Canada has two Criminal Code offences built around intimate images. Voyeurism, under section 162, is secretly watching or recording someone where they expect privacy. Sharing an intimate image without consent, under section 162.1, is what most people call revenge porn. Since 18 July 2026, both carry a maximum of 10 years in prison.
This guide explains what the Crown must prove for each charge, the penalties, the court orders that may follow, and the defences that may apply. For everyday questions about recording calls or filming in public, see our guide to recording someone without consent.
Key Takeaways
- Voyeurism is secretly observing or recording someone in circumstances that create a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Sharing an intimate image without the person’s consent is a separate crime, even if they agreed to the photo being taken.
- The Crown doesn’t have to prove revenge. Why the image was shared doesn’t change whether it’s an offence.
- Since 18 July 2026, both offences carry a maximum of 10 years on indictment. Realistic sexual deepfakes and threats to share an image are now covered too.
- Courts can add orders limiting internet use and requiring images to be removed.
- A reasonable expectation of privacy sits at the heart of both offences, and many defences start there.
- A conviction for either offence can lead to a sex offender registry order. Registration is no longer automatic in most cases, and the rules are stricter for intimate-image offences than for voyeurism.
Is Voyeurism a Crime in Canada?
Yes. Parliament added voyeurism to the Criminal Code in 2005, as hidden cameras and phone cameras became part of daily life. The Supreme Court of Canada later described its purpose as protecting “individuals’ privacy and sexual integrity, particularly from new threats posed by the abuse of evolving technologies” (R v Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10).
Under section 162(1), a person commits voyeurism if they surreptitiously observe, including by mechanical or electronic means, or make a visual recording of a person in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and one of the following applies.
- (a) The person is in a place where a person can reasonably be expected to be nude or nearly nude, to expose their sexual organs, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity.
- (b) The person is nude, is nearly nude, is exposing their sexual organs, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in that state or activity.
- (c) The observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.
If you’ve been charged, our voyeurism defence page explains how we approach these cases.
What the Crown Has to Prove Under Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)
Every voyeurism charge shares a common core. The Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused observed or recorded the person, did so secretly, and that the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Each paragraph then adds its own requirement.
| Paragraph | What the Crown must also prove |
| (a) | The person was in a place where people can reasonably be expected to be nude or nearly nude, expose their sexual organs, or engage in explicit sexual activity. Actual nudity isn’t required. |
| (b) | The person was nude, nearly nude, exposing their sexual organs or engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording was done to capture them in that state. |
| (c) | The observation or recording was done for a sexual purpose. The person doesn’t have to be undressed or in a private place. |
What Counts as a Secret Recording?
“Surreptitiously” means secretly, in a clandestine or unnoticed way (R v Pall, 2017 ONSC 6900). Typical examples include hiding to watch someone or installing a small camera to record people in a washroom or bedroom. A camera in plain view, or one recording a person who knew about it, may not meet this element.
What Counts as a Visual Recording?
Section 162(2) defines a visual recording as including a photographic, film or video recording made by any means. A phone, a laptop webcam, a security camera or a screenshot of a video call can all qualify. Secretly watching someone without recording anything can still be voyeurism, including watching through a live camera feed.
Sharing a Voyeuristic Recording
Section 162(4) makes it a separate offence to print, copy, publish, distribute, circulate, sell, advertise or make available a recording, knowing it was obtained through voyeurism. Possessing it for any of those purposes is enough. Someone who receives secretly made footage and forwards it can be charged, even if they never held the camera. Copying a clip to another device, uploading it, or saving it to a shared folder for others to view can all fall within this offence.
Is Revenge Porn a Crime in Canada?
Yes. “Revenge porn” isn’t a legal term, but the conduct it describes is a crime under section 162.1 of the Criminal Code. Parliament created the offence through the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, and it has been in force since 9 March 2015.
Section 162.1 makes it an offence to knowingly publish, distribute, transmit, sell, make available, or advertise an intimate image of a person, knowing the person didn’t consent or being reckless as to whether they did. Posting to Facebook or Instagram, sending an image in a text or group chat, emailing it, or uploading it to a website can all count. If you’re facing this charge, see our intimate image defence page.
What Counts as an Intimate Image?
An intimate image is a visual recording in which the person is nude or nearly nude, is exposing their sexual organs, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity. Since July 2026, the definition also covers realistic images created or altered by electronic or mechanical means, including with artificial intelligence, that show an identifiable person in an intimate state and are likely to be mistaken for a real recording. Sexual deepfakes now fall inside the offence. The accused doesn’t benefit from the image being fake if it’s realistic enough to pass as real.
An embarrassing photo isn’t enough on its own. The image has to meet this definition.
Privacy When the Image Was Taken and When It Was Shared
For a recorded image, the Crown has to prove a reasonable expectation of privacy at two points. The circumstances when the image was made must have given rise to one, and the person must still have had one when the image was shared.
Images taken privately between partners will meet both tests in most cases. A person who later posted the same images publicly, or agreed to their publication, may have given up that expectation.
Does the Reason for Sharing Matter?
No. The offence doesn’t require malice or revenge. Sharing an image to hurt an ex-partner, to make money, to gain leverage in a dispute, or as a joke can all lead to the same charge. What matters is whether the person shared it knowing there was no consent, or without caring whether there was.
Threatening to Share an Intimate Image
Since 18 July 2026, threatening to share an intimate image is its own offence under section 162.1(1.1). The Crown must prove, among other things, that the accused intended to intimidate the person or be taken seriously, and that they knew the person wouldn’t consent or were reckless as to it. The image doesn’t have to be shared, and there’s no need to demand money or anything else.
What If the Person in the Image Is Under 18?
The case then moves into a far more serious area of law. A sexual image of anyone under 18 may lead to charges under the child sexual abuse and exploitation material provisions of the Criminal Code, which carry higher penalties and serious registry consequences. That can apply even where the person sharing the image is also a teenager. The Youth Criminal Justice Act applies to people aged 12 to 17, and our young offenders page explains how the process works.
How Is Voyeurism Different From Sharing an Intimate Image?
The two offences protect the same thing, a person’s privacy in their body and sexual life, but they target different acts. Voyeurism involves secretly capturing an image. Sharing an intimate image is about what happens to it next.
| Voyeurism | Sharing an intimate image | |
| Section | s. 162(1) | s. 162.1(1) |
| What it targets | Secretly watching or recording someone | Sharing an intimate image without consent |
| Did the person know about the recording? | No. Secrecy is an element of the offence | They may have. Many images are taken with full consent |
| Does the image have to be shared? | No | Yes, or threatened under s. 162.1(1.1) |
| Maximum on indictment | 10 years | 10 years |
Both can be charged in the same case. In R v Desilva, 2011 ONCJ 133, the accused recorded sexual activity with his partner without her consent, posted the video on Facebook and emailed it to her friends and family. Someone who does the same today could face charges under sections 162(1), 162(4) and 162.1.
What Is a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?
Both offences turn on this question. In R v Jarvis, the Supreme Court held that privacy isn’t all-or-nothing. Others can see a person and still reasonably expect not to be recorded in a particular way. Courts look at the whole context, including:
- where the person was
- whether they were observed or recorded
- whether they knew about or agreed to it
- how the observation or recording was done
- what it captured
- any rules or policies governing the setting
- the relationship between the two people
- the purpose of the observation or recording
- the personal characteristics of the person recorded, including their age
The list isn’t exhaustive, and no single factor decides the case.
Places Where People Expect Privacy
Some places carry a strong expectation of privacy because people undress or have sex there. These include change rooms, washrooms and toilet stalls, showers, bedrooms, hotel rooms and short-term rentals.
Location isn’t the end of the analysis. Jarvis showed that students can reasonably expect privacy in a school hallway. A person may not have privacy on a clothing-optional public beach, as the Lebenfish case shows under the defences below.
Video Calls and Virtual Spaces
Privacy extends online. In R v Trinchi, 2019 ONCA 356, the accused and the complainant were in a long-distance relationship and were sometimes naked during video calls. He secretly took screenshots. After the relationship ended, the images were emailed to many people. He was acquitted of the distribution charges but convicted of voyeurism for taking the screenshots. The Court of Appeal held the complainant was entitled to expect that he wouldn’t record their sexual activity in “virtual space” without her consent. The same reasoning can apply to screen recordings of a private live stream or video chat.
Examples From Canadian Voyeurism Cases
Courts have found people guilty of voyeurism for:
- placing a camera in the ceiling of a staff washroom (R v B.H., 2017 ONCJ 377)
- secretly recording people in a restaurant washroom (R v Bosomworth, 2014 BCPC 311)
- filming people in public washrooms and a home washroom (R v Dekker, 2014 ABPC 61)
- spying on a woman at her workplace and recording her in the shower (R v Brandt, 2013 MBPC 39)
- recording a 15-year-old stepdaughter undressing in her room (R v A. (M.S.), 2013 ABPC 66)
- taking photos up a woman’s skirt (R v Rocha, 2012 ABPC 24)
- recording a roommate and his girlfriend having sex (R v Pan, 2012 ABPC 203)
- recording sexual activity with a partner without consent and posting the videos online (R v Desilva)
Every case turns on its own facts. These examples show how courts have applied the law, not how any other case will end.
What Are the Penalties for Voyeurism and Revenge Porn in Canada?
Being charged isn’t the same as being convicted, and the figures below are the maximums Parliament set, not typical sentences. All four offences are hybrid. The Crown can proceed by indictment, with the higher maximums below, or by summary conviction, with a maximum of two years less a day in jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.
| Offence | Provision | Maximum on indictment |
| Voyeurism | s. 162(1) | 10 years |
| Distributing a voyeuristic recording | s. 162(4) | 10 years |
| Sharing an intimate image without consent | s. 162.1(1) | 10 years, generally. 14 years in the special circumstances set out in s. 162.1(1)(a)(ii) |
| Threatening to share an intimate image | s. 162.1(1.1) | 10 years |
Conduct alleged to have happened before 18 July 2026 is prosecuted under the law in force at the time, including the former five-year maximum. Under section 11(i) of the Charter, an accused gets the lesser punishment where the penalty changed between the offence and sentencing.
Orders a Court May Add
Beyond any sentence, a court may make further orders in intimate-image cases.
- Internet prohibition. Under section 162.2, a court can bar a person convicted under section 162.1 from using the internet or other digital networks, except on conditions the court sets. Breaching the order is a separate offence.
- Removal of images. A judge can order the deletion of an intimate image from any computer system where it’s stored and made available.
- Repaying removal costs. A court can order the offender to repay the reasonable costs the person shown paid to have the image taken off the internet.
Will I Have to Register as a Sex Offender?
Not automatically, and the rules differ between the two offences.
- Sharing or threatening to share an intimate image (s. 162.1(1) and (1.1)) are primary designated offences under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Ndhlovu and the 2023 amendments that followed, registration is mandatory only in limited cases, like repeat sexual offences. In most other cases, the court must make the order unless the person shows there’s no connection between registration and its purpose, or that its impact would be grossly disproportionate.
- Voyeurism (s. 162) is a secondary designated offence. A court can order registration only if the Crown applies for it and proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the voyeurism was committed with the intent to commit a primary designated offence.
A registration order brings ongoing reporting duties. Our articles on the sex offender registry and SOIRA orders explain what’s involved.
A Criminal Record and Its Long-Term Effects
Whether the Crown proceeds by indictment or summary conviction, a conviction creates a criminal record. It can show up on background checks, end careers that need a vulnerable sector check, and make travel to the United States harder. You can apply for a record suspension after a waiting period. It keeps the record out of most searches, but it doesn’t erase it.
What Happens After a Voyeurism or Intimate Image Charge?
Most cases start with a police complaint, followed by a search of phones, computers or online accounts. After an arrest, the accused is either released on conditions or held for a bail hearing. Conditions may include no contact with the complainant and limits on internet or device use.
The Crown then provides disclosure, the evidence it plans to rely on. Most of that evidence is digital, and the way police collected it matters, as the Charter defence below explains.
Don’t explain yourself to police before you’ve spoken to a lawyer. You have the right to counsel on arrest or detention. Questions about what you knew, what you meant and who you sent things to go straight to the elements the Crown has to prove. A statement given to “clear things up” can become the strongest evidence against you.
Depending on the facts and the Crown’s position, outcomes short of a conviction, including a withdrawal or a peace bond, are sometimes possible. No outcome is guaranteed, and early legal advice gives you the clearest view of what’s realistic.
What Defences Apply to Voyeurism and Revenge Porn Charges?
The right defence depends on the charge and the evidence. In every case, the Crown must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Both offences require a reasonable expectation of privacy. In R v Lebenfish, 2014 ONCJ 130, a man who photographed women at a clothing-optional public beach was acquitted of voyeurism because the court found the setting didn’t give rise to that expectation. In an intimate-image case, the defence may argue the person gave up their privacy before the image was shared, for example by posting it publicly themselves.
The Recording Wasn’t Secret
Voyeurism requires surreptitious observation or recording. A visible camera, a posted notice, or a recording the person knew about may undermine that element. The court considers what the person knew and the surrounding circumstances.
There Was No Sexual Purpose
Where the charge relies on paragraph (c), the Crown must prove a sexual purpose. The Crown proves purpose by inference from what the device captured, how it was positioned, and what else it stored. A security recording that accidentally captured someone may raise reasonable doubt. Paragraphs (a) and (b) don’t require a sexual purpose.
The Person Consented to the Sharing
Under section 162.1, the Crown must prove the accused knew the person didn’t consent to the sharing or was reckless as to it. Consent to taking a photo isn’t consent to sharing it, and consent to sharing it with one person isn’t consent to sharing it with everyone. Evidence of what was agreed, and when, sits at the centre of many of these cases. Our article on sexual consent explains how Canadian law treats consent as specific to each act.
You Didn’t Share It, or Didn’t Mean To
The Crown must prove the accused knowingly shared the image. Shared devices, hacked accounts or another person with access to a phone can raise real questions about who sent it. An image sent by mistake may not meet the knowledge requirement.
The Public Good Defence
Sections 162(6) and 162.1(3) say no one can be convicted where the conduct serves the public good and doesn’t go beyond what serves it. Whether conduct served the public good is a question of law, and whether it went further is a question of fact. The accused’s motives are irrelevant. This is a narrow defence, raised in areas like journalism or reporting a crime to police.
Charter Challenges to Phone and Computer Searches
Most evidence in these cases comes from phones, computers, and online accounts. If police searched a device without proper authority, the accused may argue a breach of section 8 of the Charter. Courts have also set specific limits on phone searches on arrest. If a breach is proved, the court may exclude the evidence under section 24(2), but exclusion isn’t automatic. Our article on what happens when police breach your rights explains how courts decide.
Other Charges That Can Come With Intimate Images
Intimate image cases rarely stand alone. Depending on the facts, police may add these charges.
- Criminal harassment (s. 264). Repeated conduct, including posting or messaging, that could reasonably make the person believe their safety was threatened. See our criminal harassment page.
- Extortion (s. 346). Using images to demand money, more images or anything else. This is commonly called sextortion, and it carries a maximum of life imprisonment.
- Uttering threats (s. 264.1). Threatening harm alongside, or instead of, sharing an image. See our uttering threats page.
- Intimidation (s. 423). Using images to force someone to do, or stop doing, something they’re entitled to do.
Speak With a Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyer About a Voyeurism or Intimate Image Charge
No guide can tell you where your case stands. What’s on the device, how police got it, what the person agreed to and who shared the image all sit in the disclosure. Reading it is where every defence starts.
Since 2002, Pyzer Criminal Lawyers has defended people charged with serious criminal offences across Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area, nearby cities, including Mississauga, Brampton, Scarborough, Newmarket, Oshawa, Hamilton and Barrie. Consultations are free, confidential and carry no obligation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Revenge Porn Illegal in Canada?
Yes. Sharing an intimate image of someone without their consent is a crime under section 162.1 of the Criminal Code. Since 18 July 2026, it carries a maximum of 10 years on indictment, and the Crown doesn’t have to prove a revenge motive.
Is It a Crime to Post Intimate Photos of Someone on Facebook or Instagram?
Yes, if the image meets the definition of an intimate image and the person didn’t consent. Posting publicly, sharing to a story, or sending it through direct messages all count as publishing or distributing it.
Is It Illegal to Share an Intimate Image Someone Sent Me Themselves?
It can be. When someone sends you an image privately, they trust you with it and don’t agree to share it further. Sharing it with others without their consent may be an offence under section 162.1, even though they took the photo themselves.
Can I Be Charged for Forwarding an Image Someone Else Posted?
Yes. The offence covers anyone who knowingly transmits or makes available an intimate image without consent, not only the person who first shared it. Forwarding footage you know was secretly recorded also violates section 162(4).
Are Sexual Deepfakes Illegal in Canada?
Since 18 July 2026, yes, where the image is realistic, shows an identifiable person in an intimate state, and is likely to be mistaken for a real recording. Sharing one without consent, or threatening to share one, is covered by section 162.1.
Is It a Crime to Secretly Record a Sexual Encounter?
It can be. Agreeing to sex isn’t agreeing to be recorded. A secret recording of a sexual encounter may be voyeurism under section 162(1) where every element is proved, and sharing it can bring further charges under sections 162(4) and 162.1.
Should I Talk to Police If I’m Accused?
Speak with a lawyer first. If you’re arrested or detained, you have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, and to be told about that right. If you haven’t been detained, you can still decline a voluntary interview until you’ve had advice. A first consultation with our firm is free.
This article provides general legal information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Laws and their interpretation may change, and the application of law to specific circumstances requires professional legal assessment. If you have questions about a legal matter, please contact us for a free consultation.
