Family court decisions that include tech abuse: Parenting orders

Legal tests for parenting orders

In Ontario, arrangements for the children after parents separate are decided under:

The Divorce Act, for people anywhere in Canada that were married and are divorcing/divorced; or
The Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA), for everyone else. This law is Ontario specific.

Both of these laws include:

The best interest of the child test
A definition of family violence

The court must consider family violence when deciding what is in the best interests of the children.

A judge must be convinced that the tech abuse a woman was subjected to is a form of family violence before the judge will consider it when deciding about arrangements for the children. In the cases below, mothers were able to convince judges of this.

Tech abuse part of a larger picture

In many of these cases, the tech abuse was part of a larger pattern of coercive, controlling violence. The evidence of tech abuse was looked at in combination with evidence of other forms of family violence. This helped paint a picture of the overall pattern of abusive behaviour.

The case summaries below only discuss the evidence of tech abuse. Please read the full decisions to understand the other evidence of family violence that was relied on in court.

We have noted when a restraining order or another protective order was also made.

Case summaries

Tech abuse is family violence: McLellan v. Birbilis, 2021 ONSC 7084

Type of tech abuse:

This case did not specifically involve tech abuse. However, the judge made important comments about cyberbullying as an example of violent behaviour that would fall under the definition of family violence in the Children’s Law Reform Act. (The Children’s Law Reform Act and the Divorce Act had just been updated with a definition of family violence when this decision was made.) This comment has been cited by judges in other cases.

Finding:

The judge stated:

The words violence and abuse under the old Act have been elaborated under the new one. The inclusion of a new definition of family violence under the current CLRA is an important addition to this part of the best interests’ inquiry. But its inclusion, and the conduct contained within it, do not bestow any new substantive rights or obligations on either party. The new definition provides a non-exhaustive list of conduct that constitutes family violence. This assists the court in identifying the nature and extent of the family violence. The definition does not preclude the court from finding that other conduct fits within its meaning, such as cyber-bulling for example. (para 27)

Outcome:

The mother was granted sole decision-making and primary residence of the children.

Posts online about the child and video threats against the mother: B.M. v. J.G., 2025 ONCJ 72

Type of tech abuse:

The father posted various videos on TikTok about the child and the court case, which were still available for public viewing at the time of the trial. The videos also showed personal information, including medical records about the child and photographs of the child’s body parts. One of the videos had more than 67,000 views online.

The father recorded the child’s interview with the police and posted it online.

The father’s new partner started a GoFundMe page called “Fighting to End Abuse of (the child’s name)”, which sought donations and claimed the mother was abusing the child.

The father also sent the mother video recordings where he threatened to involve media, claimed his family was hiring several lawyers to defeat her, and more.

The father was charged with uttering threats and signed a peace bond.

The mother brought a motion to change to the final order for joint decision-making and shared parenting.

Finding:

The judge found that:

The father engaged in family violence.
There had been enough of a material change in circumstances to make a change to the parenting order. This was based in part on the family violence by the father against the mother and child.

The judge stated that:

[the father’s] social media campaign against the mother was reckless and harmful to both the child and the mother. It shows a lack of maturity and impulse control. The postings remain available for public viewing. It is incomprehensible that, to this day, he does not see any wrongdoing with respect to his social media postings. (para 124)

The judge found the father’s behaviour about the online posts “egregious” and that:

“[g]iven that this case involves family violence, it is essential to implement prompt, effective, and victim-centred measures to address the father’s online harassment and inappropriate online activity.” (para 165)

Outcome:

The final parenting order was changed to provide the mother with sole decision-making and primary residence of the child.

The father was ordered to have supervised access.

Despite the mother not specifically requesting this order, the court made various orders as part of the parenting order with respect to the father’s posts on social media. The court confirmed its authority to make orders limiting social media activity where it is in the best interests of the child under s. 28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. The father was ordered to remove existing posts and not to post any further content about the mother, the child, and the ongoing litigation.

Abusive social media is family violence: Cirota v. Cirota, 2024 ONSC 4117

Type of tech abuse:
The father:

Posted pictures and comments on social media (Facebook and TikTok), attacking and disparaging the mother.
Set up a GoFundMe page based on his alleged victimization by the mother.
Continued these posts despite court orders directing him not to post anything referring to the children online.

Finding:

The judge wrote:

Social media posts can be a form of family violence when for example, the post threatens or denigrates the other members of the family: McLellan v. Birbilis, 2021 ONSC 7084, at para. 27; S.B. v. L.L., 2023 ONCJ 37, at paras. 85-86. Such inappropriate posts are a form of cyberbullying.
It is evident from [the father’s] communications and social media postings that he was intent on hurting, humiliating, and intimidating [the mother]. This is cyberbullying and is family violence.

Outcome:

The mother was granted sole decision-making and primary residence of the children. The father’s request to relocate with the children to Italy was denied. The father’s parenting time was to be at the discretion of the mother.

Abusive social media about mother and her new partner: Tevlin v. Sobolev, 2025 ONSC 4451

(A.T. v. V.S., a previous interim decision in this case discussing the father’s social media use, is summarized in the “Restraining order” section below.)

Type of tech abuse:

The father posted on social media about the mother and her new partner. The posts included statements such as:

you should have not messed with my son and my family, strong fathers will burn the system to the ground and all abusive and manipulating women will be exposed for garbage humans they are.

The father published identifying information about the mother and her partner on social media and encourage his followers to contact them. For example, he posted about the mother’s name and business and made a livestream from right outside of her house. He encouraged followers to contact her and share what they thought about the litigation.

The father also created GoFundMe account soliciting donations to fund litigation.

The father was charged in criminal court with criminal harassment for his behaviour on social media. Part of his release conditions was to remove the social media posts and not make any new posts that identify or denigrate the mother and her partner.

Finding:

The father committed acts of family violence against the mother and her new partner through his social media posts. The father had a long history of failing to comply with court orders related to his social media posts.

The judge found:

I am persuaded that the Respondent’s non-compliance has been deliberate, wilful, and flagrant… (para 98)

Outcome:

The mother was granted sole decision-making and primary residence of the child.

The father was ordered to have supervised virtual parenting time. A reunification therapist was to be retained by the parties to help improve the father’s relationship with the child.

The father was ordered to pay the mother $100/day for every day he did not remove social media posts about the mother, her partner and the litigation. The mother was also able to pause implementation of any reunification plan between the father and the child if he posted about her, her partner, the litigation, or failed to remove existing posts.

Abusive social media and online recordings of child: M.A.J. v. C.J.P., 2024 ONSC 5300

Type of tech abuse:

The father posted videos and pictures online of the child, including one where he filmed the child being taken out of Tim Hortons by a police officer and made disparaging comments about the mother. The father sent the mother a number of abusive text messages in which the father made disparaging and demeaning comments to the mother.

The father continued social media posts despite court orders restricting either party from posting about the other online.

The father was facing a series of criminal charges for assault and sexual assault of the mother at the time of the trial.

Both parents were trying to change a final parenting order from 2019.

Finding:

There was a material change of circumstances warranting a change to the existing final order for joint decision-making. The child’s circumstances had changed for a number of reasons, including the father was now facing criminal charges for conduct towards the mother, a brief reconciliation between the parents, a series of motions brought by both parents following the failed reconciliation, and the mother’s relocation to a new community.

The judge found that the text messages and social media posts by the father were signs of ongoing coercive control and family violence. Social media posts were found be a form of psychological abuse (paras 91 and 92).

Outcome:

The mother’s motion to change was granted and the final order was varied to provide her with sole decision-making and primary residence of the child in her new community.

The father’s motion to change was dismissed, including his request that the children be returned to live in the community they lived in before the move with their mother.

Tech abuse through frequent text messages: E.M. v. L.M., 2021 ONCJ 704

Type of tech abuse:

The father sent a large number of abusive, disrespectful and condescending texts and Facebook messages to the mother. He also attempted to reach her by calling her through Facebook. This behaviour continued despite the existence of a restraining order.

The father was charged with breaching the restraining order. He then continued to send a large volume of harassing messages to the mother. For example, she received 35 messages from the father in one day. The father was then charged again with a failure to comply with the restraining order and bail conditions.

Finding:

The father’s conduct constituted family violence.

The judge also found that:

Given the father’s violence and his repeated breaches of the restraining order, the court should not make an order that required the mother to work closely with the father on parenting issues.
There were reasonable grounds for the mother to fear for her own safety and the safety of her child.
It was not safe to order father’s parenting time at the mother’s discretion because it may expose her to more attacks by the father.

Outcome:

The mother was granted sole decision-making and primary residence.

No order was made for parenting time in respect of the father, meaning that he did have any parenting time with the child.

Final restraining order was granted to protect the mother from the father.

Online abuse campaigns against mother and professionals: Rubio v. Leigh, 2024 ONSC 6215

Type of tech abuse:

The father used social media to target and harass the mother and children.

He began a social media campaign in Peru portraying the mother as a bigamist. He had articles published about it, posted on a YouTube channel and posted on her Facebook page. There was a show on national television that discussed the bigamy allegations against her.

The mother, who was a government lawyer in Peru, lost her employment as a result of the father’s online campaign against her.

The mother relocated to find employment. The father began another social media campaign against her, accusing her of child abduction and continuing the bigamy allegations.

The father also posted about or threatened to post about the child as well as the adult child of the mother.

The father’s social media use continued in Canada despite court orders restricting this behaviour. He also began sending abusive and threatening email communication to the mother and other professionals involved with the family. The father would attack any service provider online that provided support to the mother. The father tampered with the school’s Facebook page and posted negatively about the school on X.

There was evidence at trial about the pervasive impact of this violence on the mother and children.

Findings:

The court found that the father’s use of social media to target and abuse the mother was part of a larger pattern of psychological abuse and constituted family violence.

The judge found:

[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… (para 393)

Behaviour amounting to cyberbullying and social media postings fall or can fall within the definition of family violence… (para 412)

The court found that there was a serious risk of harm to the mother and the child based on the father’s mental health, escalation in violence, lack of insight, and threats of death and harm in emails and posts.

Outcome:

The mother was granted sole decision-making and primary parenting.

The father was not granted access to the child nor was he granted access to information about the child.

The parenting order included terms restricting the father’s use of social media and included clear limitations on communication with the mother.

A final (permanent) restraining order was granted. However, the restraining order did not include restrictions about social media because those terms were not requested by the mother at trial.

A vexatious litigant declaration was made under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, limiting the father’s ability to bring the matter back to court as a way to continue his abuse of the mother.

Account changes and body camera: A.W. v. N.P., 2022 SKQB 150

This was a Saskatchewan case, but it was decided under the Divorce Act. The Divorce Act applies to all divorcing people in Canada, so this case may be relevant to divorce cases in other provinces and territories. The analysis in this case might also be persuasive in Ontario cases that are decided under the Children Law Reform Act, because the CLRA is very similar to the Divorce Act.

Type of tech abuse:

After separation, the father:

Changed the passwords on the family home’s Nest thermostat, the home’s security/alarm system, and the family’s Sasktel account
Removed the mother from the family’s Apple joint calendar, which the mother had previously maintained. As a result, she could no longer see the children’s activities.
Removed a number of electronic files from the home computer, including the mother’s resume, family photos and work projects.
Changed the password on the children’s iPads so the mother could not access them.
Changed information on her Apple ID, rendering it unusable.
Changed the children’s information on the electronic health care portal to remove the mother
Wore a body camera for all parenting exchanges

Findings:

The father’s conduct constituted family violence. The tech abuse was viewed as part of a pattern of the father’s controlling, intimating and coercive conduct towards the mother.

Outcome:

The mother was granted sole decision-making and primary residence of the children.

Spyware: J.R.D. v. S.B., 2023 ONSC 46

Type of tech abuse:

When the parents separated, the father installed spyware on the mother’s home computer to access her private conversations.

The father admitted to installing the spyware. He felt justified to do so to prove she was having other relationships and men in the home.

Findings:

The court made a finding of family violence against the father. The judge:

Specifically found that the spyware was an example of the father’s controlling behaviour (paragraph 251).
Made important statements that violence doesn’t have to be physical to be considered family violence (paragraph 250).

Outcome:

The mother was granted sole decision-making and primary parenting of the child.

The father’s parenting time was ordered to be at the discretion of the child.