This sounds about right:

Two days after shocking Manitoba’s legal world with claims that he was pressured to have kinky sex with a lawyer-turned-judge, Alexander Chapman was hit with a court order forcing him to return explicit photographs of the jurist. Chapman also found himself on the receiving end of a counter-lawsuit, alleging he violated privacy laws and a confidential settlement agreement when he went public with his claims.

And the Canadian press finally goes and gets a quote from someone who isn't a complete moron:

“Do we imagine that judges never disrobe or that judges never have sex lives? Of course they do,” said Bruce Ryder, an Osgoode Hall Law School professor who teaches in the area of judicial independence and ethics. Ryder worries that “prurience” and “moral prudery” will drive the debate over whether Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba should be removed from office.... [Ryder] believes if a judge isn’t involved in anything illegal or something that could give rise to a conflict of interest—such as a citizens’ crusade against city hall—their private lives should not be up for discussion. “We really have to start by asking ourselves, what exactly has Justice Douglas done wrong? Based on what we know so far,” said Ryder, “maybe she deserves our sympathy more than our condemnation, because it seems she has been the victim of an egregious invasion of privacy.”