I

How can a survivor of ongoing harassment, cyberbullying, and non-consensual sharing of intimate images by an ex-spouse seek legal remedies in Canada, considering family law proceedings, tort claims for privacy invasion, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and child welfare concerns? How can a survivor of ongoing harassment, cyberbullying, and non-consensual sharing of intimate images by an ex-spouse seek legal remedies in Canada, considering family law proceedings, tort claims for privacy invasion, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and child welfare concerns?

SHow Aikenhead’s Dissertation Directly Applies

1. Technology-Facilitated Intimate Partner Violence (TFIPV):

• The case fits exactly into Aikenhead’s focus on technology-facilitated abuse.

• The release of intimate content (often called revenge porn or non-consensual distribution of intimate images) is a key form of TFIPV, as Aikenhead defines it.

• The ongoing harassment through digital means, especially with children witnessing the abuse, is a central concern in Aikenhead’s work.

2.  Coercive Control and Patterns of Abuse:

• Aikenhead’s study emphasizes that TFIPV often follows patterns of coercive control—a mix of harassment, intimidation, and manipulation, even after apparent "cooling off" periods.

• This is exactly what our case shows: a person resumes abuse after a period of good behavior, using digital tools to extend their control.

3. Impact on Children:

• While Aikenhead’s main focus is on partner violence, her insights are relevant to family impact—especially when children are exposed to digital abuse.

• Our case involves the children directly witnessing and being harmed by the harassment. Aikenhead’s work strengthens the argument that this harm is not collateral, but directly linked to the abusive dynamics.

4. Mental Health Factor:

• Aikenhead discusses how the system often overlooks patterns in TFIPV, sometimes failing to act when perpetrators show mental health issues or when behavior appears to stabilize temporarily.

• The mental health angle in our case adds complexity, but does not negate accountability—a point that Aikenhead’s findings support.

5.  Gaps in the Legal System:

• Aikenhead argues the Criminal Code and the justice system often fail to recognize and respond to the realities of TFIPV—exactly the problem in our case, where despite ongoing harm, it may be difficult to secure effective legal remedies.

Bottom Line

Moira Aikenhead’s dissertation (CanLII)gives you a solid academic and policy foundation to argue that:

•  The law must act proactively in TFIPV cases.
  Patterns of coercive control, even with mental illness factors, are dangerous and harmful.

• The safety of children is paramount, and exposure to digital harassment is a form of psychological abuse.

•  Police and courts must respond decisively when ex-partners use technology to harm victims, even after a period of apparent stability.

 Cyberbullying by Ex-Spouse: Case Brief

1.Yenovkian v. Gulian, 2019 ONSC 7279

Issue

Whether a former spouse can be held liable for cyberbullying—including the public dissemination of false, defamatory, and private information online—and whether new torts of privacy invasion should be recognized to address such harms.

Rule / Ratio

The Ontario Superior Court recognized the tort of "publicity placing a person in a false light" and reaffirmed the tort of "public disclosure of private facts." The court held that cyberbullying and online harassment can amount to intentional infliction of mental suffering and invasion of privacy, even in family law disputes.

Serving the Province of Ontario