(c) Did Jane suffer injuries or damages as a result of the
 Jane suffered injuries and damage as a result of the M.s’
failure to take reasonable steps to protect her in their home. Had
they intervened, she would not have suffered physical and emotional harm by their son.
 I accordingly conclude that the M.s are jointly liable, with
N.M., for Jane’s damages as a result of N.M.s’ assault and battery
(3) Is N.M. liable for damages for posting the video without
Jane’s knowledge or consent?
 Jane asks the court to find N.M. liable for public disclosure
of private facts based on his posting of the sexually explicit video
of her on the Internet without her knowledge or consent.
 This is a somewhat novel case. There is no Ontario law
establishing a civil right of action for the posting of intimate
images without consent. In Jones v. Tsige, the Ontario Court of
Appeal established a right of action for a related tort, intrusion on
seclusion, but declined to rule on whether Canadian law should
recognize other torts based on breaches of privacy.19 Prior to this
case, one other Ontario court considered a claim like this one
in Jane Doe 464533 v. D. (N.).20 In that case, Stinson J. issued
a default judgment, later set aside, concluding that a defendant
who posted intimate images without consent was liable for public
disclosure of private facts.
 In considering whether Jane has a right of action against
N.M. for posting the video, I will review the decisions in Jones v.
Tsige and Jane Doe 464533, then consider whether, based on
accepted legal principles, a tort for public disclosure of private
facts should be recognized in Ontario. If I conclude that it should
be, I will determine N.M.s’ liability on the evidence in this case.
Jones v. Tsige
 In Jones v. Tsige, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized
a new tort for breach of privacy based on a defendant’s unauthor-
ized access to a plaintiff’s private information. In so doing, the
court observed that
19 Jones v. Tsige (2012), 108 O.R. (3d) 241,  O.J. No. 148, 2012 ONCA 32
(“Jones v. Tsige”).
20 Jane Doe 464533 v. D. (N.) (2016), 128 O.R. (3d) 352,  O.J. No. 382,
2016 ONSC 541 (S.C.J.) (“Jane Doe 464533”).