This is legal information, not legal advice. It does not create a lawyer-client relationship. For advice about your situation, contact us for a consultation.
Publishing or sharing an intimate image of a person without their consent is an offence under section 162.1 of the Criminal Code, enacted to address what is often called revenge porn. Most charges arise from relationship breakdowns and a single act of sending, posting, or showing an image. The offence has precise elements: the image must meet the legal definition of an intimate image, the person depicted must have retained a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the accused must have known there was no consent to distribution or been reckless about it. Each of those elements is a potential defence.
What is distributing an intimate image under Canadian law?
The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
- An intimate image: a visual recording in which the person is nude, exposing intimate parts of their body, or engaged in explicit sexual activity, and in respect of which the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy both when it was made and when the offence was committed. From July 18, 2026, the definition expands to include sexual deepfakes, fabricated or altered images depicting a real person, and the offence extends to threatening to distribute an intimate image.
- Distribution: knowingly publishing, distributing, transmitting, selling, making available, or advertising the image. Sending it to a single person can be enough.
- The consent element: the accused knew the person depicted did not consent to the distribution, or was reckless as to whether they consented. Consent to making the image is not consent to sharing it.
Section 162.1(3) provides that no one is convicted where the conduct serves the public good and does not extend beyond what serves it, a narrow provision relevant to reporting and investigative contexts. These charges frequently travel with criminal harassment or threats counts arising from the same breakup, and where the image was secretly made, with voyeurism.
Penalties for distributing an intimate image in Ontario
The offence is hybrid. The maximum penalty is currently 5 years in prison if the Crown proceeds by indictment, or 2 years less a day on summary conviction, and from July 18, 2026 the indictable maximum rises to 10 years. There is no mandatory minimum. Ontario sentences range from discharges and probation for a single impulsive act with prompt removal, through to jail where the distribution was wide, repeated, extortionate, or designed to humiliate.
The Criminal Code also gives courts tools aimed at the images themselves: a judge can order material removed from the internet under section 164.1, order forfeiture of devices, and impose conditions restricting internet use. Restitution can be ordered for costs the complainant incurred removing images. For non-citizens, a conviction can carry immigration consequences, and civil liability for the same conduct is a separate track in Ontario.
Possible defences to an intimate image charge
Depending on the evidence, defences may include:
- Consent to distribution: where the person depicted agreed to the sharing that occurred, the offence is not made out. The scope of any consent, to whom and for what, is the contested ground.
- No reasonable expectation of privacy: the definition requires a privacy expectation both at recording and at the time of the alleged offence, and the circumstances of how the image was created and previously handled matter.
- Not an intimate image: images that do not depict nudity, intimate parts, or explicit sexual activity fall outside the definition.
- No knowledge or recklessness: the mental element regarding consent must be proven, not assumed.
- Identity and attribution: proof of who actually sent or posted the image from shared devices and anonymous accounts, tested through forensic and account records.
- Charter issues: phone and account searches are the backbone of these prosecutions, and defective warrants or overbroad searches can lead to exclusion.
Frequently asked questions
The person consented to taking the photo. Does that matter?
Consent to making an image is not consent to distributing it. The offence turns on consent to the sharing, and on whether a reasonable expectation of privacy remained at the time of the alleged distribution.
Is sending an image to one person a crime?
It can be. Transmitting an intimate image to even a single recipient without the depicted person's consent falls within the offence.
What are the penalties?
Up to 5 years in prison by indictment, rising to 10 years for offences committed on or after July 18, 2026, or 2 years less a day on summary conviction, with no mandatory minimum. Outcomes depend heavily on the scope of distribution and the circumstances.
Can the court order the images taken down?
Yes. A judge can order removal of the material from the internet, order forfeiture of devices, and impose conditions on internet use as part of the proceedings.
What does reckless mean in this offence?
Proceeding to share the image while aware of a real risk the person did not consent, without caring whether they did. It is a state of mind the Crown must prove, and assumptions are not evidence.
I am also charged with harassment over the same breakup. Is that common?
Yes. Intimate image, harassment, and threats counts are often laid together from the same course of events, and they are defended together, since the communications evidence overlaps.
Charged with distributing an intimate image? Contact us
This is legal information, not legal advice. It does not create a lawyer-client relationship. For advice about your situation, contact us for a consultation.
Sewrattan Criminal Lawyers defends intimate image and related allegations across Toronto and Ontario. Contact us for a consultation: 416-583-1510 ext. 2. Related pages: Voyeurism, Criminal Harassment, and Sexual Assault.







