than what is sought in this case. The Supreme Court’s recognition of the compatibility of a right to privacy in a person’s image
with other privacy rights in Aubry is nonetheless important. It
shows that protection of an individual’s image is a component of
their personal privacy interest.
 The recognition of a civil right of action arising from the
unauthorized posting of intimate or sexually explicit images or
recordings is not incompatible with any statutory scheme for the
protection of privacy rights. It would, on the contrary, complement the statutory framework already in place in s. 162.1 of the
 I have considered whether it is up to the provincial legislature to create a statutory remedy to address circumstances like
those in this case, and that its failure to do so represents a conscious policy decision with which the courts should not interfere.
I reject this argument for the same reason that the Court of
Appeal rejected it in Jones v. Tsige. Manitoba is the only Canadian province which has enacted legislation creating a statutory
tort of non-consensual distribution of intimate images.38 As noted
in Jones v. Tsige, privacy laws in other provinces recognize
a broad right to privacy but leave it to the courts to determine
whether any particular invasion of one person’s privacy by
another will give rise to any remedy. Given this legislative context
and the need to identify legal remedies for the social ill of revenge
porn, I cannot conclude that the absence of an Ontario equivalent
to the Manitoba Intimate Image Protection Act prevents the court
from recognizing a tort for public disclosure of private information.
 A cause of action for public disclosure of private facts rep-
resents a constructive, incremental modification of existing law to
address a challenge posed by new technology. As Stinson J. aptly
observed in Jane Doe 464533:
In recent years, technology has enabled predators and bullies to victimize
others by releasing their nude photos or intimate videos without consent. We
now understand the devastating harm that can result from these acts, rang-
ing from suicides by teenage victims to career-ending consequences when
established persons are victimized. Society has been scrambling to catch up to
this problem and the law is beginning to respond to protect victims.39
 A strength of the common law is its ability to evolve and
adapt to changing circumstances. Of course new remedies should
not simply be invented willy-nilly. But the tort of public disclosure
38 The Intimate Image Protection Act, C.C.S.M. c. I87. This law came into
force on January 15, 2015.
39 Jane Doe 464533 , at para. 16.