Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-21-54 DATE: 2023 03 20 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: A.B., Applicant AND: C.D., Respondent

BEFORE: Conlan J.

COUNSEL: Ms. K. Vaid, for A.B. C.D., Self-Represented

HEARD: March 20, 2023

Endorsement on Motion

[1] The Applicant mother moves for an order that the court file be limited to the parties and counsel, and that the Respondent father be prohibited from publishing online or making public any information about the proceeding, and that the Respondent be prohibited from posting online or making public any file documents, and that the Respondent remove from the internet any existing information that runs afoul of those prohibitions.

[2] The Respondent contests the relief being sought, arguing that it is his constitutional right as a citizen of the United States of America, living in Florida, to have the Facebook page that he has, dedicated he says to his daughter (three years of age) that he shares with the Applicant; that the sole purpose of the Facebook page is so that his daughter will someday see it and know that her father did not abandon her; that the mother is making a mountain out of a molehill (my expression); and that he simply wants to be a small part of his daughter’s life, which has been difficult because of the mother’s parental alienation tactics, he submits.

[3] No factum was filed on behalf of the Applicant. No statutory authority for the relief being sought was cited by counsel for the mother in oral submissions on the motion, although there is a passing reference to section 70 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, as amended (”CLRA”), in the Notice of Motion. There is nothing in either of the two affidavits sworn to/affirmed by the mother that evidences that there has been an application made under Part III of the CLRA, and such an application is required for any relief to be granted under section 70 – P.(A.) v. K.(L.), 2019 ONSC 4010 (S.C.J.). There was one decision referred to by counsel for the mother in her submissions on the motion, M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207 (S.C.J.), a decision that this Court accepts as being a very thorough and helpful treatment of the general law concerning the heightened privacy interests of children in family law proceedings but which, at the same time, has nothing to do with the relief being sought by the mother in our case. As can be seen from paragraph 44 of the decision in M.A.B., supra, that case dealt with whether initials ought to be used for the participants and whether all or a part of the court file ought to be sealed. Finally, although certainly not required in every case, it should be noted that the media was not given notice of the within motion and, thus, did not participate in the hearing in any way.

[4] With respect, I think that the mother and her counsel ought to have been more careful about putting their very best foot forward in terms of the jurisdictional and merits-based issues that confront this Court. The relief being sought here is sweeping in nature and goes far beyond even the parameters of subclauses (a) and (b) of section 70(1) of the CLRA.

[5] In any event, I have reviewed, carefully, the online information posted by the father. There is no question that it provides intimate details about the child and the mother, private information that the child has no ability to defend against. Equally important, these private details, which will not be repeated here as to do so would only further threaten the confidentiality of the information, are totally and completely unnecessary in light of the stated purpose of the Facebook page – in the words of the father himself, to permit his daughter to know in the future that she was being thought about and remembered and not abandoned by her father. If genuine, that is a purpose that is understandable to this Court. What is not understandable, however, is why the father has to publicize the names of the child and the mother and other intimate details about them in order to effect that purpose. It is clearly not in the best interests of the child to have everything about her splashed all over the internet for everyone, from the creeps and the miscreants to the most noble among us and all in between, to see.

[6] The mother’s motion is therefore granted, in small part. This Court orders that the father, or anyone or any entity acting on behalf of or at the request of or at the direction of the father, shall not publish or make public, or keep published or keep made public, including on Facebook or elsewhere on social media or anywhere online, information that has the effect of identifying the child and/or the mother.

[7] For clarity, this Order is both prospective and retrospective in its reach. The “keep published” and “keep made public” expressions mean that the father shall ensure that anything already published or made public complies with the Court’s directive.

[8] The jurisdiction for this Temporary Order is clause (b) of section 70(1) of the CLRA. I took the liberty of reviewing the originating process, and I have confirmed on my own that a claim has been advanced, in the Application, under Part III of the legislation.

[9] Counsel for the mother shall take-out the formal Order without delay. The father’s approval of the draft supplied to the Court for review, to be prepared by counsel for the mother as per this Endorsement, is hereby dispensed with.

[10] The mother’s motion is otherwise dismissed.

[11] There are no costs of the motion. Most of the relief sought was not granted, and the Court was given by the moving party less than a full toolbox to tackle the project.

Conlan J. Date: March 20, 2023