In a “he said, she said” situation, both parties accused the other of fabricating evidence and neither provided proof.
So a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) member had to decide which side was more credible.
A woman, identified only as A.Y. because of a publication ban, applied under BC's Intimate Images Protection Act for a protection order against B.Z. and $5,000 in damages for after he allegedly shared her intimate images online.
They met online in September 2023 and communicated via webcam, but never in person. A.Y. said she “quickly lost interest” in B.Z. and stopped communicating with him in May 2024.
Then, she claimed, he threatened to share intimate images of her that she said were sent via the Telegram messaging app.
She provided text messages that she said were from the respondent which denigrated her and threatened to share the images online.
“The messages also indicate the sender posted the images online,” said CRT member Megan Stewart in the March 7 decision.
The respondent, B.Z., said the woman assumed a false identity when she initially communicated with him and he eventually stopped communicating with her.
Then, he said, she allegedly created a Facebook page accusing him of being a “sex predator.”
The woman denied she was behind the Facebook page and claimed B.Z. had made it. But Stewart was not convinced, deeming it likely she did so.
“I find it would be highly unusual for a person to say the sorts of things that appear there about themselves and in such detail, even if they were attempting to attribute responsibility for it to another person,” Stewart wrote.
Ultimately, Stewart found the respondent’s tone different from the text messages A.Y. alleged that he sent.
"I find there is simply nothing to link the respondent to those text messages, when faced with repeated denials that he sent them, and the lack of conclusive evidence that he did," Stewart wrote.
The applicant did not prove her case against the respondent, so Stewart dismissed the claim. The dispute file was sealed, but the applicant may consent for the CRT to share the dispute file with the Intimate Images Protection Service of the BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.
More than a year ago, the NDP government enacted the law, which covers intimate images, near-nude images, videos, livestreams and deepfakes. It gave the CRT power to fine an individual as much as $500 per day or a website as much as $5,000 per day.
