. . . the privacy right offended and the consequences to the plaintiff there
were vastly less serious and offensive than the present case. . . . [T]his case
involves much more than an invasion of a right to information privacy; as
I have observed, in many ways it is analogous to a sexual assault. Given the
circumstances of this case, and in particular the impact of the defendant’s
actions, a substantially higher award is warranted here.56
 I agree with Stinson J. that the breach of the plaintiff’s
privacy rights in a case like this are much more serious than in
an action for intrusion on seclusion. The factors that argue for
a higher damages award in Jane Doe 464533 also exist in this
case. In fact, in many ways, this is a much more serious case:
— Jane was in high school when the video was posted. She was
a single mother on social assistance. These circumstances
made her highly vulnerable.
— The posting of a sexually explicit video on an Internet pornography site without a participant’s consent is degrading
and invasive. What makes the situation much worse is that
the video was online for a very long time and viewed over
60,000 times. I also infer that N.M. shared the video with his
friends, based on his text message to Jane saying that he was
better off having a criminal record than “all my friends
knowing my tongue game Looool”.
— The posting of the video has had a serious, long-term impact
on Jane’s psychological well-being, her ability to form relationships and her trust in those around her. She fears that it
has also compromised her future job prospects and her ability to be a good parent.
 In these circumstances, I conclude that Jane’s damages
are much more significant than those that would typically be
awarded for intrusion on seclusion or another similar breach of
privacy. The Internet never forgets. Her dignity and personal
autonomy have been, and will continue to be, compromised by
N.M.s’ actions. As stated by Justice Cromwell, the damages
award must “demonstrate, both to the victim and to the wider
community, the vindication of these fundamental, although
intangible, rights which have been violated by the wrongdoer”.57
 I must also consider whether aggravated damages should
be awarded to the award of general damages.
56 Jane Doe 464533, at para. 58.
57 G. (B.M.) v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), supra, at para. 130.