In the digital age, social media has become a battleground for high-conflict divorces. Courts are increasingly faced with cases where one party uses online platforms to disparage, harass or intimidate their former spouse. The recent Ontario Superior Court decision in G.S. v. S.B., 2025 ONSC 280 provides a stark illustration of how courts respond to litigants who use social media as a tool of post-divorce coercion. In G.S. v. S.B., the father engaged in an online campaign against the mother in direct violation of a final court order. His actions included posting personal and damaging information about her and their child, making disparaging statements to third parties, and even attempting to involve the child’s school in his efforts to undermine the mother. This was not an isolated incident, but part of a broader pattern of contemptuous behaviour, including violating parenting time provisions, unauthorized communication with the child through online gaming, and interference with the child’s therapy.
Justice Marc Labrosse found that the father had flagrantly breached multiple provisions of the final order and demonstrated a complete lack of remorse. The court noted that while the father eventually removed some of the harmful online content, the damage was already done, as the materials had been widely disseminated. The ruling emphasized several key judicial principles in handling online harassment in divorce cases:
1. Best interests of the child come first — The court reaffirmed that the primary concern in family law matters is the well-being of the child. The father’s social media activity not only harmed the mother but also posed a significant risk to the child’s emotional and psychological safety.
2. Contempt of court is taken seriously — The court held the father in contempt for his repeated breaches of the final order. His continued defiance, including attempts to justify his actions as being in the child’s best interests, only reinforced the court’s conclusion that stricter enforcement measures were necessary.
3. Social media harassment has long-term consequences — The court recognized that while some violations, such as failing to comply with parenting time provisions, could be remedied, online defamation leaves a permanent digital footprint. Judges are increasingly mindful of how public disparagement can harm not just the targeted spouse but also the child.
The court imposed several penalties and restrictions on the father to prevent further misconduct:
- Suspension of unsupervised parenting time — Given his history of non-compliance, the court determined that the father could not progress to the next stage of parenting time until further judicial review. His actions demonstrated an unwillingness to respect court orders, making it unsafe for the child to be in an unsupervised setting.
- Stricter supervision requirements — The court required that any supervised parenting time take place through an official third-party service to ensure compliance.
- Restrictions on legal action — The father was barred from initiating new court proceedings without prior judicial approval, preventing him from using the legal system to harass or prolong disputes unnecessarily.
- Future review through a motion to change — Recognizing that enforcement through contempt motions was not a permanent solution, the court ordered a focused review of the existing parenting order to address the father’s ongoing behaviour.
This case highlights a growing judicial trend: courts are no longer tolerating the misuse of social media in high-conflict divorces. Here are three practical takeaways:
1. Family lawyers should consider requesting explicit provisions in parenting plans, separation agreements and orders prohibiting online harassment and the dissemination of private information.
2. Where needed, ask the court to impose consequences, including suspending parental rights and imposing financial penalties, for contemptuous behaviour.
3. Remain vigilant, responsive and police digital abuse.
The decision in G.S. v. S.B. serves as a warning to litigants who believe they can weaponize social media without consequences. Courts are taking a firm stance against digital harassment, prioritizing the protection of children and the enforcement of parenting plans, separation agreements and orders. For those engaged in high-conflict divorces, this case underscores the importance of compliance with court orders and the severe repercussions of using online platforms to harm an ex-spouse.
This article was published in Law360 Canada at https://www.law360.ca/ca/family/articles/2326495/how-judges-respond-to-divorcing-spouses-who-weaponize-social-media
Steve Benmor, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M. (Family Law), C.S., Cert.F.Med., C.Arb., FDRP PC, is the founder and principal lawyer of Benmor Family Law Group, a boutique matrimonial law firm in downtown Toronto. He is a Certified Specialist in Family Law, a Certified Specialist in Parenting Coordination and was admitted as a Fellow to the prestigious International Academy of Family Lawyers. Steve is regularly retained as a Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and Parenting Coordinator. Steve uses his 30 years of in-depth knowledge of family law, court-room experience and expert problem-solving skills in Divorce Mediation/Arbitration to help spouses reach fair, fast and cooperative divorce settlements without the financial losses, emotional costs and lengthy delays from divorce court.
Share this article on: