Case Summary: Cyberbullying Recognized as Family Violence
In this case the Mother and Father had previously lived in Peru, however, after separation the Mother and child fled to Canada as the Mother was fearful for her and the child’s safety due to the Father’s extremely abusive conduct. The Father eventually followed the Mother and child to Canada and the trial for this case was heard in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
There were several issues that were addressed at trial, but the primary focus was on the parenting issues for the child (decision-making responsibility, primary care of the child, and parenting time). As such, and in accordance with the Children’s Law Reform Act, the Court’s primary consideration when determining what kind of parenting orders to make was the best interests of the child. Section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act outlines what the best interests of the child is, and it also provides a list of factors that need to be considered when determining what is in the best interests of the child. One of the factors that needs to be considered by the Court is whether there was any family violence.
Family violence is defined at section 18(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act as “any conduct by a family member towards another family member that is violent or threatening, that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, or that causes the other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person, and, in the case of a child, includes direct or indirect exposure to such conduct”. Section 18(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act states that family violence includes:
“(a) physical abuse, including forced confinement but excluding the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or another person;
(b) sexual abuse;
(c) threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person;
(d) harassment, including stalking;
(e) the failure to provide the necessaries of life;
(f) psychological abuse;
(g) financial abuse;
(h) threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property; and
(i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property.”
After reviewing all the evidence at trial, the Court made a scathing and strong finding that the Father engaged in family violence against the Mother and the Mother’s adult children from a previous relationship. The Court specifically identified that the Father engaged in harassment, intimidation, physical abuse, death threats, and psychological abuse towards the Mother.
For the purposes of this case summary, we want to specifically focus on what the Court said about how the Father engaged in cyberbullying to intimidate and harass the Mother:
Father Engaged in Cyberbullying Against the Mother
After their separation the Father began a public online harassment campaign against the Mother on various social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and X (formerly known as twitter). The Father’s online harassment campaign against the Mother gained substantial publicity and resulted in the Mother losing her job. The Mother then had to move to a new city in Peru (over 1,000km away) for a new job and to protect herself and the children from the Father’s ongoing abuse. Unfortunately, this move resulted in the Father increasing his social media attacks against the Mother and the children. The Father began posting pictures and videos on various social media platforms that personally identified the Mother, the child, and the Mother’s children from a previous relationship. The Father’s online harassment campaign eventually garnered national news attention – with his false allegations against the Mother being reported in newspapers, the radio, and on national news coverage – and it resulted in the Mother losing her job again.
The Mother and the child then fled to Canada where the Ontario Superior Court of Justice made a Temporary Order stating that the Father was not allowed to make any social media posts which specifically named the Mother or child in connection with any litigation. Despite this Temporary Order the Father continued his online harassment campaign against the Mother. The Father also began targeting third parties involved with the family such as the child’s school, schoolboard, and principal, the lawyers that were working with the Mother, and a shelter that the Mother was receiving services from.
The Court Recognized Cyberbullying as a Form of Family Violence
In determining the best interests of the child the Court considered a mountain of evidence and found that the Father had engaged in Family Violence. Part of the evidence the Court considered was the Father’s cyberbullying against the Mother, the child, and the Mother’s adult children from a previous relationship (as is outlined above). When reviewing this evidence the Court stated that “behaviour amounting to cyberbullying and social media postings fall or can fall within the definition of family violence”.
In coming to this decision the Court reviewed, and confirmed, another Court’s decision in S.B. v J.I.U (2021 ONCJ 614) where that Court had stated “it is evident from the father’s social media postings that he is intent on hurting, humiliating and intimidating the mother. This is cyberbullying. It is family violence.”
The Court’s Comments on the Father’s Cyberbullying
When the Court was reviewing all of the evidence regarding the Father’s ongoing cyberbullying it made the following important comments which summarize their feelings on the Father’s online abusive behaviour:
“It is trite to observe that an individual who harbours evil intent can use social media for purposes of targeting, harassing and destroying peoples’ lives. In this lengthy trial, there was abundant evidence that [the Father] did just that in relation to [the Mother].”
“[The Father] weaponized his use of social media to target, threaten, intimidate and harass his intended victims. It is not hyperbole to say that [the Father] destroyed [the Mother’s] life as she knew it.”
If you or someone you know is being subjected to technology facilitated abuse, our Tech Safety Toolkit offers practical information on technology-facilitated abuse, spyware, smart homes, smartphone and web safety, as well as family law strategies.
