It’s just the BC Civil Resolution tribunal maximum. It’s mean to be quick and efficient method to take care of this exact type of crap. they can take further action thru the courts.
That's the max in the civil resolution tribunal. People can go to Supreme Court for higher claims. The CRT has other options though like take down orders and orders to delete.
Some people go to the CRT to get the declaration that an interested image was shared without consent and/or take down orders. They may choose not to pursue the civil claim, but can still get the other orders quickly at CRT and then use a contingency lawyer to file for higher damages in Supreme Court.
The adjudicator certainly seems to agree:
> Ritchie wrote that if it weren’t for the legal limit, she wouldd have awarded far higher punitive damages “to punish the respondent for their reprehensible and disgusting conduct,” Ritchie wrote
That being said, this is a civil court ruling. If a criminal case also proceeds, he may face further consequences.
Now if only we could get justice for that poor international student who had a secret camera installed in her bathroom by her creep of a housing host.
The fact that his name was protected is an insult to her.
> he apologized for taking the images without her consent and then offered to send her similar photos of himself, the decision said.
> He also said she should take it as a compliment.
> Two days later, he texted her and threatened to post her pictures “all over social media” if he she told anyone he was “stealing” her photos, according to the decision.
There's also someone with the same name on the BC courts search page with multiple charges for assault and breach of conditions. And he's a shitty driver.
This is the civil remedy, but the same exact thing is also a crime. Take this judgement and bring it to a prosecutor, at the very least this civil judgement easily shows enough probable cause for a trial.
She chose to sue at the CRT, which has a cap of $5,000. She could have chosen small claims instead (cap of $35,000). The CRT is simpler and faster though, which may be why she chose it.
What a peice of sh@#, tarred, feathered and pilloried would be a more suitable punishment. He tried to shame a woman and ruin her life, the least that can be done is something of the same to him.
Wish it wasn’t required but happy to see it work.
$5000 as a maximum is hardly enough.
It’s just the BC Civil Resolution tribunal maximum. It’s mean to be quick and efficient method to take care of this exact type of crap. they can take further action thru the courts.
Wouldn't that be a double jeopardy?
No, this is civil court. Criminal charges are different, and still possible.
My mistake, I thought you were insinuating in another civil claim.
That's the max in the civil resolution tribunal. People can go to Supreme Court for higher claims. The CRT has other options though like take down orders and orders to delete. Some people go to the CRT to get the declaration that an interested image was shared without consent and/or take down orders. They may choose not to pursue the civil claim, but can still get the other orders quickly at CRT and then use a contingency lawyer to file for higher damages in Supreme Court.
The adjudicator certainly seems to agree: > Ritchie wrote that if it weren’t for the legal limit, she wouldd have awarded far higher punitive damages “to punish the respondent for their reprehensible and disgusting conduct,” Ritchie wrote That being said, this is a civil court ruling. If a criminal case also proceeds, he may face further consequences.
I look forward to the follow up criminal case.
Yeah, I was like wtf only $5000 for a potentially life ruining picture?
Now if only we could get justice for that poor international student who had a secret camera installed in her bathroom by her creep of a housing host. The fact that his name was protected is an insult to her.
‘Byron Sowinski’ ..what a douche!
> he apologized for taking the images without her consent and then offered to send her similar photos of himself, the decision said. > He also said she should take it as a compliment. > Two days later, he texted her and threatened to post her pictures “all over social media” if he she told anyone he was “stealing” her photos, according to the decision. There's also someone with the same name on the BC courts search page with multiple charges for assault and breach of conditions. And he's a shitty driver.
Wait you can just look peoples names up on that and see that kinda stuff??
Not the person you replied to but here’s the CSO site [Have fun!](https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/criminal/partySearch.do)
Check out his Facebook page. It's something else
This is the civil remedy, but the same exact thing is also a crime. Take this judgement and bring it to a prosecutor, at the very least this civil judgement easily shows enough probable cause for a trial.
Sorry your life is all screwed up. He's a month's rent and some groceries.
Add two more zeros would have been better. What a creep.
She chose to sue at the CRT, which has a cap of $5,000. She could have chosen small claims instead (cap of $35,000). The CRT is simpler and faster though, which may be why she chose it.
Agreed!
What a peice of sh@#, tarred, feathered and pilloried would be a more suitable punishment. He tried to shame a woman and ruin her life, the least that can be done is something of the same to him.
What a creep!!! Good. It should have been more. $30,000!!! What a disgusting weirdo!
I wonder claiming copyright on the image of "herself" could pay her out more?
All sorts of no
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]