Peace Officer Enforcement Orders: Ontario Court Demands Alternative Remedies

"Peace officer enforcement" orders, sometime called police officer enforcement clauses, are frequently used in family law cases when one or both parties anticipates problems enforcing a parenting schedule in the future. These orders are provided for in the domestic relations legislation of most provinces.

The idea with orders like these is that in the event a child is wrongly withheld from a parent, the aggrieved parent will phone the police, the police will swoop in on the strength of the order, take the child and return the child to the parent who is entitled to be with the child. Unfortunately, it rarely works this way in real life. In an article I wrote for Canadian Family Law Quarterly that surveyed the views of family law lawyers across Canada, lawyers complained that: police sometimes refuse to enforce access orders, even when the order directs them to enforce it; some departments have a policy against enforcing access orders; police will generally do what they can to avoid enforcing access orders; and, the courts rarely do anything significant by way of follow-up, such as finding a parent in contempt of court. (For those of you with access to HeinOnline, the article is called "Enforcing Orders for Access" and the cite is 32:2 CFLQ 173.) The frustrations of lawyers are echoed by both judges and parents.

Patterson v Powell

In Patterson v Powell, Mr. Justice Pazaratz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was asked to endorse a final order that the parties agreed to, drawn from minutes of settlement executed a few months earlier. The order included these clauses:

12. The Hamilton Police Service, OPP, RCMP or any other police force having jurisdiction shall enforce the terms of these Minutes of Settlement. 

13. If either of the parties or any other person on their behalf, breaches any of the terms of these Minutes of Settlement, then a Peace Officer shall provide assistance to ensure that the offending party complies with its terms. Before enforcing the terms of these Minutes of Settlement, a Peace Officer must first ensure that the party has been served with a copy of these Minutes of Settlement. If not served, the party must be shown a copy of the Minutes of Settlement by the Peace Officer and be given a reasonable time to comply with the terms. If the party fails or refuses to comply with these Minutes of Settlement the Peace Officer shall do such lawful acts as may be necessary to give effect to its terms.

(This is pretty much along the lines of what would be said in a British Columbia peace officer enforcement clause under s. 231 of the Family Law Act.) The judge declined to make the order without an explanation, even though everyone agreed to it, and asked the parties and their lawyers to appear in court and explain why the clauses were necessary. The argument which ensued plainly gave the judge the opportunity to discuss, in a larger, more principled manner, the problems with peace officer enforcements orders generally and the rare circumstances in which such orders should be made, and Justice Pazaratz's decision in this case should be required reading for anyone thinking about applying for a peace officer enforcement order. 

Justice Pazaratz begins his discussion on the issue noting the two circumstances in which peace officer enforcement clauses are included in court orders:

"11 The first deals with the present: An existing situation. It usually involves some urgency (for example, an abduction) where a child needs to be retrieved from one party and transferred to the care of another. The objective may be to enforce immediate compliance with an existing order, or to quickly remove the child from potential harm or threat of abduction. 

"12 The second scenario deals with the future: a more general concern that on some unspecified date a party may not comply with a custody or access order, and that police assistance may be required to ensure the scheduled exchange of a child from one party to another. Typically, the extent and frequency of such police involvement cannot be determined ahead of time."

In my experience, this is entirely accurate. 

The problem with concerns about the future, even when they are based on past instances of non-compliance or past threats to withhold the child, is that they anticipate that someone will breach the order — a very serious action with potentially serious consequences. However, the judge observes that peace officer enforcement clauses are actually rather commonplace. (This was true in British Columbia too under the old Family Relations Act, however under the new Family Law Act, peace officer enforcement clauses are an extraordinary remedy reserved for circumstances when there has already been a breach of an order and the court is satisfied that nothing else will secure the breaching party's compliance.) Justice Pazaratz writes:

"17 ... As in the case before me, many lawyers and parties seem to regard such requests as both perfunctory and harmless. The implicit assumption seems to be that while all court orders must obviously be followed, there is reason to doubt that one or more of these parties will follow this particular court order.

"18 In that context, the police enforcement clause takes on the nature of an instant remedy for anticipated future contempt of court. A fail-safe precautionary measure 'just in case' somebody misbehaves ... the parties in this case want to know that there will be 'immediate consequences by calling police'."

Of course, as Justice Pazaratz observes, this begs a number of fundamental questions:

• Why does the court make orders about children if it is not confident that the orders will be obeyed?
• Why would the court give custody or access to a parent if it believes that the privilege will be abused?
• Why aren't creative alternatives to access problems — like parenting coordination, reducing the number of exchanges and requiring the use of intermediaries — required when compliance are anticipated instead of peace officer enforcement clauses?
• How does the court balance the benefit of enforcement against the distress caused to the children when the police respond to a dispute between their parents?

Dwelling further on this last point, the judge notes that children's perceptions of police will impact on their response to police intervention. Younger children, says Justice Pazaratz, know that the police deal with "bad people" and "sometimes take people to jail," which may cause them to worry that a parent is in trouble with the police. Older children may be embarrassed by the police presence, resent their parents for letting things get out of hand or feel increased pressure to ally with a parent.

This leads to the court's first conclusions on applications for such orders (important bits in bold):

"24 ... when ongoing police enforcement clauses are requested as a long-term compliance strategy ... courts should insist that parties take available time to fully canvass less destructive and more creative (perhaps even therapeutic) alternatives. Before considering a long-term or permanent police enforcement clause (presuming the latter is even available as an option) courts should require evidence of the potential positive and negative impact of police intervention on each member of the family unit — most particularly, the children themselves: 

a. Has the child already experienced police involvement in family disputes? 

b. How is the child likely to perceive or react to future police involvement? 

c. Will police presence during access exchanges increase pressure on children to ally themselves with one parent or the other? 

d. Does the child have any special needs or vulnerabilities? 

e. Have any members of the family had involvement with the criminal justice system or child protection authorities? 

f. Have there been previous police calls to the home relating to other complaints, such as domestic violence? Will this impact on dynamics if police attend for a more benign peacekeeper role during access exchanges? 

g. How are these particular parties likely to respond to interaction with police? Could any of the parties be regarded as being 'anti-police' — such that police intervention might inflame, rather than defuse the situation? 

h. Are there mental health issues the police may have difficulty recognizing or responding to? 

i. Is there any history of either party making unfounded complaints to police or other community agencies, for malicious or strategic purposes? 

j. Will police involvement facilitate or compound parental alienation? Will calls to police be used to manipulate children, instill fear, or garner sympathy? 

"25 Other questions need to be addressed: 

a. How often and how long is the police enforcement clause to be invoked? For a specified period of time, or indefinitely? Once or on an unlimited basis? Monthly? Weekly? Daily? Every visit? 

b. Should a party invoking a police enforcement clause be required to return the matter to court, or at least initiate a request for some alternative dispute resolution?"

The judge's second conclusion, at paragraphs 30 to 33 of his judgment, is that if the police are to be involved, they should be served with notice of the application and, whether given notice or not, when such orders are made the police have standing to apply to court to vary them or set them aside. However, if the police have any concern with such orders, they have an obligation to bring the matter, and the parties, to court as soon as possible.

Returning to the potential harm to children resulting from peace officer enforcement orders, Justice Pazaratz reviewed the principles enunciated in some 40-odd decisions on applications for peace offer enforcement orders from across Canada — which alone make His Lordship's judgment worth reading — for the propositions that:

1. Parental conflict is a major source of harm for children. 
2. Children should generally be protected from the "drama" of police enforcement of a parenting schedule.
3. The applicant for peace officer enforcement orders must prove that the order would be in the best interests of the children.
4. Factors such as a threat to the safety of the children or a breach of the peace may suggest that such an order should be made.
5. Peace officer enforcement orders may have a negative impact on children, and may frighten or traumatize them. It is not in the best interests of children that police be in attendance at exchanges between parents.
6. Such orders are an "undesirable tactic to give to either parent."
7. Peace officer enforcement orders are exceptional orders and should be made sparingly and as a last resort only. The court may refuse to grant such orders even when both parties consent to the order.
8. The court may, on the other hand, order that police must not be involved in access disputes.

What is to be done, then, when a parent breaches a parenting order? Says the court:

"73 If the non-compliance is isolated or rare, perhaps we should afford an opportunity for explanation and review before presuming the worst ...

"74 And if the non-compliance is chronic, we're likely dealing with a problem police can't fix anyway. At best, police enforcement amounts to a band-aid solution. If a parent is consistently defying a court order, there's a good chance the order itself needs to be changed to deprive the offending parent of the opportunity for more unilateral action or defiance.

a. If access is being denied, perhaps custody needs to be changed. 

b. If access is being abused, perhaps it should be reviewed, supervised or suspended. 

c. If neither party can behave themselves during access exchanges, perhaps both parties should have to attend a supervised exchange facility. It might be inconvenient for the parents, but it would be a lot less traumatic for the child. 

d. If we don't have confidence the parties will comply with final orders, perhaps we shouldn't be making final orders. Sometimes parents are motivated to behave if they know they'll be coming back to court — especially if they know they will be returning to see the same Judge."

After these comments on the options available to creative decision makers, Justice Pazaratz reaches his third set of conclusions, on the court's larger role in family law matters as the custodian of parties' disputes, burdened with a responsibility that extends beyond the moment of judgment to contemplate the future:

"77 ... judges have an obligation to craft comprehensive, holistic and durable court orders which have a likelihood of success and compliance. High conflict files need to be identified and given special attention. While disputes may inevitably arise, courts have a responsibility to anticipate problems and build-in dispute resolution mechanisms — rather than hand the mess over to police to sort it out. 

"78 If a judge anticipates future disputes or non-compliance, the court may wish to remain seized of the matter, and establish a framework to quickly deal with disputes — including contempt proceedings — to ensure that the parties clearly understand expectations and consequences. 

"79 In the absence of ongoing judicial intervention, and serious consequences for disobedience of court orders, long-term police enforcement clauses may prove to be both ineffectual and potentially counter-productive. Non-compliant parents are unlikely to be influenced by repeat police visits to their homes; but children are likely to be deeply (and negatively) influenced."

Needless to say, the parties' consent application for a peace officer enforcement order was dismissed as Justice Pazaratz was not prepared to "rubber stamp" — his words — their minutes of settlement.

"82 While it's reassuring that neither party wants to have to come back to family court, it would be more reassuring if they could agree upon a civilized and child-focussed method of addressing custody/access problems which they seem to anticipate."

Conclusion

This judgment is one of those rare, wonderful judgments, treatises really, where the facts of a particular application motivate a judge to provide a general discussion on a particular issue or problem, often one that has been on the judge's mind for some time. Similar judgments that spring to mind are the decision of Mr. Justice Bouck of the British Columbia Supreme Court on the evils of summary trials in Chu v Chan, and the decision of Associate Chief Justice Rook of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench on freemen-on-the-land in Meads v Meads.

In Patterson v Powell, Justice Pazaratz demands that the bench and bar pay much greater attention to the frivolous use of peace officer enforcement orders. He observes that such orders skeptically imply that the parties will be unable to work through their disagreements and that one or both of them are unlikely to comply with its terms, and that when peace officer enforcement orders are made, their execution risks entrenching the parties' conflict and causing serious, long-lasting harm for the parties' children. Where problems surrounding a parenting schedule seem likely, Justice Pazaratz asks that alternatives to peace officer enforcement be considered first, including requiring parenting coordination, supervised exchange of the children and the court seizing itself of future disputes; peace officer enforcement orders must be reserved as a last resort.

When the court is asked to make a peace officer enforcement order, the applicant should provide evidence that:

1. there is an immediate problem that the police must rectify;
2. the safety of the children is threatened; and,
3. the order is in the best interests of the children rather than the convenience of the parties.

The court hearing the application must consider the following circumstances in deciding whether to make the order sought:

1. Has the child already experienced police involvement in family disputes? 
2. How is the child likely to perceive or react to future police involvement? 
3. Will police presence during access exchanges increase pressure on children to ally themselves with one parent or the other? 
4. Does the child have any special needs or vulnerabilities? 
5. Have any members of the family had involvement with the criminal justice system or child protection authorities? 
6. Have there been previous police calls to the home relating to other complaints, such as domestic violence? Will this impact on dynamics if police attend for a more benign peacekeeper role during access exchanges? 
7. How are these particular parties likely to respond to interaction with police? Might police intervention might inflame, rather than defuse the situation? 
8. Are there mental health issues the police may have difficulty recognizing or responding to? 
9. Is there any history of either party making unfounded complaints to police or other community agencies, for malicious or strategic purposes? 
10. Will police involvement facilitate or compound parental alienation? Will calls to police be used to manipulate children, instill fear, or garner sympathy? 
11. How often and how long is the police enforcement clause to be invoked? 
12. Should a party invoking a police enforcement clause be required to return the matter to court, or at least initiate a request for some alternative dispute resolution?

Although British Columbia's new legislation imposes important additional requirements that must be met before peace officer enforcement orders are made, Justice Pazaratz's learned and sensitive discussion on the subject is an important reminder about the questionable utility of such orders and of the potential harm they may cause to the parties and their children.

How to Fill Out a Notice of Family Claim or Notice of Counterclaim: What Orders Can You Ask For?

I was recently talking to a friend who's going through an unpleasant separation and now finds herself having to start a claim in the British Columbia Supreme Court. She had some questions about the orders she should be asking for in her Form F3 Notice of Family Claim, and I realized that the forms aren't always easy to figure out, particularly when it comes to deciding on the orders you want the court to make.

In this post, I'll review the Form F3 Notice of Family Claim, used to start a claim in the Supreme Court, and the Form F5 Counterclaim, used by someone one the other side of a claim to describe the orders they think the court should make. These forms are pretty much the same; what I say about one will apply to the other, except for the first part of the Notice of Family Claim which is very different from the first part of the Counterclaim. I won't talk much about the fill-in-the-blanks parts except where they might be confusing.

The Form

The style of cause

The style of cause is the top part on the first page of the Notice of Family Claim, where it says the court file number, the name of the court registry, your name and the other party's name, and "In the Supreme Court of British Columbia." This information will be given, in the same order, on all of the court forms you or the other side will use.

You are supposed to type out your full name and your ex's full name, including middle names. But here's a tip. If your names are spelled wrong in your marriage certificate, type out your names exactly as it says on the marriage certificate. Add "also known as" behind the misspelt name, and then type out the property spelling. For example, "John Quentinn Smith also known as John Quentin Smith." Not using the names given on the marriage certificate can cause problems when you're asking for a divorce order.

Paragraph 2: "Spousal Relationship History"

You only need to fill out the parts that apply. If you were never married or never got divorced, for example, leave those check boxes blank and don't add any dates. If you and the other party never married and never lived together, leave the whole paragraph blank.

Paragraph 3: "Prior Court Proceedings and Agreements"

This paragraph is asking you to describe any old order or agreements you and your ex might have, but only the ones that are relevant to your case. Criminal orders or orders about the adoption of a child, for example, are not relevant. However, if you have a marriage agreement or a separation agreement, or an order made between you in the Provincial Court or in another province, those are the things you should be talking about. The orders that you should list are final orders, or if there is no final order, then the last interim orders that were made.

Paragraph 5: "Place of Trial"

If you're starting the claim, the place of trial is the name of the town or city where you'll be filing your claim.

Schedule 1: Divorce

You only need to fill out this schedule if you're asking for a divorce. If you and the other party were never legally married, or if you're married but don't want a divorce for some reason, skip the entire schedule.

Paragraph 1: "Personal Information"

The information required for "ordinarily resident in British Columbia since" is the date when you started to live full-time in the province.

Paragraph 2: "Grounds for the Claimant's Claim for Divorce"

If you're asking for a divorce for a reason other than separation, the information needed for "other grounds" is either "adultery" or "cruelty making continued cohabitation impossible."

Paragraph 5: "Children"

In this paragraph, you are supposed to write out the full names and birth dates your children, which includes adopted children and any children you or your ex brought into your marriage. You don't have to include adult children unless they are still dependent on you or your ex and cannot support themselves.

Orders Available in this Schedule 

· Divorce

Schedule 2: Children

If you don't have children or aren't asking for any orders about the children, including orders for child support, skip the entire schedule.

Paragraph 1: "Identification of Children"

Under "child's relationship to the claimant" and "child's relationship to the respondent," what you're supposed to say is "natural child," "adopted child" or "stepchild."

Paragraph 3: "Current Arrangements for Parenting"

Here you should be describing, as simply as possible, how you and the other side are looking after the children now that you've separated. It can be really tempting to get down into the muck and dish some dirt, but avoid the temptation. If you say something mean and spiteful — even if it's true! — you risk annoying the other side and making your conflict worse than it already is.

Be accurate, be factual and avoid talking about things that aren't really relevant. Don't embellish the truth.

Paragraph 6: "Income of Person Asked to Pay Child Support"

If you're asking for an order that you pay child support to your ex, this paragraph applies to you. If you asking for an order that your ex pay child support to you, fill out the information about your ex's situation.

Where it asks you for the facts which explain why you believe your ex's income is a certain amount, you might say something like "because I prepared his income tax return for last year," "because he told me this was his income," "because her boss told me that this is what she makes" or "because this is the average wage of junior carpenters according to Statistics Canada."

Paragraph 7: "Proposed Child Support Arrangements"

"Special expenses" are the children's expenses for big-ticket items like daycare, music lessons, summer camp, school trips, tutoring, sports teams and so forth. Although not every expense will qualify as a special expenses, you should probably write them down anyway.

Orders Available in this Schedule

· Custody and access under the Divorce Act

· Parental responsibilities, parenting time and contact under the Family Law Act 

· Child support and the payment of special expenses

Schedule 3: Spousal Support

If you're not asking for spousal support, or if you're not married or don't qualify as a "spouse" under the Family Law Act, skip this schedule.

Paragraph 2: "Proposed Spousal Support Arrangements"

Describe how much support you'd like to get, or to pay, how often it should be paid and the length of time it should be paid for. The length of time for a spousal support order can be tricky. You might be specific, and say something like "for five years," or you might link the end of support to "when the claimant obtains full-time employment" or "two years after the claimant finishes job training," or you might just say "indefinitely."

Orders Available in this Schedule

· Spousal support

Schedule 4: Property

If you're not asking for orders about property (including family property, family debt or excluded property), skip this schedule.

Paragraph 1A: "Property and Debt Claims under the Family Law Act"

This part is only for claims to split family property and family debt; read the definition of these terms at ss. 84 and 86 of the Family Law Act.

If you are asking for anything other than an equal split, you have to explain why and it'll help if you read the reasons why the court can make such orders at s. 95(2) of the Family Law Act. You don't get to ask for more of the property because your ex cheated on you, or was unpleasant or lazy. You should limit your explanation to the one or more of the reasons set out in s. 95(2).

The "legal description" of property is the long description you'll find in your Notice of Assessment, property tax levy or the contract for the purchase of the property, that talks about lot numbers, blocks and parcel identifier numbers and looks like this:

PID: 123-456-789
Lot 12, District Lot 34, Block 56, Plan 789, New Westminster Land District

You need to include all of this information in the form.

Paragraph 1B: "Other Property Claims"

This part is where you can ask for:

1. a share of excluded property; 
2. an interest in property under the principles of unjust enrichment and trusts; 
3. an interest in property resulting from a contract; or,
4. an interest in property under any law other than the Family Law Act or common law principles.

An "order for compensation instead of an interest in the property" means that you want to get cash for your interest in the property rather than to become a legal co-owner of the property in which you have the interest.

Orders Available in this Schedule

· Equal or unequal division of family property and family debt under the Family Law Act 

· Division of excluded property under the Family Law Act 

· An interest, or compensation for an interest, in other property based on other legal principles 

· The registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (a kind of lien) against the title of real property under the Land Title Act

Schedule 5: Other Orders

This is where the form gets interesting, because this is where you can ask for the orders that weren't listed in the other schedules. Orders you could ask for under the Family Law Act include:

Married Relationships

· An declaration that a marriage is annulled or is void. 

Children

· A declaration about who are the parents of a child, or an order that a parentage test be performed 

· A declaration about who are the guardians of a child 

· An order that somebody be appointed or removed as the guardian of a child 

· An order that someone's parenting time or contact be on conditions, like not smoking or not drinking when with the child, or be supervised 

· An order that a guardian must not relocate with the child without the court's permission or your agreement 

· An order enforcing an agreement on parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact 

· An order changing an agreement on parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact 

· An order recognizing or superseding an order on parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact made outside British Columbia 

· An order for the appointment of a mental health professional to prepare a needs of the child assessment 

· An order for the appointment of a mental health professional or anther person to prepare a views of the child report 

· An order for the appointment of a parenting coordinator when the final order or a final agreement is made

Child Support and Spousal Support

· An order that income be imputed to someone, usually for the calculation of that person's child support obligation or share of the children's special expenses 

· An order for the payment of the mother's prenatal and birth expenses 

· An order that support be paid wholly or partially as a lump sum 

· An order that an obligation to pay child support or spousal support be retroactive, that is, that it start at an earlier point in time 

· An order that an obligation to pay child support or spousal support must be paid by the payor's estate after his or her death 

· An order changing an agreement for child support or spousal support 

· An order for the payment of arrears of child support or spousal support 

· An order for the cancellation or reduction of arrears of child support or spousal support

Property

· An order for the interim division or sale of family property, including to pay for out-of-court dispute resolution 

· An order that only you have the right to live in the house, called an order for "exclusive occupancy" 

· An order that someone pay the rent, taxes, utilities and other costs of the family home, or that someone be prevented from cancelling the utilities for the family home 

· An order that someone be prevented from selling property or using it as collateral for a loan 

· An order for the appointment of a joint expert to value property or a business

Safety

· An order restricting communication and contact between you and the other party 

· An order that someone not go to a certain place or places 

· An order that someone be prevented from carrying weapons 

· An order that the police must remove someone from the family home

Court and Other Processes

· An order cancelling or discontinuing someone's claim 

· A declaration that the British Columbia court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear a claim 

· An order that someone must give you certain documents in his or her possession 

· An order that you and the other party must try dispute resolution like mediation, collaborative settlement processes or arbitration 

· An order that you, the other party and/or the child must attend counselling

Orders available under other laws and legal principles include injunctions, declarations about the status of contracts, orders about real property under the Land Title Act, orders about property under the law of trusts and unjust enrichment, changes of name and so on.

I've provided a long, but incomplete, list of the potential other orders the court could make. However, you must always think of the long- as well as sort-term effects of what you're asking for. Sometimes the anger and hurt feelings caused by just asking for a particular order are way worse that the problem you're trying to address. Sometimes, even though you're right, the effort and cost of getting an order is totally out of proportion to the actual problem.

As a general rule, you don't want to inflame things; you want the claim you're starting or answering to be handled as cooperatively as possible.

Update: 26 April 2014

Blank copies of the Notice of Family Claim and Counterclaim forms are available from my wikibook in PDF and Word formats, along with examples of what the forms look like when they're filled out correctly.

The very excellent people at Courthouse Libraries BC have added various bits and pieces of this post as annotations to the Notice of Family Claim form. Download the annotated form from the wikibook (PDF); you must save the form to your computer to see the annotations. Since the schedules to the Notice of Family Claim form are the same for the Counterclaim form, you can use Notice of Family Claim to fill out the schedules to the Counterclaim.

Protecting Property

Important Update: The Family Law Act was introduced on 14 November 2011 and contains a number of provisions which are critical to the comments made in this post. See my posts "The Early and Unlamented Deaths of ss. 90 and 120.1: Government takes quick action on parental support and unmarried persons' property agreements" and "Family Law Act Introduced!" for more information.

When a relationship has come to an end, it's usually a good idea to take steps to preserve the assets available for distribution between the parties. I'm not saying that every time a couple splits up one of them will be up to no good, but it usually pays to be cautious and careful. If your ex does decide to try and play games, it can be expensive to undo the damage. In this post, I'll review some of the common and not so common ways that property can be protected. Note that some remedies are only available to married couples, and that most remedies require the commencement of court proceedings.

File an Entry Under the Land (Spouse Protection) Act

A married spouse can apply for an entry against the title of the family home under the Land (Spouse Protection) Act. The entry will stop the property from being sold without the consent of the person who obtained the entry. Here's the fine print:

• The property must be located in BC.
• The parties must not be divorced at the time of the application.
• The entry only applies to property "occupied by the husband and wife as their residence," and which is owned by one or both spouses.
• The application must be made within one year of moving out of the property.

The cool things about entries under the Land (Spouse Protection) Act are that they can be obtained without commencing a law suit and the other spouse is not normally notified about the entry. The bad news is that the act ceases to apply once a couple are divorced, which means that the entry, although still on title, will be ineffective to prevent the transfer of the property.

Register a Certificate of Pending Litigation
Married spouses and unmarried people can apply to register a certificate of pending litigation under the Land Title Act against the title of any real property to which they claim an interest. Once the CPL is registered, the owner will be unable to transfer title of the property or obtain a new mortgage until the CPL is canceled. Here's the fine print:

• The property must be located in BC.
• Litigation must have commenced in the Supreme Court, and the litigation must include a claim about the property proposed to be subject to the CPL.
• The person applying for the CPL must be claiming an interest in the property in the litigation.

CPLs are registered with the Land Title and Survey Authority, after being stamped by the court where the litigation was commenced to confirm that the litigation includes a claim about the property the CPL is going to be registered against.

Apply for a s. 67 Restraining Order

A married spouse can apply for an order under s. 67 of the Family Relations Act to restrain the other spouse from selling the family assets or using them as collateral. A restraining order doesn't create an automatic bar to selling the family assets or using them to obtain a loan the way a CPL automatically prevents the transfer of land. Instead, if the person subject to the order breaches the order, he or she can be punished for contempt of court. Here's the fine print:

• The restraining order covers real property and personal property located in BC, as well as personal property located outside the province.
• Litigation must have commenced in the Supreme Court.
• You must apply for the order in chambers.

The nice thing about s. 67 orders is that they are all but mandatory on the application of a party. If you need this order, you just have to apply for it and the court will give it to you.

Apply for an Injunction

Married spouses and unmarried people can apply for an injunction under Rule 12-4 of the Supreme Court Family Rules to stop the other party from dealing with assets, and the injunction can theoretically be as narrow or as broad as is required to accomplish the task. Again, the fine print:

• The injunction can cover real property and personal property located in BC, as well as personal property located outside the province.
• Litigation must have commenced in the Supreme Court.
• You must apply for the order in chambers and the court may not make the order you want.
• You must promise to make good any harm the other party suffers as a result of the injunction.

Married spouses and unmarried people can also apply for the same relief under s. 39 of the Law and Equity Act.

Apply for an Order for the Detention and Preservation of Property

Married spouses and unmarried people can apply for order for the detention and preservation of assets under Rule 12-1 of the Supreme Court Family Rules where there is a real risk that the other party will sell, damage or conceal property. The purpose of this order is to protect the assets from loss or a reduction in value, and can include a term requiring a party to deliver a specific thing to the other party. Here's the fine print:

• The order can cover real property and personal property located in BC.
• Litigation must have commenced in the Supreme Court.
• You must apply for the order in chambers and the court may not make the order you want.

Married spouses and unmarried people can also apply for essentially the same relief under s. 39 of the Law and Equity Act.