S.M. v. R.M.

S.M. v. R.M.

The respondent's sustained and repetitive pattern of harassing, coercive and emotionally abusive communications, many copied to the children, met the statutory definition of family violence and posed a real risk of repetition; accordingly a protection order under s.183 FLA was necessary and appropriate, while most of the respondent's civil and property relief claims lacked merit and were dismissed; limited ancillary orders (tax returns, accounting, ability to draw additional child support per the existing consent order, and costs to claimant) were granted to enforce and clarify the parties' existing consent terms and protect the children.

Citation
2015 BCSC 1344
Parties
Claimant: S.M.; Respondent: R.M.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Family Law (protection Order) With Related Civil Litigation / Application for Protection Order and Cross‑applications Heard in Chambers
Outcome
Protection order granted under s.183 Family Law Act with specified terms; most of respondent's applications dismissed; claimant awarded costs at Scale B; ancillary disclosure and accounting orders granted
Legal Topics
Protection Order, Family Violence (psychological/emotional), Communication Restrictions, Trust/accounting for Child Funds, Child Support, Production of Tax Returns, Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Privacy Law Mental Health Law Criminal Law Protection Order Family Violence (psychological/emotional) Communication Restrictions +4 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.M.

Claimant

R.M.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law (protection Order) With Related Civil Litigation / Application for Protection Order and Cross‑applications Heard in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a protection order under s.183 Family Law Act should be granted based on psychological/emotional family violence and risk of repetition
  2. 2 Whether an order under s.221 to restrict further applications should be made
  3. 3 Whether respondent must produce tax returns and prescription receipts

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's sustained and repetitive pattern of harassing, coercive and emotionally abusive communications, many copied to the children, met the statutory definition of family violence and posed a real risk of repetition; accordingly a protection order under s.183 FLA was necessary and appropriate, while most of the respondent's civil and property relief claims lacked merit and were dismissed; limited ancillary orders (tax returns, accounting, ability to draw additional child support per the existing consent order, and costs to claimant) were granted to enforce and clarify the parties' existing consent terms and protect the children.

Court Disposition

Protection order granted under s.183 Family Law Act with specified terms; most of respondent's applications dismissed; claimant awarded costs at Scale B; ancillary disclosure and accounting orders granted

Orders

  • Protection order prohibiting R.M. from contacting or communicating directly or indirectly with S.M., R.A.M., A.L.M.M., and L.M.; contact exceptions limited to mailed communications for specified purposes only and only to claimant's residential address
  • No‑go 200 metre exclusion from residence, workplace, business or school of S.M., R.A.M., A.L.M.M., and L.M.