Dowling v. Dowling

Dowling v. Dowling

Because there was uncontested evidence of a substantial history of physical, sexual and psychological family violence by the respondent, the claimant's fear was reasonable, and the risk of recurrence in the context of ongoing acrimonious litigation was more than a mere possibility, the court was satisfied family violence was likely within the meaning of s.183. Accordingly the March 28, 2023 protection order was renewed on the same terms to protect the at‑risk family member.

Citation
2024 BCSC 985
Parties
Claimant: A.R.D. also known as A.R.A.; Respondent: M.J.D.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law / Protection Order Application (s.183 Family Law Act) Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Protection order granted and extended on same terms as Master Robertson's March 28, 2023 order
Legal Topics
Protection Orders, Family Violence, Parenting/child Custody, Consent Orders
Source Language
English
Family Law Domestic Violence Law Protection Orders Family Violence Parenting/child Custody Consent Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.R.D. also known as A.R.A.

Claimant

M.J.D.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law / Protection Order Application (s.183 Family Law Act) Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether family violence is likely so as to justify a protection order under s.183 Family Law Act
  2. 2 Whether Master Robertson's March 28, 2023 protection order should be extended/renewed
  3. 3 Assessment of s.184(1) risk factors and the reasonableness of the claimant's fear

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was uncontested evidence of a substantial history of physical, sexual and psychological family violence by the respondent, the claimant's fear was reasonable, and the risk of recurrence in the context of ongoing acrimonious litigation was more than a mere possibility, the court was satisfied family violence was likely within the meaning of s.183. Accordingly the March 28, 2023 protection order was renewed on the same terms to protect the at‑risk family member.

Court Disposition

Protection order granted and extended on same terms as Master Robertson's March 28, 2023 order

Orders

  • Respondent restrained from directly or indirectly communicating with or contacting the claimant except through legal counsel for the purposes of this proceeding; indirect contact includes sending emails pertaining to the claimant to the claimant's friends, family members, or emails to counsel that include the...
  • Respondent restrained from going within, or engaging or hiring third parties to go within, 100 metres of the claimant's residence.