Distribution of Intimate Images Without Consent (s. 162.1)

An "intimate image" does not include photos that are simply embarrassing or unflattering. The term "intimate images" is intended to refer to images that relate to the core of a person's privacy interest. These images often depict explicit sexual activity or nudity or partial nudity that is captured on film or video consensually. An "intimate image" is defined as a visual recording of a person made by any means including a photographic, film or video recording, in which the person engaged in any of the following situations:

1. the person is nude or nearly nude
2. the person is exposing their sexual organs
3. the person is engaged in explicit sexual activity

Since July 18, 2026 the definition also covers an image made by electronic or mechanical means, including AI software, that shows an identifiable person in one of those situations and is likely to be mistaken for a real recording of them.

Yes, for conduct on or after July 18, 2026. Parliament expanded section 162.1 so that a realistic sexual deepfake of an identifiable person is treated as an intimate image. Before that date, the offence applied only to real recordings.

Yes. Since July 18, 2026, threatening to publish or share an intimate image, with the intent to intimidate or to be taken seriously, is an offence under section 162.1(1.1). It carries up to 10 years on indictment and can also be prosecuted summarily. Depending on the facts, a threat can also lead to charges such as extortion or criminal harassment.

In cases where the intimate image depicts a person under the age of 18 engaged in explicit sexual activity or the dominant purpose of the recording is the depiction for a sexual purpose of that person's sexual organs, the image constitutes child sexual abuse and exploitation material (formerly called child pornography) and is captured by the Criminal Code of Canada's provisions found in section 163.1, which carry far heavier penalties.

At the time of the recording, the person being recorded must be in circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy before the person charged with publishing the image can be convicted of the crime.

The main defences are that the image is not an intimate image, that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, that the image was not shared knowingly or was sent by someone else, that the person consented to that sharing, and that the conduct served the public good. Each is explained in the defences section above.

The Crown carries the burden throughout. It must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt; the accused does not have to prove innocence.

If convicted on indictment, the maximum penalty is 10 years in prison (14 years where the image was made during an aggravated sexual assault). If prosecuted by summary conviction, the maximum penalty is two years less a day in jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. There is no mandatory minimum, so outcomes range widely with the facts. The court can add an internet prohibition, a deletion order, forfeiture of devices and restitution for the cost of removing the image.

Usually, yes. Publishing an intimate image without consent is a designated offence that can trigger a sexual offender registry order. The court must make the order unless the person shows it would have no connection to the registry's purpose or would be grossly disproportionate, and in some cases it is mandatory. In most cases the order lasts 10 years after a summary prosecution and 20 years after an indictment.

Yes. Where an intimate image has been posted online and an offence under section 162.1 was committed, the court must order the custodian of the computer system to delete it within 48 hours. A sentencing judge can also order the offender to repay the reasonable cost of removing the image from the internet.