“In Noriega v. Litke, 2020 ONSC 2970, Justice Price emphasized both the subjective and objective elements of the test for a restraining order and adopted the reasoning of Dunn J. in Khara v. McManus, [2007] O.J. No. 1868, (O.C.J.) who described the test for a restraining order at paragraph 33 as follows:
…it is not necessary for a respondent to actually have 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 … 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 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 the respondent’s action or words. A court must be able to connect or associate a respondent’s actions or words with the applicant’s fears. [emphasis added]
…
In Yenovkinav v. Gulian, 2019 CarswellOnt 21614 (S.C.J.), Justice Kristjanson considered the type of evidence required for an applicant to establish subjective reasonable grounds to fear as follows:
A restraining order will be made where a person has demonstrated a lengthy period of harassment or irresponsible impulsive behaviour with the objective of harassing or distressing a party. There should be some persistence to the conduct complained of and a reasonable expectation that it will continue without court involvement. See: Purewal v. Purewal, 2004 ONCJ 1195.”