Restraining Orders: Coercive Control in Ontario

The Court’s Firm Stand on Coercive Control in Ontario Family Law

A critical recent decision from the Ontario Court of Justice sends a clear and necessary message: family violence is not limited to physical assault. This judgment grants a final restraining order based on a relentless pattern of verbal abuse, cyber-bullying, and financial intimidation, confirming that coercive and controlling behaviour constitutes a reasonable threat to a person’s safety under the Family Law Act.

For anyone navigating a high-conflict separation or divorce in Ontario, this case is essential reading. It underscores the court’s expanded definition of safety and its willingness to intervene when one party weaponizes technology, reputation, or employment against the other to exert power and control.

The Facts: When Communication Becomes Coercion

The sole issue before the Court was whether Ms. F had reasonable grounds to fear for her safety due to the actions of the Respondent, Mr. S, following their separation in August 2024.

The evidence presented a disturbing pattern:

• Financial Leverage: The parties had a seven-year relationship where Ms. F was financially dependent on Mr. S for five years. The conflict escalated as she gained independence.
• The Campaign of Abuse: Following the separation, Mr. S launched a relentless campaign of vile, derogatory, and insulting written communications (texts, emails, and public Facebook posts) aimed not just at Ms. F, but at anyone supporting her, including her friends, her mother, her lawyer, and even judicial officers.
• Financial and Emotional Attack: The Court noted that Mr. S repeatedly contacted Ms. F’s employer, insisting she be fired. He explicitly stated he wanted her “left broke and fed”* to punish her for litigating against him. This was a clear attempt to attack her financial security and autonomy.
• Abuse During Trial: Crucially, the abuse continued right outside the courtroom. Mr. S admitted to saying “hail satan” to Ms. F and her witnesses and giving them the middle finger during a break—demonstrating a persistent inability to respect boundaries or the judicial process.

The Legal Framework: Defining Family Violence

The Court granted the final restraining order under section 46(1) of the Family Law Act, which requires the applicant to have reasonable grounds to fear for his or her own safety.

The Expanded Definition of Safety

The judge specifically relied on the expanded definition of family violence found in the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act, which guides the court’s assessment of risk, even when children are not the central focus of the specific order.

The key finding was that Mr. S’s admitted conduct constituted intimate partner violence, specifically coercive control. This concept is crucial because it recognizes that abuse can consist of many different types of acts occurring over time, which, in isolation, do not seem abusive or significant, but which paint a picture of a very destructive relationship when viewed in their totality.

The Court underscored three vital aspects of this expanded definition:

1. Safety is Not Just Physical: The fear component of a restraining order is not limited to physical safety. Ms. F was found to have reasonable grounds to fear for her physical, emotional, and financial safety.
2. Isolation is Coercion: Mr. S relentlessly attacking anyone who supported Ms. F (friends, employer) was recognized as an effort to isolate her and make her subordinate and dependent.
3. Digital Harassment is Violence: The campaign of cyber-bullying and vile online remarks was found to breach her privacy rights and contribute significantly to her fear.

The Decision: Consequences and Accountability

The Court found that Mr. S’s “relentless expression of his anger and inability to let go of the relationship mandates the continuation of the restraining order”. The judge explicitly noted Mr. S’s lack of remorse and continued assertions that his behaviour was merely “provoked,” showing a concerning lack of insight.

Protective Orders Issued

The final restraining order included stringent terms:

• No Contact: Restrained from directly or indirectly contacting or communicating with Ms. F.
• Physical Distance: Restrained from coming within 200 metres of her home, work, or anywhere she is known to be.
• Digital Ban: Must not make any remarks about Ms. F or the witnesses, and must remove all existing social media posts about her within five days.

Mandatory Rehabilitation and Enforcement

In a strong move toward accountability, the Court imposed two significant conditions:

1. Partner Assault Response (PAR) Program: Mr. S was ordered to attend and complete a Partner Assault Response (PAR) program due to his lack of awareness of the impact of his conduct.
2. Litigation Barrier: Critically, the judge tied compliance to future litigation: Mr. S cannot initiate any Motion to Change the order until he has completed the PAR program and paid any awarded costs in full. This is a powerful mechanism used by the Ontario Family Law courts to ensure the Respondent addresses the core issues before consuming more judicial resources.

Actionable Takeaways for Your Family Law Case

The case provides essential lessons for anyone navigating a separation and divorce involving harassment or abuse.

1. Gathering and Presenting Evidence

The successful granting of the restraining order was built entirely on written evidence (emails, texts, Facebook posts) and the admission of the Respondent.

• Document Everything: If you are experiencing harassment or abuse, document every single incident. This includes saving texts, emails, social media posts, and logging dates, times, and witnesses for any verbal or in-person interactions.
• Use the Right Legal Tools: An experienced family lawyer understands how to categorize this seemingly disjointed evidence as a pattern of coercive control, building a compelling case that meets the legal standard for a reasonable fear for safety.

2. The Seriousness of a Restraining Order

As the Court noted, a final restraining order is serious and is designed to provide safety.

• Criminal Consequences: A breach of a civil restraining order is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code, carrying serious penalties, including potential jail time.
• Employment and Immigration: The existence of a restraining order can impact a person’s employment opportunities (especially in fields requiring background checks) and immigration status. It is not a trivial or easily dismissed order.

If you feel unsafe, harassed, or that your former partner is engaging in a campaign of isolation or financial attack against you, you have a right to seek immediate protection under Ontario family law.

Need Legal Guidance on Restraining Orders or Family Violence in Ontario?

If you are dealing with a complex separation involving threats to your safety or finances, the lawyers at IQBAL LAW are here to help. We understand the expanded definition of family violence and can act quickly to secure a restraining order and protect your family’s safety and well-being.

Contact us today for a confidential consultation.

DISCLAIMER:

The information provided in this blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established through this writing. You should consult with a qualified attorney for advice tailored to your specific situation. The lawyer and their firm disclaim any liability arising from reliance on this blog or any other content on this website.