[Image-1]
A lawsuit filed by Michael Kydd is being closely watched by the legal community, but it could also have a huge impact on social media platforms and how we use them.
Rob Currie, professor at Dalhousie’s School of Law and director of its Law and Technology Institute, says it’s a “cutting edge” case.
“Electronic communication and social media gives people new tools with which to hurt each other,” Currie says. Sometimes that’s with malicious intent, sometimes it’s poor judgment. But because technology develops so much more quickly, the law is always playing catch-up.
Kydd, a former part-time professor at Mount Saint Vincent University, has named four parties in his lawsuit (filed last month): The university, Twitter, Bell Media Inc. and one of his former students. Kydd claims he and the student had a consensual relationship during the fall of 2014, but his statement of claim alleges the woman falsely accused him of sexual assault in a complaint to MSVU and police.
He also alleges that the woman shared an intimate photo of him that winter. A redacted version of the photo obscuring Kydd’s genitals was posted on Twitter by Glen Canning—the father of Rehtaeh Parsons—and included in a story by CTV, a subsidiary of Bell Media. Kydd alleges the student approached Canning and convinced him to publish the photo to take advantage of his large social media following. The statement also alleges Canning tweeted an uncensored version of the photo, which Canning denies in an email to The Coast.
None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been proven in court.
The woman, who had not been served at the time of publication, declined to comment until she obtains legal advice. Because of the allegations of sexual assault, The Coast is not naming her unless she agrees to be identified.
Notably absent from the list of defendants is Canning, who says he was trying to help the student. At the time he initially defended his publication of the photo—which he deleted the same day—but now admits he was the wrong person to help and wasn’t in the right frame of mind in January, 2015, coming just a few months after the two youths who shared a photograph of his daughter had plead guilty to child pornography charges.
Donna Wilson, the lawyer representing Kydd, says he didn’t want to sue Canning.
“He shouldn’t have posted the photo, but we still believe that the woman is the more culpable party,” Wilson says.
Wilson, who runs her own firm in Toronto, previously represented a female client who successfully sued an ex-boyfriend for posting a video of her on a porn website. An Ontario court ruled that the former boyfriend had to pay $142,000 in damages. It was the first time a Canadian lawyer successfully sued for a privacy tort.
But an Ontario appeals court judge has dismissed that order and called for a retrial because the ex-boyfriend didn’t have a lawyer and wasn’t able to defend himself. Currie says the case is interesting, but isn’t a legal precedent yet because it hasn’t passed the Supreme Court of Canada. Only then would it be binding on the courts.
Kydd’s lawsuit, which claims $1 million in damages, will be the first time someone in Canada has sued Twitter over the posting of a photograph, says Wilson.
“They know that this is a problem and they haven’t done anything to prevent it even though they are capable,” she says in a phone interview.
Wilson actually predicted the involvement of parties like Twitter in similar cases for large damages last summer. In a talk she gave to the Canadian symposium of the International Association of Privacy Professionals, Wilson alluded to “getting some deep pockets on the line.”
“There are going to be parties who will be defendants who, to them, getting rid of something like this for a certain amount of money is like nothing to them,” Wilson told host Sam Pheifle Pfeifle. “They would rather pay you some—how do I say this without swearing?—go-away money.”
Kydd, whose resignation was not accepted by MSVU, was subsequently fired after an investigation into the matter revealed he breached the school’s code of conduct for failing to disclose “a relationship with a student, which resulted in academic bias.”
Related Stories
No jail time for second offender in Rehtaeh Parsons case
Nothing is enough for Judge Gregory Lenehan
Tarrah McPherson seeks judicial review of Human Rights decision
Breaking the silence on Nova Scotia’s new cyberbullying legislation
This article appears in Feb 2-8, 2017.
If someone sends me a picture (solicited or otherwise) that picture is then my property.
I should be able to do whatever I want with it…because it is my property…
Child pornography is, of course, always an exception.
Meh! Online, there are videos of me, with things, in places… who cares? Anyone want the links?
I’m surprised he’s not including the culprit – Glen Canning. But they are “friends”…
City mouse…just because you think something doesn’t make it so. There’s nothing in the law that indicates a picture of someone else (especially in a compromising position) that you have come into possession of either directly or indirectly is yours to do what you please without the express consent of the person in the photo dear.
As for the woman who posted the photo of that man and then ruined his life, I hope he legally SHREDS her. I hope he takes every last dime she has away from her and I hope she’s confined to working in manure pile for the rest of her life.
Maybe then people like you (city mouse) will finally get it through your head that there are consequences to actions and that nobody will ever have to go through this again at the hands of some little girl who likes to play games with men
Try_The_Truth…dear, yes, thinking something doesn’t make it so. If that were the case we all would have won the lottery. However, thinking (and arguing) something may eventually make it so, especially when no one (like you…dear, for example) cannot provide a counter argument.
So…dear, can you tell me of another example of where, after something is given to you, you may not do what you like with it? The law (that is so on your side) is flawed (like the anti-bullying law, and for the same reasons). My argument is a practical one (and btw more likely to piss off “some little girl who like to play games with men” for who you have so much distain). So you should be on side.
If you look at this as a property issue, it becomes clear. If you dont want lewd pictures of yourself on the internet, don’t send them to someone. Hard to do maybe, especially by the kids, but the only “practical” solution..