was not a mere act of inadvertence on his part, but rather a clear violation of the promise he made to the plaintiff and as well as a breach of the trust in him that motivated her to prepare and provide the video.

[29] On the basis of the foregoing facts, I am satisfied that the defendant’s conduct was flagrant and outrageous The first element of the test is easily met on the facts of this case.
(ii) Calculated to produce harm

[30] This requirement is established where it is clearly foreseeable that the actions of the tortfeasor would cause harm to the victim: see Prinzo, supra, at para. 45 adopting the reasons in Rahemtulla. The Court of Appeal for Ontario stressed in Piresferreira v. Ayotte, 2010 ONCA 384 (CanLII) at paras.78-79 that although the extent of the harm need not be anticipated, the kind of harm must have been intended or known to be substantially certain to follow. Thus, the defendant must have either desired to produce the mental distress suffered by the plaintiff, or known that this type of harm was substantially certain to follow.

via CanLII – 2016 ONSC 541 (CanLII).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: