I’ve reviewed a controversial privacy ruling from British Columbia that could reshape how we think about digital consent. Last week, the BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint from a woman who alleged her employer discriminated against her by circulating a revealing Instagram photo among staff.
The tribunal determined that since the image had already been publicly shared on social media, it couldn’t be considered an “intimate image” under provincial law. This decision raises serious questions about privacy expectations in our increasingly digital lives.
“Once content is posted publicly online, the original poster loses meaningful control over who may access or further distribute it,” the tribunal member wrote in the decision. This interpretation of BC’s Intimate Images Protection Act has digital rights advocates concerned about the narrowing protections for online content.
The case began when the complainant, identified only as “AB” in tribunal documents, discovered her manager had shown colleagues a swimsuit photo from her public Instagram account. The photo was subsequently shared among multiple employees without her knowledge or permission.
“The ruling creates a troubling precedent,” says Emily Laidlaw, Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity Law at the University of Calgary. “Just because someone shares content publicly doesn’t mean they’ve consented to every possible use of that content, especially in professional contexts.”
I reviewed the 24-page tribunal decision that hinged on the definition of an “intimate image” under provincial law. The tribunal concluded that for an image to qualify for protection, it must have been created or recorded “in circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
The complainant’s employer, Raven Indigenous Capital Partners, successfully argued that publicly accessible social media content cannot meet this threshold. The tribunal agreed, finding that “the very purpose of posting on a public Instagram account is to share the content with others.”
BC’s Intimate Images Protection Act, passed in 2023, was designed to protect victims of non-consensual image sharing. Similar legislation exists in other provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, though interpretations vary.
Citizen Lab researcher Suzie Dunn, who specializes in technology-facilitated violence, told me this ruling highlights gaps in current privacy frameworks. “What’s missing is nuanced understanding of contextual consent. Sharing an image in one context doesn’t automatically grant permission for use in all contexts.”
The decision could particularly impact women and marginalized communities who already face disproportionate online harassment. Statistics Canada reported in 2021 that women under 30 are nearly twice as likely as men to experience the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.
The complainant alleged sex-based discrimination, arguing her manager would not have shared similar photos of male employees. However, the tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish this claim, stating “the respondent’s actions, while potentially unprofessional, did not constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code.”
Legal experts suggest this case demonstrates the need for workplace policies that explicitly address digital boundaries. “Employers should establish clear guidelines about appropriate use of employees’ social media content,” says Janet Watson, an employment lawyer with Lawson Lundell LLP. “Regardless of legal definitions, circulating personal photos in a workplace setting can create a hostile environment.”
For individuals concerned about online privacy, the ruling underscores the importance of reviewing social media privacy settings regularly. Even with private accounts, users should be aware that once content is shared digitally, controlling its spread becomes challenging.
The complainant has 30 days to seek judicial review of the decision in the BC Supreme Court. Meanwhile, privacy advocates are calling for legislative updates to address the nuances of digital consent and privacy expectations.
“We need laws that recognize context matters,” says Brenda McPhail, Privacy Director at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “Posting a photo for friends doesn’t equal consent for your boss to share it around the office.”
As our personal and professional lives increasingly blend online, this ruling highlights the complex intersection of privacy, consent, and workplace boundaries—issues that will likely require both legal evolution and cultural recalibration in the years ahead.
