Abuse Prevention Order
This page lists decisions made by the Supreme and Appeals court, which touch on the Abuse Prevention Orders, 209a's.
Although the purported purpose of the abuse prevention order is to prevent abuse, all to often the orders are themselves used to abuse. A common problem is when an order is issued when there is no legitimate basis for it.
The basis for issuing an abuse prevention order is reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm, (there is also the less commonly used basis of coerced sexual relations)
When the issuance of a restraining order is appealed, and the appeal claims the legal basis for issuing the order was not met, then the courts should clearly state how the basis for issuing the order was met, or allow the order to be overturned.
You may notice that names of the parties are no longer provided, simply initials, this may be seen as an attempt to make the issuance of these orders as less transparent.
In this case an appellant tries to get a permanent order overturned. Not an easy thing to do, and it doesn't happen here
Interesting case. Although it is clear that the plaintiff had not reached the threshold to have a 209a restraining order issued (no imminent aspect), since a restraining order was issued in a criminal case in another jurisdiction, the court chose to issue a restraining order here as well.
A restraining order issued, the defendant didn't think it should be entered, however the facts presented were sufficient, and the panel affirmed the order
In this case the appellant sought a permanent restraining order but was instead granted a two year order, which led to this appeal. The appellant believed that they had a right to a permanent order, the lower court and this panel disagreed.
It is interesting to note that legal counsel for the appellant argued for a permanent order based on the TRACY MacDONALD vs. KEVIN CARUSO case, arguing that that case provided a basis for when a permanent order must issue. That case gives a basis for when a permanent order may be challenged and vacated.
The basis for the restraining order is never discussed, although it is pointed out that the recipient of the restraining order is a double leg amputee, which makes it difficult to believe that the restraining order was justified in the first place
In this case an appellant tries to get an order extension overturned. The standard for extending an abuse prevention order after the first two party hearing is pretty low, so the order was extended.
In this case a self represented litigant attempts to argue a case before the appeals court.
The legal basis for issuing a abuse prevention order is reasonable fear of imminent serious harm. Not present in this case is the imminent aspect. As such the applicant could have succeeded. Although the panel appeared to comprehend the case better than either of the parties, they chose to ignore the short comings of the original order, instead focusing on the shortcomings of the litigant.
The appeallant attempted to terminate a permanent restraining order, and did not succeed this appeal followed. The panel found no error in the denial to terminate the permanent restraining order.
This appeal is about a modification of a 209A order, as such you cannot tell if it was ever justified. The order was properly modified