- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
There are violence orders in place between an owner (the protected person) and a SC member (the restrained person); who can attend an in person, in a room, SC meeting or can both still show up even though there is a separation requirement in the AVO?
Anyone come across this situation before?
-
Replies
-
As there is no absolute need for both parties to attend the meeting in person, facilities might be offered to allow the protected person to attend the meeting via Zoom. Since they have no absolute right to speak at the meeting, and meeting attendance via Zoom is allowed by law, their basic rights are not being impinged upon.
Regarding the second question, I am amazed to say that no, I have never come across this before.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
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.
Seriously, people ignore APOs and APVOs on a daily basis, often resulting in tragic consequences. There are no StrataKops. No one is going to jail.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
A lot of manipulation goes on with AVOs, with people pretending to misunderstand what is written in black and white.
On the other hand, the courts have been known to issue dysfunctional orders written by malicious applicants.
The defendant should apply to the court to vary the order. They should ask that it be specified that electronic rooms do not apply to the order if the order actually says that the defendant is excluded from being in certain physical proximity of the protected person.
You do not need to waste money on a legal representative to make an application to vary.