Written by: Naa Lansana
During separation, couples often experience disappointment and hurt, leading to a strong temptation to seek validation from their community and beyond. In this digital age, where many facets of life are lived out on social media, it is not surprising that some individuals choose to extend their battle online. However, the courts have consistently emphasized that the best interests of children should be paramount and protected, and have strongly signaled that they will not tolerate parental misconduct regarding children on social media. Parents who fail to heed this warning may find themselves in trouble with the law. The case of S.B. v. J.I.U.1 illustrates this.
In S.B. v. J.I.U.2, the Applicant mother, who shared two children aged 5 and 7 with the Respondent father, had among other requests sought the intervention of the court in tackling social media posts made by the Respondent father. Specifically, she requested that commentary and videos be removed and that the Respondent father be prohibited from posting any other materials in relation to the Applicant and the children. At the time of this hearing, the Respondent father also had criminal charges against him stemming from assault he perpetuated on the Applicant mother.
This case reviews relevant legislation and addresses case law precedents that empower judges to order the removal of social media posts concerning children and adopt punitive measures to address violations. For instance, Justice Sherr reviews the Children’s Law Reform Act (the “Act”)3 which authorizes judges to order the removal of offensive postings and prohibit new ones. Further, she examines the import of various cases on the subject, including Yenovkian v. Gulian4, the seminal case on social media postings. In this case, the father posted substantial information concerning the children on social media and engaged in cyberbullying of his ex-wife. Consequently, he was not only ordered to remove existing postings and barred from making additional postings, but was also ordered to pay the following amounts,
$50,000 damages for the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering, $100,000 damages for the tort of invasion of privacy (public disclosure of private facts and publicity placing the plaintiff in a false light) and punitive damages of $150,000.5
Additionally, Justice Sherr sheds light on the amended definition of family violence within the Act6 specified in the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act, 20207, as well as factors relating to family violence contained therein. These provide the court with additional tools with which to tackle the issue of negative social media posts. Where warranted, the court may name cyberbullying as family violence, and in the case at bar, it does.8
Furthermore, Justice Sherr clearly outlines numerous consequences for breaching the court’s orders regarding the social media postings. These include, but are not limited to the payment of a fine, imprisonment, payment of costs and dismissing the offending party’s claims.9
Given the court’s firm stance against the weaponization of social media posts during separation, particularly as they impact children, separating couples are well advised to steer clear of waging war against each other online. Failure to do so may result in significant legal repercussions.
1 2021 ONCJ 614, 2021 CarswellOnt 17951
2 Ibid.
3 R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12.
4 2019 ONSC 7279.
5 Supra note 1 at para 20.
6 Supra note 3.
7 S.O. 2020, c. 25 – Bill 207.
8 Supra note 1 at para 38.
9 Ibid at para 42-50.
