Separating from a spouse or partner is rarely easy. Emotions run high, and painful memories can resurface. In today’s world, social media is just a click away. It can be tempting to vent online or to “set the record straight” about what happened in your relationship.
But as the recent Ontario case of Smith v. Nagy shows, making public statements about an Ex can have serious legal consequences – especially if those statements cross the line into defamation.
The Relationship – And the Contentious Facebook Post
Zak and Amanda were married for nearly a decade. Their relationship was perhaps unconventional; the court set the stage for their dispute this way:
[8] Zak is an American artist, tabletop role-playing game (“RPG”) creator and adult film performer also known as “Zak Sabbath.” He lives in Los Angeles, California.
[9] Mandy is a former model and adult film performer also known as “Mandy Morbid.” She lives in Ottawa, Ontario.
[10] Zak and Mandy first met in 2006 when she was 21 years old, and he was 29 years old. Mandy moved to the United States to live with him, and they married in May 2007. They were involved in polyamorous relationships with other women throughout their relationship. Mandy was also featured in Zak’s artwork; they released online shows about their RPG activities together and they collaborated on adult films. Zak maintained a blog entitled Playing D&D with Pornstars which described the games he played with Mandy and other adult performers.
[11] Their relationship and professional activities together featured heavily in articles about them published in mainstream magazines such as Vice and Maxim.
Their unique relationship did not last, and after their separation in 2016, Amanda moved back to Canada.
A full two years after their split, Amanda published a lengthy Facebook post accusing Zak of sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse. She included statements from other women that supported her accusations, and she encouraged readers to share her post widely.
The post went viral, reaching thousands of readers across the world. Zak’s professional life unraveled: publishers cut ties, conventions banned him, and his art career suffered. He sued Amanda for defamation, and sought damages of $175,000 and an order taking down the Facebook post and publishing a retraction.
Amanda admitted making the Facebook post, but claimed her accusations about Zak were true. She counterclaimed for $100,000 for the alleged sexual assault.
The Court’s Ruling – Truth as a Defence to Defamation
The judge carefully reviewed each allegation. Some of Amanda’s statements – such as claims that Zak belittled her, made cruel comments, or mistreated other women – were indeed supported by the evidence. These were not defamatory because they were either true or considered fair comment.
But other statements, especially those alleging sexual assault and non-consensual sex, were not proven in law. The court noted that Amanda’s after-the-fact realization about her right to withdraw consent could not retroactively turn past consensual encounters into assaults.
As the court explained:
[6]…I accept Zak’s evidence that the nature of the relationship between Zak and Mandy brought about a consensual physical relationship which included the sexual and physical interactions complained of by Mandy. In Canada, one of the essential elements of assault or sexual assault is the knowledge that the complainant is not consenting to the acts complained of. …
[7] However, I am persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that during their relationship Zak believed that Mandy was consenting to the nature of their physical and sexual relationship and that, Mandy did not communicate by words or conduct, the withdrawal of her consent. As such, the allegations in the Facebook Post which suggest that Zak committed either a physical assault or a sexual assault on Mandy are defamatory. The question remains what damages, if any, is Zak entitled to.
In the end, the court ordered Amanda to remove the defamatory portions of her post (or take the whole post down) and to pay Zak $40,000 in damages. Her counterclaims were dismissed.
Top Takeaways for Separated or Divorced Couples
While this case involved a high-profile couple in unusual circumstances, the lessons apply broadly to anyone going through separation or divorce. Here are some key takeaways:
- Think before you post. Social media is permanent, shareable, and far-reaching. A single angry or ill-advised post launched into cyberspace can reach hundreds or thousands of people, in mere hours.
- Truth is a defence, but only if you can prove it. If you make serious allegations against your Ex – especially about violence or abuse – you need solid evidence.
- Partial truth is not enough. Even if some of what you say is true, mixing in false allegations can still make you liable for the damages your Ex may suffer.
- Context matters. If your Ex already has a poor reputation, that may affect damages. But if they’re well-respected in the community, defamatory statements can have even bigger consequences.
For the full text of the decision, see:
Smith v. Nagy, 2025 ONSC 4629 (CanLII) <https://canlii.ca/t/kdswh>
