Faster Orders to Stop Intimate Image Abuse

Summary#

This bill updates British Columbia’s rules for dealing with the non‑consensual sharing of intimate images. It gives the Civil Resolution Tribunal (the “tribunal”) and the Provincial Court clearer powers to make fast protection orders and award damages. It also allows the Attorney General’s ministry to collect some personal information to help victims, and sets a time limit for fines after an order is broken.

• Lets the tribunal handle applications for quick “intimate image protection orders” and related issues.
• Lets the tribunal award damages for intimate image harms up to a limit that will be set by regulation.
• Lets the Provincial Court hear these damages claims and make, change, or cancel protection orders too, even if usual court conditions do not apply.
• Adjusts tribunal processes to move faster and protect privacy, including not having to publish decisions in these cases.
• Sets a 4‑year deadline to start proceedings to issue a government fine (administrative penalty) when someone breaks a protection order.
• Authorizes the ministry to collect personal information from other sources to help victims consider or pursue a case, including when there is a threat to share an image.
• Comes into force on dates set by the government.

What it means for you#

• Victims and people depicted in images

  • You can ask the tribunal or the Provincial Court for a fast order to stop the sharing of an intimate image and to have it removed.
  • You can claim money for harm through the tribunal if your claim is at or below the set limit, or go to Provincial Court.
  • Cases can move without some usual steps (like certain notices or settlement pushes), which can reduce delay and unwanted contact.
  • Tribunal decisions in these cases don’t have to be published, which helps protect privacy. But your name may still appear in an order or decision.
  • The Attorney General’s ministry can gather information from other sources to help you understand options, file a case, or resolve a dispute, including when there is a threat to share an image.

• People accused of sharing or threatening to share an image

  • You may face quick orders to stop sharing and remove content, and you can be ordered to pay damages.
  • Cases may proceed faster and without public posting of decisions.
  • The ministry may collect personal information about you from others to support a victim seeking help or a remedy.
  • Government fines for breaking a protection order can be pursued up to 4 years after the alleged breach.

• Families, schools, and community supports

  • There is a clearer, faster path to get orders that stop sharing and remove images, which may help in urgent situations involving youth or vulnerable people.
  • Information and support from the ministry may make it easier to navigate options and get action.

• Service providers and platforms

  • While this bill focuses on process, court or tribunal orders may require content removal. The ministry may seek information to help a victim act quickly.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Speeds up protection for victims by letting the tribunal and Provincial Court issue quick orders and award damages.
• Recognizes the tribunal’s expertise, creating a simpler, lower‑cost route for many cases.
• Improves privacy by not requiring publication of decisions in these sensitive matters.
• Avoids forcing victims into settlement or early contact with the other party when that could be unsafe or distressing.
• The ministry’s ability to collect needed information helps victims decide on next steps and address urgent risks.
• A clear 4‑year window for fines after an order is broken gives certainty for enforcement.

Opponents' View#

• Allowing the ministry to collect personal information from other sources could raise privacy and civil liberties concerns.
• Reducing notice and settlement steps, and not publishing decisions, may limit transparency and make it harder for respondents to prepare.
• The damages “tribunal limit amount” is unknown and could be too low for serious harms.
• Naming an applicant in orders might expose victims to stigma or safety risks.
• The tribunal and courts may face more work, which could still lead to delays without added resources.
• A 4‑year limit for government fines may be too short for harms discovered late, or too long for respondents seeking closure.