Woman awarded $60K in ‘precedent-setting’ court case

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 03/03/2022 (1524 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A woman has been awarded $60,000 plus costs in her civil suit against another woman who shared intimate images of her during a Brandon Police Service hiring competition.

Brittany Roque sued Terry Lynn Peters for sharing Roque’s intimate images without her consent. The trial was heard virtually in mid-February 2021.

The City of Brandon is listed as a third party in the lawsuit.

“It is the ability to control who sees images of one’s body which is ultimately central to this litigation,” Justice Sandra Zinchuk wrote in her 54-page decision dated March 2, 2022.

Zinchuk found both Peters and the City of Brandon severally liable for general damages of $45,000 and Peters liable for aggravated damages of $15,000.

Roque’s lawyer, Kevin Toyne, called the case “precedent-setting.”

“It shows that if you’ve been victimized by someone who has taken intimate images of you and shared them without your consent, you can go to court and seek and obtain justice,” he said.

“You don’t have to suffer in silence …. This message says that at least one judge of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench sees you and hears you.”

Zinchuk found both the City of Brandon and Peters liable for damages in her decision.

According to an agreed statement of fact, the plaintiff, Roque, took and sent intimate photos of herself to Brandon police officer Ryan Friesen during a three-month affair with him in 2015.

Friesen forwarded the images from his cellphone to his email account before deleting them from his phone. He did this so his then-partner, Terry Lynn Peters — the defendant — wouldn’t find them.

In May 2016, Roque applied to become a police officer with the Brandon Police Service, and in August she was shortlisted for an upcoming position, which she said excited her.

In January 2017, Friesen deleted the intimate images from his email account, but they were still accessible in the “trash” folder. He also told Peters his email password so she could search the account for evidence of infidelity.

On Feb. 19, 2017, Peters found the nude images of the plaintiff in the trash folder, along with photos of other women. She was upset, so she sent copies of the images to her own email and confronted her partner.

A few days later, Peters distributed the intimate images of Roque to Brandon police senior executive, while Roque was still in the middle of the hiring competition to become a police officer.

In March 2017, Roque underwent a polygraph test as part of the hiring process, where she disclosed her past relationship with Friesen.

At the end of the meeting, she was told she could either withdraw from the hiring process or else she would be removed by the Brandon Police Service, according to the agreed statement of fact.

Roque declined to withdraw from the competition and subsequently filed complaints with the Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba and the RCMP.

Toyne argued Peters distributed Roque’s intimate images solely to get revenge. On the other hand, Rhea Majewski, the lawyer for Peters, argued Peters shared Roque’s intimate images with Brandon police because of the public interest, not out of revenge.

In her decision, Zinchuk writes she is “unable to accept that Peters had no intention to harm Roque when she provided the Images to BPS” and she acted with “malice.”

“Peters had long been plagued by Friesen’s social media interactions with women. She felt that all of the women, including Roque, played [a] role in ripping her family apart … She acknowledged being shocked and upset by the vast cache of images she found in Friesen’s computer,” the decision reads.

After finding the images, Peters sent text messages to Roque, which Peters argued was part of “fact-finding” to get more information on Roque’s relationship with Friesen. Zinchuk said she doesn’t accept the explanation, saying the tests were “hostile, taunting and vengeful.”

While Zinchuk said she agrees it is in the public’s interest for BPS to do a thorough background check on applicants, there is “no rational explanation for why any of the Images needed to be provided to BPS in order to fully consider and assess her application.” She wrote that distributing the intimate images was not in the public’s interest.

A person has the right to control who sees intimate and private images of their body, Zinchuk wrote, and deputy chief Randy Lewis viewed the image without her consent.

“I find that this substantially, and unreasonably violated her privacy,” Zinchuk wrote, adding Lewis receiving and using the images was “not in the public interest.”

Roque is happy with the result and hopes others in her circumstances can feel empowered, Toyne said.

“This case shows a message to anyone who’s contemplating sharing intimate images without consent that if you do that, your paycheque, your vehicle, your house, your retirement savings are all in jeopardy because a court can and will hold you financially accountable,” Toyne said.

In a statement, Roque said sharing another person’s intimate images is unacceptable.

“I have always hoped that coming forward and telling my story would empower other victims of revenge porn to do the same. The Court’s decision provides an important roadmap for other victims of revenge porn to seek vindication and compensation. I am proud to have played a part in establishing this legal precedent.”

Majewski declined to comment on the decision.

“I don’t expect that we’ll comment,” she wrote in an email.

A spokesperson for the City of Brandon said the city was not in a position to comment on Thursday as the decision came out late on Wednesday.

“The decision is being reviewed by the City’s legal representative,” an emailed statement reads.

Brandon Police Service Chief Wayne Balcaen also said he wasn’t in a position to comment on Thursday afternoon as he had not reviewed the decision yet.

» dmay@brandonsun.com

» Twitter: @DrewMay_