50 is the new 37. I find older women more attractive than younger ladies. Because after 50, we all know, its an up hill battle. When I was in my 30's, I could eat a large pizza and my stomach was still relatively flat.
You do realize that you are involved right?Actually all the people involved are woman. Do you think men would actually be involved in this insanity?
Ok I did the math:Yes. They think I am crazy, but its not that. I didnt really leave a big enough retainer for all the calls I make. So if I gave him 2500 dollars, and I made 250 calls, at 50 dollars a call, well you do the math.
You have to be trolling . You can't be this dumb. It's not possible to be this stupid and have a computer.lol you are embarrassing yourself. did he say he got a restraining order issued thru the family law act? nope. he said they want to lay a peace bond against him. the FLA wouldn't even be relevant in this situation since it's an ex-girlfriend, not a spouse.
"there is no canada in law". uhh it's called the criminal code of CANADA, section 810.
try again, moron.
He's having a laugh friend. Take a look who's on this thread. It's pretty clear who the troll is. They are dim witted and bad at it.you sure as hell got something, and intelligence ain't it
so i guess you're not going to link us to the part of the "canada law act" where peace bonds are issued? lmfao.
says the guy starting shit w everyone on this thread hahahaha
From my understanding PBs are for criminal acts and retraining orders are issued from family court. While they act the same in regards to limiting a person from contact with another, Peace Bonds will and can have other conditions such as curfews, restrictions to drugs/alcohol and firearms. Similar to Bail/ROR's can have conditions which are often used in DV violence cases. After the criminal court is done, RO can be used to continue those condition through family court. You can also request RO though family court with no criminal action and you can apply for a PB with a JP for anyone other then a spouse without the need for a criminal court case.
So while both kind of operate the same, and even work together sometimes, they are different and used differently and independently as well.
But don't quote me on this because I am not a lawyer.
The OP mentioned both, but where he fails is that he said the "Church" sent him a RO and that is just not possible. They may have sent him a notice of some type, similar to a Cease & Desist but the RO would not be one that could be legally implemented which is why they would push for him to agree to a peace bond. If he does not, the course of action would be both parties in front of JP, stating their cases. However, if he has been arrested, the police would just put the conditions on his ROR. I wold assume that the crown would be offering a conditional discharge with the agreement that he sign the peace bond and therefore no criminal conviction for him and parties move on. That is usually the way it happens.
So because of all these holes in his posts, I have to assume there is WAY more to the actual story or it is completely bogus.
Yes, That is what I meant by you can apply for a PB with a JP for anyone other then a spouse. I should have said hearing, however I did not know that result could be appealed. But then again, anyone can try to appeal anything so that should not surprise me.Correct, except if you, a civilian, apply for a Peace Bond against someone there will be a hearing in front of a Justice of a Peace and his result can be appealed.
A RO can be applied ex parte for a limited time but eventually you will have a hearing. To get a RO you have to have been married to the individual or lived with them for a period of time. OP claims he was issued a RO by the "church". Maybe if we were in 1813 that would be possible.
I think the person I am debating is just trolling though.
Yes, That is what I meant by you can apply for a PB with a JP for anyone other then a spouse. I should have said hearing, however I did not know that result could be appealed. But then again, anyone can try to appeal anything so that should not surprise me.
It was the "church" sending the RO that first through me off his post. I wish if people were going to post BS, they would at least make it a little more difficult to figure out. I guess I just like a challenge that way. LOL
I don't know how you were able to read his mind and know that he meant PB when stating RO. It was not so obvious to me. What was obvious to me is that the post is most likely BS so I really could not be bother to get that into it in an in-depth manner personally. Maybe my lack of effort into entertaining BS is why his obvious meanings became irrelevant to me.when OP said "restraining order", it's pretty obvious he was referring to a peace bond, which is what general restraining orders are typically referred to in canada. he also said he wasn't charged with any criminal offence, so he wouldn't be on bail, and therefore would not have any bail conditions. he was probably mistaken when he said he was arrested - perhaps he was "detained" when he was given the peace bond to sign. since he refused to sign it, what he is likely going to have now is a show cause hearing under s. 810, where both parties will have the opportunity to show cause as to why a peace bond should or should not be laid.
the family law act is clearly not relevant here.
the church is probably only helping the ex lay the peace bond, as normally the complainant has to lay the peace bond themselves, unless they are doing it for their spouse or child. the OP probably just thinks the church is responsible since they are the ones encouraging the ex to issue the peace bond and providing witnesses.
you're welcome.
I agree. Especially the bold. Take care, and catch you in another thread. This one has lost more then its appeal.Yeah, the problem with PB is, and I have done 1000's, is that it is in front of a JP who can be legally trained or be a farmer. They usually (about 80% of the time) apply the law incorrectly. I have never lost an appealed PB in my life. Never. God bless Ontario JP's. Judges hate both RO and PB to be honest. Especially civilian initiated ones.
Just keep on white knighting and posting Wiki links. Stick to the simple stuff.Judges hate issuing restraining orders against a current or former spouse/partner who has intentions of harming a spouse/partner or a child. Hmmm, that sounds like a pretty stupid statement to me. And for a woman to agree with that statement. Says a lot about her. I would add a lol but violence against women and children is not a laughing matter.
See this is where you show your age (either under 16 or over 80): If I have been "subject" to many RO, this means I am also subject to many GF and Wives. So I have something going for me. You? You only have to worry about PB, DO designations and no trespass orders near places where children frequent.Not white knighting. Just posting the facts as they relate to the scenario the OP started, no matter whether it is bs or not. It must be tough to pretend you know what you are talking about. That, I will add a lol because frankly, your comments deserve that, LOL!
The only place you have handled thousands of PB's is being on the wrong end of a peace bond or restraining order or stuffing your face with the sandwiches,lol.