Distribution of Intimate Images (Sentencing Cases)

• < Sentencing
• < Cases

Case Digests

Case Name	Prv.	Crt.	Sentence	Summary
R v Fortin, 2020 QCCQ 311 (CanLII), per Tremblay J	QC	PC	Conditional Discharge
R v AB, 2020 QCCQ 260 (CanLII), per Galiatsatos J	QC	PC	4 months imprisonment (global) 2 months imprisonment (images) 1 months imprisonment (breach) 1 months imprisonment (breach)
R v BS, 2019 MBPC 26 (CanLII), per Thompson J	MB	PC	90 days imprisonment
R v Carrillo-Villagran, 2019 QCCQ 1732 (CanLII)	QC	PC	Conditional Discharge
R v MTB, 2019 BCPC 77 (CanLII), per Young J	BC	PC	5 months imprisonment (image) 3 months imprisonment (intimidation)
R v Lapointe, 2019 QCCQ 4523 (CanLII)	QC	PC	90 days imprisonment (images) 30 days imprisonment (threat)
R v JS, 2019 ABPC 134 (CanLII), per Keelaghan J	AB	PC	Suspended Sentence
R v NN, 2019 ONCJ 512 (CanLII)	ON	PC	30 days imprisonment, 2 years probation
R v JR, 2018 ONCJ 851 (CanLII)	ON	PC	60 days imprisonment
R v Greene, 2018 CanLII 25580 (NL PC), per Gorman J	NL	PC	8 months imprisonment	"The accused was a 25-year-old who had a minor, unrelated criminal record. He had been in a two-year relationship and shared a child with the victim at the time she broke up with him. He threated to kill her twice and sent her friend intimate video of the victim engaging in sexual intercourse with another man. He also pled guilty to two counts of uttering threats to kill the complainant, assault peace officer and breach of recognizance by drinking. The Crown proceeded summarily. On all charges, he was sentenced to a total of eight months jail and three years of supervised probation, including a five month jail sentence on the count of distributing an intimate image." [1]
R v McFarlane, 2018 MBCA 48 (CanLII), per Mainella JA	MB	CA	18 months imprisonment (global) 6 months imprisonment (images) 12 months imprisonment (extortion) 6 months imprisonment (voyeurism)	"The accused was 26-years-old with no criminal record. He pled guilty to voyeurism, extortion and distribution of an intimate image without consent and extortion. He surreptitiously videotaped a 17-year-old undressing and showering. He sent images to the victim and her sister when he attempted to extort sexually explicit material or activity from the victim by threating to disseminate intimate images of her. He did not otherwise publish the images. The accused was assessed as a very low risk for any future offending, but the Pre-Sentence Report was more negative and assessed him as a moderate-high risk based on a STATIC-99R profile for sexual offences. He was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment for extortion, six months concurrent for distribution of an intimate image and six months consecutive for voyeurism, for a total sentence of eighteen months. The Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld the combined sentence but re-allocated three months for voyeurism, fifteen months consecutive for extortion and six months concurrent for distribution of an intimate image."[2]
R v Haines-Matthews, 2018 ABPC 264 (CanLII), per Fradsham J	AB	PC	5 months imprisonment + 12 months probation
R v JB, 2018 ONSC 4726 (CanLII), per Leach J	ON	SC	16 months CSO 3 years probation	"The accused and the victim were in an “on-and-off” relationship for 6 months. During the relationship, various nude photos of the victim were taken by the accused, with her consent. Shortly after their break-up, the accused published 5 intimate images of the victim on the internet. Purporting to be the victim, he created a Facebook profile in her name, using her photo. He then sent “friend requests” to her actual friends, which were accepted, thereby exposing her intimate images, in addition to photographs of her 9-year-old son. The offence was deliberate and calculated. By the time the offence was reported to the police, the photos had already been viewed by the victim’s employer, co-worker, family members and friends. A total of 96 people saw her photos. The consequences on the victim’s life were serious, profound and ongoing. She struggled with severe depression and insecurity. She lost trust in others. [the accused was] 27 years old at the time of the offence. [He wasa] high school drop-out. [He had a h]istory of employment in various fields. [There was an] extensive criminal record, including 2 convictions for criminal harassment, weapons offences, drug offences. [Included were] several prior convictions for failure to comply with conditions. [T]he accused was subject to stringent and restrictive bail conditions leading up to his sentencing" [3]
R v JS, 2018 ONCJ 82 (CanLII), per Ghosh J	ON	PC	18 months imprisonment, 3 years probation	"They were dating and agreed to occasionally video record their sexual activity. None of the videos were intended for public view. After a time she found the cameras unsettling and declined to participate in further recordings. Then she began finding hidden cameras. At one point she located on his laptop publicly posted videos of their sexual activity. Her name was tagged. She demanded that he fix it. He said that he would and, instead, continued to post videos of their sexual activity on a variety of online platforms. Then strangers began contacting her." Joint Submission. [4]
R v TD, 2018 ABPC 232 (CanLII), per Pharo J	AB	PC
R v Calpito, 2017 ONCJ 129 (CanLII), per Harris J	ON	PC	Conditional Discharge
R v AC, 2017 ONCJ 317 (CanLII), per Leach J	ON	PC	5 months imprisonment	"The male offender, a 32-year-old with no criminal record, was in a relationship with the female victim during the course of which, and with her consent, he took intimate videos and nude photographs of her. After the relationship ended, the offender, without consent, posted on three websites those videos and photographs together with derogatory comments. The victim’s name was posted with the images and her face was visible on some of the images."[5] [6]
R v Agoston, 2017 ONSC 3425 (CanLII), per Cornell J	ON	SC	Conditional Discharge, 12 months	"The accused plead guilty to one count of distributing an intimate image. A one-year conditional discharge was imposed. The daughter of a family friend sent him two images of herself that he shared with two co-workers before deleting them. He did not solicit the images from the complainant. There was no internet distribution. His pre-sentence report was very positive. The offence appeared to be an unplanned, momentary lapse in judgment. The Court determined that the distribution was extremely limited and fell on the less serious end of the spectrum of this offence." [7]
R v MR, 2017 ONCJ 943 (CanLII)	ON	PC	5 months imprisonment
R v Ly, [2016] O.J. No. 7196 (Ont.C.J.), per Shandler J	ON	PC
R v PSD, 2016 BCPC 400 (CanLII), per Sudeyko J	BC	PC	Suspended Sentence, 2 years probation	"The accused was 22-years-old. At the end of a two-day trial on more serious charges, he pled guilty to distributing an intimate image and once count of breaching his recognizance. The image was taken without the consent of the victim. The recognizance breach was a no-contact breach where the complaint either had agreed to contact or had initiated it. The Court emphasized the rashness of the taking of the images, which were quite blurry, making it difficult to identify the complainant. There was not widespread distribution; the accused sent them to two friends. .. After factoring that the accused had spent sixty days in custody and determining that a relatively low level of harm had occurred and the prospects for this youthful first offender were positive, the Court imposed a probationary sentence of two years, with protective relief." [8]