By Black Sheep Whistleblower
Date: October 4, 2025
Preface – Why This Matters to Me
In recent months I’ve been drawn directly into the Civil Resolution Tribunal’s (CRT) Intimate Images Protection Act process — not as an applicant, but as someone named in a complaint. In a CRT decision involving a dispute between Svetlana Dalla Lana and another woman, D.F. (indexed as S.L. v. D.F.), Ms. Dalla Lana alleged that an intimate image she had sent to D.F. was later shared to “shock and offend” her. In that decision I was identified only by the initials “D.D.” as someone alleged to have shared the image.
I categorically deny doing so; in fact, when this entire situation began in May 2025 I had no idea which image was even being referenced. Ultimately, the CRT dismissed the matter. Among other findings, the tribunal determined that Ms. Dalla Lana’s own conduct—sending the image to another person for the purpose of “shocking and offending” them—eliminated any reasonable expectation of privacy in that image.
As Vice Chair Eric Regehr explained in a related case, A.Q. v. B.V. (2025 BCCRT 689):
“Once a person chooses to post an image publicly online, they give up any reasonable expectation of privacy in that image.”
In practical terms, the same legal principle applied here: by voluntarily distributing the photo, Ms. Dalla Lana effectively placed it in the public domain. Under the CRT’s reasoning, the image was no longer protected by privacy provisions of the IIPA, meaning others who later possessed the photo were not violating the Act simply by having it. What was intended as a complaint therefore backfired, illustrating how easily the IIPA process can shift depending on who first chose to share an image.
According to multiple sources, Ms. Dalla Lana allegedly directed or paid others to prepare and file the CRT complaint; since then, Danny Keith Martin aka “Danny D++k Pic” of Calgary, Alberta has repeatedly harassed, defamed, and threatened my wife and family over the same “d*** pic” story despite the CRT ruling clearing me. These incidents have been reported to the RCMP.
This blog post is not about relitigating that personal dispute. Rather, it’s about examining the CRT’s Intimate Images Protection Act process itself — how it works, the types of cases it covers, the penalties it can impose, and the way it is being used (and, some allege, weaponized). Over the coming days I’ll be publishing and analysing the CRT decisions, including S.L. v. D.F., to give readers a factual, documented view of what the tribunal actually decided and how the IIPA is being applied in practice.
⚖️ The Rise of a Digital Tribunal
British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) was launched in 2016 as a small online system to resolve strata and condominium disputes. Within a few years, its reach expanded dramatically. Today, it handles:
- Strata/property issues
- Small claims (up to $5,000)
- Motor-vehicle injury claims
- Society and co-operative disputes
- Discrimination and employment-related claims in limited areas
- And since 2023 — Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA) cases
What began as an efficiency experiment has evolved into one of the most powerful quasi-judicial bodies in Canada. CRT decisions are binding and enforceable through the Provincial Court or BC Supreme Court. Tribunal members can:
- Order financial damages or restitution
- Impose publication bans and sealing orders
- Issue protection orders for intimate-image victims
- Levy administrative penalties up to $100,000 (as in Re X Corp. 2025 BCCRT 1228)
The BC NDP government, which oversees the Ministry of Attorney General, describes the CRT as “a model of accessible, modern justice.”
Critics — including lawyers, journalists, and legal scholars — call it “justice by email”: inexpensive but opaque, with few avenues for appeal and limited public transparency. See reporting by CBC News and The Tyee for context on that debate.
💻 The Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA)
“The goal: a faster, cheaper path for victims of so-called “revenge porn.””
Passed in 2023, the IIPA created a fast-track process for people whose private sexual or nude images were shared or threatened without consent.
Can You Get Jail Time from the CRT?
No — the Civil Resolution Tribunal doesn’t have criminal powers. It can order someone to pay money, remove online material, or obey a protection order, but it cannot send anyone to jail or give them a criminal record. All CRT matters are civil, not criminal. However, its orders are legally binding and can be enforced through the BC Supreme Court or Provincial Court. If a person ignores a filed CRT order, a judge can step in and, in rare cases, use contempt of court powers, which can lead to fines or jail. In short, the CRT itself can’t jail anyone — but defying a court that’s enforcing a CRT order could land you there.
Instead of a courtroom, complainants file online through the CRT portal, which can:
- Order the removal or deletion of an image
- Compel platforms and internet providers to act
- Award damages up to $5,000 per case
- Impose administrative fines against non-compliant organizations
The goal: a faster, cheaper path for victims of so-called “revenge porn.”
By October 2025, 19 CRT decisions had been published under this law. Together they show how B.C.’s new digital-rights regime is being tested in real time.
📊 What the Numbers Show
| Category | Count | % of Total | Total Amount (CAD) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decisions Reviewed | 19 | 100 % | — | March 2023 – Sept 2025 |
| Successful Awards to Applicants | 6 | 31 % | $ 33,875 | All reached the $ 5 K cap |
| Administrative Penalty Cases | 1 | 5 % | $ 100,000 | Re X Corp. – first corporate fine |
| Dismissed Applications | 12 | 63 % | $ 0 | Mostly proof or jurisdiction failures |
| Average Award | — | — | $ 5,645 | Typical CRT limit |
| Highest Individual Award | — | — | $ 7,500 | A.Q. v. B.T. (2025 BCCRT 398) |
🗓 Key Cases and Turning Points
January 2025 – W.X. v. Y.Z. 2025 BCCRT 83
Two of three photos qualified as “intimate,” but the applicant failed to prove sharing. Case dismissed.
February 2025 – M.L. v. W.D. 2025 BCCRT 156
Screenshots appeared on Chinese social app Little Red Book; no evidence linked the ex-partner. Dismissed.
March 2025 – A.Q. v. B.T. 2025 BCCRT 398
Tribunal condemned anti-trans harassment and doctored images. Awarded $ 5 K damages + $ 2.5 K special costs for “reprehensible conduct.”
April 2025 – L.H. v. Thomson 2025 BCCRT 416
Respondent sent explicit video to applicant’s stepfather. Proof via Facebook screenshot → full $ 5 K award.
June 2025 – M.R. v. S.S. 2025 BCCRT 851 and G.W. v. D.M. 2025 BCCRT 514**
Workplace photos taken at public hospitals. Tribunal held employees had no reasonable expectation of privacy at work → claims dismissed.
September 2025 – Re X Corp. 2025 BCCRT 1228
Platform fined $ 100 K for failing to remove content globally. Set the precedent that “geofencing is not compliance.”
(All 19 rulings are summarized in the full Black Sheep Whistleblower case archive.)
🧩 Themes Emerging from the Data
1️⃣ Proof Is Everything — Over 60 % of claims failed for lack of direct evidence that a respondent shared or threatened to share an image.
2️⃣ Privacy Is Contextual — Once an image is posted publicly (A.Q. v. B.V., 2025 BCCRT 689*) or captured at work (G.W. v. D.M.), the applicant loses a reasonable expectation of privacy.
3️⃣ Identity-Based Abuse Recognized — A.Q. v. B.T. became the first IIPA decision to explicitly acknowledge transphobic harassment as a factor in awarding damages.
4️⃣ Corporate Accountability Begins — Re X Corp. proved the CRT can impose massive financial penalties on platforms operating in B.C.
5️⃣ Statutory Ceiling Limits Justice — Every successful claim reached the $ 5 K cap; judges repeatedly noted higher damages would be warranted in court.
🧠 Legal and Political Controversy
Because CRT members are appointed by the provincial government, critics have questioned its independence. Appeals are extremely limited — a decision can only be reviewed by the BC Supreme Court for jurisdictional error.
Lawyers such as those interviewed by Canadian Lawyer Magazine say the IIPA branch gives the tribunal quasi-criminal power without the safeguards of a courtroom.
Supporters counter that the CRT provides rapid relief for victims who would otherwise wait years for justice. The truth lies somewhere in between: a system that is accessible, but imperfect — and still finding its balance between privacy and procedure.
💬 KEY Quotes from the Decisions
“By posting an image in a public online place, an individual forfeits any reasonable expectation of privacy over that image.” — Vice Chair Eric Regehr, A.Q. v. B.V. (2025 BCCRT 689)
“Geofencing is really not a solution at all.” — Vice Chair Eric Regehr, Re X Corp. (2025 BCCRT 1228)
“It is not objectively reasonable for an employee to expect privacy over an intimate image taken at work.” — Vice Chair Andrea Ritchie, G.W. v. D.M. (2025 BCCRT 514)
🧾 Reference and Further Reading
- Civil Resolution Tribunal official site: https://civilresolutionbc.ca
- CRT Intimate Images Decisions Index: https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/en/d/s/index.do?col=226
- Intimate Images Protection Act (2023): BC Laws
- CBC News – Online Justice in BC: cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/civil-resolution-tribunal-bc-1.7035897
- The Tyee – Digital Courts and Transparency: thetyee.ca
- Canadian Lawyer Magazine – CRT Analysis: canadianlawyermag.com
⚠️ Legal Disclaimer
This report is published for educational and public-interest purposes. It does not constitute legal advice or imply any finding of guilt, liability, or misconduct beyond what appears in official public records.
Readers should verify all details through the Civil Resolution Tribunal’s public database and other primary sources.
© 2025 Black Sheep Whistleblower. All Rights Reserved.