SELECTED CASE LAW
ONTARIO:
In 2010 ONCJ 347, Mr. M, a 37-year-old man, was convicted of voyeurism after non-consensually videotaping consensual sex with his former partner. After Mr. M and the victim ended a long-term romantic relationship, he asked her for one more “romantic date” so he would have “closure.” She agreed, and they met at a hotel to have consensual sex. The victim was restrained and blindfolded during the encounter. At one point, the blindfold slipped and the victim saw the light of a video camera. She then learned that Mr. M was filming their sexual encounter, including zooming in on her face and genitals, without her knowledge or consent. Horrified and upset, the victim reported Mr. M to the police. Officers executed a search warrant at Mr. M’s home and found photographs of the victim on his computer taken earlier in the evening.
The court found that Mr. M recorded the victim without her consent and convicted him of two counts of voyeurism. The victim presented an impact statement, which the court described as follows:
She reports that the loss of personal intimacy and the fear that the defendant may still have a copy of the images for distribution has caused “numerous emotional breakdowns”. She also fears retaliation by the defendant because she reported the matter to the police.[1]
The court further noted that,
[…] the victim’s fear that the images in question will be distributed is, no doubt, prompted by the fact that modern technology makes it so easy to share images quickly and widely. In this regard, it should be noted that the still images of the victim in the bathtub were later found by the police downloaded on the defendant’s computer. Nevertheless, this fear appears not to be well founded since the defendant turned over the recording at the scene of the crime and there is no suggestion he had a second copy. In addition, there is no evidence that the defendant will retaliate or that he does not understand that to do so will attract an appropriate response by the authorities.[2]
Given that Mr. M was a first-time offender with stable employment, the court ultimately suspended his sentence and ordered him to complete 18-months of probation.
Also see: 2010 ONCJ 104 (Trial)
[1] 2010 ONCJ 347 at para 4.
[2] 2010 ONCJ 347 at para 12 [emphasis added].
Criminal Offence(s): Voyeurism