He got what he deserved.
I just wonder though, if a woman had done this to a man would she get the same 10-month sentence??
.
A man who secretly posted explicit videos of his ex-girlfriend to the world’s most popular pornography website — then “actively engaged” with online commenters — has been sentenced to 10 months in prison.
The defence asked for a conditional sentence to be served in the community, but a Toronto judge concluded jail time was the only appropriate punishment for an offender who failed to grasp “how unequivocally wrong his conduct was.”
“The physical and emotional impact on the victim was significant and has done real, understandable damage to her sense of trust, safety and dignity,” wrote Justice Peter Scrutton in a recent ruling. “She suffers from the persistent dread that employers or co-workers could discover the material, harming her professional reputation and livelihood.”
Wade Scapillati, a 37-year-old St. Catharines resident, was arrested by Toronto police in 2024 and charged with one count of non-consensual distribution of intimate images. He pleaded guilty earlier this year.
Court heard that Scapillati and the woman had recorded numerous consensual videos of their sexual activity when they were still a couple. After they broke up, however, Scapillati assured her he had deleted the clips.
He lied. Scapillati uploaded six of the videos to Pornhub, where they remained for approximately one year — until a relative of the victim happened to see one and alerted her to the link.
“Two of the videos clearly showed the victim’s face,” Justice Scrutton wrote. “On one video, her face is visible on the thumbnail on the website, and was also clearly visible 40 seconds into the video as she looked straight into the camera while performing a sex act.”
The woman never consented to the videos being posted, the judge wrote, and their discovery has had a “devastating effect” on her well-being.
“Understandably, she reports feeling humiliation, anxiety, fear, and loss of control over her body and image,” the ruling reads. “She characterized the defendant’s conduct as deliberate and sustained, noting multiple videos remained online for an extended period and that the defendant actively engaged with comments on the platform.”
The woman’s identity is protected by a court-ordered publication ban. In his ruling, Justice Scrutton was careful not to publish even her initials “for privacy reasons.”
In similar cases, sentences have ranged from house arrest to imprisonment. Scapillati’s lawyer asked for an 18-month conditional term that would spare him from going to jail, plus two years of probation.
But the judge agreed with the Crown that prison time is warranted, especially because of the man’s “complete lack of empathy” and his history of offences against former intimate partners. (He was previously convicted of uttering threats and criminal harassment.)
The judge also pointed to a pre-sentencing report, which concluded that Scapillati “continued to place blame on the victim, minimized his behaviour, and took limited accountability for his offending.”
“I do not understand, given the facts of this offence, how the victim could be blamed in any way, as she had nothing whatsoever to do with his non-consensual distribution of these images,” Justice Scrutton wrote. “I have no trouble concluding that the defendant lacks insight into his offending. If his distribution of these videos was not motivated by anger or malice, it was undoubtedly motivated by selfishness and self-centredness.”
In addition to 10 months in prison, Scapillati was ordered to serve two years on probation and provide a DNA sample to the national databank. The judge also directed that his name be added to the national sex offender registry for 10 years.
“I conclude that a 10-month jail sentence is fit and appropriate,” he wrote. “In my view, this is the shortest sentence that can achieve the primary sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence.”
I just wonder though, if a woman had done this to a man would she get the same 10-month sentence??
.
A man who secretly posted explicit videos of his ex-girlfriend to the world’s most popular pornography website — then “actively engaged” with online commenters — has been sentenced to 10 months in prison.
The defence asked for a conditional sentence to be served in the community, but a Toronto judge concluded jail time was the only appropriate punishment for an offender who failed to grasp “how unequivocally wrong his conduct was.”
“The physical and emotional impact on the victim was significant and has done real, understandable damage to her sense of trust, safety and dignity,” wrote Justice Peter Scrutton in a recent ruling. “She suffers from the persistent dread that employers or co-workers could discover the material, harming her professional reputation and livelihood.”
Wade Scapillati, a 37-year-old St. Catharines resident, was arrested by Toronto police in 2024 and charged with one count of non-consensual distribution of intimate images. He pleaded guilty earlier this year.
Court heard that Scapillati and the woman had recorded numerous consensual videos of their sexual activity when they were still a couple. After they broke up, however, Scapillati assured her he had deleted the clips.
He lied. Scapillati uploaded six of the videos to Pornhub, where they remained for approximately one year — until a relative of the victim happened to see one and alerted her to the link.
“Two of the videos clearly showed the victim’s face,” Justice Scrutton wrote. “On one video, her face is visible on the thumbnail on the website, and was also clearly visible 40 seconds into the video as she looked straight into the camera while performing a sex act.”
The woman never consented to the videos being posted, the judge wrote, and their discovery has had a “devastating effect” on her well-being.
“Understandably, she reports feeling humiliation, anxiety, fear, and loss of control over her body and image,” the ruling reads. “She characterized the defendant’s conduct as deliberate and sustained, noting multiple videos remained online for an extended period and that the defendant actively engaged with comments on the platform.”
The woman’s identity is protected by a court-ordered publication ban. In his ruling, Justice Scrutton was careful not to publish even her initials “for privacy reasons.”
In similar cases, sentences have ranged from house arrest to imprisonment. Scapillati’s lawyer asked for an 18-month conditional term that would spare him from going to jail, plus two years of probation.
But the judge agreed with the Crown that prison time is warranted, especially because of the man’s “complete lack of empathy” and his history of offences against former intimate partners. (He was previously convicted of uttering threats and criminal harassment.)
The judge also pointed to a pre-sentencing report, which concluded that Scapillati “continued to place blame on the victim, minimized his behaviour, and took limited accountability for his offending.”
“I do not understand, given the facts of this offence, how the victim could be blamed in any way, as she had nothing whatsoever to do with his non-consensual distribution of these images,” Justice Scrutton wrote. “I have no trouble concluding that the defendant lacks insight into his offending. If his distribution of these videos was not motivated by anger or malice, it was undoubtedly motivated by selfishness and self-centredness.”
In addition to 10 months in prison, Scapillati was ordered to serve two years on probation and provide a DNA sample to the national databank. The judge also directed that his name be added to the national sex offender registry for 10 years.
“I conclude that a 10-month jail sentence is fit and appropriate,” he wrote. “In my view, this is the shortest sentence that can achieve the primary sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence.”
