Case Report: How A Content Creator Was Harassed Online For Years (Gasparetto v. Bradley)
What a court decided regarding online harassment and cyberbullying across YouTube, Twitter and SoundCloud
A recent court case from Nova Scotia Supreme Court has made headlines for all the right reasons. After consistent targeted online abuse, the applicant took his fight to court and won. The judge ruled in his favour. The ruling breaks down what counts as cyberbullying, how far is too far, and why content creators should pay close attention. This is a detailed look at the online harm caused, the legal response, and what it all means for anyone who posts, shares or comments online.
⚖️ Litigants: Daniele Gasparetto (Applicant) v. Brian Allen Bradley, Jr. (Respondent)
🏛️ Court: Nova Scotia Supreme Court (Family Division)
🗓️ Judgment Date: 26 May 2025
🗂️ Case Number: 2025 Carswell NS 438, 2025 NSSC 167
Court’s Findings on Social Media Cyberbullying
In Gasparetto v. Bradley, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court handled a dispute between Alessandra Gasparetto, a Toronto-based mental health clinician and content creator, who met Mr. Bradley through a mutual acquaintance in 2020.
The situation spiralled into a multi-platform defamation campaign that became the subject of intense judicial scrutiny under the Intimate Images and Cyber-protection Act, SNS 2017, c 7.
To appreciate the court’s conclusions, one must first consider the nature and variety of Mr. Bradley’s online activities.
Over a sustained period, he published over 140 videos on YouTube targeting Mr. Gasparetto. He added to that an energetic stream of tweets and audio content on SoundCloud.
While the average user might post a passive-aggressive meme or two, Mr. Bradley went further. His content included repeated accusations that Mr. Gasparetto was dishonest, manipulative, exploitative and even a “liar and a scammer.”
These posts were rarely subtle and often accompanied by Mr. Bradley’s commentary painting him as someone engaged in unethical and illegal behaviour.
The court investigated the threshold question of whether this was merely unpleasant content or something more serious.
Justice Norton walked through the statutory requirements of the Cyber-protection Act, which allows the court to issue protection orders against online communications that cause harm.
The legal test contemplates whether the content is false, defamatory, and whether it creates a reasonable expectation of harm to the subject. This includes psychological distress or harm to reputation.
Mr. Gasparetto provided affidavits, social media exhibits and an impact statement that made clear the toll this campaign had taken.
He experienced significant emotional distress, professional disruption and safety concerns.
His clients expressed worry about the allegations. He feared walking alone. He changed how and where he worked.
He had to pause his creative projects, because logging onto the internet often meant confronting more targeted abuse.
The court accepted all of this.
It found that Mr. Bradley’s actions were not random outbursts but formed part of an intentional campaign.
There was a pattern of conduct that was repetitive, sustained and designed to cause reputational and psychological harm.
His refusal to stop, even after being put on notice of the harm he was causing, only reinforced the seriousness of the matter.
Justice Norton noted that the materials published were largely one-sided, giving Mr. Bradley a stage to present Mr. Gasparetto as dishonest and dangerous, without giving him a meaningful chance to respond.
The content reached a wide audience.
Some of the videos had thousands of views.
The tweets included links to videos and were often shared or commented on.
The court observed that although Mr. Bradley likely believed he was exposing wrongdoing, the method and intensity of his actions crossed a clear legal line.
The court found that Mr. Bradley’s conduct fell within the meaning of “cyber-bullying” under the Act.
The implication was that the harm was real, the communication was targeted, and the legal protections afforded by the statute were fully triggered.
The court ordered that Mr. Bradley remove all offending content and refrain from communicating directly or indirectly with Mr. Gasparetto online or offline.
There was also a significant damages award, but more on that later.
Mental Health and Career Impact of Cyberbullying
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court documented the existence of digital abuse and cyberbullying, while also examined its effects on real life with a level of care that is often absent in online discussions about harassment.
The judgment offered a detailed look at how sustained cyberbullying can damage a person’s wellbeing and derail a career, particularly when that career involves public trust and professional integrity
Mr. Gasparetto, the applicant, is a Toronto-based mental health professional and content creator. His work included therapeutic support, psychoeducation, and a wide digital footprint where he shared educational content.
It was the kind of career that required a reputation built on trust, discretion and credibility.
Unfortunately, that professional foundation was steadily eroded by Mr. Bradley’s online campaign, which framed him as deceitful, abusive, and dangerous to his clients and the public.
Justice Norton reviewed extensive evidence about the toll this conduct had taken.
Mr. Gasparetto filed a victim impact statement and affidavits outlining the consequences of being named in over 140 YouTube videos, numerous Twitter posts and audio content on SoundCloud.
He explained how former clients began to question his ethics.
Some avoided him.
Some asked for explanations.
Others withdrew entirely.
The effect of the cyberbullying on his career was real, immediate, and damaging.
The court accepted that the toxic environment made it nearly impossible for him to carry out his professional work with confidence or peace of mind.
Mr. Gasparetto reported lost income due to cancelled speaking engagements, missed opportunities and withdrawn professional collaborations.
Justice Norton acknowledged these consequences as foreseeable results of a cyber campaign that framed him as untrustworthy and manipulative.
The court highlighted that such allegations, even if baseless, were likely to cause harm to someone whose job relies on personal credibility and the perception of emotional stability.
On the mental health front, the impact was equally stark.
Mr. Gasparetto described suffering from anxiety, hypervigilance and chronic fear.
He reported sleep disturbances, emotional exhaustion, and isolation from friends and professional networks.
The judgment detailed how he became afraid to walk alone or appear in public, anticipating that someone might confront him based on what they saw online.
He adjusted his work routines, avoided digital platforms and sought therapeutic support to cope with the ongoing distress.
These were serious psychological consequences supported by evidence and accepted by the court.
Importantly, Justice Norton rejected the idea that Mr. Gasparetto should have simply ignored the content or tolerated it as part of modern digital life.
The court recognised that repeated personal attacks, even when delivered through internet channels, carry real-world consequences.
The ruling sent a clear message: when online communication becomes sustained harassment, the law responds swiftly.
This ruling illustrates how courts are prepared to treat cyberbullying and online harm as a matter with legal, emotional and professional dimensions.
Cyberbullying Has a Price Tag
After considering the sustained abuse, the emotional distress, the professional damage, and the repeated refusal by Mr. Bradley to stop, the court reached into its legal toolkit and issued a judgment that speaks in a language every online antagonist understands: money.
The damages awarded in this case came to a total of $110,000, and if that sounds like a lot for a series of tweets and videos, that is precisely the point.
To begin with, the court awarded general damages of $50,000.
These were meant to compensate Mr. Gasparetto for the pain, suffering, and emotional injury caused by Mr. Bradley’s online conduct.
The court acknowledged the mental health toll, the social isolation, and the reputational harm that followed him across professional and personal spaces.
The figure reflected the real-world consequences of the targeted cyberbullying campaign that painted him as deceitful and unethical to thousands of viewers and listeners across platforms.
The videos were public, persistent, and easy to find, and that made the harm more widespread and enduring.
In addition to general damages, aggravated damages of $40,000 were awarded. This category was used to recognise that Mr. Bradley’s conduct went beyond ordinary harassment.
Justice Norton highlighted his refusal to back down even after being served with legal proceedings, the escalation of his attacks after being warned, and the complete lack of remorse.
The court observed that Mr. Bradley used his platforms to suggest that Mr. Gasparetto was trying to silence the truth, which only inflamed the situation further and deepened the emotional and reputational damage.
Then came the punitive damages, which added another $20,000 to the running total. These were awarded not to compensate Mr. Gasparetto directly but to punish Mr. Bradley and send a clear message that sustained online abuse carries financial consequences.
Justice Norton explained that punitive damages are meant to express condemnation of conduct that is malicious, high-handed or oppressive.
Mr. Bradley’s refusal to stop, even when given multiple opportunities, was described as precisely that.
The court was concerned about deterrence, both for Mr. Bradley and for anyone else who might think that YouTube, Twitter or SoundCloud provide legal immunity.
On top of the damages, the court also awarded full indemnity costs. This is a rare outcome and demonstates the court’s displeasure with the way Mr. Bradley conducted himself.
Justice Norton pointed out that his behaviour unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings, added to the applicant’s burden, and showed no indication of good faith. The legal costs, which are often only partially recoverable in civil litigation, were in this case granted in full.
Why It Matters for Content Creators
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court sent a clear and deliberate message to anyone producing content online.
Justice Norton’s ruling settled the dispute that creative expression online must still operate within the bounds of lawful conduct, especially when that expression fixates on a private individual and spirals into something far more destructive.
Mr. Bradley may have believed he was engaging in public commentary, citizen journalism or exposing injustice, but the court had a very different view.
Justice Norton concluded that his online presence had become a sustained personal attack that targeted Mr. Gasparetto with unfounded and damaging accusations.
The content accused her of professional misconduct, fraud, emotional manipulation, and exploitation, all without a legal finding or substantiated evidence.
The court ruled that this conduct amounted to cyberbullying as defined under Nova Scotia's Cyber-protection Act, and that finding has important implications for anyone who publishes online commentary about real people.
What this case highlights for content creators is the clear line between critique and harassment.
The court acknowledged that free expression is protected, but only to a point.
The moment that communication becomes repetitive, harmful, and directed with the intent or effect of causing psychological or reputational damage, it falls squarely into territory where the law does intervene.
The law does not require that the content be false to be harmful.
It does not require that the person publishing the content be anonymous or hidden.
All it needs is sustained, targeted conduct that causes actual harm.
Creators who rely on platforms like YouTube, Twitter (X), Instagram, etc. should take this as a serious warning that if content becomes obsessive or defamatory, and if it causes demonstrable harm, then legal consequences can and will follow.
This includes not only protective orders but significant monetary damages and legal costs, as illustrated by the $110,000 award in this case.
That wraps up our breakdown of Gasparetto v. Bradley. Online expression has limits, and this case draws the line clearly. We would love to hear your thoughts, especially if you create content online or comment on the content of others online.