A woman in the roofing business has won a $23,140 award from the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal after alleging that her employment depended on her having sex with the company's owner.

The complainant also stated that the owner shared a link to a pornographic video that she had appeared in when she was 19 years old.

This was done in retaliation after she had filed a complaint with the tribunal.

The names of the complainant and the respondent were anonymized in the ruling as LL and DM at the request of both parties.

"She said that she felt like sex was all she was good for," tribunal member Emily Ohler wrote in her decision. "She liked roofing and thought she was good at it but did not feel like DM needed her to work.

"I interpret this as LL's feeling like the only reason DM kept her around on jobsites was because of the relationship, which is why when he was unhappy in the relationship, her labour became dispensable," Ohler continued. "This, in turn, injured her dignity and self-respect."

LL worked for the company for about eight years. The company's owner claimed that their relationship was consensual.

In addition, LL alleged that the company's owner refused to pay her as an employee on a regular basis, refused to offer her an apprenticeship, and frequently called her derogatory names in front of coworkers on job sites.

The award included $15,000 for "injury to dignity and self-respect" and $7,500 for the respondent's retaliation, as well as $640 in lost wages.

"It takes courage to file a complaint," Ohler noted in her ruling. "In particular, LL's complaint required her to publicize highly private, intimate details about her life

"I view DM’s actions, taken in the context of his 60 comments that the video showed people that LL is a 'nasty' person, as depending upon and looking to further stereotypes about women generally and sexually active, sex‐positive women in particular," Ohler added. "He wielded this as a weapon in response to his anger about LL’s complaint. Such actions must be discouraged."

Laws exist against nonconsensual pornography

The term "revenge porn" is often used in popular discourse.

But according to the U.S.-based Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a more accurate phrase is "nonconsensual pornography".

This is defined as "the distribution of sexually graphic images of individuals without their consent".

All but four American states have passed revenge-porn laws, according to the CCRI website. 

The group was founded by Holly Jacobs, who was victimized while pursuing graduate degrees. When she discovered there was little help available, she launched End Revenge Porn in 2012.

End Revenge Porn's parent organization is the CCRI, which provides resources and advocacy for people being harassed online.

“I’m a smart, driven woman. When this happened to me, there was no one to help me. I was tired of running, of hiding. I saw thousands of other women becoming victims of revenge porn,” Jacobs said on the Points of Light website after being nominated for a 2018 L'Oreal Paris Women of Worth Award. “Nobody was speaking up. Why shouldn’t it be me?”

In Canada, section 162.1 of the Criminal Code makes it illegal for anyone to knowingly publish intimate images of a person if they are aware that this person did not give their consent.

An intimate image is defined as a visual recording, including a pornographic film, in which the person "is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts or is engaged in explicit sexual activity".

Anyone convicted of this on an indictable offence faces a maximum prison term of five years. It can also be treated as a summary offence by the Crown, which usually carries a maximum $5,000 fine and/or six months' imprisonment.