B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has dismissed the case of a male hospital worker who claimed his former romantic partner and co-worker shared an image of him displaying his genitals.
A.B. said he took the image when he was alone on a work break.
He claimed C.D. shared his intimate image without his consent, and claimed $5,000 in damages.
In her April 24 decision, tribunal vice-chair Andrea Ritchie said the man claimed his normal practice is to post a sign on the door saying “do not disturb” and that he would draw the curtain.
“He says when he took the photo he placed a wooden door stopper in the door,” Ritchie said. “He also says that because it was night shift, the room was unlikely to be used, that all the patients were ‘already hooked up’ to their respective machines, and that on night shift there were minimal people on the unit compared to the day shift.”
Still, A.B. claimed the former partner shared his intimate image without his consent.
C.D., however, argued A.B. took the image of himself and his genitals on a medical unit, at a public hospital, while on shift.
“She says any employee or individual could have accessed the room where (A.B.) took the photo,” Ritchie said. “She says (A.B.’s) actions contravened several of their employer’s policies.”
Ritchie said A.B. sent C.D. a naked picture of himself that he previously took while at work at a public hospital.
About a year later, Ritchie said, someone made a complaint to A.B.’s employer about his alleged inappropriate conduct while at a clinical site.
Ritchie said A.B.’s employer conducted an investigation and received a copy of the naked picture. He was suspended and given a work probation.
Ritchie ruled it was not objectively reasonable for an employee to expect privacy over an intimate image taken at work, specifically when it was shared with that person’s employer as part of an investigation into the employee’s conduct.
Ritchie dismissed the claim.
And, she added, given her finding that A.B.’s actions in taking the photo in a public hospital could reasonably be interpreted as indecent exhibition in a public place and a possible Criminal Code of Canada violation, it was in the public interest for it to be shared.
Ritchie put a publication ban on the people’s names.
