ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Michelle Fradsham
Applicant
— AND —
Jason Schwager
Respondent
Before Justice J. Beasley
Heard on September 15-16, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on October 22, 2025
Michelle Fradsham..................................................................................... on her own behalf
Jason Schwager ......................................................................................... on his own behalf
Beasley, J.:
1The sole issue for the Court is whether a restraining order should be ordered.
2The parties lived together for seven years. Michelle acknowledged that during the relationship, Jason was the financial breadwinner, and he was supportive of her. Michelle acknowledged that at the beginning of their relationship, she was in a vulnerable position. She was changing jobs, on medication for anxiety and depression and relied on Jason’s support and assistance. Michelle did not work and was financially dependent on Jason for five years until she began working in March 2023. For Michelle, the relationship changed when she became more independent. In support of her claim for a restraining order, she is relying on events only that occurred post-separation.
Michelle’s Position
3Michelle asserts that she is afraid for her safety on the basis of Jason’s communications to her, to her friends who tried to act as intermediaries, to her employer, and to her mother. In addition, Jason’s communications on Facebook, to her counsel, and about herself, her lawyer, and judicial officers have made her afraid of Jason.
Jason’s Position
4Jason asserts that his communications may have been inappropriate in August 2024 for two to three days after the relationship ended, and in March 2025 when he posted on Facebook while he was extremely drunk. He asserts that he has not been abusive and that he is not the instigator in this situation, he only responded to provocation. He asks that the claim for a restraining order be dismissed.
5Jason acknowledges having a vulgar vocabulary. He asks the Court to ignore the vulgarity in his communications.
6Jason asserts that he was the financial support of the relationship. He has been unemployed for over 2 years, but in the past has been successful at two businesses. Jason asserts that he was a supportive partner, and that Michelle experienced regular outbursts, especially after she went off medication two years into the relationship, for about a year and in mid-2023. He describes Michelle as having mental health issues, being erratic and refusing to be accountable for her actions.
7Jason opposes the restraining order. He believes that he has not initiated any actions. He has merely responded to provocation. He has never been physically abusive to Michelle. He has never threatened her. He has merely communicated his opinions. He feels that Michelle may be overly sensitive.
8Jason acknowledges sending inappropriate messages, and said about some of them that they were “cruel, dishonourable, and I regret them.” Although he then added: “However, there were only words – not actions.”, and then proceeded to explain why he was conducting himself and communicating in that way, by blaming Michelle and their relationship.
9With respect to the August 2024 communications, Jason indicates that this occurred just after he realized the separation would be final. He was under a considerable amount of stress at that time. The communications occurred over a 3 day period. In his own words, he then self-corrected, and the communications ended. He feels that it was unjustified that Michelle then sought a restraining order on September 3, 2024, when he had already stopped.
10Jason is offended that Michelle asked two of her friends to intervene on her behalf and advise that she did not wish to communicate with him. He finds her approach to third parties insulting. He asserts she could have advised him herself by text that she did not wish to communicate. Their texts between August 2nd and 24th, 2024 were polite and appropriate. He wished to send her a letter to explain his side of the relationship and the breakup. He feels that his August 2024 communications were a reaction to this disrespect and should not give rise to a restraining order.
Restraining Order
11The Court may make a final restraining order under section 46 of the Family Law Act if the applicant has reasonable grounds to fear for his or her own safety. I have determined that a restraining order is appropriate, and that Michelle has reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.
12The Family Law Act provides authority for the family court to issue a restraining order, stating:
(1) FLA s. 46 (1) On application, the court may make an interim or final restraining order against a person described in subsection (2) if the applicant has reasonable grounds to fear for his or her own safety or for the safety of any child in his or her lawful custody. 2009, c. 11, s. 35.
Credibility
13Credibility can be a key factor where someone is seeking a restraining order. It is not in this case. The communications relied upon by Michelle in support of her claim of fear for her safety are written communications, for the most part, by Jason. He admits all of the communications in evidence, which are emails, texts, and Facebook posts.
14I found both parties provided credible and reliable testimony to the Court.
15Jason’s supporting witness provided no evidence with respect to events from August 2024 forward. She had worked with the parties a few years ago. She spoke well of Jason.
16Jason asserts that the evidence of Michelle and her witnesses is inconsistent between trial evidence, affidavits and the August 2024 police report. His position is that it should not be relied upon. I found no significant inconsistencies that could not be explained by the passage of time. Ms. JZ, in particular, expanded on her answers during cross-examination to identify Jason’s conduct and written communications as abusive. She was directed to limit her answers to her observations, rather than explanatory opinion evidence and such explanations do not form part of the considered evidence.
17Jason’s position is that Michelle and her witnesses each have a revenge motive. Michelle with respect to the dog, Mr. JK and JZ for the negative google review on their business, Mr. AS for Jason’s reporting him to the Canadian Border Services Agency and the RCMP. I disagree.
18The evidence relied upon in support of the restraining order are the written communications or social media postings of Jason since August 2024, all of which he admits. Michelle acknowledged that Jason had never been physically assaultive towards her. He has not attended at her home since August 2024.
Communications which give rise to safety concerns
19While only some of Jason’s communications will be included in this decision to illustrate the basis for the safety risk, all of his communications are of a similar tone and sentiment. Some of the language has been sanitized. Initials have been used for the witnesses to protect their privacy.
August 24-26, 2024 events
20Michelle was residing with her parents in July 2024 for a few weeks. The end of the relationship occurred on August 2, 2024. The parties do not agree on who initiated the final separation.
21Communications between the parties occurred mostly by text in August 2024. The communications were brief and civil until August 24, 2024. Up until August 24, 2024, Michelle had the family dog, Biscuit, in her care at her parents’ residence.
22On August 24th, 2024, Jason sent Michelle a text message asking to see the dog even though "we can't talk." She immediately blocked his number and asked her friends to respond on her behalf. Mr. JK texted Jason. Michelle believes this to be the catalyst for Jason's overreaction, future harassments, threats, and slander. Jason was offended. He was insulting, derogatory, and angry in his replies. Jason was advised that if he showed up at Michelle’s home, the Police would be called.
23Jason testified that he found the text from Mr. JK offensive. His testimony was that he barely knew Mr. JK and did not like or respect him. The couples had double dated on a couple of occasions and Michelle and Jason had attended a class at Mr. JK and Ms. JZ’s business. Ms. JZ was considered to be Michelle’s best friend.
24On August 24, 2025, Mr. JK texted: Hey Jay, this is JK. I am reaching out on behalf of Michelle. Please understand that she does not wish for you to contact her any longer. I ask that you please respect her space and cease all attempts to communicate with her. There is nothing further you need to say to her. At this time there will be no further discussion. We will reach out to you in approximately one month to arrange retrieval of the last of Michelle's belongings. It is at that time we can possibly broach the subject of Biscuit. However, it is perhaps best if you went your separate ways and did not attempt to utilize her dog as a reason to maintain contact. Thank you in advance for your understanding.
25Jason’s response demonstrated his anger and offence at the intrusion into his relationship with Michelle. The response demonstrates his efforts to control and be dominant over Michelle. His replies included: I don't know you. So don't insert yourself into my relationship with Michelle. Are you nuts? Why do you think you are? Biscuit is my dog, pal. Not an excuse. And I'm not asking you, fhead. I'm coming for my dog, my laptop, and my phone. then you can have the stupid, white trash w*.
26On August 25, 2025, Jason texted Mr. JK: Boy, has she lied to you. She is the aggressor. I've never been even slightly aggressive to her and she knows it. She's doing all this to avoid accountability. You dipshit. Did you think I'd let you dictate terms? Did that work out the way you thought it would? Fing morons. Had Michelle not been a coward and told me herself. I would have been cool with it. But now she's fed everything forever. One day, maybe she’ll develop enough awareness to truly understand the magnitude of her mistakes. Clowns.
27Jason responses continued with: You’re right. It’s not a negotiation...I'm going to get what I want and she’s going to suffer for being a lying psycho c***. I’ll drag her through everything for the insult and disrespect. And you’re going to suffer for enabling her, interfering, and thinking you can condescend to me when you have no idea what's happening or what she’s done. Michelle was NEVER a target of abuse until she disrespected me by having you interfere instead of messaging me herself after I carried her for years. But to a narcissistic psychopath, any accountability is abuse. Kidnapped my own dog that I paid for? F*** you, delusional loser. The C*** deserves everything that’s coming. Her “boss” is one of my friends hole. Try em, mother fer. I’ll be seeing you.
28Mr. JK’s communications are civil and responsive. He attempts to de-escalate and does not react to Jason’s provoking language or escalation.
29I find that these communications are intimate partner violence, in particularly coercive control. The impact affects Michelle’s autonomy, her sense of well-being and is an attempt to exert power over her. Jason lashes out to and against the people who are supporting Michelle. This is an attempt to make her subordinate and dependent.
30Jason described Michelle as a sex worker in graphic terms to her friend Mr. JK and to her mother. He continues to Mr. JK with: Tell the lying; thieving white trash retard c*** that if I don’t’ get my laptop and phone today, she gets nothing left behind except a video of me burning it all.
31Jason acknowledged all communications, including the threat of arson. He pointed out that he did not burn any of Michelle’s possessions and that he later provided a path, with the assistance of his father, for her to retrieve her items. Many were damaged and broken.
32Jason testified that he wanted to send Michelle a letter about the relationship. He felt his response to Mr. JK’s text was reasonable.
33Jason posted a negative google review on the JK’s business. He indicated that there was something wrong with Mr. JK: He has problems with boundaries. It's creepy. I wouldn't take a kid there. Mr. JK asked Jason to stop and remove the review. Jason invited others to write a negative review. Jason received a letter from Mr. JK’s lawyer to cease and desist, and he posts about the business and the letter: I left a shitty review of a shitty business run by shitty people, and these retards actually paid a lawyer to send an utterly ineffectual Cease-andDesist letter.
34Michelle is fearful for her own safety and emotional well-being and she is afraid for her friends because of Jason’s retaliation.
35Mr. JK and Ms. JZ proceeded to seek a peace bond and one was granted in January 2025.
36On August 25, 2024, Jason communicates with Michelle’s employer, Mr. AS. The employer had been a friend of Jason’ for about 20 years. Michelle started work for Mr. AS in March of 2023. The employer testified. He was forthright in his testimony. Jason phoned the employer on August 24, 2024. The employer urged him to calm down and not to attend at Michelle’s home. The employer, Mr. AS, called Michelle to warn that Jason was on his way to get his secondhand laptop, phone and the dog, Biscuit. Michelle called the police and when Jason arrived, he heard Michelle talking to the police and he called them too. Michelle used the laptop for work and it held personal information. Michelle’s evidence is that the first thing Jason did when he saw her was call her a w****. When the house door was opened, Biscuit ran out. Jason eventually left with the dog.
37Jason asks the Court to accept that there is no need for a restraining order and that Michelle is being vindictive because he now possesses the family dog, Biscuit. Biscuit was in the care of Michelle after separation. Michelle asserts that Biscuit was a family dog and a gift to her. She feels she was the dog’s bonded human. On August 24, 2024, Jason asked to see the dog. The dog was in the care of Michelle and escaped out of the house and went to Jason during the police attendance on August 24, 2024. He has retained the dog ever since. He asserts that he is the owner of the dog. Michelle acknowledges that Jason was the person who paid for the dog, vet bills, etc..
38Jason admitted at trial that he had urged Mr. AS to fire Michelle. His communications to Mr. AS include: I'm sorry to do this to you, but after what that c**** did yesterday anyone who's not against her is out of my life. Everything she got from or through me needs to be ripped away. She needs to suffer for what she's done and she won't be profiting from me or surviving because of my friends I won't have anyone in my circle helping her - you need to choose. Jason insisted that Mr. AS be the intermediary. He states that: were positions ...reversed, you wouldn't even have to ask. I would have canned that c**** automatically for you.
39Jason insists that he was being perfectly civil and polite. He communicates to Mr. AS: I let her use the laptop so it wouldn't screw you over. I let her take the dog for support. I gave her every option, had minimal contact, and did everything honorably. She did this. My reaction to her disrespect in declaration of war is perfectly reasonable. And it won't stop until she's crushed for how she's behaved after all I did for that ungrateful lying b*****.In response to a friend asking Jason to have some respect, he posts: she had been a hooker and didn't tell me. Respect goes both ways and she has been such an unimaginably disrespectful sack of s*** that there is no level of abuse that she doesn't deserve. His posts included: I kicked Michelle out 3 weeks ago because she'd become an unbearable, unmedicated, infantile psycho who explodes at nothing all day and refuses to see a doctor to deal with her tantrums and absolute absence of accountability for anything she says or does. She had a tantrum and broke a bunch of stuff. Because she's got the brain of a teenager. For almost 7 years, I paid for everything, took her on great vacations, did all the driving because she's too childish to get a license, gave her everything, got her jobs, paid for her parents car repairs, paid for her therapy, And mostly, put up with her endless, psychotic behaviour. Jason goes on to say that he will burn everything Michelle left.
40After this Facebook post, Michelle contacts the police. Jason criticizes Michelle for seeking a restraining order on September 3, 2024 when he stopped his negative communications on August 26, 2024. I find Michelle’s filing for a restraining order reasonable. She acted quickly after the August 24-26, 2024 communications. The Temporary Without Prejudice Restraining Order was granted on a without notice basis on September 3, 2024, for a period of six months.
41Michelle felt threatened by Jason’s communications with Mr. JK, Ms. JZ and Mr. AS. He interpreted her wanting boundaries as an act of war and was bound on revenge.
42Jason was served with Michelle’s court materials and the September 3, 2024 Order. He responded on October 7, 2024. The matter was adjourned during the fall and the motion review was scheduled for January 8, 2025.
October 2024
43Jason testified that he arranged for Michelle to be able to retrieve her possessions, with the assistance of his father. Michelle did have a third party pick up her items on October 1, 2024. Many items were damaged and broken, including a keepsake from her grandmother. Jason had written “you did this” on a piece of custom artwork of Biscuit.
44On October 30th and 31st, 2024, Jason again asked Mr. AS to fire Michelle. Jason complains that his possessions had not been returned and that the court action is continuing. His testimony confirmed that he did not accept that Michelle should get money from a job with a friend of his when she is using the money to survive and litigate against him. His communications included: Find someone else please. She's easily replaced. That c**** needs to go. She needs to be left broke and fed. You are not neutral, you’re funding my enemy’s attacks. Fire that lying c* or don’t ever contact me again.
January 2025
45The Motion Review was argued on January 8, 2025. After the court attendance, Jason posted on Facebook using derogatory terms towards Michelle and her counsel. He boasts "it was the most satisfying thing ever, I broke her". It ends with the comment: Never f*** with me.
March 2025
46The temporary without prejudice restraining was made on September 3, 2024 and expired after 6 months. For a few days in March 2025, the September 3, 2025 Order had expired and the motion decision had not been released.
47On March 9, 2025, Jason made another Facebook post during the period that no restraining order was in place: I can talk about it now. so I'll say this .. MF is a lying c***. A sick, dishonest, abusive, psycho, excuse-filled, useless, white trash hooker. A 2-faced user. I paid for her whole life and took her abuse for years only to have her reward me by lying to the court for revenge because I got sick of her psycho shit, wouldn't let her steal my dog, and I told people what a fing trash c she is after she had her idiot friends try to threaten and intimidate me. That lying fing w* c**** and her woke retard friends, along with 2 crooked c**** judges·……… (a crooked, dishonest cmonkey who STILL hasn't done her job, 2 months too late) and …. (the shittiest crooked retard shitc w**** in the system) all deserve to die screaming.
48Jason admits he posted this on Facebook. He explained that he was excessively drunk. He had not been that inebriated since he was in his 20s and that he woke up on the floor not remembering he had made the post. When he saw the post, he indicates he deleted it.
49Jason asserts that the claim for a restraining order is Michelle’s vindictive act as he had reclaimed his dog. Michelle had the dog at her parents’ house with her for most of July. Her parents smoke. When Jason saw the dog, he complained that the dog reeked of cigarette smoke. Michelle advised that her parents were not smoking in the house but were now smoking on the front porch. She did advise that Biscuit would also be with her parents on the front porch while they were smoking. He asserts that Michelle lied about the dog’s proximity to the smokers and that the request for a restraining order is an elaborate ruse so that Michelle is not accountable for the lie about the dog being near smoke
50While Jason’ position may seem incredible, it is his perspective. He showed no insight into the impact of his communications and actions. He showed no remorse. He continued to assert that he was provoked and under duress in August 2024 and his conduct should be excused.
51Jason asserts that there has been no third-party contact since August 2024, over 13 months, and that a restraining order should not be granted. His lack of awareness of the impact of his conduct since then is concerning.
Should a restraining order be granted?
52Yes. The test for a restraining order is whether Michelle has reasonable grounds to fear for her own safety. Safety is not defined in the Family Law Act. Michelle asserts that she fears for her physical, emotional and financial safety. I agree that she has reasonable grounds to fear for her physical, emotional and financial safety.
53This test was considered in Khara v. McManus, 2007 CarswellOnt (C.J.) which was a trial of an application for a restraining order. Justice P.W. Dunn stated, at para. 33 as follows:
When a court grants a restraining order in an applicant's favour, the respondent is restrained from molesting, harassing or annoying the applicant. It is not necessary for a respondent to have actually committed an act, gesture or words of harassment, to justify a restraining order. It is enough if an applicant has a legitimate fear of such acts being committed. An applicant does not have to have an overwhelming fear that could be understood by almost everyone; the standard for granting an order is not that elevated. However, an applicant's fear of harassment must not be entirely subjective, comprehended only by the applicant. A restraining order cannot be issued to forestall every perceived fear of insult or possible harm, without compelling facts. There can be fears of a personal or subjective nature, but they must be related to a respondent's actions or words. A court must be able to connect or associate a respondent's actions or words with an applicant's fears.
54In Fuda v Fuda, 2011 CarswellOnt 16, 2011 ONSC 154, Justice McDermot said: In other words, where an Applicant has a “legitimate fear” for his or her safety, even where that is somewhat subjective, a restraining order should go where there are compelling facts leading to that fear.
55In McCall v. Res, 2013 CarswellOnt 5865, 2013 ONCJ 254 (Ont. C.J), Justice Spence made the following statement about the “fear” component of the restraining order test: The fear must be reasonable; the fear may be entirely subjective so long as it is legitimate; and the fear may be equally for psychological safety, as well as for physical safety.
56Jason urged the Court to dismiss the claim for a restraining order. He is concerned about the long-term impact on him and his employability. A restraining order is serious, with criminal consequences if there is a breach. It will also likely appear if prospective employers conduct a criminal record (CPIC) search. This could adversely affect a person’s ability to work. It may affect a person’s immigration status. See: F.K. v. M.C., 2017 ONCJ 181.
57Throughout August 2024 to September 2025, Jason intermittently lashed out against Michelle and anyone who supported her. He did so in March 2025 immediately after the September 3, 2024, temporary without prejudice restraining order had expired. He did not do so after the March 2025 temporary restraining order decision was released on March 9, 2025 until the trial. I find that there is a reasonable expectation that his conduct will continue without court involvement and a restraining order being in place. See Purewal v Purewal, 2004 ONCH 195.
58Jason urges the Court to dismiss the claim for a restraining order as he stopped his conduct in August 2024. As outlined, I have found that he persisted. He has not continued since March of 2025 until his verbal comments on day one of the trial and his finger gesture during the second day lunch break.
59I find that Michelle has established both an objective and subjective basis to fear for the safety of herself. Jason has engaged in a campaign of harassment and cyber- bullying against her. This breaches her privacy rights.
60The Children’s Law Reform Act and the Divorce Act require the Court to consider any family violence and its impact when determining the best interests of a child and their parenting schedule in the Children’s Law Reform Act, Section 24(3)(j). It is an expanded definition of family violence and recognizes the pattern, incidents and impact of family violence. Section 24(4) details factors relating to family violence and directs the court to take into account:
(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;
(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;
(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;
(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;
(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;
(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;
(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve the person’s ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and
(h) any other relevant factor.
61The expanded definition of family violence assists the Court in assessing the risk to a person’s safety.
62In McLellan v. Birbilis, 2021 ONSC 7084, Justice Nicole Tellier writes the following about the new definition of family violence at paragraph 27:
The new definition provides a non-exhaustive list of conduct that constitutes family violence. This assists the court in identifying the nature and extent of the family violence. The definition does not preclude the court from finding that other conduct fits withing its meaning, such as cyber-bulling for example.
63Justice Sherr agreed in SB v JIU, 2021 ONCJ 614, 2021 ONCH 814, 2021 CarswellOnt 17951, paragraph 28.
64In V.K.G. v I.G., 2023 ONSC 6329, 94 R.F.L. (8th) 283, Justice Chappel defined the concept of “coercive and controlling behavior” as a form of family violence. Parenting issues were alive in that case. At paragraph 112, Justice Chappel finds that the expanded definition of “family violence” is “far-reaching, and the list of examples of conduct that fall within its scope is non-exhaustive; it simply catalogues some of the most prevalent forms of family violence. The definition goes far beyond acts of physical aggression towards individuals or objects and extends to actions that undermine a person’s physical, emotional and financial autonomy or their general psychological or emotional wellbeing.”
65At paragraph 117, Justice Chappel addresses coercive control:
117The concept of “coercive and controlling behaviour” is distinct from other forms of family violence in that it can consist of many different types of acts occurring over time which, in isolation, do not seem abusive or significant, but which paint a picture of a very destructive relationship when viewed in their totality. Accordingly, the significance of the individual incidents can only be truly understood in the context of the larger picture. In addition, a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour is particularly concerning because it is easier to inflict in its various forms post-separation than other types of family violence. Further to the principles of legislative interpretation discussed above, the concept of “coercive and controlling behaviour” should be interpreted in a large and liberal manner that best ensures the attainment of the objects of the family violence provisions of the legislation, which are to protect and promote the safety and wellbeing of family members. To date, the caselaw reflects such a broad and purposive approach to the scope of this type of family violence. As I discussed in M.A.B. v. M.G.C., at para. 183, a general review of this caselaw indicates that “coercive” behaviour includes conduct that is threatening, intimidating or exerts inappropriate pressure on the other person. Behaviour is broadly being considered as “controlling” if its intent or effect is to inappropriately manage, direct, restrict, interfere with, undermine or manipulate any important aspect of the other person’s life, including their important relationships and their physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, social and financial autonomy or wellbeing.
66Justice Chappel continues on to say that it is well established in the law respecting restraining orders that that notion of fearing for one’s safety or that of another person extends not only to physical safety, but also to the person’s emotional and psychological safety (Lawrence v. Bassett, 2015 ONSC 3707 (S.C.J.), per Kiteley J.; Tiveron v. Collins, 2017 ONCA 462 (C.A.); Stephens v. Somerville, 2021 ONSC 1958 (S.C.J.), per Mitrow J.; Reis v. Lovell, 2022 ONSC 1201 (S.C.J.), at para. 52; S.V.G. v. V.G., at para. 101). (paragraph 118)
67In particular, I have considered the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred. Jason’ communications are vile. He insults Michelle and shares his comments with friends, her employer and his social media circle. He takes great offence when Mr. JK reaches out on Michelle’s behalf. His reaction is not reasonable or proportional. He will not be told what to do by younger people who have no right to interfere in his relationship with Michelle. He is vengeful and attacks Mr. JK and Ms. JZ. Jason shares his communications with Michelle’s mother. His communications and his trial testimony were unwavering in that he was correct in insisting that Mr. AS, his former friend, fire Michelle. He was attacking her financial security and embarrassing her with her employer. When he was unsuccessful, he reported Mr. AS to the RCMP and CBSA and alleged that he possessed and smuggled illegal guns. Jason was relentless in his attempt to attack and isolate Michelle. I find her fear for her safety reasonable. The violence was serious. It was also frequent. In August 2024, October 2024, January 2025 and March 2025, Jason’s attacks continued to occur.
68I find Jason’s actions to be a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. Jason attacked any person who allied themselves with Michelle. This included her friends, her employer, and her counsel.
69Michelle testified that she was fearful for her own safety and was concerned for the safety of Mr. JK, Ms. JZ and Mr. AS. I find that the family violence perpetuated by Jason caused her to fear for her own safety and others.
70The safety risk is not only physical. Emotional and financial safety can also necessitate the protection of a restraining order. A restraining order is needed here.
71At the trial, Jason’s anger was apparent outside of the courtroom. He admitted in his cross-examination that after the first day of trial when Michelle and her witnesses were in prayer, he commented “hail satan” as he passed by them. On the second day of trial, during the lunch break, Jason admitted to giving Michelle and her group of witnesses, including Mr. JK and Ms. JZ who have a peace bond, the middle finger. The relentless expression of his anger and inability to let go of the relationship mandates the continuation of the restraining order.
72An event occurred between the parties at the end of the second day of trial. The Court is not aware of the details other than that Jason was charged criminally. Closing submissions were to be orally presented on the morning of the third day of the trial. The parties were directed to make written submissions. They did so. I have not factored into my decision that events transpired outside of Court after the second day of trial.
73I have ordered that Jason cannot post about Michelle on social media and if any posts exist, they shall be removed.
74I am ordering that Jason attend a Partner Assault Response program, a PAR program. He lacks awareness of the impact of his conduct. A PAR program should assist him in understanding his conduct and its impact on others.
Terms of Order
75The Respondent Jason Schwager shall be restrained, in whole or in part, from directly or indirectly contacting or communicating with the Applicant Michelle Fradsham pursuant to section 46 of the Family Law Act..
76The Respondent Jason Schwager shall be restrained from coming within 200 metres of the Applicant Michelle Fradsham’s home, work, or anywhere she is known to be pursuant to section 46 of the Family Law Act..
77The Respondent, Jason Schwager shall be restraining from annoying, molesting, or harassing the Applicant, Michelle Fradsham pursuant to section 46 of the Family Law Act..
78The Respondent Jason Schwager shall not make any remarks about the Applicant Michelle Fradsham, the witnesses at the trial, or the litigation, either verbally or in writing to others or online.
79The Respondent Jason Schwager shall not make any further social media posts about the Applicant Michelle Fradsham, and shall remove any that currently exist within 5 days.
80The Respondent Jason Schwager shall attend and complete a PAR program, the Partner Assault Response Program before initiating any Motion to Change.
81If costs are sought and awarded, the Respondent Jason Schwager shall pay the costs in full before initiating any Motion to Change.
Costs
82In the event that the parties are not able to resolve the issue of costs of the Trial, written submissions may be forwarded as follows:
A party shall serve and file a written submission on costs no later than November 6, 2025.
The other party may serve and file a responding written submission on costs, no later than November 21, 2025.
A written submission shall be no longer than three pages or, if it relates to costs of a trial, five pages, not including the documentation required by subrules (15) and (16).
Supporting Materials
(15) Any claim for costs respecting fees or expenses shall be supported by documentation satisfactory to the court. O. Reg. 10/25, s. 4.
Same, opposing party
(16) A party who opposes a claim for costs respecting fees or expenses shall provide documentation showing the party’s own fees and expenses to the court and to the other party.
A written submission shall be typed or written legibly, with double spaces between the lines and characters of at least 12 point size, not including the documentation required by subrules (15) and (16).
No reply submissions.
CA to send submissions to chambers upon expiry of the two deadlines.
Released: October 22, 2025
Signed: Justice J. Beasley