Coercive Control in the Digital Age: How Technology Can Be Used to Facilitate Intimate Partner Violence
.jpg)
By Samantha Eisen & Nour Haj
Introduction
Technology has transformed how we communicate, work, manage our finances, and interact with people around us. In 2022, 94% of Canadians reported having access to the Internet at home, and 47.4% of Canadians used an Internet-connected smart home device (such as a smart thermostat or smart speaker) in their primary residence.[1] Having access to technology may make everyday life more convenient. However, the same technology may also provide new ways for one partner to monitor, intimidate, isolate, or control the other.
Intimate partner violence is not limited to physical violence. It may also involve a pattern of manipulation, surveillance, intimidation, financial control, harassment, and other conduct that gradually limits a partner's independence and autonomy. In some relationships, technology becomes one of the tools through which that control is exercised.
The term “technology-facilitated coercive control” is used to describe violence and abuse by a current or former intimate partner that is facilitated through digital means.[2] This blog explores how technology can be used to facilitate coercive control and the legal remedies that may be available for those affected by it.
Family Violence and Intimate Partner Violence
The Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act address “family violence” in the context of considering violence when making parenting orders. They define family violence as conduct by a family member that is violent or threatening, constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, or causes another family member to fear for their safety or the safety of another person.[3] The conduct does not need to constitute a criminal offence to fall within the definition of family violence.[4]
The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) recently addressed the nature of intimate partner violence in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia.[5] The SCC explained that intimate partner violence is best understood as coercive and controlling conduct that undermines autonomy. It may include tactics of isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, economic abuse, sexual coercion, and intimidation that can control and entrap intimate partners.[6]
In Ahluwalia, the SCC recognized a new tort of intimate partner violence. Survivors of intimate partner violence may now advance claims and seek monetary damages for coercive controlling behaviour provided they meet the test for the tort of intimate partner violence, as established by the SCC. This tort addresses a gap in existing law and recognizes that coercive control, as a distinct manifestation of intimate partner violence, is not acknowledged as a wrong under existing torts such as assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.[7]
What Is Coercive Control?
Coercive control generally refers to a pattern of behaviour through which an abusive partner seeks to restrict their partner's independence and eliminate their sense of autonomy or freedom in the relationship.[8] Coercive control can often be difficult to identify as individual acts may appear relatively minor when viewed in isolation. However, the cumulative effects of these acts can cause an intimate partner to feel entrapped, controlled, and isolated.[9] Coercive control usually falls under one of four categories: controlling behaviours, psychological abuse, sexual jealousy, and stalking.[10] For example, coercive control may involve an abusive partner:
- Controlling their partner’s access to money;
- Isolating their partner from their friends and family;
- Monitoring their partner’s daily behaviour (i.e. what they wear);
- Repeatedly accusing their partner of infidelity; or
- Threating self-harm (or threatening to harm their partner) if their partner tries to end the relationship.[11]
Coercive control is often, but not always, used in conjunction with other types of intimate partner violence. For example, an abuser may commit acts of physical, psychological, or sexual abuse to maintain the pattern of coercive control.[12]
How Does Technology Facilitate Coercive Control?
Abusive partners may use technology as a tool to make coercive control easier to carryout, more continuous, and more difficult to escape. Coercive control through technology may include behaviours such as digital surveillance, monitoring online activity, online harassment, and non-consensual distribution of photographs and videos.[13]
Digital Surveillance
Digital technology may give an abusive partner access to information that may not otherwise be available when the parties are physically apart. Phones, computers, vehicles, and other connected devices can be used to monitor their partner’s movements or activities.
Examples of digital surveillance include:
- Installing spyware or other monitoring software on a phone or computer;
- Using GPS, AirTags, or other location-sharing devices to track a partner’s location without consent;
- Demanding passwords to a partner’s phone, email, or social media accounts;
- Routinely checking a partner’s browser history, social media activity, or call-logs; or
- Repeatedly questioning a partner about who they have communicated with based on their online activity.
In J.R.D. v. S.B., 2023 ONSC 46, the father admitted that, following the parties’ separation but while they continued to live in the same home, he installed spyware on the home computer.[14] The spyware allowed the father to access the mother’s private conversations. The Ontario Superior Court (“ONSC”) identified the installation of this software as part of a “controlling element” in the father’s behaviour and found that his conduct was threatening and controlling.[15]
Ashomes become increasingly connected, surveillance and control may extend beyondphones and computers. For example, an abusive partner may use smart homedevices, including home assistants, thermostats, security systems, cameras, andother internet-connected devices to harass and control their partner.[16]
Online Harassment
Online platforms may also be used as a tool of coercive control. For example, social media allows information to be distributed instantly to friends, relatives, employers, colleagues, and even strangers. An abusive partner can use social media to:
- Create a social account in their partner’s name or impersonate them online;
- Repeatedly post derogatory or humiliating content about their partner;
- Post photographs, videos, or recordings of their partner without their consent; or
- Start an online harassment campaign against their partner after separation.
In Rubio v. Leigh, 2024 ONSC 6215, the father's use of social media formed part of an extensive course of abusive conduct directed against the mother and her family.[17] For example, the father labelled the mother as a child abductor and launched an online harassment campaign against the mother on platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and X.[18] The ONSC found that the father used social media as a tool of harassment and intimidation, and his behaviour amounted to psychological abuse and constituted family violence.[19]
Online harassment can also take the form of persistent electronic communication. In E.M. v. L.M., 2021 ONCJ 704, the father continued sending abusive and harassing text and Facebook messages to the mother and attempted to contact her through Facebook video calls even after a Restraining Order was made.[20] The father was charged with “reckless harassment,” yet he continued to send angry, intimidating and denigrating messages to the mother.[21] The Ontario Court of Justice (“ONCJ”) family court found that there were reasonable grounds for the mother to fear for her and her child’s physical and psychological safety as a result of the father’s online conduct and ordered the father to be restrained from communicating with the mother.[22]
Online harassment may also involve publicly portraying a former partner in a false and highly offensive manner. In Yenovkian v. Gulian, 2019 ONSC 7279, the father used the Internet to publish allegations against the mother, claiming she was a child abuser, a kidnapper, and that she committed fraud.[23] The father also distributed these allegations to the mother’s friends, family, colleagues, and members of her community.[24] The ONSC recognized the tort of publicly placing a person in a false light, which applies where a defendant publicizes a matter in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and knows, or is reckless about, the falsity of the matter.[25] In this case, thefalse allegations had a detrimental effect on the mother’s health and welfare, caused her fear, and likely affected her social standing and position.[26] Therefore, the ONSC awarded the mother a monetary award for damages.[27]
Insufficiently extreme cases, persistent online harassment may give rise to the tort of internet harassment. In Caplan v. Atas, 2021 ONSC 670, the defendant engaged in online harassment and defamation campaigns for years against individuals with whom she had grievances, including their relatives, children, colleagues, and lawyers.[28] The ONSC estimated that there were as many as 150 people who had suffered the defendant’s online attacks.[29] In this case, the ONSC recognized the tort of internet harassment, for which the defendant was liable. This tort addresses malicious or reckless online communications that are so extreme in their character, duration, and degree that they go beyond all possible bounds of decency and tolerance, with the intention to cause fear, anxiety, emotional upset, or an affront to the affected person’s dignity.[30] While Caplan does not address intimate partner violence, the tort of internet harassment may nevertheless be a helpful remedy where online communications are used to repeatedly harass, intimidate, or cause fear to a current or former intimate partner.
Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Photographs or Videos
An abusive partner may use intimate photographs or videos as a tool to exercise coercive control. In Jane Doe 72511 v. N.M., 2018 ONSC 6607, the plaintiff’s former partner posted a sexually explicit video of her to an internet pornography website without her consent as revenge after the plaintiff reported his abuse to the police.[31] The ONSC responded by recognizing a tort of public disclosure of private facts. This tort requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant publicized an aspect of their private life without consent, that the publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and that the information was not of legitimate concern to the public.[32] Since the plaintiff met the elements of the tort in this case, the ONSC awarded the plaintiff a monetary award for damages.[33]
How Does the Law Address Technology-Facilitated Coercive Control?
There is no single legal remedy for technology-facilitated coercive control. The appropriate response will depend on factors such as the particular conduct, the nature of the parties' relationship, and whether children are involved.
As outlined throughout this blog, technology-facilitated coercive control may give rise to civil liability through the torts of tort of public disclosure of private facts, the tort of publicly placing a person in a false light, or in extreme cases, the tort of internet harassment.[34] In addition, a party may now be able to advance a claim for damages for the tort of intimate partner violence to address technology-facilitated coercive control through the lens of intimate partner violence.
Where children are involved, a court may consider family violence as a factor when determining the best interests of the child.[35] A court may also make parenting orders that restrict a parent’s use of social media, recording of parenting time, or parenting time itself.[36]
Where a partner has reasonable grounds to fear for their own safety as a result of their abusive partner’s technology-facilitated harassment, a family law restraining order may be available.[37] A partner may also seek a criminal peace bond where they have reasonable ground to fear that the abusive partner will harm them, harm their child, or publish intimate images of them.[38]
Conclusion
At its core, coercive control is about restricting a person’s autonomy, independence, and freedom. Technology has changed the ways in which intimate partner violence can be carried out by giving abusive partners an additional tool to exercise coercive control. Digital surveillance, social media abuse, and online harassment can allow an abusive partner to maintain a presence in their partner’s life even when the parties are physically separated.
As technology continues to evolve, so does the way the law responds to its use to facilitate coercive control. Understanding the different forms technology-facilitated coercive control can take is an important first step in recognizing the conduct and understanding the legal remedies that may be available.
This blog is intended to provide legal information only. This blog does not provide legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact us or another experienced family law lawyer.
[1] Statistics Canada, Canada at a Glance, 2023: Digital Society (2022), online: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/12-581-x/2023001/sec11-eng.htm.
[2] Molly Dragiewicz et al, “Technology facilitated coercive control: domestic violence and the competing roles of digital media platforms” (Feminist Media Studies, 2018), online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447341#d1e249 [“Dragiewicz”].
[3] Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp),s 2(1); Children's Law Reform Act, RSO1990, c C.12,s 18(2).
[4] Divorce Act, s 2(1); Children's Law Reform Act, s 18(2).
[5] Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16[“Ahluwalia”].
[8] Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. National Framework for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner Coercive Control (July 2025), online: https://www.cacp.ca/_Library/resources/FRAMEW_1.PDF; archived version: https://www.scc-csc.ca/cso-dce/2026SCC-CSC16_2_eng.pdf [“CACP”].
[10] Myrna Dawson et al, “#CallItFemicide: Understanding gender-related killings of women and girls in Canada 2019”(Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, 2019), online: https://www.femicideincanada.ca/callitfemicide2019.pdf.
[12] Ahluwalia at para 13; Department of Justice Canada, “2.0 Literature review on the impacts of family violence” (Government of Canada, 2023), online: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/mapafvc-cbapcvf/review-analyse.html at 2.3.1.
[14] J.R.D. v. S.B., 2023 ONSC 46, at para 167 [J.R.D.].
[16] Maggie Rogers et al, “Technology-Facilitated Abuse in Intimate Relationships: A Scoping Review” (2022), online: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10486147/.
[17] Rubio v. Leigh, 2024ONSC 6215[Rubio].
[18] Rubio at para 132, also see decision at paras 118-226.
[19] Rubio at paras 119 and 393-394.
[20] E.M. v. L.M., 2021 ONCJ 704 at paras 17 and 18 [E.M.].
[23] Yenovkian v. Gulian, 2019 ONSC 7279[“Yenovkian”] at para 175.
[28] Caplan v. Atas, 2021 ONSC 670[“Caplan”].
[31] Jane Doe 72511 v. N.M., 2018 ONSC 6607[“Jane Doe”].
[33] Jane Doe at paras 100 and 139.
[34] See Jane Doe for the tort of public disclosure of private facts; Yenovkian for the tort of publicly placing a person in a false light; and Caplan for the tort of internet harassment.
[35] Divorce Act, s 16(3)(j); Children's Law Reform Act, s 24(3)(j).
[36] See Yenovkian v. Gulian, 2019 ONSC 7279[“Yenovkian”], where the ONSC ordered that the father not record his parenting time with the children and restricted the father’s parenting time until he complies with court orders. In this case, the ONSC relied on the father’s past online conduct, including his online harassment campaign against the mother and her family.
[37] Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3,s 46. See Yenovkian at para 46 and E.M. at para 35.
[38] Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46,ss 810(1), 810(3).