K.R.L. v. N.P., 2021 BCPC 324

Citation: K.R.L. v. N.P. 2021 BCPC 324 Date: 20211201 File No: [Omitted for publication] Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: K.R.L. APPLICANT AND: N.P. RESPONDENT ORAL RULING RE: APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE C. MALFAIR Counsel for the Applicant (appearing by teleconference): J. Reed Appearing on their own behalf: N.P. Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C. Date of Hearing: November 30, 2021 Date of Judgment: December 1, 2021

[ 1 ] THE COURT: This is an application by K.R.L. for a protection order for herself and the parties' seven-and-a-half-year-old daughter, A.R.P., born [omitted for publication]. N.P. opposes the order. The issue I must decide is whether an order ought to issue pursuant to s. 183 of the Family Law Act , and if so, whether it ought to protect only K.R.L., or both K.R.L. and A.R.P. If I find an order is appropriate I must also consider what protective conditions are necessary to reduce the risk of family violence to the protected family members.

Background [ 2 ] K.R.L. commenced a relationship with N.P. when she was only 16 years' old and he was 20 years' old. She came from a difficult home life and had been abandoned by her mother at a young age, an experience which makes N.P.'s insults outlined later in these reasons to be especially cruel. She moved in with N.P. and his mother, C.W., a [omitted for publication], and they lived in a common-law relationship until separation on November 1, 2020. [ 3 ] Despite her difficult start in life, K.R.L. continued to work and put herself through high school, then university.

She has a degree in [omitted for publication]. She worked for the [omitted for publication] as a [omitted for publication] worker for 10 years. N.P. does not work. The evidence suggests he primarily supported himself growing and selling marihuana, and has criminal convictions related to that undertaking. Again, that background takes on significance when considering the criminal underworld slang insults N.P. has levied against K.R.L. as outlined later in these reasons. [ 4 ] A.R.P. was born in [omitted for publication]. K.R.L. took 18 months off for maternity leave.

She suffered some medical issues, primarily hypothyroidism and post-partum depression following the birth, which have now resolved. The parties grew further apart after A.R.P.'s birth, and by the time of separation N.P. was expressing interest in pursuing other relationships. After K.R.L. returned to work N.P. remained home with A.R.P. as her primary caregiver. However, upon separation A.R.P. remained with K.R.L. [ 5 ] On November 3, 2020, K.R.L. applied for an interim order allocating parenting time and parental responsibilities.

On November 5, 2020, Judge Doulis made an order providing N.P. with parenting time after school and on alternating weekends, with the exchange location to be at school or at the local Wal-Mart parking lot. A conduct order was also made providing that the parties would only communicate by text message and only for the purpose of discussing parenting time with or parenting responsibilities for A.R.P. [ 6 ] The matter came back for a family case conference on February 22, 2021. At that conference the pick-up time for A.R.P. was varied.

Judge Doulis again made a s. 225 conduct order stating that the parties would only communicate by text message and only for the purpose of discussing parenting time with or parenting responsibilities for A.R.P. N.P. sent a litany of harassing and vitriolic messages to K.R.L. in the months of August 2021 and September 2021. On September 1, 2021, K.R.L. applied for the protection order which is the subject of this application. [ 7 ] The application was first heard by Judge McDermick on September 3, 2021.

Judge McDermick suspended N.P.'s parenting time and made another s. 225 conduct order, this time prohibiting all communication between N.P. and K.R.L. and the child until October 4, 2021, in order to give N.P. an opportunity to get legal counsel. K.R.L.'s application for a protection order was adjourned to today's hearing. Should a Protection Order be made to protect K.R.L.? [ 8 ]

Section 183 of the Family Law Act provides that the court may make an order for protection if the court determines that familial violence is likely to occur to an at-risk family member. As a former spouse and child of N.P., both K.R.L. and A.R.P. are family members for the purpose of this section. [ 9 ]

Section 184 sets out the considerations for making a protection order. N.P. submits that his communications with K.R.L. do not constitute family violence because they are not the use of physical violence. "Family violence" is broadly defined in the Family Law Act to include conduct that is not strictly physical. "Family violence" includes with or without intent to harm a family member, (

d) psychological or emotional abuse of a family member, including: (

i) intimidation, harassment, coercion or threats, including threats respecting other persons, pets or property, (ii) unreasonable restrictions on or prevention of a family member's financial or personal autonomy, (iii) stalking or following of the family member, and (iv) intentional damage to property, and (

e) in the case of a child, direct or indirect exposure to family violence. [ 10 ] It was put to N.P. in cross-examination that his text messages amounted to violence, to which he replied "they are emotional abuse." Emotional abuse is family violence as defined in the Family Law Act . [ 11 ] In C.R. v. A.M. , 2015 BCPC 76 , Judge Keyes says at paragraph 10: [10] I note that the courts have taken a liberal view of what sort of conduct would constitute family violence.

For instance, engaging in obstructive conduct or unnecessary litigation is a form of emotional abuse and harassment that can constitute family violence: M.W.B. v. A.R.B., 2013 BCSC 885 . Demeaning remarks made by one parent about the other have also been found to constitute family violence: D.N.L. v C.N.S., 2013 BCSC 809, 2014 BCSC 1417 . Similarly, threats to cause financial hardship and sending repetitive demanding emails qualify as family violence: Hokhold v Gerbrandt , 2014 BCSC 1875 .

[ 12 ] I find N.P.'s actions and communications with K.R.L. constitute family violence. [ 13 ] K.R.L. adduced over 700 pages of text messages in evidence at this hearing, primarily occurring between August 3, 2021 and October 8, 2021. At the time N.P. was on two s. 225 conduct orders restricting his communications with K.R.L. to matters concerning parenting arrangements for A.R.P. [ 14 ] Most of N.P.'s text messages have nothing to do with discussing parenting time or parental responsibilities for A.R.P.

They were intended to insult, degrade and harass K.R.L. [ 15 ] Between September 3 and October 4, 2021, N.P. was absolutely prohibited from communicating with K.R.L. and A.R.P. at all, pursuant to s. 225 of the Family Law Act , yet he continued to send K.R.L. harassing text messages in breach of that order. [ 16 ] The text messages themselves are hateful, cruel and vulgar. They are intended to psychologically and emotionally abuse K.R.L. They were staggeringly voluminous and unrelenting. There were days where N.P. would start texting K.R.L. in the morning and text her continuously until 11 o'clock at night.

For the most part K.R.L. did not respond, except to say she was not engaging and would deal with it in court. N.P. would send these texts throughout her work day, which caused K.R.L. obvious distraction and anxiety when she was trying to perform her duties. [ 17 ] An ongoing and relentless theme of N.P.'s texts is how K.R.L. abused A.R.P. and abandoned her at age 18 months because she returned to work at the end of her maternity leave. He himself did not work and still does not.

N.P. knew these allegations of "abandoning" A.R.P. would be especially hurtful to K.R.L. because she was in fact abandoned by her own mother as a child. If working to support one's child is abuse and abandonment then it is legislated abuse.

Section 147 of the Family Law Act imposes a positive duty on both parents of a child to provide support for their child. K.R.L. was, and is, fulfilling her obligation as a parent to financially support A.R.P. [ 18 ] N.P. repeatedly calls K.R.L. derogatory epithets, like a deadbeat mom, scumbag, fat, dumb, stupid and bitch. He particularly likes to refer to her as a "cunt." He taunts her about dumping her for a hotter girlfriend and attacks K.R.L.'s appearance. He speaks of how his new girlfriend will be A.R.P.'s new mother and how she is a better and non-abusive mother because she does not work.

It is concerning N.P. eagerly seeks to raise a female child while holding such antiquated views towards women and readily resorting to the use of misogynist language when angry. [ 19 ] Some of N.P.'s actions and communications were intended to scare K.R.L. He repeatedly threatened or claimed to have attended her house or A.R.P.'s daycare when uninvited. K.R.L. has called the police for fear and left the house. One time she left the house with the child and N.P. came over and forced entry in her absence. He sent her a picture of her front door ajar.

When K.R.L. came home her door was still ajar and her dog was outside running loose. N.P. had scrawled the word "rat" on her bedroom door and wall. [ 20 ] N.P. has texted K.R.L. while she is at work threatening to show up at her house in her absence and forcibly take A.R.P. from her 16-year-old babysitter, taunting that the young caregiver would not be able to stop him. He texted K.R.L. while at work that he intended to show up at A.R.P.'s daycare and forcibly take her.

When he sends these texts K.R.L. is afraid and has to respond to ensure the caregivers are safe. [ 21 ] N.P. has threatened to burn K.R.L.'s house down. He has stated a couple of times he hopes she dies, once texting, "Seriously hope you die though so I can spit on your grave." [ 22 ] N.P.'s communications are intended to make K.R.L. feel powerless and vulnerable, and that the authorities such as the police or the courts will not help her.

Numerous times K.R.L. has called the police when N.P. has sent messages threatening to show up at her place, or saying he was at her driveway, or when she has seen him parked outside A.R.P.'s daycare outside of his parenting time hours. Each time N.P. has sent K.R.L. a barrage of texts taunting her about how the police will not do anything, they are clueless and powerless, and he laughs and jokes with them about her.

He sent numerous texts chiding that the court will not give her a protection order, will side with him about her being a bad mother, and that he is going to be laughing at her. [ 23 ] N.P. sent numerous texts to K.R.L. claiming to be stalking and harassing her friends and family on social media, and posting negative and defamatory things about them or her on their social media pages. He actually did put negative commentary on two of her friends' business websites, forcing one friend to shut down her business website because of his negative posts.

N.P. would harass or threaten to harass K.R.L.'s family and friends. He would make fake Facebook accounts to access these individual's social media accounts surreptitiously. N.P. repeated texted how he was going to make negative posts on the Facebook page of K.R.L.'s 90-year-old grandmother. [ 24 ] N.P. says a lot of his talk about harassing K.R.L.'s friends and family on social media, or showing up at her house or the babysitter's were "empty threats" intended to cause K.R.L. stress. He did not actually follow through.

Whether he did actually follow through with all the things he said he did or intended to do does not detract from the fact that he communicated those threats to cause K.R.L. anxiety. Is the ability of threatening words to instil fear that creates the harm; no long-term intention to follow through with the act being threatened is required ( Morgadinho v. Morgadinho, 2014 BCSC 192 at paragraph 62 ). [ 25 ] N.P.'s communications are intended to make K.R.L. feel powerless to stop his emotional abuse of her.

He has stated plainly that he will "never stop", referring to his harassment of her, and that he is prepared to go to jail. He invites K.R.L. to "call the cops" because “they can arrest him he is never giving up.” He texted her: "expect 5000 texts a day also, I don't care seriously charge me I'm never stopping"; and, "when I get out of jail I'll be texting more, I don't care." N.P. continued to send abusive and rude text messages to K.R.L. knowing full well they would be put before the court.

At one point he says, "I don't care if the judge gets mad, I'm texting." Even after police would attend to speak to him N.P. would text K.R.L. that social media and roads are public so he can post whatever he wants and drive wherever he wants. The inference is that he will never stop harassing her or her friends, family, and child-care providers. [ 26 ] N.P. took K.R.L.'s bank card from her mail, used it without her permission, and taunted K.R.L. how he was using it to buy food for him and his new girlfriend. She had to cancel her bank card. He also taunted her with screen shots of other credit card numbers of

hers he could access from the former family computer. [ 27 ] N.P. stalked K.R.L.'s Facebook account and would send her mocking text messages about what he read there. He sent her screen shots of defamatory and degrading posts he wrote about her on his Facebook page to upset her.

N.P. says those posts were never made public, but agreed he made them and sent them to K.R.L. as if they were public posts, undoubtedly to embarrass her. [ 28 ] N.P. threatened to distribute nude images of K.R.L. [ 29 ] Many of N.P.'s communications were emotionally abusive and intended to make K.R.L. feel powerless, worthless, and useless. He repeatedly referred to her as a bad or abusive mother and having mental health issues, which she does not. [ 30 ] N.P. repeatedly threatens to get K.R.L. fired or to embarrass her at work.

His mother is a retired social worker and he often threatened to have his mother go to her employer to complain about K.R.L. and make her look bad. He threatened to go to her employer personally and make a code of conduct complaint because she was denying him parenting time. He once texted her he had a "surprise" waiting for her at work. [ 31 ] N.P. threatened to call the police and MCFD on K.R.L. on numerous occasions. K.R.L. had to miss several days of work due to crises arising from N.P.'s threatening text messages or his threats to show up at places uninvited.

N.P. says all his threats were "empty", but they had the desired effect of upsetting K.R.L. and interfering with her life to the point she would have to miss work. [ 32 ] N.P. threatened to harm K.R.L. financially. In his texts he makes repeated threats not to pay the mortgage, or to bankrupt her with court proceedings. He gleefully celebrated that she was broke and deep in debt. [ 33 ] N.P. often calls K.R.L. a "rat", and scrawled that word on her wall and bedroom door the time he broke in. Given N.P.'s criminal history and involvement in the drug trade, I find his use of the word "rat" to be threatening.

In the criminal underworld persons labelled as rats are typically subjected to or threatened with retaliative acts of physical violence. I do not accept N.P.'s explanation that he uses the word "rat" as an insult directed at a mother who denies a father parenting time. I can take judicial notice that there is no such meaning ascribed to that term, and the word "rat" has long-standing and well-known meaning being someone who calls the police.

In his texts N.P. often refers to K.R.L. as a "rat" in the context of her calling the police on him. [ 34 ] N.P. also calls K.R.L. a "goof", which is a negative jailhouse insult with criminal undertones. When asked why he called her a goof N.P. glibly replied that counsel could get a Webster's Dictionary and look it up. When asked what he meant by calling K.R.L. a goof, he claimed not to be sure, and again referred counsel to a dictionary. Having twice been convicted of drug offences, I am satisfied N.P. knows what the word "goof" means, and chose that word to cause stress and anxiety to K.R.L.

K.R.L. says she is afraid about what N.P. or his associates might do. [ 35 ] I am satisfied that the text messages and aforementioned conduct by N.P. constitutes family violence as broadly defined in the Family Law Act . Such conduct amounts to emotional and psychological abuse through intimidation, harassment, threats, stalking, and damage to her property. [ 36 ] Appling the factors set out in s. 184 to this case: 1. I find N.P.'s conduct, specifically his communications, to constitute family violence; 2.

The parties' separation is over a year old, but the property division and parenting arrangements between them remain unresolved and the subject of ongoing conflict. Orders restricting his parenting time with A.R.P., a catalyst for his infliction of family violence, are very recent; 3. I find at the time the application was made in September of 2021 the level of family violence was escalating. It continued unabated until October 2021. It has only very recently reduced in November of 2021 pending this hearing.

In court, however, N.P. continued to demonstrate anger and hostility both towards K.R.L. and her counsel; 4. N.P.'s psychological and emotional abuse constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour directed at K.R.L. It is intended to bully and extort her into capitulating to his demands for parenting time, and to attack her self-worth and confidence as a parent in order to assert himself as the dominant caregiver; 5. N.P.'s hostility increased in response to restrictions on his parenting time.

Due to his conduct he is now on supervision orders and K.R.L. is seeking a no-contact order, which would effectively eliminate his parenting time. This increases K.R.L.'s risk of being exposed to increased family violence by N.P.; 6. N.P. uses drugs like Gabapentin and Gravol to sleep. He continues to use marihuana, and from his texts, sometimes uses first thing in the morning. He says these are all prescribed medications, but they do have potentially intoxicating effects that can impair one's mood and judgment. His texts demonstrate erratic mood swings fluctuating from vitriolic to depressive; 7.

K.R.L. is afraid of what N.P. or his associates might do to her. His verbal abuse of her causes her stress and is taking a toll on her psychologically; and 8. The offending communications have persisted right up to October 2021, and in breach of three separate conduct orders. They were and are intended to cause K.R.L. stress, anxiety, and break her down emotionally and psychologically. He has been unrelenting in his verbal attacks upon K.R.L.

I have no confidence N.P. will voluntarily stop subjecting K.R.L. to family violence absent a police enforceable protection order. [ 37 ] In all of the circumstances I find it necessary to place N.P. on a protection order prohibiting him from communicating with K.R.L., or going to her work or residence for a period of 12 months. I decline to place him on a firearms prohibition order because he is

already on a lifetime criminal firearms ban. Should a no-contact order be made with A.R.P.? [ 38 ]

Section 185 of the Family Law Act provides that: 185 If a child is a family member, the court must consider, in addition to the factors set out in

section 184 [whether to make protection order], (

a) whether the child may be exposed to family violence if an order under this

Part is not made, and (

b) whether an order under this Part should also be made respecting the child if an order under this

Part is made respecting the child's parent or guardian. [ 39 ] As defined in the Family Law Act , "family violence" in the case of a child includes direct or indirect exposure to family violence. Is there a risk A.R.P. would be exposed to family violence if an order is not made? [ 40 ] N.P. has not made direct threats upon A.R.P. However, I accept K.R.L.'s evidence that he has demeaned her in front of the child.

Of concern is the risk of A.R.P. being directly exposed to family violence should N.P. be permitted to have contact with her. [ 41 ] "Family violence" is defined broadly, and can include exposing a child to hateful and alienating statements directed at the protected parent. In B.H.C. v. F.G.J.P., 2017 BCPC 378 and C.L.M. v.

M.J.S., 2017 BCSC 799 , Justice Donegan canvased a number of BC Supreme Court authorities affirming the principle that making derogatory and demeaning comments regarding the protective parent in a child's presence constitutes family violence to the child. [ 42 ] N.P. repeatedly stated in his communications in several different time periods, including recently, that he intends to say disparaging things about K.R.L. to A.R.P. once he is able to contact her. He speaks of how A.R.P. will hate her mother after that.

He talks about how embarrassed A.R.P. is by K.R.L. and how angry she will be once she knows how K.R.L. has been withholding his parenting time and calling the police on him. [ 43 ] In one text N.P. states he will be "bashing" K.R.L. in front of A.R.P. during his parenting time the following day. He closes, "she already hates you just wait a bit longer lol" and, "at least when I got to bed tonight I know she loves me more than she loves you scumbag, I'll be dissing you all weekend in front of her also you home wrecking piece of shit".

He invites K.R.L. to "save these texts they mean nothing the judge laughs at texts lol". [ 44 ] I also note N.P.'s repeated texts to K.R.L. stating he has found a "new mother" for A.R.P. who is not "abusive" (because she does not work), and taunts K.R.L. with pictures about this new family he has arranged for A.R.P.

Implicit is N.P.’s intention to pressure A.R.P. to reject K.R.L. and embrace his new girlfriend as her mother. [ 45 ] In cross-examination N.P. claimed these were "empty threats" and he does not demean K.R.L. to A.R.P., and does not intend to do any of the things he threatened to do in his text messages. As such, he suggests A.R.P. would not be exposed to family violence because he would never actually involve her in those abusive communications. [ 46 ] I do not take comfort in N.P.'s representation that he would not directly expose A.R.P. to family violence if he were to have contact with her.

N.P. admits he has "anger issues" when it comes to his text communications. He has demonstrated repeatedly and dramatically that he cannot or will not restrain himself when he is angry regardless of the consequences. He has stated repeatedly that once he can contact A.R.P. he intends to make demeaning comments about her mother to her. I accept K.R.L.'s evidence that N.P. has referred to her as "fat" in front of A.R.P., and that this has negatively impacted the child.

At the age of seven A.R.P. developed body image issues and now refers to herself as "fat". [ 47 ] I find there is also a risk if an order is not made that A.R.P. will be indirectly exposed to family violence. N.P.'s abusive harassment of K.R.L. also affects A.R.P. I accept K.R.L.'s evidence that A.R.P. felt sick to her stomach seeing N.P. parked outside her daycare when it was not his parenting time, prompting K.R.L. to call the police. A.R.P. is aware the police have been called as a result of her father's conduct.

There were occasions where K.R.L. left the home with A.R.P. because N.P. had threatened to come over there and she was frightened. Further, this harassment and verbal abuse has caused K.R.L. significant stress and anxiety. She is A.R.P.'s primary caregiver. Her diminished emotional and psychological health will necessarily affect her ability to parent A.R.P. [ 48 ] I find the provisions of s. 185(

a) apply. A.R.P. is an at-risk family member and a protection order should be made to prevent A.R.P. from being directly or indirectly exposed to family violence in the form of being subjected to derogatory and demeaning comments about her mother by her father. Is a protection order for A.R.P. necessary to protect K.R.L.? [ 49 ] Even if A.R.P. were not an at-risk family member, in the sense that contact between her and N.P. might expose her directly or indirectly to family violence, I would still find it necessary to make a protection order prohibiting such contact under s. 185(

b) of the Family Law Act . [ 50 ]

Section 185(

b) contemplates that a court may make a protection order respect of a child in some circumstances where a protection order has been made in respect of the child's parent.

Section 185(

b) reinforces the court's authority to make an order under s. 183(3)(a), prohibiting contact with a specified person who is not an at-risk family member, by directing the court to consider whether contact with the child may expose the protective guardian to further family violence. I must consider if a protection order prohibiting contact between N.P. and A.R.P. is necessary to protect K.R.L. from family violence.

[ 51 ] When considering an application under s. 183 of the Family Law Act , the paramount issue is whether or not family violence is likely to occur absent a protection order. While the best interests of the child under s. 37 of the Family Law Act are the primary consideration in an application for parenting time, that is not a the dominant consideration in an application for a protection order which is solely concerned with preventing family violence. [ 52 ] N.P. has continuously used A.R.P. as the reason for his abuse of K.R.L.

He degrades K.R.L., verbally abuses her, scares her, threatens to show up at her residence or the child's daycare or her work, threatens to scare the babysitter or daycare worker and post defamatory comments about her on social media, all in furtherance of his agenda to have contact with A.R.P. In cross-examination N.P. made lukewarm acknowledgement of wrongdoing with respect to his conduct saying he has "anger issues" when it comes to texting. However, it is evident N.P. felt justified inflicting family violence upon K.R.L. because he felt she was withholding parenting time from him.

In fact, at several points in his cross-examination N.P. stated the reason he sent an abusive text to K.R.L. was because he was hoping that in doing so she would relent and give him the parenting time he was demanding. He candidly admitted he was intentionally causing K.R.L. stress because he was upset about his parenting time being withheld, and this was the only way he could get back at her. [ 53 ] When asked why he would resort to such abusive conduct rather than just make a court application for enforcement, N.P. claimed he was ignorant of the court process. I did not find his explanation believable.

Not only had N.P. filed pleadings in the court action on his own, in this proceeding he cited s. 184 of the Family Law Act to the court on several occasions and cited a case. I do not accept he was so naïve as to his proper legal remedies to deal with parenting time that he felt his only enforcement option was to inflict family violence on the child's mother.

In cross-examination he repeatedly explained the reason he would send K.R.L. cruel text messages like suggesting he had a new mother for A.R.P., or that K.R.L. had abandoned and abused A.R.P. by being a working mother, was to "get a rise out of her", because he was mad about not getting some of his parenting time. [ 54 ] N.P. insists his conduct was justified or at least motivated by K.R.L.'s denial of parenting time. He says because there was a court order for specified time she was always required to follow it. In that regard he is mistaken. [ 55 ]

Section 62 of the Family Law Act permits a parent to deny parenting time where the other parent has repeatedly and without reasonable notice failed to exercise parenting time. The barrage of abusive texts sent in August 2021 were precipitated by K.R.L.'s request that N.P. confirm he was picking up A.R.P. after school, which he refused to confirm. I accept K.R.L.'s evidence that N.P. had cancelled at the last minute in the past leaving her scrambling for child care when she had to work, so she wanted assurance he was coming in case she needed to make child care arrangements.

N.P. refused to confirm, so she arranged for child care and he did not get parenting time. N.P.'s attitude towards this event was revealing. He insisted he had no obligation to confirm his parenting time under the court order, and therefore he did not need to respond to the request and K.R.L. had no right to deny parenting time.

I find N.P. was more concerned with his perception that K.R.L. might be trying to exert control over him than what was in the best interests of seven-year-old A.R.P. [ 56 ] After receiving these hundreds of troubling texts K.R.L. withheld N.P.'s parenting time as she was concerned about his mental health and safety of A.R.P.

Section 62 of the Family Law Act entitles a parent who reasonably believes that a child would be exposed to family violence or other sufficient justification to deny parenting time, notwithstanding a court order. Having read the texts sent by N.P. over the relevant time period, it is my view that any responsible parent having received such hateful and erratic communications would be legitimately concerned about the other parent's mental state, and take the position it was not safe for the child to go for parenting time.

N.P.'s belief that he was somehow justified in harassing K.R.L. because she was breaching the parenting time order is misplaced. [ 57 ] There have been three conduct orders put in place since November 5, 2020, and yet N.P.'s verbal abuse has relentlessly persisted. He has done so despite K.R.L. not replying to or engaging with him. His texts are one-sided and go on over the course of entire days. In August 2021 he sent days and days, and hundreds of texts to K.R.L., many of which were intended to degrade her or make her feel stressed or afraid.

At the time he was on two conduct orders prohibiting him from communicating with K.R.L. about anything other than parenting arrangements.

He tells K.R.L. he will never stop texting her until he gets to see A.R.P., and that he will text her 5,000 times a day – “the police can go ahead and arrest [him].” N.P. admitted he meant that he would be texting her 5,000 times a day until he got his parenting time back as in the order. [ 58 ] When he appeared in court on September 3, 2021, Judge McDermick told N.P. that his text messages were some of the worst he ever read and put N.P. on an absolute no-contact order with both K.R.L. and A.R.P., under s. 225 of the Family Law Act.

Despite having been told by a judge about the seriousness of his abusive communications, N.P. persisted in his harassment of K.R.L. He continued to text her in breach of the no-contact order. He continued to berate her for being so foolish as to believe the court would issue a protection order over some "rude texts" and taunted how she was wasting all her money on legal fees for such a fruitless undertaking.

In cross- examination N.P. admitted he still did not consider his texts to constitute family violence and purported to cite a case supporting his position. [ 59 ] Even after having been warned by Judge McDermick, and being put on a no-contact order with A.R.P. for a month because of his abusive communications, N.P. still did not feel restrained from verbally abusing K.R.L. He continued to subject her to degrading text messages in full knowledge knowing they would be printed off and shown to the court. An example of this can be found in his text messages to K.R.L. on September 20, 2021.

While still under the terms of his s. 225 absolute no-contact order: “Are you gonna cry again in court [omitted for publication] waaaaaa nobody cares you’re a deadbeat bully who has abused her child for the last 2 months and you know it By the way you really need a new diet cause u haven't lost a pound u actually look fatter lol Oh let me guess but u lost 29 inches eh, loool but 0 pounds cause your so lazy Night I will tell judge I text u so much because you’re a child abuser too, to bad stop abusing her and I will stop texting

Poor kid has the fattest mom at [omitted for publication] also now no dad and she’s asking kids I know if they saw me you’re quite the dead beat lady Do u still make her cry before school like you used to fatty?

Do you still tell her your better off never having her you obese mutt I have texts too Ms. stinky vagina Tell your boyfriend wear a nose plug to go near that smelly box Night ugly” [ 60 ] He continues with high-handed messages about how she is foolish for spending money on a lawyer in court, that she will never get a protection order based on his text communications, and how he is going to be laughing at her when she loses. He continues to send angry messages to her the following day, September 21st, and accuses her again of abusing A.R.P.

He defiantly states he "doesn't care if the judge gets mad, I'm texting." Between September 15th and October 4, 2021, while the no-contact order was in place, he texted her hundreds of times and often multiple times a day almost every day. [ 61 ] I am satisfied that no conduct orders or carefully crafted parenting orders will stop N.P.'s relentless emotional abuse of K.R.L. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that as long as N.P. is allowed to have contact with A.R.P. he will bully and harass K.R.L. in an effort to extort more parenting time.

He admits that getting parenting time has been the motivation behind his abusive communications. This is one of those rare cases that in order to protect one spouse from further family violence the court must also restrict contact between the abusive spouse and the child. If he is not permitted to have contact with A.R.P. then he cannot harass K.R.L. in connection with his perceived rights to parenting time. He will have to convince the court that he can exercise his parenting time safely. [ 62 ] Accordingly, even if A.R.P. were not an at-risk family member, I find an order is still necessary under s. 185(

b) to prohibit contact between N.P. and A.R.P. as a "specified person" in order to protect the protected spouse, K.R.L., from further family violence. However, such order may be made for a shorter three-month period at which time the risk of family violence posed by N.P.'s contact with A.R.P. may be reassessed to determine if a further protection order is necessary. At that time if contact between N.P. and A.R.P. is permitted, N.P. may also apply to cancel and replace the protection order concerning K.R.L. to provide for indirect communication for the purpose of arranging contact and parenting time with A.R.P.

As the identity of an acceptable third party to facilitate such indirect contact is beyond the scope of this hearing, I have not included that exception in K.R.L.'s protection order in the expectation that such an individual and the precise method of communication can be canvassed at a later date when contact between N.P. and A.R.P. is no longer prohibited. [ 63 ] I therefore make the following orders. [ 64 ] F2 - Madam Clerk, I am making two orders, because they are going to be for different time periods; one concerning K.R.L. and one concerning A.R.P. [ 65 ] So in respect to K.R.L., F2: Pursuant to s. 183(3)(

b) of the Family Law Act N.P. must have no contact or communication directly or indirectly with K.R.L., except as follows: F2-h through or in the immediate presence of a lawyer who has been given a copy of this protection order; F2-i through or in the immediate presence of a family dispute resolution professional who has been given a copy of this protection order; F2-k through court documents served by a third party, and during scheduled court appearances or case conferences, but only with a sheriff present unless a judge waives this requirement. [ 66 ] F3-1 Madam Clerk - there will be a mild modification to this, okay, because I have to deal with the work no-go separately: Pursuant to s. 183(3)(

a) of the Family Law Act , N.P. must not go to or be within 100 metres of any place where K.R.L. lives, attends school, or worships or happens to be, even if you are an owner of any such place or otherwise have a right to possess or enter such a place. If you see them you must leave their presence immediately without any words or gestures. [ 67 ] And then, Madam Clerk, we are going to do a second no-go, F3-1 again. F3-1: Pursuant to s. 183(3)(

a) of the Family Law Act , N.P. must not go to K.R.L.'s workplace - [ 68 ] THE CLERK: I just need one moment. [ 69 ] THE COURT: Yeah, thank you, Madam Clerk. [ 70 ] THE CLERK: Okay. [ 71 ] THE COURT: Except as required in connection with inquiries and investigations conducted by her employer, the Ministry of Child and Family Development. For the benefit of the parties, because she works for MCFD I cannot really put him on a no-go the MCFD offices. He may need to attend there. [ 72 ] I am going to add what I am calling a non-harassment clause. Madam Clerk, you can just type this one, please: Pursuant to s. 183(3)(

b) of the Family Law Act -- [ 73 ] THE CLERK: And that was sub (b), sorry? [ 74 ] THE COURT: Yes, thank you, Madam Clerk, 183(3)(

b) of the Family Law Act , N.P. must have no contact or communication directly or indirectly with J.P. -- is that [omitted for publication], Ms. Reed? [ 75 ] CNSL. J. REED: Pardon me, Your Honour?

[ 76 ] THE COURT: The spelling of the last, is it J.P.? [ 77 ] CNSL. J. REED: It's J.J. [ 78 ] THE COURT: Sorry, [omitted for publication]? [ 79 ] CNSL. J. REED: Yes. [ 80 ] THE COURT: And the other individual, the real estate person whose website was hacked, is that A.C.? [ 81 ] CNSL. J. REED: Yes. [ 82 ] THE COURT: Last name? [ 83 ] CNSL. J.

REED: It's [omitted for publication]. [ 84 ] THE COURT: [omitted for publication], or any of K.R.L.'s family members, except with their consent. [ 85 ] THE CLERK: I'm sorry, it was J.J. with an S?- [ 86 ] THE COURT: J.J., yes, please. [ 87 ] THE CLERK: Okay. [ 88 ] THE COURT: And A.C., or any of K.R.L.’s family members, except with their consent. [ 89 ] THE CLERK: Thank you. [ 90 ] THE COURT: Next, Madam Clerk, I'm going to make an order for defamatory posts. I will just dictate this: Pursuant to s. 183(3)(

e) of the Family Law Act , N.P. shall not post negative commentary about K.R.L. that is generally accessible to the public on any social media platform. [ 91 ] F12: Pursuant to s. 183(4) of the Family Law Act , this order will expire on November 30, 2022. [ 92 ] All right, Madam Clerk, so the way this order is currently drafted for the benefit of the parties, there is no contact.

If N.P. is subsequently allowed to have contact with A.R.P. and wishes to exercise parenting time, the protection order will have to be -- they will do an application to cancel and replace the protection order to allow for some form of contact to allow those parenting arrangements to occur, but as I have said, to be honest, I do not know how that contact can occur safely or through what party, so I am not addressing that in the scope of this order. [ 93 ] Any comments on that, Ms. Reed? [ 94 ] CNSL. J.

REED: No, Your Honour. [ 95 ] THE COURT: Okay. [ 96 ] So there will be another order with the respect to the child A.R.P. F1, Madam Clerk: F1 Pursuant to s. 183(3)(

a) of the Family Law Act N.P. must have no contact or communication directly or indirectly with A.R.P., born [omitted for publication]. [ 97 ] THE CLERK: Sorry, [omitted for publication]? [ 98 ] THE COURT: [omitted for publication]. Thank you, Madam Clerk. [ 99 ] THE CLERK: Thank you. [ 100 ] THE COURT: F3-1 - and, Madam Clerk, there will be a mild change here: Pursuant to s. 183(3)(

a) of the Family Law Act, N.P. must not go to be within 100 metres of any place where A.R.P. lives - we do not need “works - lives, attends, school - and add or childcare - or worships, or happens to be, even if you are an owner of such place or otherwise have a right to possess enter such a place.” If you see them you must leave their presence immediately without any words or gestures. [ 101 ] And F12: Pursuant to s. 183(4) of the Family Law Act this order will expire on February 28, 2022. (REASONS CONCLUDED)