Emergency protection orders aren’t a substitute for family court: judge

Judge denies man’s application to terminate EPO, says issues can be addressed during divorce proceedings

A Corner Brook judge has dismissed a husband’s application for a termination of an emergency protection order (EPO) against him, determining the man’s behaviour — including tipping over furniture, putting holes in walls and slamming a cupboard door hard enough to break it — meets the definition of domestic violence.

The man, who was selfrepresented in provincial court, applied to terminate an EPO previously granted to his wife against him, arguing it was alienating him from his children.

“The parties agree that he has not assaulted (his wife) or their children. However, some of his behaviour clearly falls within the definition of family violence,” Judge Harold Porter found earlier this month.

The woman testified her husband had flipped over a bed and a couch and made holes in the walls of their home. The man testified he had tipped the bed over because his wife hadn’t made it, and did the same to the couch at a moment when she was complaining the house was untidy, as a demonstration of what an untidy house might look like. She told the court he had broken a lamp and a door frame; he said he had tripped while carrying the lamp and had to force the door because the children had locked it.

Porter said the man told the court he had “put” holes in the walls, but hadn’t “punched” holes in the walls.

The woman described her husband as controlling, giving the example of him forbidding her from wearing a bikini while swimming. The man told the court the swimsuit was “inappropriate for a kidfriendly swimming area.”

“He misses the point: only she has the right to decide what she wears,” the judge wrote.

The man presented recorded evidence of the couple yelling at each other during an argument about him wanting to check her phone.

Porter opted to uphold the EPO, saying there had been no change in the couple’s circumstance since it had been implemented, apart from the fact they have begun the divorce process.

The man’s actions and the couple’s constant yelling and arguing “all raise a concern that the conduct could undermine the psychological wellbeing” of the family, Porter wrote.

Family court has the authority to vary the EPO when it comes to custody of the children, he wrote, and the issue should be addressed as part of the divorce, he determined.

“EPO proceedings are meant to be an expedient means of preventing family violence. They are not a substitute for family law proceedings,” Porter wrote.