Non-Molestation Clauses in an Ontario Separation Agreement: Do They Work?

If you're negotiating a separation agreement and safety is a concern, you may have come across the idea of adding a "non-molestation" or "non-harassment" clause — a promise, in writing, that neither party will harass, threaten, or contact the other except as the agreement allows. It sounds reassuring. But it's worth understanding exactly what this kind of clause can and can't do before you rely on it for your safety.

The short version: a non-molestation clause is a contract term, not a court order, and that difference matters a lot if it's ever breached.

What a Non-Molestation Clause Says

Typically, the clause commits both parties not to molest, harass, threaten, or unreasonably interfere with the other, sometimes with specifics about communication — for example, only in writing, or only about the children — built into other parts of the agreement.

What It Can Do

• Set clear written expectations both parties signed onto, which can be useful evidence later if there's a dispute.
• Support a later court application. If the clause is breached, that breach can be evidence in a subsequent family court motion, including one seeking a formal protection order.
• Reinforce other terms, like a communication-only-through-a-third-party-app arrangement, by putting the expectation in a signed document.

What It Can't Do

• It isn't police-enforceable on its own. Police generally can't act on a breach of a separation agreement clause the way they can act on a breach of a restraining order or peace bond, which are court or criminal orders with independent enforcement mechanisms.
• Breaching it usually isn't a criminal offence by itself. Depending on what the underlying conduct actually was — threats, harassment, assault — that conduct might independently be criminal, but the breach of the contract clause itself isn't what makes it a crime.
• It doesn't get you an emergency police response the way calling police about a breached restraining order does.

Non-Molestation Clause vs. Restraining Order or Peace Bond

When You Need Both

If there's a genuine, ongoing safety concern, a non-molestation clause in a separation agreement is not a substitute for a restraining order or peace bond — it's a complement, at best. Many people include a non-molestation clause as one part of the agreement while separately pursuing a protection order through the family or criminal court if the risk is real and immediate.

If you're not sure whether your situation calls for a clause, a formal order, or both, that's exactly the kind of judgment call to bring to a family lawyer rather than deciding alone.

Drafting Tips If You Include One

If you and your lawyer decide a non-molestation clause belongs in your agreement, a few drafting choices make it more useful even within its limits:

• Be specific about the conduct it covers — vague language about "acting reasonably" is harder to point to later than a clear list of what's prohibited.
• Pair it with a communication protocol, such as requiring contact only in writing or only through a specific app, so there's a clear record if it's breached.
• Keep a copy accessible, not just filed away, so you can reference the exact wording quickly if you ever need to raise a breach with a lawyer or the court.
• Review it alongside your parenting provisions, since exchanges and communication about children are often where friction — and potential breaches — actually happen.

A well-drafted clause won't replace a protection order where one is genuinely needed, but it does make the agreement itself a clearer, more usable document if a dispute arises later.

Frequently asked questions