An oversight by the legal representatives of both parties.
From first hand experience – one or both legal representatives would have recognised this awkward situation, and the orders of the court would have specified what happens in this circumstance.
Just because there is animosity between two parties, basic rights such as attending legally mandated meetings, are generally not thrown away by the court.
However, in this case, unless the court order says otherwise, the prohibited person MUST obey the order which means staying away from the protected person. They could attend by Zoom, but there could be orders in place to not speak to the protected person.There is no allowance and a violation of the court order is a criminal offence ( ie it’s very serious).
If I was the restrained person, I would stay away from meetings where the protected person is in attendance, whether in person or remotely, to be sure there are no grounds for a breach of the order.
OR
have their lawyer ask the court for a revised order to take this circumstance into account.