Cyberbullying

The plaintiffs, including a national not-for-profit HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C treatment information organization and its employees and board members, brought a defamation action against the defendant for an online libel campaign.

The defendant created profiles on his website labeling the plaintiffs as "groomers" and pedophiles, posted defamatory content on social media platforms, and left threatening voicemail messages at the plaintiffs' workplace.

The defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred stemming from the plaintiffs' association with the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.

The defendant failed to respond to the action and was noted in default.

The court granted default judgment, finding the statements were clearly defamatory, and awarded substantial general and aggravated damages.

A permanent injunction was issued requiring removal of all defamatory publications and prohibiting further defamatory statements.

This decision addresses a temporary care and custody motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto sought to place the child, E.G., in the temporary care of the father, V.G., with supervised access for the mother, O.G. The court found that the mother’s significant mental health challenges, including erratic behavior and refusal of treatment, posed a risk of harm to the child.

The mother’s social media postings identifying the child and participants in the case were found to violate subsection 87(8) of the Act, leading to a prohibition on such postings and an order for their removal.

The court emphasized the child’s best interests, the need for stability, and the importance of protecting the integrity of child protection proceedings from cyberbullying and intimidation.

The applicant mother fled Peru with the parties' child due to the respondent father's severe and prolonged family violence.

The father followed them to Canada and engaged in a campaign of harassment, cyberbullying, and vexatious litigation.

Following the dismissal of the father's Hague Convention application, the court conducted a 7-week trial to determine parenting, child support, and protection issues.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, with no parenting time for the father except under strict conditions initiated by the mother or child.

The court also imputed minimum wage income to the father for child support, issued a final restraining order, and declared the father a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Following a summary judgment finding the defendant liable for a massive campaign of internet defamation against 53 plaintiffs, the court conducted a trial on the assessment of damages.

The defendant had posted thousands of vile and false statements online, accusing the plaintiffs—mostly recruiters and executives—of pedophilia, sexual assault, fraud, and other egregious acts.

The court awarded general damages ranging from $50,000 to $95,000 per plaintiff, aggravated damages of $1,500 to 34 plaintiffs who demonstrated significant mental distress, and punitive damages of $9,000 to each plaintiff due to the defendant's malicious and high-handed conduct.

The court also granted a permanent injunction and ordered the defendant to remove the defamatory content from the internet.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion seeking an order to prohibit the respondent mother from making public social media postings related to the society's involvement with her children, the children's fathers, caregivers, and society employees, and to compel the removal of existing posts.

The mother opposed the motion.

The court granted the orders, finding that the mother's postings violated subsection 87(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, by identifying children and parties to the proceedings.

The court also relied on its inherent power to control its own process to protect participants from cyberbullying and maintain the integrity of child protection proceedings.

The applicant (mother) brought a motion seeking orders to protect herself and her two children from the respondent (father).

The mother requested the removal of all social media posts, commentary, and videos about them, a prohibition on future postings, and a restraining order.

The father opposed the motion.

The court found the father engaged in cyberbullying and family violence through his online conduct, violating the privacy of the mother and children and contravening the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court granted the mother's requests, ordering the father to remove existing posts, prohibiting future posts, and issuing a restraining order, citing the best interests of the children and the mother's safety concerns.

Costs were awarded to the mother.

The defendants (plaintiffs by counterclaim) brought an urgent motion for interim injunctive relief to stop the plaintiffs and their principals from engaging in a relentless campaign of online harassment and defamation via Instagram.

The dispute originated from a failed transaction involving luxury handbags and watches, which previously led to ex parte Mareva and Anton Piller orders against the defendants.

The court found that the principals of the plaintiff corporation had posted highly defamatory statements, threats, and images obtained from the execution of the court orders.

Applying the stringent test for defamation injunctions, the court granted the requested relief, ordering the removal of the posts and restraining further contact and publication.

The defendant was convicted of assault (2x), forcible confinement, and publishing intimate images following a trial.

At sentencing, the Crown sought nine months custody (six months for the intimate images offence and three months consecutive for the remaining charges) plus 18 months probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of no more than five or six months, or alternatively, imprisonment not exceeding five months.

The court imposed a sentence of six months in jail less one day for the publishing intimate images offence, and a 90-day conditional sentence for the assault and forcible confinement offences to be served consecutively to the jail sentence, plus 18 months probation and ancillary orders.

The court found that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the intimate relationship violence and deliberate, cruel sharing of intimate images as revenge.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions brought by the plaintiffs and defendants by counterclaim against Tanvir Farid.

The plaintiffs sought to continue an interlocutory injunction against Farid for defamatory online postings, amend previous orders, review the execution of an Anton Piller Order (APO), and gain access to seized data.

Additionally, the plaintiffs and other defendants by counterclaim (Maanit Zemel, Hexigent Consulting Inc., Ryan Duquette, and Jason Green) moved to strike Farid's counterclaim.

The court continued the interlocutory injunction until trial, found the APO was properly executed, and granted access to seized data subject to privilege review.

The court denied the plaintiffs' requests to delete a paragraph from a prior order and to issue a mandatory order for Farid to remove defamatory material at the interlocutory stage.

Crucially, Farid's counterclaim, alleging fraud upon the court and improper conduct by the plaintiffs, their counsel, and investigators, was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The court found the counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous and vexatious, and was barred by the doctrine of absolute privilege.

Costs were awarded against Farid.

The applicant, Monika Caryk, sought a Norwich Order compelling the respondent, Melinda Karlsson, to disclose information relevant to allegations that Caryk engaged in cyberbullying of Karlsson.

Caryk's reputation was allegedly damaged by media reports attributing online posts to her, stemming from Karlsson's now-expired peace bond application.

The court applied the five-part test for a Norwich Order, finding that Caryk failed to establish a tenable cause of action, that Karlsson was the only practicable source of the information, or that the interests of justice favored granting the order.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

The offender pleaded guilty to sharing intimate images under section 162.1 of the Criminal Code.

The offender, in a state of depression following the breakdown of his relationship, uploaded five videos and seventeen nude photographs of his former partner to various websites without her consent, attaching her name, age, ethnicity, and place of birth to the images.

The victim discovered the images online and suffered severe psychological harm, depression, and ongoing harassment from strangers.

The court rejected the offender's request for a conditional discharge and imposed a custodial sentence of five months imprisonment followed by twelve months probation, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount sentencing principles for this offence.

The accused was charged with publishing an intimate image without consent contrary to section 162.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused sent a screenshot of a video depicting the complainant engaged in sexual intercourse to the complainant's boyfriend and posted it on Facebook without consent.

The key issue was whether the image constituted an "intimate image" as defined in the Criminal Code.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the image was intimate, as it depicted nudity and explicit sexual activity, was made in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the complainant retained that expectation of privacy at the time of the offense.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant pleaded guilty to distributing intimate images without consent and breaching an undertaking.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of six months imprisonment followed by probation.

Defence counsel sought a conditional discharge with nine months probation.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with three years probation, including home confinement for three months, a curfew for three months thereafter, community service, and restrictions on internet use and possession of intimate images.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and restorative justice principles, considering the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and strong family support against the serious harm caused to the victim.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of criminal harassment contrary to section 264 of the Criminal Code for non-consensually distributing intimate images of the complainant on a pornographic website.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court found the offence to be serious given the prevalence of non-consensual sexting, the breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the accused's degree of responsibility.

However, the court considered the accused's exemplary character, rehabilitation efforts, remorse, guilty plea, and the collateral consequences already suffered.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, no contact with the complainant, and restrictions on possessing intimate images.

A 15-year-old sought an order requiring an internet provider to identify the creator of a fake sexualized profile and asked to proceed anonymously with a publication ban.

The Court held that objective harm to children from cyberbullying can justify anonymity without individualized evidence of specific harm.

It allowed anonymous proceedings to protect the child’s privacy and access to justice.

It declined to ban publication of non-identifying profile content because open court and press freedom outweighed further restriction once identity protection was in place.

The Court also set aside prior costs orders against the appellant and made no costs order in the Court.