Watch Charles Fair as he speaks about the pros and cons of peace bonds. Partnered with the Canadian Centre for Men and Families, Fair Legal provides monthly webinars on topics dealing with criminal or family matters. Canadian Centre for Men and Families.
Watch: Pros and Cons of Peace Bonds
Calgary Men's Divorce Rights Lawyer Charles Fair
Canada’s divorce and family laws are governed by federal and provincial laws. Family lawyers represent their clients in court and negotiate disputes between spouses and family members. Charles Fair has been practicing Divorce and Family Law for almost 30 years. Fair Legal handles all types of divorce, custody and family legal matters to protect your children, property and you. Contact us at 1 (403) 239-2249 to schedule a confidential meeting with a member of our legal team.
Give me a call and I can put my years of experience in divorce and family law to work for you.
Great. Thank you very much, Vanessa. I just love the introduction that you give to the, about the Canadian Center for Men and Families. I think it's really important work that you guys do. And I like the fact that it's not ideologically driven, but that you guys are really oriented towards what the needs are for men and their families, and it really does have an impact on, on the overall health of our society. So it's great work that you guys are doing, and it really is a pleasure that I have to be involved in this.
Today we're going to be talking about Peace Bonds. And I just wanted to say at the outset - I may not make this clear at every time - this is not an exhaustive course in Peace Bonds. I'm sure that there's things that I could say that I'm not going to say, that I'll miss. And it's also not a legal advice. So if you're going to act on anything that I say, you've got to be careful that it's not legal advice. And that's really just, it's really because every legal case has different factors and there might be something about your case in particular, or the case of somebody that you know, that you're trying to help, that is unique that maybe we didn't cover in this brief time that we have together today.
So without further ado here, I'm going to start into the presentation. My name is Charles Fair. That's a picture of me. I'm also on your video screen. There you go. It is what it is.
Okay, so today's focus is Peace Bonds. I'm going to try to answer three main questions and then offer some suggestions about what to do if a Peace Bond is offered or asked of you.
So, first off, what is a Peace Bond? Well, there's two kinds of Peace Bonds. One is Section 8.10 of the Criminal Code. A peace bond is sometimes just called a Section 8.10 Peace Bond. And that's from Section 8.10 of the Criminal Code. That's kind of obvious. And it has, the core feature of it is that it is an agreement to keep the peace and be of good behavior, and to comply with some other optional conditions. And it requires that a person has reasonable grounds to fear that another person, the accused, will cause personal injury or share intimate images without consent.
And I've got to say there's some, there are some other peace bonds that are also in, kind of, next door sections of the Criminal Code. And they deal with things like fear of terrorism offenses and fear of sexual offenses, and that sort of thing. But the core is that a person has reasonable grounds to fear that another person,
the accused, or the person who's the respondent to the application, will cause personal injury or share intimate images without consent.
And a peace bond lasts for a maximum of 12 months, and it might require a financial promise or deposit that can be forfeited if the conditions are not complied with. So what that means is, you know, it's like posting bond to get, or posting bail to get out of jail. It's the same kind of deal here. You put some money on the table. That gets either deposited with the court, or just simply to promise to pay a fine if I break my promises here, then the government gets to keep that money that's been set aside.
So that's the Section 8.10 Peace Bond. It's a Statutory Peace Bond that is governed by the specific provisions in the criminal code. There's also a Common Law Peace Bond. And it's very similar. Again, it's a court order to keep the peace and be of good behavior and to comply with some other optional conditions. But the broader grounds are, someone has done something that justifies an apprehension or concern that they may breach the peace in the future. And it may last for longer than 12 months.
I'm not going to get into a lot of discussion about the Common Law Peace Bonds today, we're just gonna focus on the Section 8.10 Peace Bonds.
So let's talk about these options. You see, it says "1 of 3" here, we got lots of options that get put on there. And they don't all get put on, so here are some of the more common ones. So, as we talked about, there's a financial promise or deposit.
The second one there, "financial promise or deposit by assurity". So if you don't have money, but you've got a family member that is willing to help keep an eye on you, they can put up some money to ensure that you comply with your conditions. No direct or indirect contact with the complainant or members of the complainants family, including quite possibly your own children. And typically with that, you know, there'll be an order that you have to stay away from specified places, such as the complainants residence or workplace.
Those two are going to be pretty standard in pretty much all Peace Bond conditions. Sometimes you'll get drug and alcohol abstinence rules. So, and then they submit bodily substances for testing either, with different procedural rules for those. But, again, if you've got a drug and alcohol abstinence, there may or may not be an additional condition to submit bodily substances, like hair and urine and possibly even blood to be tested.
Here's some more weapons prohibitions that you can't own or possess weapons, or even any licenses to have a weapons. Another one would be mandatory treatment programs. You would see that a lot for and alcohol addiction issues. You might also see it for anger management.
You can have restrictions on leaving a particular area without permission. You may have a curfew that says you gotta be home by a certain time of day. And in some cases have an electronic monitoring device, and no unsupervised contact with children.
Now, the last two are going to be seen in the more specific kinds of Peace Bonds. The electronic monitoring device in particular is used on the fear of terrorism offenses. And the "no unsupervised contact with children" would be when there's a risk of sexual interference with a child.
"3 of 3", there's more, if that wasn't enough. So, abstain from using the internet or digital networks. Stay away from places where there are children, such as parks and playgrounds and swimming pools, schools, et cetera. Report to the police or a police designate, like a probation officer. Report changes of address, employment, or occupation. And surrender all passports. So you see that these are, there's a lot of conditions that can be very restrictive on someone's liberty rights.
So a question is, well, why is somebody asking for a Peace Bond, aside from the question of, you know, there's a fear of, as we said, a fear of personal injury or harm to property or damage to property or persons, for you as the complainant or their family member or children.
Question is, well, why does this come up? So, the complainant it can apply to the court for a Peace Bond with or without the assistance of the police. So they start the process much like any other criminal proceeding is started, and the court has to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that there is that fear present.
But the other time that somebody, that Peace Bond comes up is that there's already criminal charges that have been laid and a peace bond is offered as a way of resolving those criminal charges. So I'm just gonna throw out a couple of possible reasons why someone might be asking for a Peace Bond in that case.
And it may be that the Crown has a weak or uncertain chance of success. And they think, well if we can get a Peace Bond, if we offer a Peace Bond, we at least seem to solve the problem without running the risk of, and the time of, a trial. And if we are unsuccessful in the trial, then there's nothing.
So sometimes the Crown will offer a Peace Bond. That tends not to be something that gets offered too readily in domestic violence cases. And it certainly is not going to be offered if the Crown has a strong case. It can sometimes be offered by defense counsel as a way of resolving a case. In their discussions with the Crown, they could try to convince the crown that they've got a weak or uncertain case, and maybe they can get the Crown to do a Peace Bond instead of proceeding with the criminal charges.
The other reason why defense counsel might see it as something that's worth considering is that it may be a quick and inexpensive resolution to those criminal charges because, as we say, one of the benefits of a Peace Bond is that there isn't a criminal conviction of the same sort as in the past. Or as there would be if there's criminal charges.
But I do want to say there's an interesting question here about a Peace Bond being truly voluntary because a lot of the discussion comes out as, like, you know, we can make these charges go away if you agree to a Peace Bond. And so the way I've seen them just in a lot of my cases is that, that it's seen as a resolution and therefore it's something that the accused person signs off on.
And so, so even though the process starts with this starting of the criminal proceedings and the court has to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that there is a basis for that fear, it really, in my practice, I've very rarely seen that as a try-able issue where people are actually presenting evidence, because I'm typically seeing them in the situation where there's already criminal charges and this is a resolution of those charges. But if it isn't a resolution of existing criminal charges, then you're more likely to see the evidence put before the court and then, the target of the peace bond is then directed to sign the Form 32.
And the Form 32 is like the same form that's used to release people on bail pending their criminal charges. It's exactly the same form. And the Court says, well, there's a reasonable basis for fear of personal injury or harm or whatever the other specifics are. And the person is directed to sign the Form 32.
What if they don't sign it? Well, this is an interesting twist to this, is that the court actually has the power to commit the person to prison until they sign. And they can stay in prison for up to 12 months. And this is, so it's not really as voluntary as people think.
So, now, I do have to say, I've never heard of this actually happening because everybody who's signing a Peace Bond is usually more than happy to sign this and get this thing over with. And it just never comes up. But this is a very
curious provision that essentially the Court's saying, you either sign this thing or we're going to stick you in jail, because there is this reasonable basis for fear and if you don't comply, we're going to stick you in jail.
I think that that might actually raise some important Charter of Rights issues and that may be why this thing has never actually happened in practice. I actually have not gone to figure out whether any of that has actually been tested by the courts or not.
So here's some benefits of a Peace Bond. So, first off, there is no criminal record or conviction or record of a conviction on your file. It avoids the risk and expense of a criminal trial and conviction, and it seems to be an easy, quick way to get to a resolution.
The conditions, if you do it right, may not be particularly onerous. And it only lasts 12 months, yeah, well, that might seem like a long time. After a few years, you realize the 12 months isn't that long of a time.
However, I think that there are some serious disadvantages of peace bonds.
So we've got one screen of advantages, and I probably got four screens here, or so, of disadvantages.
So the first one is increased jeopardy. If you breach the Peace Bond, any of those conditions, including simply the condition that you keep the peace and be a good behavior, that in itself is a criminal offense.
And it can be either, you know, indictable, up to four years in jail or summary conviction, which is typically under two years, those are two different ways of proceeding. But there can be some serious criminal consequences. And think back to some of those conditions that we talked about. An abstinence from alcohol, for example. Well, that's not normally a criminal offense, and if you're struggling with alcoholism or drug addiction and you fall off the wagon, you could be facing some serious criminal consequences for that. And so we've criminalized what is arguably a mental health issue or, you know, an addictions issue that's not by itself a criminal act.
Similarly, the very core of the Peace Bond is keep the peace and be of good behavior. Well, that generally means don't get charged with any crime. So you find yourself in a situation where you commit a crime, I'm not encouraging anybody to go out and commit any crimes, obviously, but now you've got double jeopardy. Now you're not only charged with whatever the criminal
allegation, the criminal offense, that you're alleged to have committed, but now you are charged with a breach of the Peace Bond as well.
And particularly if the charges are criminal harassment, the breach of a Peace Bond is an aggravating factor that may justify a harsher penalty for some crimes. Like criminal harassment.
And what's interesting there is that criminal harassment is one of those crimes that is somewhat difficult to define. And you might think that the person who's trying to deal with a messy breakup in their life is maybe just trying to get peace or trying to get resolution to this problem, and the other person says, no, what you're doing is not welcome. This is actually criminal harassment. And you're just trying to fix a problem. And now what might otherwise in times past not been particularly criminal behavior becomes criminal. You drop off a bottle of wine at your friend's house, thinking that this is a peace offering. And now you're facing criminal harassment charges, if there had been a Peace Bond in place, then you have an aggravating factor that would justify a harsher penalty for that simple act of kindness to that person. I'm talking about a real case in that particular instance.
So disadvantages. Another disadvantage is possible effects on family law matters. And this is particularly of interest for folks here in the Canadian Center for Men and Families.
Once a Peace Bond is in place, the core foundation of the Peace Bond is that there's a reasonable basis for a fear of personal injury or harm or some other kind of criminality. And that is going to be used, almost guaranteed is going to be used, in the family law proceedings to put restrictions on parenting time, especially unsupervised parenting time. And certainly there's going to be restrictions on the communications with the other party. Direct or indirect communications are going to be excluded. And that makes negotiations without lawyers even more difficult, or impossible. If the conditions aren't drafted properly, even communication through lawyers might be a breach of the Peace Bond, although nobody seems to be willing to test that particular, issue.
And so that raises that, you know, like, a kind of interesting question from a criminal law perspective, the Peace Bond looks like a nice, easy way out of a messy, sticky criminal law problem, but it creates a bigger, longer lasting, family law problem. Another possible effect is on employment.
So, while the Peace Bond itself doesn't result in a criminal record, it will show up on police record searches and vulnerable sector searches. And it may be very difficult or impossible to get those records actually purged of the Peace Bond.
So you have to be very careful about agreeing to a Peace Bond, which is what the Peace Bond requires, is your agreement. I think you have to be really careful about evaluating the situation.
It's been noted that the Peace Bond itself might contain some disparaging and potentially unproven statements, such as suspected of illegal activity, known to be violent eights, a place as suicidal tendencies, or has mental health disorders. Not exactly the kinds of statements that you'll want to have showing up on a police record search or a vulnerable sector search when you're trying to apply for a job. Or even when you're trying to volunteer in a volunteer organization. I, myself, had to, I volunteer with the Knights of Columbus and I never deal with anybody that's considered a vulnerable sector, but other Knights of Columbus activities do get involved. So, you know, when I was on some leadership position in the organization, I was required to do a vulnerable sector search. You know, thankfully I don't have any of this kind of stuff in my background.
But that would be really embarrassing. I'm just trying to volunteer for a nice, organization that's trying to do some good in the world and I have this rather embarrassing record show up on a vulnerable sector search. So it's a little broader than just employment. It's also volunteer opportunities.
And then, lastly, it can have possible effects on travel. So it shows up in the CPIC database, that's the police records database, and that gets accessed by American border officials when you're going and to the U.S. And some border officials may deny entry, believing the Peace Bond to be evidence of a "crime of moral turpitude", which gives them grounds to deny entry. Even though you haven't been convicted of any criminal offense.
Part of the problem is that, it's my understanding that the U.S. doesn't have an equivalent to a Peace Bond, and so, unless the border official is familiar with the Canadian legal system and what Peace Bonds really mean, that they aren't evidence of criminality, and that they are sometimes entered into rather willy nilly, the border official who knows that may be more likely to let you into the U.S. but other border officials may not.
And that might give you a real problem, especially if you've got a job that requires you to travel frequently into the U.S. and you're thinking, okay, well, I better sign this Peace Bond because I got to get this thing behind me, I've got to
save my job. I don't want to end up in jail and lose my job, and that kind of thing because of the criminal charges, so I'll sign this Peace Bond, and then realize that you, unfortunately once it's too late, you have problems at the border.
The other thing is that if the Peace Bond is negotiated as a resolution to the criminal charges, the criminal charges are withdrawn, but it doesn't change the fact that you've been charged with an offense. You haven't been convicted with an offense, or of an offense, but you have been charged, and that might be used by some border officials to deny entry.
So, what to do if a Peace Bond is offered as a resolution, or if the complainant has just brought in an application for a Peace Bond and it seems like an easy way to avoid trouble. So the first thing you need to do is evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of any alternative if this thing is being offered as a resolution of criminal charges. Going back to my earlier comments, if the Crown thinks that this isn't a particularly strong case, they might be offering a Peace Bond as a resolution. That way they can say that they've actually done something on the file, got some kind of resolution that is protective of the complainant, and avoided the risk of running into a trial and losing. So, so it's important to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the alternative.
And in that respect, it's important to ensure that you've got full disclosure of the Crown's case. And discuss that with a lawyer. Somebody who does criminal defense work, somebody who can say this is, the crown doesn't have sufficient evidence to succeed on a trial. So this is not a good resolution. Now, you have to be really aware of what those risks are. What the strengths and weaknesses are of your case.
And, in that, it's important to discuss with your defense counsel the complainants motives to fabricate and what's going on on the family law side. And to review any mental health issues that might be at play in the case, because that information isn't going to be obvious to the criminal defense lawyer, and it's not going to be obvious from the disclosure of the Crown's case. It really requires that you, make sure you have a discussion with your defense counsel that really looks at the full circumstances, everything that's going on in the case, to make sure that this is, that if this is a resolution to some alternative, that it really is a good offer.
Secondly, you've got to review the conditions carefully. They're almost always negotiable. And, you know, obviously you don't want a restriction that's going to interfere with your ability to work. So that one's a fairly easy one to negotiate around.
One's that deal with substance abuse are interesting because some judges will recognize that criminalization of an addictions problem, and they will be more than happy to not include that condition.
But that's an interesting one to try to ask for on your own, if you're self-represented. Think about it. You have an alcohol problem or a drug addiction problem, and you're standing up asking the judge, please don't include that condition 'cause I'd like to continue my problem. Whereas a lawyer can stand up and say, you know, my client recognizes that they have a problem, but I'm standing here as an officer of the court and we need to be careful about criminalizing an addictions issue. And do we, do we need to put the client in that kind of jeopardy? Turning an addiction problem into a criminal offense.
And there are some judges that that are more amenable to that argument than others. And so sometimes defense counsel will have an opportunity to, kind of, direct the case to a judge they know to be more favorable to those kinds of conditions.
Again, if you're going to go into a Peace Bond, and you've got an addictions problem, you really do need to discuss it fully with your lawyer about whether this is a proper condition to the Peace Bond.
The other thing that sometimes gets missed in these things is that there should be an exception for family law proceedings and, you know, an exception for communications through counsel and exception for contact during settlement conferences, or mediation, or going to court and that sort of thing. That exception is easy to get in at the beginning, it's a little harder to get in if somebody forgot to put it in and then you have to go back and try to apply to vary the Peace Bond down the road.
So those are some, kind of, basic suggestions that I have for what to do if a peace bond is offered as a resolution, or even if it is being presented not as an alternative to criminal charges, but just simply, out of the blue, the complainant has done an applied to the Court for a Peace Bond, with or without the assistance of the police.
You really do need to, I think, review the evidence carefully, and don't just sign off on a Peace Bond because it seems like a cheap and easy resolution to your issues.
So those are the comments I have. We've taken about a half an hour on that. I think I've tried to hit the main points. So I'll turn it over to questions.
Okay, sounds great. So there's only a couple of questions so far. So this one you kind of touched on, but what happens if you're under a Peace Bond and get charged with an unrelated offense? Like, example, drunk driving.
That would be a violation of the core idea of "keep the peace and be of good behavior".
Again, whether you get charged with a breach of the Peace Bond is going to be up to the discretion of the police. But yeah, it's a potential problem. And, so you basically doubled the problem that you may be facing when you got the DUI charges.
Okay. So the next question is: If the Crown has a weak case, why do they not just drop the charges? Why would they offer a Peace Bond at all?
Because they know that the defense counsel may be more than happy to talk their client into doing a Peace Bond because it doesn't result in a criminal record.
It's maybe a distortion of the system. The Crown actually has an ethical obligation to ensure that justice is done. And so some Crowns will, for example, say, look, you know, your guy doesn't have any, and this is the kind of discussion I've had with the Crown. They'll say, look, this is the first time that this has come to the attention of the police. I personally think that everybody should be given a second chance. I'm feeling generous today. I'm a, you know, kind of give your guy a, you know, a Peace Bond here as a resolution this time 'round, but just know that if he doesn't, if he ends up back in court, another time it's not going to go so well for him.
So some Crowns will take the idea that this is, you know, somebody's entitled to make a mistake, hopefully they learn from it, a Peace Bond might be all that's necessary.
Other Crown might be saying, yeah, I've got a weak case, but I don't, but you know, maybe this defense counsel, is somebody that I know doesn't really pay a whole lot of attention to it. And this way I can chalk it up as a win on my tally sheet.
You know, I don't want to ascribe motives to people in this sense, but, you know, those kinds of issues are there. I mean it's, you know, if you get to a resolution that avoids risk, that, that assessment is something that is a legitimate assessment for the Crown to make. That's why they offer it.
But I think that the - and maybe there is a reason why the U.S. system doesn't have this? I think these Peace Bonds, the more I think about this issue, the more I think these things are, they sound like a good idea, but, you know, when you think about it, this is, it's too close to criminalizing something that isn't really criminal, you know? What happens if you just look scary, you just have to, you know - maybe I have a scary face, I don't know. I hope I don't have a scary face, but, you know, like, if somebody has, you know, somebody who's got a bunch of tattoos and they just look like a tough guy, they could be the sweetest guy on the planet, but you know, somebody says, you know, this guy looks scary and,, you know, it just gets out of hand that way. So I don't know. I think there's some, I think a better resolution is probably to convince the crown to withdraw the charges.
Okay. So the next -
That's kind of a rambling answer on that. Sorry about that. So -
The next couple of questions we have actually all have to do with traveling to the U.S. So, the first one is, can you easily travel to the U.S. While under a Peace Bond?, You know, I'm not an expert on U.S. Immigration law. This is an issue that has been identified as an issue.
I don't have experience with helping somebody negotiate through that process. What I would suggest is that, if you have questions, that you get advice from an immigration lawyer on that, and we've got people that we can refer you to, if you need assistance in that regard.
It, as I say, some border officials may have more familiarity with the Canadian legal system, but they may be ones that are closer to major Canadian population centers. So, you know, the Detroit/Windsor border crossing may be much more used to this kind of thingthan, you know, the Koots River crossing. Wherever it is, Koots.
Okay. So, further related to traveling to the U.S, this person's asked, they thought that once the Peace Bond conditions expire, it goes away from your CPIC and vulnerable sector search. How do you get this removed from the database to make travel to the U.S. easier?
Well, the first thing you should do is determine whether or not it's still there.
Think about this from a policing perspective. Police would much prefer to have as much information at their fingertips as possible. So even when there is a
statutory requirement, or a legal requirement, for the records to be removed, they're going to drag their feet about it. And they'll go, oh, well, so we're, yeah, well, that's on our list of things to do. We're going to get to it.
So the first thing you need to do is figure out, okay, are these, is this stuff still showing up in a criminal records search? And you can go ask her for a criminal record search yourself. You can go and ask for a vulnerable sector search. Although that one might require an organization to sponsor the request. I don't, I'm not sure of that.
But you can go ask for a police record search and see what you get. And if you, if it's still showing up there, then you need to get counsel to bring an application to the court, to specifically direct the police to remove it.
The next one, which kind of doesn't really have to do with Peace Bonds, but they asked, so I figured I'd throw it out there.
It has to do with charges being withdrawn. So, and it goes back to the U.S. stuff. So if the charges are withdrawn, will it show in the customs with the U.S? Or is there a risk of being turned back, or turned away?
There shouldn't be a risk because of, the charges are withdrawn. There isn't anything that you've been charged with at that point. But sometimes the question is, have you ever been charged with an offense? And it's kind of an unfair question when you think about it, in the sense that, that you may have been charged, and it's a complete mix-up, you had nothing to do with the situation. You were the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time and had nothing to do with the situation. You've been charged, but technically you have to answer "yes" to the question if you've ever been charged.
You know, because if it does show up that you've been charged and it does show up on that CPIC database - if it does show up on the CPIC database and you've answered that you've never been charged, now they're thinking that you're not being truthful and that's not a good situation to be in. That might lead to a permanent, or a more lengthy, denial of entry.
Again. I'm not the expert on the immigration law stuff, so if you have issues of concern, you would need to talk to an immigration lawyer that's familiar with U.S. border stuff. But it's a very similar problem as to what happens on the Peace Bond stuff. So it's a legitimate question.
Okay. Great. So this question, I'm going to say something after I ask the question, but it is: What is the difference between a Peace Bond, a Restraining Order, and an EPO? What are the benefits and non-benefits of each? So to the person who asked that or anybody else on this webinar, if you visit our YouTube link, or our website, or CCMF's website - and I've put them into the chat box - there are links to the last two webinars that Charles did where, one, he talks about, we did last month, which was on Emergency Protection Orders. And if you go to the one before that, it was done in September, it talks about false accusations, but I believe in that one there's talk about Restraining Orders as well. So, Charles, want to go ahead with answering that question.
Okay. So, the simple answer is that there are some obvious similarities between all of them. The differences come in the procedures to get them and what the consequences are of having it in place. And what the, as part of the procedure, what standard of proof is required in order to get it. And then what's the consequence of a breach of the order.
So, the Emergency Protection Order and Restraining Orders are civil orders. And so they won't necessarily, I don't think they show up on criminal record searches because those, to my knowledge, they don't. They have similar restrictions on behavior. An Emergency Protection Order is issued by a. Provincial Court judge, and it cannot last very long until it's confirmed by a Court of Queens Bench justice, in part because there's some jurisdictional restrictions on the Provincial Court civil system issuing restraining-type orders, other those Emergency Protection Orders.
So essentially the domain of Restraining Orders is typically Queen's Bench domain, but the Provincial Court is a little easier for people to access. And so the Emergency Protection Orders are done in Provincial Court because they're easier for people to get access to.
Yeah. There's yeah. As I say, there's a number of different procedural differences on that.
Great. Thanks. That's actually it for questions.
So, unless anybody, I'd give it a couple more minutes if anybody has any more questions they want to message to me.
Otherwise, we will give you back your Thursday night with 15 extra minutes to spare.
You know, I do want to say that I also, I represent men in messy situations. I do also represent women and I noticed that it does appear that there are some women participants. And, I want to say that the Restraining Orders and Peace Bonds may not be a good resolution for what, I'm presuming that, rather stereotypically, admittedly, that if the woman is a perceived victim of, or has fears of physical harm, that a Peace Bond or Restraining Order may seem like a good idea. And I think that that's important, to get some good advice about how to deal with potentially dangerous situations. And there are some risks that are very directly related to personal safety risks with these kinds of proceedings.
The other thing I want to say, just to kind of deal with the stereotype issue, is that it is not only men that are the sources of fears or actual physical violence and injury, that that is, it may not be as common, but there are certainly situations where men are the victims of this sort of thing. And that goes back to my earlier comment about, you know, it's important to assess the full context of the dispute. I've been acting for a female who is the subject of an application for a Restraining Order and the complainant is another female. And so it's a female-female dispute. And the real context seems to be that the real risk of violence is going the actual opposite direction.
So it's important to really get a full assessment of the situation with the assistance of somebody like a lawyer that's able to look at it from an objective perspective. And deal fully with issues of safety, of what are reasonable approaches to a breakup of a relationship.
Okay, well, thank you.
Thank you so much.
Yeah, no, that's it. That's it for questions.
All right. Good.
Calgary lawyer Charles Fair brings over 30 years of experience to Fair Legal in criminal, family and civil litigation. Charles draws on his personal experiences related to each field of law which helps him to understand and relate with each of his clients. He is compassionate, caring, and will always be your champion for justice when life gets messy.