NH v HR, 2022 ABKB 761

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: NH v HR, 2022 ABKB 761 Date: 20221121 Docket: FL01 37721 Registry: Calgary Between: NH Claimant - and - HR Respondent Restriction on Publication No Publication – See the Protection Against Family Violence Act , section 8(3) . By Court Order, there is a ban on publishing any information in relation to this proceeding which could identify the parties’ children in this matter. NOTE: This judgment is intended to comply with the ban so that it may be published. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice M.A.

Marion _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On June 16, 2022 the Claimant ( NH or Claimant ) obtained an ex parte Emergency Protection Order ( EPO ) against the Respondent ( HR or Respondent ) pursuant to

section 2 of the Protection Against Family Violence Act , RSA 2000 c P-27 ( PAFVA ). The Claimant and Respondent lived with their three children and the Respondent’s daughter (collectively, Children ). At the ex parte application, the Claimant testified that she had fled the family home and the Respondent had threatened her life.

With the assistance of police constables, one of whom acted as an Arabic interpreter, the Claimant provided evidence before a Justice of the Peace of controlling behaviour, threats of physical violence as well as actual physical violence against her and the Children, and sexual assault against her. There was evidence of stalking since she had left the family home with the Children. An EPO was granted. [ 2 ] The EPO ultimately came before me on review on November 10, 2022. The Respondent denies any family violence.

For the reasons set out herein, the EPO is revoked and replaced with a King’s Bench protection order ( KBPO ) under

section 4 of the PAFVA . II. Procedural Background

[ 3 ] The EPO was to be reviewed by a Justice of the Court of King’s Bench on June 29, 2022. On that date, Justice Anderson adjourned the review to July 19, 2022 to provide the Respondent an opportunity to file a responding affidavit, and continued the EPO until the new date. Justice Anderson ordered the storage of any seized weapons pursuant to the EPO, and provided several exceptions to the EPO, as is common. Justice Anderson’s order provided the Claimant could attend with a peace officer at the family home to remove personal belongings.

Finally, Justice Anderson’s order gave Respondent leave to file a third-party affidavit from a relative of the Respondent. [ 4 ] On July 18, 2022, the Respondent filed a response affidavit ( Respondent Affidavit ) denying that he has ever inflicted family violence or domestic violence on the Claimant or the children, among other things. [ 5 ] On July 19, 2022, Justice Wilson adjourned the EPO review to the oral hearing ( Hearing ) which came before me. Justice Wilson’s order continued the EPO until the Hearing. III.

Oral Hearing Evidence [ 6 ] When he adjourned the EPO review to the Hearing, consistent with the practice of this Court, Justice Wilson granted an Emergency Protection Order Review Oral Hearing Order, which provided some procedural directions for the Hearing.

Justice Wilson granted the Claimant leave to file a reply affidavit ( Claimant Affidavit ) and again granted the Respondent leave to file a third-party affidavit from a relative of the Respondent. [ 7 ] Consistent with section 3(3) of the PAFVA , I had before me the material that was before the Justice of the Peace when the EPO was granted, including the Claimant’s application form, and the transcript of the proceedings ( Transcript ). At the Hearing, the Claimant adopted evidence she gave as reflected in the Transcript, and the Claimant Affidavit. The Respondent adopted the Respondent Affidavit.

The Claimant and Respondent were the only witnesses, and both were cross-examined through the assistance of an independent third-party interpreter. I permitted additional documents to be put to the witnesses and marked as Exhibits. I permitted some re-examination, and asked some clarification questions. The Respondent did not exercise his right to file the third-party affidavit, and so that information was not before me. IV. Issue [ 8 ] The issue before me is whether the EPO should be revoked, confirmed, or revoked and replaced with a KBPO under

section 4 of the PAFVA . V. Analysis [ 9 ] The PAFVA sets outs specific determinations that must be made before an ex parte EPO may be granted (

section 2 ), as well as a list of factors that the court or justice of the peace must consider before granting an ex parte EPO (section 2(2)). The PAFVA does not set out a specific test or list of determinations that are required on review by the Court of King’s Bench. However, the Court of Appeal has set out the test on a review of an EPO, effectively using a modification of the requirements of an ex parte EPO in section 2(1).

The test on an EPO review is whether (1) family violence has occurred; (2) there is reason to believe that the respondent will continue or resume carrying out family violence; and (3) by reason of seriousness or urgency, an order should be granted. A reviewing judge must make the requisite findings of fact on each element of the test and be careful and clear in their conclusions in order to confirm the EPO: DCM v TM , 2021 ABCA 127 at para 15 .

It is not appropriate to issue a restraining order out of an abundance of caution or as a matter or routine: Schaerer v Schaerer , 2021 ABCA 104 at para 20 . [ 10 ] In my view, within this framework, the factors set out in section 2(2) remain relevant in an EPO review under section 2(6) of the PAFVA with some modification. Justice Veit found the same in respect of a KBPO under

section 4 of the PAFVA : Fuller v Cryer , 2010 ABQB 622 at para 37 . I address some of those factors specifically below. A. Has Family Violence Occurred? [ 11 ] “Family violence” is defined, in section 1(3) of the PAFVA , as including: (

i) any intentional or reckless act or omission that causes injury or property damage and that intimidates or harms a family member, (ii) any act or threatened act that intimidates a family member by creating a reasonable fear of property damage or injury to a family member, (iii) forced confinement, (iv) sexual abuse, and (

v) stalking, but is not to be construed so as to limit a parent or a person standing in the place of a parent from using force by way of correction toward a child who is under the care of the parent or person if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

[ 12 ] The parties moved to Canada sometime before or close to 2018, fleeing a dangerous country to find peace and refuge in Canada. Both parties speak Arabic and required

interpretation and translation at the Hearing. [ 13 ] There was some dispute about the Claimant’s English skills, given that she attended approximately 6 weeks of English language training through government or other programs. The Claimant testified that the Respondent controlled her and denied her English education, forcing her to stop English training when he did. The Respondent denies this. He says he wanted her to learn English to help him translate papers for his business.

Whether the Respondent controlled her English training or not, I am satisfied based on her testimony, and observing her in the courtroom, that the Claimant continues to struggle to understand or communicate effectively in English. [ 14 ] The Claimant’s evidence is that she did not know many people in Canada for quite some time, other than the Respondent and her family, until her sister came to Canada sometime in 2019. She testified that she did not understand that in Canada there are people that protect abused women. She believed that, as a woman, she would just have to accept abuse from the Respondent.

I am satisfied that she did not, until recently if at all, understand the Canadian legal system or processes available to her to deal with violence against her and her family. I believe this was caused at least in part by her isolation, her beliefs based on her experience in another country, and her inability to communicate in English.

Her isolation was made worse by the fact that she did not drive a vehicle for some time and then, after obtaining her licence, she was in a car accident which caused her anxiety about driving. [ 15 ] The Claimant gave evidence of a specific incident in approximately 2018, when she was 7 months pregnant. The Claimant and Respondent argued about the father of the Respondent ( Grandfather ), and when the Claimant confronted the Grandfather the Respondent grabbed her hair, pushed her down, and dragged her to the bedroom, while hitting her in the head and kicking her.

She says she was prevented from leaving by the Respondent and the Grandfather. [ 16 ] The Claimant also gave more generalized evidence of family violence prior to the EPO.

Her evidence included that the Respondent was controlling, that she felt she had no rights or any decision-making abilities on anything, that he often beat her, that he hit the Children, that he threatened to kill her and the Children, he threatened to cut off her tongue, he threatened to break her legs, he threatened to “bury her”, he threatened to kick her to the streets and “take everything away”, and that he had attempted to sexually assault her specifically by forcing himself upon her from behind when she had her period, and had succeeded at least once. [ 17 ] The Claimant sought and obtained the EPO on June 16, 2022.

She testified before the Justice of the Peace that, on June 13, 2022, the Respondent threatened her and her life, and she fled the home with the Children. It is not exactly clear from the evidence what instigated these threats, but it appears to be around the time their relationship was breaking down and a dispute had arisen involving a claim that the Respondent’s nephew had sexually assaulted one of the Claimant’s daughters.

The Claimant’s evidence was that the Respondent also advised her that he was going to make false claims to the courts about her and him abusing the Children, and that he was going to take away her livelihood. There is evidence of her difficulty in obtaining personal belongings from the home with a police escort because the Respondent had the keys to the home, and in getting access to a family vehicle after she left the home.

There was also evidence that the police were concerned about stalking after the Claimant left to go stay with her sister, which prompted the police to have a continuous call for service to check for anyone parked outside the sister’s residence where the Claimant had gone to stay. The Claimant eventually went to a shelter with the Children. Her current address is confidential. [ 18 ] At the appearance before the Justice of the Peace, the police officer that was assisting with

interpretation testified that the Respondent’s 13-year-old daughter (not the Claimant’s child), who was present at the hearing, had advised the police officer that the Respondent had threatened the daughter with gun violence. No objection to this evidence was made at the Hearing.

The Claimant testified at the Hearing that the Respondent’s daughter was afraid of him due to his abusive treatment. [ 19 ] Since the EPO, the Respondent has been criminally charged with assault and forcible confinement against the Claimant in 2018, with assault in 2021, and with several assaults and uttering threats in 2022, including up to August 24, 2022 (after the EPO was granted). He was released pursuant to Release Orders that included conditions to not be in contact with or within 200 metres of the Claimant and the Children. He was charged on August 25, 2022 with breaching the 200 metre release condition.

Counsel advised me that Children’s Services has filed a temporary guardianship order application in respect of the Respondent’ daughter. On September 30, 2022, the Director’s delegate under the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act , RSA 2000, c C-12 , delegated certain powers and duties to the Claimant as caregiver of the Respondent’s daughter. [ 20 ] The Respondent denies any family violence. He says that he loves his family dearly, that he is fully aware of the repercussions and consequences of violence, and that he would do anything to protect them.

He believes the Claimant is using the EPO to keep his Children away from him and ruin the family dynamic. He suggests she fabricated her evidence because she does not like the Respondent’s family. He denies controlling behaviour, saying that the Claimant has the freedom to go and do whatever she pleases “as long as it is not causing harm to herself or anyone in the family”. The Respondent points to times that she has left before, but returned. He argues that if the Claimant was truly afraid of him, she would not have remained in the home, and would not have voluntarily had interactions with him at the house.

He claims, in particular, that the Claimant is trying to turn his daughter against him. He claims that the Claimant’s claims are primarily against the Grandfather, not him. He says he does not own any weapons. [ 21 ] I give little weight to the Respondent’s argument and evidence that the Claimant’s previous conduct, of leaving the Respondent and then returning to reside with him, suggests that her assertions now should not be believed. This type of argument is expressly addressed by

section 2.1(

f) of the PAFVA , which states that a history of returning to the residence and residing with a respondent after occurrences of family violence do not preclude the granting of an order. [ 22 ] The Supreme Court of Canada has recently confirmed that most family violence goes unreported, often takes place behind closed doors, and litigation impediments may deter abuse survivors from coming forward: Barendregt v Grebliunas , 2022 SCC 22 at paras 144-145 .

In my view, it would ignore these realities and would unfairly risk perpetuating family violence if the simple acts of failing to leave or report the situation earlier, or leaving and returning, could alone be used to undermine a family violence claimant’s credibility when they seek protection. That is, it is not enough to simply point to a claimant’s silence or lack of earlier action to assert there is no family violence. Such assertions must be viewed with caution, and in the context of all the evidence. This is particularly so in

cases involving isolated claimants from other countries who cannot communicate in English and may not be aware of or understand Canadian processes available for protection. In this case, I have considered these arguments of the Respondent in light of all the evidence and I do not find them persuasive. [ 23 ] The Respondent cross-examined the Claimant to support his positions.

However, in my view, the cross-examination did not undermine the Claimant’s credibility, and supported it in some respects. [ 24 ] The Respondent relied on a June 5, 2022 text from the Claimant to the Respondent at 12:10 a.m., that if he wanted to speak to her, she could speak to him in the family home garage. The Respondent argued that the Claimant would not have invited the Claimant to the garage at that hour if she was truly afraid of him.

The Claimant testified that the Respondent had divorced her under religious laws, she believed she needed to stay away from him, and they needed to talk because she was worried what would happen to her and the Children. She was worried about him abducting or killing the Children. She wanted to speak to him where the Children could not hear them. She wanted him to “let us be in a different home”. The Respondent said the incident related to a dispute between the Claimant and the Respondent’s sister-in-law respecting the sister-in-law’s Children, and that the Claimant threatened with a knife.

While the details of this incident are unclear, the Respondent’s evidence does not necessarily conflict with the Claimant’s evidence, and I did not find it undermined her credibility in the way alleged. The threats to her life that immediately precipitated the EPO application did not occur until later, on June 13, 2022. [ 25 ] The Respondent put a portion of a June 14, 2022 text from the Claimant to the Respondent, in which she used some endearing words toward the Respondent. The Claimant, however, testified that she used endearing words to calm the Respondent.

This was the day after she had left the home on June 13, 2022, following the alleged threat to kill her. In my view, this text does not show inconsistency with the Claimant’s other evidence, as she references threats from the Respondent, behaviour of the Grandfather, and references harm caused to the Claimant by the Respondent.

Upon review of the text in its totality, I accept that it is likely the Claimant was using endearing words to keep the peace and calm the Respondent, and not because she was unafraid of him. [ 26 ] This case is difficult, given the language barrier between the parties and the Court, the lack of much documentary or photographic evidence, and the conflicting evidence of the parties in some areas. However, I found the Claimant’s evidence to be more specific and detailed on key areas or incidents of alleged family violence, and was more consistent with the few documents that were before me which pre-dated the EPO.

She acknowledged some corrections to or aspects of her evidence that were not helpful to her position or did not reflect positively upon her. She appeared to be attempting to ensure the correct information was before the Court. Her explanation of a photograph of injuries to one of the Children (allegedly caused by the Grandfather) was more plausible than what was suggested to her by the Respondent in cross-examination.

In my view, while the Respondent’s counsel attempted to point out inconsistencies in her testimony before the Justice of the Peace, I found those asserted inconsistencies not to be borne out when considering the Transcript and taking into the account the added complexity of communications through the interpreter. [ 27 ] While it would have been preferable for the Claimant to have some documented evidence of incidents of family violence, given that I believe her that she did not understand the processes available to protect her, in this unique case I do not find that her lack of documented corroborative evidence impugns her position in the way suggested by the Respondent.

Ultimately, the Claimant’s credibility was not undermined, and I believed much of her evidence and her explanations on cross-examination. [ 28 ] On the other hand, the Respondent had the opportunity to provide affidavits in response, and his denials were bare or more generalized on the specific allegations of family violence. His complete denial of any family or domestic violence at all, at any time, was not balanced or plausible in the context of all of the evidence.

His evidence that the Claimant sought refuge at a women’s shelter or at someone else’s home in the past is not inconsistent with the Claimant’s evidence of family violence. Further, the Respondent’s evidence was inconsistent and implausible relating to his knowledge of the criminal charges against him and related processes, at least some of which related to the same allegations of family violence at issue here. He did not specifically deny or address some of the specific events in the Claimant’s evidence to obtain the EPO.

His allegations that the Claimant has acted in order to keep his Children away from him, and ruin the family dynamic, that the Claimant is not acting in the best interests of the Children but is bringing them “into the middle of mere disagreements”, or that the Claimant has fabricated evidence because she does not like the Respondent’s family, have not been proven on a balance of probabilities – I am satisfied that the Claimant sought the EPO to protect herself and the Children. [ 29 ] On balance, I prefer the Claimant’s evidence where it conflicts with the Respondent’s evidence on the question of whether family violence occurred. [ 30 ] I find that, on the balance of probabilities, family violence has occurred.

B. Is There Reason to Believe that the Respondent will Continue or Resume Carrying out Family Violence? [ 31 ] The Respondent asserts that the Claimant’s fear is subjective and not supported by objective evidence. The Claimant testifies that she is afraid of the Respondent, and concerned about what he will do in the future. [ 32 ] Section 2(1)(a.1) requires that, in the granting of an ex parte EPO, the judge or justice of the peace must determine that “the claimant has reason to believe that the respondent will continue or resume carrying out family violence”.

This has been held to insert a mandatory objective component, or require a subjective belief supported by objective evidence: Hunder v Fox , 2015 ABQB 79 at paras 2 and 14-16 ; NDA v KBA , 2009 ABQB 26 at para 40 ; Schaerer at para 19 . [ 33 ] On a review, section 2(1)(a.1) does not strictly apply, and the Court of Appeal has stated that the test is whether there is “reason to believe that the respondent will continue or resume carrying out family violence”.

I take this to mean that, on review, once the Respondent has had the opportunity to respond, it is no longer about what a claimant subjectively or objectively believes, but whether the court, after hearing from both parties, has reason to believe, based on all of the evidence, that the respondent will continue or resume carrying out family violence.

[ 34 ] Under this analysis, I find some of the factors from section 2(2) of the PAFVA to be pertinent, in particular: (

a) the history of family violence by the respondent to the claimant and other family members; (b.1) whether there is or has been controlling behaviour by the respondent towards the claimant or other family members; and (b.2) whether the family violence is repetitive or escalating. [ 35 ] I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, based on the record before me, there has been some controlling behaviour, a history of family violence, and that the family violence toward the Claimant has been repetitive and serious.

The family violence culminated with serious threats to harm the Claimant at a time that the relationship appears to have been falling apart and when there were also disputes between the Claimant and some of the Respondent’s family. There is evidence of a concern of stalking after the Claimant left the home, but before the granting of the EPO.

There are charges against the Respondent from breaching release conditions, however these are disputed and have not be proven at a trial. [ 36 ] In all the circumstances, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there is reason to believe the Respondent will continue or resume carrying out family violence. C. Should an Order be Granted by Reason of Seriousness or Urgency? [ 37 ]

Section 2(

b) of the PAVFA requires that an ex parte EPO should only be ordered to “provide for the immediate protection” of the claimant and other family members by reason of seriousness or urgency”. The

preamble to the PAVFA provides that “an effective response to family violence provides an immediate period of safety to victims of family violence”. Section 2(2) (

c) requires the court to consider “the existence of any immediate danger to persons or property”. The purpose of the ex parte EPO is to provide immediate protection in emergent situations: Siwiec v Hlewka , 2005 ABQB 684 at para 14 . [ 38 ] The scheme of the PAVFA contemplates that EPO review hearings are to happen quickly – initially within 9 working days: section 2(6). Due to the logistics of providing notice and giving respondents an opportunity to respond, EPOs are often confirmed on an interim basis for a few weeks. Then, where the responding affidavit denies the allegations and the evidence conflicts, an oral hearing as contemplated under section 3(4) (

b) of PAFVA is often scheduled. Due to constraints on court resources, oral hearings cannot presently be scheduled for some months. The result can be a significant delay before a substantive review hearing takes place – in this case the Hearing was almost 5 months after the EPO. [ 39 ] In these circumstances, usually by the time an oral hearing is held, the parties will have had months with the new reality of the EPO’s insertion into the family relationship. Unless there are breaches of the EPO or other unique circumstances, the immediate urgency that justified the EPO will usually have passed.

A key consideration on review, therefore, will often be whether an order should be granted by reason of the seriousness of the matter. [ 40 ] In my view, the seriousness of the family violence at issue will usually be the primary consideration where the EPO has been in place for months. Some of the factors outlined in section 2(2) of the PAFVA are also relevant to seriousness, including the vulnerability of elderly claimants, the best interests of the claimant and children, and the impact of family violence on children: sections 2(2) (c.1), (c.2), (

d) and (e). Other legislated considerations relating to the best interests of the children may also provide some useful guidance on seriousness: see, for example, the Divorce Act , RSC 1985, c 3,

section 16. There is no exhaustive list under the PAFVA . [ 41 ] The importance of considering the impact of family violence on children, and the best interests of the children, has recently been re-confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court noted that research indicates that children who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives: Barendregt at para 143 . [ 42 ] In this case, the parties’ three children, plus their half-sibling (the Respondent’s daughter), are in the care of the Claimant, and it is important to protect them from exposure to family violence. The police constable testified before the Justice of the Peace that the Respondent’s teenage daughter advised the constable that she fears the Respondent.

Further, there is some evidence of concerning behaviour by the Grandfather towards some of the Children, and that the Grandfather lives in the basement of the same house as the Respondent.

There was no affidavit from the Grandfather before me. [ 43 ] In this case, I am satisfied that serious threats of bodily harm or killing made during a tumultuous period of time in the relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent and his family, in the context of evidence of a controlling and isolated environment, together with a history of physical violence toward the Claimant and the Children, is serious enough to warrant an order, and was serious enough to warrant criminal charges.

Criminal charges can be relevant to the question of seriousness, although they are not determinative and will likely not be enough on their own: Walker v Walker , 2015 ABQB 789 at para 16 . In this case, seriousness is established on the balance of probabilities, even if the criminal charges are ignored. Here, the presence and best interests of the Children amplifies the seriousness of the matter. D.

Should the Court Exercise its Discretion to Grant an Order? [ 44 ] Even if the elements of the test set out in in DCM v TM are met, the court retains discretion as to whether to revoke or confirm the EPO, or to grant a KBPO: section 3(4) ; GAP v GP , 2010 ABQB 296 at para 25 .

The court must balance the factors supporting the granting of the order, against the restriction on the liberty of the respondent ( Schaerer at paras 19-21 ; DCM v TM at para 16 ), the stigma associated with protection orders ( Fuller at paras 4 and 33-34 ; Lee v Yoo , 2015 ABQB 522 at para 30 ; NDA v KPA at paras 45-47), the potential for misuse of the orders ( Siwiec at para 18 ; LE v JE , 2022 ABQB 76 at para 19 ), and the ripple impacts a protection order may have on the family ecosystem and parenting matters ( Lee v Yoo at para 30 ; LE v JE at para 20 ; JDL v HAL , 2022 ABQB 427 at paras 27-28 ).

Less intrusive orders should be considered. [ 45 ] A KBPO provides more flexibility to tailor the terms of the order to respond to the new reality of the family, and in appropriate cases would recognize that the emergency is over even if protection is still appropriate. Some courts have also held that the Court of King’s Bench has a residual discretion, either independent of or pursuant to

section 4 of the PAFVA , to impose mutual no contact orders, mutual restraining orders, or other relief: KWT v LMB , 2019 ABQB 21 at para 66 ; MM v BM , 2017 ABQB 532 at paras

140-144 ; Lee v Yoo at para 32 ; ATC v NS , 2014 ABQB 132 at paras 18-19 . [ 46 ] In this case, it appears to me that the EPO served its purpose, and the immediate emergency is over. It is no longer necessary to have an “emergency” protection order in place.

However, I am of the view that a KBPO is appropriate, on balance, to protect the Claimant and the Children from potential family violence for another six months, during this period of continued uncertainty and disruption, given the recent breakdown of the parties’ relationship, the ongoing child protection proceedings relating to the Respondent’s daughter, and the pending criminal charges.

In my view, having regard to all the evidence and my findings, it is in the best interests of the Children, and an appropriate overall balance of the interests of the parties, to protect the Claimant and the Children, subject to appropriate conditions. VI. Conclusion [ 47 ] The EPO is revoked and replaced with a KBPO on these terms: (

a) the Respondent shall not attend at, enter or be within 100 metres from, the Claimant or her family members’ residence (address confidential), the Claimant’s sister’s residence, or the Children’s schools; (

b) the Respondent shall not be within 100 metres of the Claimant, her family members, or the Children, anywhere in the Province of Alberta; (

c) the Respondent shall not communicate with or contact directly or indirectly the Claimant, the Children mentioned in the EPO, or the Claimant’s sister, except as otherwise provided in KBPO, as agreed by the Claimant, or as provided for in a parenting order or other court order granted subsequent to the KBPO; (

d) the Respondent shall not subject the Claimant or the Children to family violence; (

e) any weapons seized pursuant to the EPO shall remain seized and stored by the police. Any person claiming ownership of any seized weapons may apply to the Court of King’s Bench on 10 days’ notice to the Claimant, for their release to their owner; (

f) the following shall not be considered a breach of the KBPO: (

i) any parenting or contact the Respondent exercises in respect of the Children that is agreed to by the Claimant or that is under an order granted by a court of competent jurisdiction subsequent to this order; (ii) any contact between the Claimant or her sister, and the Respondent, which is agreed by the Claimant or permitted by or incidental to a further order of the court to facilitate parenting time with, or to exchange information regarding, the Children; (iii) any communication between the parties’ legal counsel. If one party becomes self-represented, the counsel for the other party may communicate with the self-represented party; (

g) the Respondent may be served with this order by service on his legal counsel; (

h) on the Respondent being in breach of any of the terms of this order, the Respondent may be charged under

section 13.1(1) of the Protection Against Family Violence Act , or if the Respondent has not been served with a copy of this order, the Respondent shall be shown a copy of this order by any Peace Officer and given the opportunity to obey it; (

i) in making an arrest under this order, a peace officer is authorized to do anything necessary to carry out the arrest, including the use of as much reasonable force as may be necessary to make the arrest, and without warrant enter any place where, on reasonable and probable grounds, the peace officer believes that the Respondent may be found; (

j) this order shall remain in force until April 30, 2023, after which it will expire unless extended pursuant to a further order of the court; and (

k) either party can apply to vary the terms of this KBPO on 10 days’ notice. [ 48 ] If the parties cannot agree on the costs of this review hearing within 30 days, they may make written submissions to me of no more than 5 pages (excluding authorities). [ 49 ] I order a publication ban of any information in relation to this proceeding which could identify the parties’ children pursuant to the PAFVA , section 8(3) , and this judgment is intended to comply with the ban so it may be published. Heard on the 10 th day of November, 2022. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 21 st day of November, 2022. M.A. Marion J.C.K.B.A.

Appearances: Abul Azam for the Claimant Malik Hattum for the Respondent