View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2012, 04:21 PM
singledadoftwogirls singledadoftwogirls is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 141
singledadoftwogirls is on a distinguished road

I have read that restraining orders can hinder border crossings (even if Civil and not criminal) and can really tip the balance in favour of one litigant against the other. It could damage my prospects for future employment and therefore my ability to support my daughters.

Here is an quote from one Family Law attorney in Vancouver about restraining orders, where she quotes case law (I'm not sure if this would be different for those of you in Ontario):

Restraining Orders: “Danger, Danger!” « VANCOUVER FAMILY LAW

The BC Supreme Court in Budreau v. Laird, 2008 BCSC 425 says it all in its decision as follows (this quote is a good explanation of the legal grounds and test):

[33] A restraining order under s. 37 of the FRA is a discretionary order, but there must be compelling reasons to invoke the court’s discretion. The most obvious compelling reasons exist in circumstances involving conduct that gives rise to a realistic risk of physical harm to a spouse or a child, but compelling reasons also exist when other forms of harassment, molesting or annoying conduct unreasonably impinge on the emotional or mental well being of a spouse or child, or simply represent an unacceptable interference with the normal daily life of the applicant in the opinion of the court, applying societal standards of decency. There is naturally a stigma associated with a court having deemed it necessary to restrain a person’s behaviour towards another by an order, so the court must, at the lower end of the spectrum, guard against overuse of the discretion, while at the same time enforce the appropriate standards of decency.

[34] The court is of course concerned with subjectively-held fears and apprehensions on the part of an applicant, and the particular emotional vulnerability of individual parties is a material and relevant factor. However, the court is not bound to accept and agree with the subjective perceptions of an applicant, any more than it is bound to accept those of a respondent. Where threats have been subjectively exaggerated, the court may find an absence of compelling reasons to grant a unilateral restraining order. (See: L.T. v. M.T. 2006 BCSC 965, for a recent example of that approach.)

[35] Where the court is unable to tell where the truth lies, it will decline to exercise its discretion to grant a restraining order. (See: B(J.R.) v. B(D.J.) 2005 BCSC 10 for a recent example of that approach.)
I am vowing to only contact the ex through "proper procedures" from now on, because I do take this very seriously. My frustration, which I hope can be addressed by some of the kind members here, stems from the fact that sending an email to her lawyer about the information I am seeking also results in a non-response.