‘REVENGE PORN’ SETTLEMENT GOES BACK TO COURT

• The six-figure award in a case widely heralded as Canada’s first successful civil suit against “revenge porn” could be tossed out.

The defendant, known only as N.D., is seeking to have the January decision set aside because he was not able to afford a lawyer to defend himself — he was a fulltime student at the time.

The victim, referred to as Jane Doe to protect her identity, was awarded more than $140,000 in damages and costs for her suffering after N.D., her former boyfriend, posted an intimate video of her online without her permission.

The case was back in court Tuesday, but the proceedings were covered by a publication ban. Both N.D. and Jane Doe were 18 in the fall of 2011 when he pestered her for an explicit video, according to court documents.

They had dated, and after months of him asking and sending her his own explicit images, she sent the video. He then posted it to pornhub.com under the title, “college girl pleasures herself for ex-boyfriend’s delight.”

After Doe found out about the post, she contacted N.D.’s mother, who got him to take it down — but only after it had been online for three weeks.

Both N.D. and Doe agree this happened. But now N.D. wants the court to set aside the judgment rendered in his absence.

This is not the same thing as an appeal, which would question the facts of the case or the judge’s reasons in the ruling.

Instead, the man is asking for a second chance to fight his case, one seen as a landmark victory for lawsuits involving “revenge porn,” the non-consensual posting of sexual images online after a relationship ends.

N.D.’s lawyer, Dhiren Chohan, is arguing his client was denied access to justice because he couldn’t afford a lawyer and the precedentsetting nature of the case requires a full defence.

He also says the six-figure award was too high for several reasons, including the fact Doe shares some responsibility for the video’s existence.

N.D. “states that (Doe) provided the video on her own accord. This is not a case where the defendant hacked into her computer, found the video and posted it online,” the factum says.

“Furthermore, there is an element of contribution to her own damages … She ought not to send such videos, as there is always the risk of it becoming public.”

The award was also too high because Doe was seen “partying” and “enjoying her life” after the incident, the document argues.

Justice Grant Dow of the Ontario Superior Court reserved his decision.