8,083
edits
Changes
→Making protection orders
* ''[https://canlii.ca/t/ggb63 Prasad v. Prasad]'', 2015 BCSC 207: Given the likelihood that the husband would react violently if he was not favoured in the division of assets, and that he would not agree to stay away from her, the court issued a permanent, non-expiring protection order. The husband was prohibited from applying to vary or amend the protection order for three years. There was a history of physical, verbal, and emotional abuse. Note that in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/jndng Williams v. Williams]'', 2022 BCSC 517 the court said permanent protection orders are a very rare remedy “usually made to address an ongoing threat”.
* ''[https://canlii.ca/t/gkfjn S.M. v. R.M.]'', 2015 BCSC 1344: The court stated “judges hearing applications of this kind must approach the issue from a broad and contextual perspective, taking into account a variety of factors that frame the risk analysis in determining whether family violence is likely to occur. The inquiry is future oriented but it takes its shape from past conduct and present circumstances that inform the assessment of risk.”
* ''[https://canlii.ca/t/g2ljl Dawson v. Dawson]'', 2014 BCSC 44: Even The judge considered the severe nature of the original assault and the husband's ongoing contentious behavior as factors that indicated a single act likelihood of physical further family violence may provide a sufficient basis to conclude . this case shows that the risk of further family violence is may still be ''likely to happen again'' even if only one incident occurred in the past. Although the passage The severity of time may reduce the strength of this conclusion, if original incident was an important factor in the circumstances that gave rise judge's decision to extend the earlier act of violence still existprotection order, it may notas was the husband's ongoing anger and hostility. When assessing the “likely” threshold in deciding if family violence is "likely" under s. 183(2)(a) , the court should consider must weigh the gravity potential severity of the harm that might follow from an act of physical future violence. However, it is not enough for the person asking for a protection order to say that they are afraid or at risk of violence; evidence must be presented of one of the section 184 risk factors to allow the court to decide if it should grant a protection order (''[http://canlii.ca/t/g7rnf Whitelock v. Whitelock]'', 2014 BCSC 1184).
This said, it is not enough for the person seeking a protection order to say that they are afraid or at risk of violence. Evidence of one of the section 184 risk factors must be presented to allow the court to decide if a protection order is suitable (''[http://canlii.ca/t/g7rnf Whitelock v. Whitelock]'', 2014 BCSC 1184).
====Protection order terms====