When the Harm Is Digital but the Damage Is Real

Ontario courts have built a meaningful set of tools for online harm over the past decade: new torts, six-figure damages and orders transferring ownership of posts. These five matters show what those tools can do, and where they run out.

1. Caplan v. Atas: when defamation law is not enough

Nadire Atas spent years posting false and vicious content about people she held grudges against, and their families. Defamation judgments had not stopped her. Justice Corbett recognized a new tort of harassment in internet communications, despite the Court of Appeal’s earlier refusal to create a general harassment tort in Merrifield v. Canada (AG), 2019 ONCA 205. In 40 Days for Life v. Dietrich, 2024 ONCA 599, the Court of Appeal noted that it had not recognized internet harassment as a tort and declined to decide its validity in that appeal.

The most practical remedy was creative: the court vested ownership of the posts in the victims so they could demand removal from platforms.

Lesson: Caplan addressed exceptionally serious and persistent online harassment, not merely annoying or offensive speech. But a remedy still depends on the victim going to court, often for years.

2. Rutman v. Rabinowitz: anonymous does not mean untraceable

After a business falling-out, Saul Rabinowitz posted pseudonymous reviews calling Ronald Rutman a thief and a tax cheat, and set up email accounts in his name. Rutman obtained court orders to identify who was behind the IP addresses. The Court of Appeal upheld a total award of about $700,000, including $250,000 in punitive damages, and noted that internet publication can justify higher awards because of its reach and permanence.

Lesson: Fake accounts and review sites do not provide cover. Courts can and do order disclosure of who is behind them.

3. Yenovkian v. Gulian: family conflict taken public

During a separation, Mr. Yenovkian created websites and YouTube videos accusing his ex-spouse of kidnapping, drugging and abusing their children. He posted videos of the children, in breach of court orders. Justice Kristjanson recognized the tort of placing someone in a false light. She awarded $100,000 for invasion of privacy, $50,000 for intentional infliction of mental suffering, and $150,000 in punitive damages.

Lesson: Family disputes belong in family court. Taking them online can create substantial civil liability in addition to support obligations.

4. Jane Doe 464533 v. N.D.: the limits of a default judgment

An ex-boyfriend posted an intimate video of the plaintiff on a pornography website. Justice Stinson recognized the tort of public disclosure of private facts and awarded $100,000. The defendant had not defended the claim. He later moved to set the judgment aside. On September 16, 2016, the court ordered the liability findings and damages assessment set aside on condition that he pay $10,000 in costs; the remaining orders, including protective injunctions, stayed in place (the later decision). The tort itself was recognized again in Jane Doe 72511 v. Morgan, 2018 ONSC 6607.

Lesson: A headline judgment can unravel on procedure. Non-consensual sharing of intimate images can also be a crime under s. 162.1 of the Criminal Code.

5. The Cornwall-area youth charges: the criminal end of the spectrum

In March 2022, police in eastern Ontario charged two 14-year-old girls with counselling suicide and criminal harassment following an investigation into alleged online harassment of a peer. A boy was charged with mischief. Police reported no loss of life. These were allegations, not findings of guilt. No verdict or final disposition is confirmed here, and the youths’ identities are protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Lesson: Teen conflict can cross into criminal territory. Parents and schools should treat threats and encouragement of self-harm as safety emergencies, not discipline issues.

What the law cannot do

Civil litigation can take years. Judgments can be hard to collect. Court orders bind the parties but not every stranger who saved a screenshot. Search results and reposts outlast the litigation.

That is why early action matters more than the eventual remedy. Preserve evidence the day you find it, report through every channel with authority, and get advice before the content spreads further.

If this is happening to you

1. In an emergency, call 911.
2. Screenshot the content with the URL, account name and date before reporting it.
3. Report to the platform under the specific category.
4. For intimate images, report to police. If the person is under 18, also report to Cybertip.ca.
5. Get support: Kids Help Phone at 1-800-668-6868, or call or text 9-8-8.
6. Speak with a lawyer about cease-and-desist letters, court orders to identify anonymous posters, and injunctions.

About Juliana Saxberg

Juliana Saxberg is an Ottawa lawyer, founder of Lex Artia Professional Corporation, and legal-tech commentator. Read her author profile →