www.xvideos.com to take down the video after 60,000 views, it is still out
there on other website and will be out there forever. . . .
I worry that my current and future coworkers, friends and tens of thousands of strangers know of the video or will come to know of it. . . . I am
distraught and worried that I will be thought a bad mother, be denied educational, employment and social opportunities, and forever stigmatized
because of the video.
I am sick with fear that one day my son will see the video.
I am unable to pursue other romantic relationships because I worry that the
video might resurface and ruin a budding relationship. I worry that the video
could impede or preclude a professional career if it became known to an
employer. I have felt depressed, violated and alone. I have felt shame and
anger and will never know who has seen or will see the video and what it has
caused or will cause people to think, do and say with respect to me.
 Jane’s fears are justified. She and N.M. went to the same
high school and so share a common social circle. At least one of
Jane’s friends knew about the video; that is how Jane found out
about it. There is every reason to assume that others in Jane’s
social circle know about it as well. But the video’s impact goes
well beyond this. Jane’s face was clearly visible on the video.
Given the amount of time it was posted and the number of times
it was viewed, she may well be recognized from the video for
years to come by employers, co-workers, family members, neighbours and strangers.
 In Jones v. Tsige, the Court of Appeal capped the range of
general damages for intrusion on seclusion at $20,000. It held
that only modest damages were appropriate given the intangible
nature of the interest protected. Applying these factors, the Court
of Appeal awarded Jones $10,000 in general damages. It did not
award her any aggravated or punitive damages.
 In Jane Doe 464533, Stinson J. based the damages
award on awards granted in civil claims for sexual assault. In
his view, the damages suffered were comparable “in light of the
nature of the wrong, the significant and ongoing impact of the
defendant’s conduct on the plaintiff’s emotional and psychologi-
cal health, and its similarity to the impact of a sexual assault”.52
I recognize that . . . there was no physical touching in the present case. That
said, the plaintiff’s resulting injuries bear striking similarities to those for
which the courts have awarded compensation in these other cases. The
actions of the defendant in the present case offended and compromised the
plaintiff’s dignity and personal autonomy. In my view, a non-pecuniary dam-
age award in a case such as this should similarly “demonstrate, both to the
52 Jane Doe 464533 , at para. 52.