O.T.L. v. J.T.L.

O.T.L. v. J.T.L.

The PO expressly provided it remained 'until further order of the court', which displaces the s.183(4) one-year default expiry; a nunc pro tunc declaration backdating expiry to August 1, 2020 would undermine the purpose and finality of the PO and could affect related criminal proceedings, so nunc pro tunc relief was refused; however, on application and with supporting s.211 material and party agreement, the court exercised its authority under s.187(1) to terminate the PO prospectively and ordered agreed conduct orders.

Citation
2021 BCSC 2222
Parties
Claimant: O.T.L.; Respondent: J.T.L.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Family Law Protection Order Under the Family Law Act / Application to Declare Expiry and to Cancel Protection Order; Hearing and Order to Terminate Po; Consent Conduct Orders Made
Outcome
Protection order terminated prospectively; request for nunc pro tunc declaration to August 1, 2020 denied
Legal Topics
Protection Orders, Interpretation of Court Orders, Nunc Pro Tunc Relief, Inherent Jurisdiction, Family Law Act Ss.183, 184, 187
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Criminal (incidental) Protection Orders Interpretation of Court Orders Nunc Pro Tunc Relief Inherent Jurisdiction Family Law Act Ss.183,184,187

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

O.T.L.

Claimant

J.T.L.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Protection Order Under the Family Law Act / Application to Declare Expiry and to Cancel Protection Order; Hearing and Order to Terminate Po; Consent Conduct Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the protection order expired one year after it was made under s.183(4) FLA absent contrary provision
  2. 2 Whether a nunc pro tunc declaration that the PO expired on August 1, 2020 is appropriate
  3. 3 Whether the court should terminate/cancel the PO pursuant to s.187(1) FLA

Ratio Decidendi

The PO expressly provided it remained 'until further order of the court', which displaces the s.183(4) one-year default expiry; a nunc pro tunc declaration backdating expiry to August 1, 2020 would undermine the purpose and finality of the PO and could affect related criminal proceedings, so nunc pro tunc relief was refused; however, on application and with supporting s.211 material and party agreement, the court exercised its authority under s.187(1) to terminate the PO prospectively and ordered agreed conduct orders.

Court Disposition

Protection order terminated prospectively; request for nunc pro tunc declaration to August 1, 2020 denied

Orders

  • Protection order terminated pursuant to s.187(1) of the Family Law Act
  • Nunc pro tunc declaration that the protection order expired on August 1, 2020 denied