B.C. tribunal awards man $5K after sex video shared on OnlyFans

British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) has awarded a man $5,000 after a sexually explicit video featuring him and a man he met on the dating app Grindr was posted online without his consent.

It is one of the first tribunal decisions made public regarding B.C.'s recently-passed Intimate Images Protection Act, which helps residents remove non-consensual intimate images of themselves circulating online.

A man, known only as JG in tribunal documents, found out that a video of him having sexual intercourse with another man, RC, had appeared on RC's OnlyFans and Just for Fans accounts. 

The tribunal decision said it took JG two years to find out about the video, which he had assumed would be private. He applied to the CRT for damages, with RC admitting liability in the case.

The decision, released on Friday, notes that people in B.C. can choose between the CRT, the B.C. Supreme Court and provincial court when trying to get intimate images taken down.

"The applicant chose the CRT's faster and simpler process, and in doing so limited his claim to the CRT's $5,000 monetary limit," reads the decision.

The CRT judgment highlights the options available for those whose images have been circulated without their consent, as dozens of people apply to remove images and videos under the act.

According to the decision, the two men met on Grindr and agreed to film an approximately five-minute-long video of them having sexual intercourse in RC's bedroom. The tribunal decision did not state when the video was recorded.

The video was subsequently sent to JG — but then later shared to RC's subscriber-only accounts on Just for Fans and OnlyFans, sites where fans pay creators for their photos and videos, The CRT said he appeared to have around 100 subscribers on each of the sites.

RC also posted short clips of the video to the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.

One of those accounts, according to the decision, has more than 100,000 followers.

RC claimed that he thought JG knew the videos would be shared online, based on a verbal conversation they shared.

The tribunal ruled that JG had a reasonable expectation of privacy during the encounter.

"[JG] says it is horrifying to know that a video showing him having sex, with his face shown, has been on the internet for over two years," the CRT decision reads.