So reports the AP:
The ruling came after Steven Cranley pleaded guilty on Tuesday to several charges stemming from an assault on a former girlfriend....
Doctors say Cranley has difficulty coping with rejection and runs a high risk to re-offend if he becomes involved in another intimate relationship.
Justice Rhys Morgan said Cranley "cannot form a romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person...."
I don't know Canadian law, so I can't comment on that. In America, it is pretty clear that the law can bar people who were convicted of a crime from having sexual relationships with a member of the opposite sex -- that's what happens to prisoners generally, unless they get conjugal visits (which are by no means constitutionally guaranteed). The question would be whether the law can impose such a requirement as a condition of probation; the test for that (rational relationship to a legitimate penological purpose) leaves the judge a lot of discretion, and I'd be inclined to say that this condition is rationally related to the protection of the public. On the other hand, it is pretty vague, the law having no ready definition of "romantic" (even if "intimate" is understood simply as sexual); maybe that would be the problem. In any case, this isn't my core field, so I don't want to opine too definitely -- I just thought it was an interesting story to pass along.
Thanks to John Struan for the pointer.