Family court decisions that include tech abuse: Restraining orders

Legal test for restraining orders

To get a restraining order from family court in Ontario, a person’s fear must be found to be “reasonable”. This means that any person in similar circumstances would be fearful too.

The following are cases where the court found that tech abuse contributed to a woman’s fear for her physical and psychological safety and so a restraining order was granted. In some cases, the tech abuse was part of a larger pattern of abusive behaviour.

We have noted if a parenting order or another protective order was also ordered in the case.

Case summaries

Online abuse directed at children, mother and her family: Yenovkian v Gulian, 2019 ONSC 7279

While this case happened before the 2021 changes to the best interests of the child test, it’s still a useful case. The judge’s decision is in line with the new definition of family violence in the Divorce Act and Ontario’s Children Law Reform Act. The judge also provides a good definition of cyberbullying.

Type of tech abuse:

The father engaged in years of cyberbullying of the mother on websites, YouTube videos, online petitions and emails. This included:

Creating webpages and a YouTube channel dedicated to harassing the mother and her family
Posting videos of his children with disparaging comments
Making accusations of kidnapping, child abuse, assault, and fraud against the mother and her parents
Inviting others to participate in his online bullying
Posting videos of court-ordered access visits with commentary

The father also sent disparaging emails to the mother throughout the court case.

The father also breached past court orders restricting him from posting content about children online.

Finding:

The mother was found to have reasonable grounds to fear for her own safety and the safety of her children. The fear included both physical and psychological safety.

“…based on a long period of egregious and continuing threats and menace to [the mother] and those whom [the father] perceives support [the mother].”

This behaviour persisted despite previous court orders.

The court also found that the father’s conduct was in violation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The father’s behaviour constituted cyberbullying, which the court defined as:

“the use of electronic technology, including social media, text messaging, websites and email, in a manner that is intended to cause, or should reasonably be known to cause, fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other forms of harm to another person’s body, feelings, self-esteem, reputation or property” (para 60)

The judge also found that cyberbullying should be considered under best interests of the child test when making parenting orders.

Outcome:

A final (permanent) restraining order was granted to the mother against the father.

The mother was granted sole decision-making and was able to relocate with the children.

The father was ordered to have supervised parenting time with the children.

The order also included various limitations to the father’s use of social media, recording of visits with children and requiring him to remove existing content about the mother and children. The father’s supervised parenting time was not to begin until he complied with these provisions.

Surveillance using an employee app: Albaz v. Rihawi, 2024 ONSC 812

Type of tech abuse:

The father accessed the mother’s online flight information through a web-based app for Air Canada employees. The app let him track her whereabouts and gave him personal information about her flight number, seat number and whether her boarding pass had been scanned yet at the gate.

The mother also believed the father was tracking her location through her car or her phone. She provided evidence showing that he located her after she left the home, without giving an explanation for how he knew where she was. She had left the home because he had been physically violent with her.

Finding:

The mother was found to have reasonable grounds to fear for her safety, in part based on the evidence of tech abuse.

The judge wrote:

[The mother]’s beliefs about tracking or scanning devices or apps is unproven. Though she’s reported these incidents to the police, no one has ever found any such evidence. That said, [the father]’s casual willingness to access [the mother]’s private travel information, using restricted employee access, because he was curious about her whereabouts is scary.

Outcome:

A final (permanent) restraining order was granted to protect the mother from the father.

Online abuse campaign: S.B. v. J.I.U., 2021 ONCJ 614

Type of tech abuse:

The father harassed and verbally abused the mother through posts on his own public website, which linked to his Instagram and Facebook accounts. The posts included photos of the mother and her personal identifying documents and information, videos of the mother and children with malicious commentary, court documents and orders from a previous child protection case, notes from child protection, and criminal court documents related to past criminal charges.

The father created a Facebook account in the mother’s name to denigrate her. He posted photos of her, her passport, and her belongings.

Finding:

The mother was found to have a reasonable fear of the father based on the evidence of tech abuse and other forms of violence by the father.

The judge found that:

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 father feels justified in what he is doing. He feels that he is exposing who the mother really is. He is unlikely to stop unless there are strong prohibitions against his social media postings, followed by significant consequences if he fails to comply with those prohibitions

With respect to the mother’s claim for a restraining order, the judge concluded that:

The mother established both an objective and subjective basis to fear for the safety of herself and the children.
The father has engaged in a campaign of harassment and cyberbullying against the mother. He has breached her privacy rights and the privacy rights of the children in this campaign.

The judge ultimately considered the evidence of the father’s social media posts and the profound disrespect that they showed to the mother in determining that the mother’s version of events was more credible than the father’s (para 57).

The judge did not think the existing bail conditions in place against the father were sufficient to protect the mother and the children. They needed protection that would extend beyond the period of time when criminal charges were outstanding. The judge also did not think a non-communication order under s. 28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act would be sufficient to protect the mother and children.

Outcome:

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

As well:

As part of the parenting order, the father was not to post on social media and was to remove existing posts.
Police enforcement was ordered.
The judge extensively discussed the legal consequences if the father breached the provisions about his social media posts.

Encouraging harm through social media: AT v. V.S., 2020 ONSC 4198

Type of tech abuse:

The father took various videos of the mother, livestreaming them online.

In one example, he livestreamed a video he took outside of her home. He gave her full name, phoned her on speaker, and disclosed the name of her business. He threatened to “make sure everyone knows who you are”, and stated he would be outside her home every single day “doing this” until he had his son. He then encouraged his followers to:

search for this woman, you can message her and give her your two cents…ask her to end this bullshit now.

He returned to her home one week later and again recorded a livestream video.

The father’s videos had been viewed 1,700 times and had generated hundreds of comments online, many of which were disparaging to the mother.

The father also set up a GoFundMe page for contributions towards the litigation.

The father held strong views about the pandemic and refused to follow public health protocols, often talking about this on his social media. He was also involved in various public protests, which were posted online. The mother was concerned about the impact of these public posts about the pandemic on the child.

Finding:

The court found that the mother’s fear for her safety and the safety of the child was warranted given the father’s online bullying and harassment.

The judge found that:

…it is appropriate that a tailored restraining order be made with respect to the respondent’s social media to protect the privacy of the child, and to assure his and the applicant’s safety. While I am cognizant that the respondent himself has not threatened to physically harm the applicant, by inviting his followers to search for the applicant, the respondent has invited, at the very least, on line bullying of her. The comments on the respondent’s posts include some that are upsetting and others that are threatening. I accept that the applicant’s fear for her and I.S.’s safety is reasonable. (para 50)

Outcome:

The court ordered an interim restraining order prohibiting the father from posting online about the mother, the child, and the litigation. The order also required him to remove existing posts.

The court did not include terms about the father’s use of the GoFundMe page because it was not properly included in the motion materials.

The court also did not include a general prohibition for the father not to communicate with the mother or come within a specified distance of her. This is because most of the evidence was about his social media activities and these were addressed in the social media terms in the restraining order.

The mother was also granted interim sole decision-making and primary residence for the child.

The father was granted interim virtual parenting time.

Multiple forms of tech abuse: M.Y. v. G.B., 2019 ONSC 4907

Type of tech abuse:

The father threatened that an international organization with thousands of members was investigating the mother, her family, her lawyer, and other people close to the mother. The father sent this organization files belonging to the mother, including court documents. He also posted personal information about the mother, which included court documents, family videos, and the mother’s personal mental health records. He posted this material in other online locations as well.

The father’s friend created a fake dating profile to lure the mother and elicit personal information about her whereabouts and daily activities. The father also tracked the mother’s use of the online dating app.

The father also took the mother’s hard drive and sought to introduce evidence he obtained from the hard drive, including photos and videos.

Finding:

The judge found that:

The mother had reasonable grounds to fear for her physical and psychological safety, as well as the safety of the children, based on tech abuse and other forms of violent behaviour.
The father harassed and threatened the mother and those who support her over a lengthy period.
The father’s conduct was persistent and would likely continue without court intervention.

The judge stated that:

[The father] is unable to put the child’s needs first. It is important that [the child] be protected on the internet, and also that her mother is protected from internet attacks. As [the child] gets older and googles her name and her mother’s name, as children do, she will be exposed to a level of malevolence that is shocking, and has the potential to destabilize [the child]; [the father] must rise above his anger at [the mother] to put protection of [the child] first. (para 157)

Outcome:

A final (permanent) restraining order was granted to protect the mother from the father.

The father was ordered to return the hard drive and destroy all copies of the information he took from it.

The mother was granted sole decision-making and primary residence of the child. The father was ordered supervised parenting time.

The order included various restrictions on the father from posting information online and requiring that he remove existing information.