30 April 2014

Randy's burial is now scheduled for tomorrow being Thurday May 01 2014.  I hope to take beautiful pictures of the landscape where he is scheduled to rest.  I am hoping to reserve a spot next to him.  I always thought I would die before him as he always looked after me even when he was deadly ill.  I am sorry Randy that I wasn't able to look after you as I should have.  Please forgive me as I know that you did not want to die.  You fought too hard to live.

25 April 2014

I was hoping that Randy's funeral would go easily but it seems that it wll be delayed for a few days.  Yesterday before I knew of the delay I purchase three buckets of carnations, a cut flower that can last for up to three months.  Even in death Randy has to wait to be put in his resting place.  I now have four sympathy cards and all of them are very thoughtful.

I asked GPC if they would give me Randy's wool coverlettes and his new Steelers t-shirts and they have refused.  They want me to take everything in plastic bags without an inventory and I can't be on the property..They will put the possessions on the sidewalk then by taxi without an inventory..  Even in death they won't do one extra thing. Denying a man a few possession in his grave seems a bit mean. Oh, well by Monday they might change their mind. And to make it more interesting the Public Trustee seized all his possessions so I can't get them anyways.  Why are they interested in a man who has no money.  What next they are going to seize his body so I can't bury him. 

24 April 2014

It has been 12 days since Randy died in the ICU at VGH.  I am so grateful that he died at VGH in its intensive care unit.  He had the best pallative care possible.  They kept him on life support until the support could not sustain him any more. His blood pressure was not compatible to life. I was able to hold his hand at the point that he died.  It was so sudden.  The nurse Susan was watching the monitor and she told me to hold his hand as he was going.  I am grateful to her as it only takes a second for a person to pass and he could have died without me knowing.. I do not remember crying at that moment.  Just holding his hand.

Randy has not been buried yet as I could not deal with him being incinerated.  He mentioned that he wanted a green burial in a forest.  I want to wrap him up in 100% wool which was what was the law in England at one time.  Everyone had to be buried in wool.  And I wanted him to be buried with his Steeler's hats and his Steeler's t-shirts.  I decided to keep his Steeler's jacket for myself as a tribute to his memory.

I am not well and I can't leave the one-room suite I live in.  I do not know how long I will be self- imprisoned here.

Randy's doggies are with me but they are so quiet all they do is lay on the floor and watch me.  Sometimes the little one, Owen, will come to me and lick/kiss my face and then I hold him tight and then I cry..

Otherwise my room is silent except for the district hum of traffic from Cambie Street. 

I just received three sympathy cards to date; but, then, more may come.  I want them for my memory box.
5976 Cambie Street Vancouver BC V5Z 3A9

April 20, 2014

Nothing to report but grief.
.

13 April 2014 @ 7:55 pm Sunday Randy Michael Walker Died (10/12/56)

Randy died.  I am not sure of what, but he is dead. It happened so fast.  He is dead.  My Randy is dead.  And I will never see him again. We had no family, no close friends, we only had each other. And now he is gone. And talking about him and what caused his death will not bring him back.

I have been asked how can those that know me help.  Even if you do not know me or Randy you can help by sending us an old-fashioned sympathy card stamped and delivered by Canada Post.  

Audrey Jane Laferriere 

Randy Michael Walker

5976 Cambie Street

Vancouver, B.C.

V5Z 3A9

For my memory box.

604.321.2276

.

Randy in ICU

Randy at ICU VGH

I just got a phone call that Randy has taken a turn for the worse and he is at ICU.  I do not know what to say to all those who was part in the banning.

What harm did I do.  Everything I did was for Randy. Overstaying visiting hours is hardly a reason for a total ban. Defending myself and Randy against a hoard of staff who battered me and it has been turned around to say it is my fault.  I feel whenever I have to deal with the health authority that I live in a country where I have no rights.  You are judged by hearsay by dysfunctional individual who delight in causing harm.  Bullies. The hospital system is full of them.

When I went to the ICU even though I had a court order to see Randy I had to wait two hours. The ICU had to wait for a copy of the order to be delivered to them.  And I was told not to talk to anyone and I could not use any lounges if I was asked to leave Randy's room.  I had to wait off VCH's property.  I am sure he has septic shock; he had laboured breathing, and a high temperature.  He could not recognize me.  

Friday, April 10, 2014

I saw Randy today for my court allotted thirty minutes.  He was extremely hot and not very responsive except towards the end when I mentioned I would rent a television for him for the weekend.  If I can't see him at least he can watch tv.

I still do not know what terrible harm I did to bandish me from being with Randy during his last months of life.  The medical system has not feelings for the living.  What terrible thing did I do.  Not follow one of their stupid rules: you have to leasve at 4:00 pm and if your leave at 4:30 you will be banned for the rest of your life.  That is absurb.  And that is what they are doing. All I want is to see her husband; nothing more nothing less.  VGH creates guidelines that mean nothing and harm no one.  They are all front line workers used to some chaos so why it is directed to me.  They can't prove anything, it is all hearsay compounded upon more hearsay.  It is beyond me that this has got this far and things that are important are sidelined: like the $2,000,000 replacement of the alarm system for the GPC buildingss that are going to be demolished in a few years.It would have been cheaper to higher fire marshalls to walk up and down the hall and pull the fire alarms.  And all the money they are paying on security so I leave the premsies at exactly 4:00 p.m. rather than 4:30 p.m. is stupid.  They must rather have Randy sit alone in a wheel chair for hours and hours and get bedsores than let him be with me. He never had sores when I had access to him everyday.  I would massage his legs and arms and turn him a bit.  I hever saw a nurse at George Pearsojn every do that. And yes he had a bedsore I was told it was gangreen on the heel of his right foot .  I saw it, it was circular black hard dried blood with a diameter of one inch. So when I wasn't able to see Rand GPC left him I assume to sit in his wheel chair for ten hours stretches and not move his foot. 

Randy is still alive

On Friday Randy was transferred from GPC to VGH as he had an infection again.  I wasn't able to see him until this afternoon and he looked tired and when he saw me I thought for awhile that he did not recognize him as I hadn't seen him because of the total banning.  However, when he started to cry I knew he recognized me and I told him that I would be back on Wednesday to see him.  When I am with him holding his hand I am always at peace.  Why can't he just be at home with me. I was told he had septis, the leading cause of death in ICU in the United States.  He also had a very large black sore on his heel of his foot.  This could have been caused by his nurses not moving him for hour and hours when he is sitting in his wheelchair.
My darling Randy.

And they make us this terrible story about me and even when he is on his death bed they will not allow me at his bedside unlike any other hospital.

Even a secretary  lied in an affidavit to discredit me.  Lies generated by security did not upset me nearly as much as the lies from her.  I only met her once for a few seconds so where did she get all her phantom information . Or does a VCH lawyer write an affidavit and say sign it and employees do even if the information is false.

Star Chamber (VCH)

Star Chamber
An ancient high court of England, controlled by the monarch, which was abolished in 1641 by Parliament for abuses of power.
The English court of Star Chamber was created by King Henry VII in 1487 and was named for a room with stars painted on the ceiling in the royal palace of Westminster where the court sat. The Star Chamber was an instrument of the monarch and consisted of royal councillors and two royal judges. The jurisdiction of the court was based on the royal prerogative of administering justice in cases not remediable in the regular courts of law.
The Star Chamber originally assisted with some administrative matters, but by the 1530s it had become a pure court, relieving the king of the burden of hearing cases personally. It was a court of Equity, granting remedies unavailable in the common-law courts. As such, the court was an informal body that dispensed with "due process" as it was then understood.
During Henry VII's reign (1485–1509), about half the cases involved real property. During the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the Star Chamber became a useful tool in dealing with cases involving members of the aristocracy who often defied the authority of the regular courts. It was during this period, moreover, that the court acquired criminal jurisdiction, hearing cases on issues concerning the security of the realm, such as Sedition, criminal libel, conspiracy, and forgery. Later, Fraud and the punishment of judges came within its jurisdiction.
The importance of the Star Chamber increased during the reigns of James I (1603–25) and Charles I (1625–49). Under Archbishop William Laud, the court became a tool of royal oppression, seeking out and punishing religious and political dissidents. In the 1630s Laud used the Star Chamber to persecute a group of Puritan leaders, most of whom came from the gentry, subjecting them to the pillory and Corporal Punishment. Though the Star Chamber could not mete out Capital Punishment, it inflicted everything short of death upon those found guilty. During this time the court met in secret, extracting evidence by torturing witnesses and handing out punishments that included mutilation, life imprisonment, and enormous fines. It turned equity's traditionally broad discretion into a complete disregard for the law. The Star Chamber sometimes acted on mere rumors in order to suppress opposition to the king.
The Star Chamber's Arbitrary use of power and the cruel punishments it inflicted produced a wave of reaction against it from Puritans, advocates of common-law courts, and others opposed to the reign of Charles I. In 1641 the Long Parliament abolished the court and made reparations to some of its victims.
The term star chamber has come to mean any lawless and oppressive tribunal, especially one that meets in secret. The constitutional concept of Due Process of Law is in part a reaction to the arbitrary use of judicial power displayed by the Star Chamber.

Further readings

Elton, G. R. 1974. Star Chamber Stories. New York: Barnes & Noble.
Guy, J. A. 1977. The Cardinal's Court: The Impact of Thomas Wolsey in Star Chamber. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Back to VGH with Septis

Septis is the leading cause of death in ICU's in the USA.

Randy was sent back to VGH with septis yesterday before 1:30 pm.

When I went to VGH I was prevented to see Randy because of the banning letter which security waved in my face.

I asked security to contact VGH's lawyer, or Richard Singleton or Ro.  And they refused they said the letter was their authority.

Randy is dying and they are relying on a stupid piece of paper and they won't even confirm it.  A piece of paper says kill, and they kill. Even the military isn't allow to do this.  VCH is beyond the law; VCH is beyond God.

I sat on the sidewalk and waited for five hours until a friend came by and said Randy was as stable as can be expected and later on he phoned me to say he was sent to an ICU step down unit, not good..

And here I am his wife, a person discredited for no reason just because VCH targets people without due process, just with hearsay evidences and lies.  One bad judgment leads to one cover up lie and that lie leads to another and another.

I was hoping by now someone would phone me and say I can go and see Randy but nothing.

I was told that all those that could make a decision about relaxing the banning letter were out of town on a conference. 

January 20th, 2014

January 29th, 2014

Audrey's banning

There seems to be something wrong with my computer program as I can't edit or delete. Well, that is what happens when you have a 20 years old computer that acts up most days.  I do not know how the petition floated into my blog and I can't delete it.  Oh well it is filed for public viewing in the supreme court registry so nothing is secret.

I can't get over what is happening.  The lawyers for Vancouver Coastal Health are wanting me to be banned 100% because I disrupt management.  What a joke. What are they saying, they do not know how to manage.  All I want to do is be with Randy as he is fragile, he may die soon, and I want to make sure GPC is following is health plan.  To me it is simple so why is it so difficult for them..

The idea that Kip Woodward would be upset because I sent him emails does not make sense.  What do you think Chairmans get when their staff do not answer emails from the public.  You are going to send them to the Chairman, the Police Commissioner, the Ministers of BC, the Prime Minister of Canada.

I want to see the emails that I sent to Kip Woodward.  I am sure there might be some good ideas for management in them on how to better manage VCH. I suspect if Kip knew that he was now a public record over emails in the court house he would not be pleased with Clark Wilson.or his secretary.

As for my friend Stephanie, I am very disappointed in her, she created the incident on October 22, 2013 and then she lied about it and she further lied when she said I threatened her.  Her statement on a report November 20 2013 just shows how she is.  She said that I was sneaking into Randy's room to get some of his stuff  to take to VGH and she had to phone security..  I wasn't sneaking it, I walked in front of everyone.  No one said anything, why should they.

The next thing she did was cruel.  Karen, her husband had just died, and she was distraught and I tried to comfort her and Stephanie won't let me.  When Karen was at VCH with Guy, her husband, I always visited them.  We were friends and we shared things like Randy's radio with Guy.  We would go for a beverage together.  But at GPC we were prevented from even acknowledging each other and her loss.  And Stephanie reports it like she was saving Karen from the wicked witch from the west..

Stephanie is a very attractive woman, beautiful in fact, and everyone especially men nurses, fall over her.  Watching them is entertaining. the power that woman has in leading a mob.


I suspect she is  the one who complained of post traumatic stress and took off two days with pay.   Discrediting someone like me would deserves a few days off with pay. Incident reports written by Paladin mean nothing.  They are trained to create situations ad make people look bad. They are not even capable of being observant  making out that Randy has an electric wheel chair that would translate to a dangerous vehicle when in fact Randy has a light-wight manual one.  Her knowledge of patient's rights are nil.  Randy has the right to leave GPC whenever he wants..  He cannot be imprisoned.  I still haven't seem any documentation from VGH  which I have asked for that says that they can force Randy to remain there. The only reason he is there is because I was told there is no other facility to take him due to his injuries.  If there is no where else to go then he is imprisoned/forced there.  He can come home if they would supply nursing for him and the equipment and the meds.  It can't be that difficult for them to do.  But who says VCP has commonsense or cares about its patients or families.

It always amazes me about the amount of money these health professionals make and hearing Tanu say that nothing can happen to her because she is a public servant.  So she can lie and emotionally destroy people's lives.  You should hear scream at her staff:: no one is going to defy me...So if anyone quits it is not because of me, it is because of her.  If the stress is so great, why doesn't she quit.  The rumour that the two managers of GPC prior to Ro, who is a friend of Tanu, quit because of her.  So maybe Kip Woodward should contact them and find out about Tanu's treatment of staff, patients and visitors.  .

The staff at GPC should let the residents live and stay out of their personal lives.  Their job is to nurse not to control everything.Form 32 (Rule 8-1(4))

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:

AUDREY JANE LAFERRIERE and RANDY MICHAEL WALKER

AND:

VANCOUVER COASTAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

Name of Applicant:     Vancouver Coastal Health Authority ("VCH")

To:     Audrey Jane Laferriere and Randy Michael Walker

TAKE NOTICE that an application will be made by the Applicant to the presiding Judge at the Courthouse

at 800 Smithe St., Vancouver, BC on 8/Apr/2014 at 9:45am for the Orders set out in Part 1 below.

PART 1: ORDERS SOUGHT

1.     An injunction, enjoining and restraining the Petitioner, Ms. Laferriere, by herself, or by

her agents and servants, from participating in any of the following activities:

(a) attending at any of the VCH properties, including but not limited to the George Pearson

Centre located at 757 West 57th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, except in circumstances in

which Mr. Walker’s physician deems that Mr. Walker is imminently terminal, in which

case VCH will promptly make arrangements for Ms. Laferriere to attend the George

Pearson Centre; and

(b) contacting, by email or phone, any doctors that care for Mr. Walker, or any staff,

administration, or board members of VCH, except for Richard Singleton, Director of Risk

Management for VCH and Romila Ang, Manager of the George Pearson Centre.

2.     An order that any peace officer, including any officer of the Vancouver Police

Department or the R.C.M.P. having jurisdiction in the province of British Columbia, who on reasonable

and probable grounds believes that Audrey Jane Laferriere is in breach of the terms of this order may

immediately arrest that person and bring her before a judge of the Supreme Court promptly after the

arrest, to be dealt with on an inquiry to determine whether she has committed a breach of this order;

CW7 117020.1

3. Costs of this application be awarded to the defendant, VCH; and

4. Such further and other directions and orders as this Honourable Court considers just

and equitable.

PART 2: FACTUAL BASIS

Background

1. The Petitioner, Randy Michael Walker, was involved in a catastrophic injury in or about

June 2010 that left him in a state of quadriplegia. Mr. Walker uses a tracheostomy tube to assist him

with breathing.

2. Mr. Walker was first transferred to George Pearson Centre located at 757 West 57th

Avenue, Vancouver, BC ("GPC") in or about November 2010 due to the need for constant care.

3. At present, Mr. Walker is in a fragile state, but his condition has not worsened for

several months and there are no signs that suggest that there is an immediate risk of death as the

Petitioner suggests.

4. Since Mr. Walker began residing at GPC, Ms. Laferriere has been a regular visitor.

5. It is unclear what relationship Mr. Walker and Ms. Laferriere have with one another. Ms.

Laferriere has, at various times, described her relationship to Mr. Walker as one of "friend", "confidant",

"surrogate", "representative", "wife", and "advocate".

6. Mr. Walker purportedly signed a Representation Agreement pursuant to section 9 of the

Representation Agreement Act on January 31, 2013, in which Ms. Laferriere was purportedly given

authority to obtain medical records, make housing choices for Mr. Walker, and negate any "do not

resuscitate" orders pertaining to Mr. Walker.

7. VCH has abided by the Representation Agreement and has treated Ms. Laferriere as Mr.

Walker’s health care decision maker when Mr. Walker is incapable of making informed decisions about

his health care. VCH health care providers contact Ms. Laferriere by phone when health care decisions

are required, and will continue to do so as long as Ms. Laferriere is Mr. Walker’s representative.

Procedural History

8. Because of Ms. Laferriere’s behaviour (described in detail below) and in efforts to

protect the safety of all parties involved, VCH has, on multiple occasions, imposed restrictions on Ms.

Laferriere’s visitation rights. Ms. LaFerriere has repeatedly and flagrantly disregarded these restrictions.

9. As a result of Ms. Laferriere’s continued aggressive behavior towards the GPC staff and

her disregard for VCH’s restrictions of access, on January 29, 2014, Richard Singleton, the Director of

Risk Management and Client Relations at VCH, issued a Trespass Notification banning Ms. Laferriere

from attending GPC for 90 days, except for any personal medical attention.

10. Although restrictions have been placed on Ms. Laferriere’s access to GPC at various

times since Mr. Walker began residing at GPC, VCH has always been and remains committed to

CW7117020.1

providing Ms. Laferriere access to Mr. Walker outside of the GPC grounds. VCH has facilitated visits at

places such as the Oakridge Mall, at the curbside of GPC, etc.

11. Ms. Laferriere filed a Petition dated March 14, 2014 in which she sought orders for 16

different forms of relief. Ms. Laferriere also sought, and was granted, short leave to have heard one of

the orders sought: that listed in Paragraph 13 of the Petition in which Ms. Laferriere sought unrestricted

and unsupervised 24/7 access to Mr. Walker.

12. VCH filed Response materials on March 17, 2014 and the hearing of the issue outlined in

Paragraph 13 of Ms. Laferriere’s Petition took place on March 18, 2014.

13. The Public Guardian and Trustee, through its counsel, attended the hearing on March

18, 2014 and sought an adjournment of the hearing in order to consider issues related to Mr. Walker’s

interests.

14. VCH consented to an adjournment, which was eventually granted by the order of

Master MacNaughton. Specifically, Master MacNaughton ordered that the matter be heard on April 8,

2014 in front of a judge, rather than a master.

Ms. Laferriere’s Behavioural History

15. Ms. Laferriere has a long history of violent and aggressive behaviour towards staff

members at GPC, VCH in general, and even the members of the Vancouver Police Department who

attended the GPC on numerous occasions to deal with or assist with escorting Ms. Laferriere out of the

facility.
16. Ms. Laferriere’s behaviour includes violent physical conduct, harassing emails, blog post

entries alleging incompetence and illegal conduct on VCH’s part, and picketing at GPC and elsewhere.

17. One particular example of Ms. Laferriere’s violent and aggressive behaviour occurred on

October 21, 2013. On that day, Ms. Laferriere trespassed into the room of a resident other than Mr.

Walker at GPC. When asked to leave the facility, Ms. Laferriere refused, then later attempted to leave

the facility with Mr. Walker in his electric wheelchair. Staff prevented Ms. Laferriere from removing Mr.

Walker, and in response, Ms. Laferriere punched two staff members, attempted to hit staff with Mr.

Walker’s wheelchair, and bit the hand of a security guard. Ms. Laferriere later punched a police officer in

the face.

18. Ms. Laferriere has created over 200 internet blog entries associated with VCH since

March 2011. Blog entries have included professional emails and phone numbers of VCH employees and

board members.

19. Ms. Laferriere has also created pamphlets that have been posted on buses and bus

stops and that relate to VCH. In these pamphlets, Ms. Laferriere has included the email addresses and

phone numbers of VCH employees and board members.

20. Ms. Laferriere has also picketed at the Oakridge Centre Mall regarding her grievances

with VCH and the George Pearson Centre.

CW7 117020.1

21. Since the Trespass Notification was issued on January 29, 2014, Ms. Laferriere has

repeatedly attempted to access GPC contrary to the terms of the Trespass Notification. On numerous

occasions, Ms. Laferriere has violated the Trespass Notification. On each of these occasions, the

Vancouver Police have been called and have attended at GPC, typically arriving 90-120 minutes after

being called, but on no occasions have they removed Ms. Laferriere from GPC.

22. GPC is a large complex with over 50 entrances, and since the Trespass Notification was

issued, Paladin Security Officers have not been able to prevent Ms. Laferriere from entering GPC, nor

have they been able to compel her to leave.

23. Since the decision of Master MacNaughton handed down on March 18, 2014, VCH has

arranged curb-side visits between Mr. Walker and Ms. Laferriere on days that Mr. Walker is physically

capable of leaving the GPC facility.

24. Dr. James Dunne, the physician of record for Mr. Walker, determines on a day-to-day

basis if Mr. Walker is fit to leave the GPC facility to visit with Ms. Laferriere.

25. Also since March 18, 2014, Ms. Laferriere has continued to attempt to access Mr.

Walker at GPC on days which Dr. Dunne deems Mr. Walker unfit to leave the GPC facility.

26. In addition, Ms. Laferriere has continued to create internet blog posts in which specific

GPC and VCH staff members are identified and their contact information provided. Ms. Laferriere has

also created and distributed flyers with contact information of specific VCH board members.

The Effect of Ms. Laferriere’s Behaviour on Staff at VCH

27. As a result of the incident on October 21, 2013, VCH brought in Dr. Georgia Nemetz, a

psychologist in private practice, to conduct two critical incident debriefing sessions with the GPC

employees. Approximately 25 workers from GPC and VCH attended these two sessions.

28. Dr. Nemetz was extremely concerned about the cumulative impact of Ms. Laferriere’s

behaviour on the staff of GPC and VCH. Dr. Nemetz identified two employees who have had indications

of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) associated to ongoing interactions with Ms. Laferriere.

29. As a result of the October 21, 2013 incident, VCH commissioned a Workplace Violence

Assessment of Ms. Laferriere (the "Assessment") by Kevin Calder, a Workplace Violence Specialist with

VCH, which report was finalized in January 2014.

30. In preparing the Assessment, Mr. Calder spoke to numerous employees at VCH and GPC

who have had interactions with Ms. Laferriere, and reviewed numerous reports prepared by the VCH’s

security officers and Paladin Security.

31. The Paladin Security Reports show that Ms. Laferriere repeatedly failed to follow

behavioural and access restrictions imposed on her by VCH, attempted to take Mr. Walker away from

GPC without permission on numerous occasions, and regularly verbally abused and acted aggressively

towards GPC staff.

CW7 117020.1

32. The Assessment concluded that Ms. Laferriere poses a high risk of demonstrating

affective (emotionally-based and unplanned) violence, and that her behaviour constitutes bullying and

harassment of GPC and the VCH staff.

33. Ms. Laferriere’s behaviour has led to significant issues amongst the staff at GPC. Many

staff members have been physically assaulted by Ms. Laferriere, and many fear that they will be singled

out and harassed by Ms. Laferriere. Ms. Laferriere poses a significant threat to staff, residents, and

visitors at George Pearson Centre.

34. Because of the above actions of Ms. Laferriere, staff and board members of VCH feel

threatened and are reluctant to interact with Ms. Laferriere out of fear that they will be singled out and

their personal information made public.

35. Certain staff members have also refused to escort Mr. Walker out of GPC to visit with

Ms. Laferriere because these interactions have been filmed, presumably at the direction of Ms.

Laferriere.

36. Ms. Laferriere’s actions negatively affect the care that Mr. Walker receives.

Police Involvement

37. The Vancouver Police Department has been called on numerous occasions in situations

where Ms. Laferriere has become threatening or violent or has accessed GPC contrary to restrictions

placed byVCH.

38. At present, when Ms. Laferriere attempts to access GPC contrary to the Trespass

Notification, staff at GPC call the Vancouver Police, who arrive, typically between 90-120 minutes after

being called. The Vancouver Police do not detain Ms. Laferriere and do not forcibly remove her from the

GPC premises. The typical response from the Vancouver Police is that the situation with Ms. Laferriere is

a civil matter and they will not involve themselves without a court order.

PART 3: LEGAL BASIS

1.     VCH relies on the following legal bases:

(a) rule 10-4 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which provides for the ability of a party to

seek an injunction by order of the Court;

(b) rule 14-1 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which provides the framework for the

assessment of costs of applications;

(c) section 39 of the Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253, which provides for the

court’s ability to enjoin a party where it appears just or convenient to do so; and

(d) the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

2.     The test for permanent injunctions is laid out in the case of Qureshi v. Gooch, 2005

B.C.S.C. 1584, in which the seminal case of Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142

is cited.

CW7 117020.1

3.     The issuance of a permanent injunction is a discretionary order and in deciding whether

to grant such an injunction, the court is to look at the nature of the rights that the injunction will

protect, the surrounding circumstances, and the balance of equities between the parties.

Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142

4.     Courts have considered a number of factors when determining if a permanent

injunction is appropriate including:

(a) whether an enforceable right and a threat/violation of that right exists;

Delta Hotels v. Okabe Canada Investments Co., (1991), 81 Alta L.R. (2d) 338 (OB)

(b) whether the applicant will suffer demonstrable harm should the injunction not be

granted;

Steeves Dairy Ltd. v. Twin City Co-operative Milk Producers Assn., [1926] 1 W.W.R. 25

(c) the hardship that would be caused to the party enjoined if the injunction were granted

compared to the hardship to the party seeking the injunction were the injunction not

granted;

Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1S.C.R. 142

(d) the conduct of the parties; and

(e) the effectiveness of an injunction.

Consideration of the Above Factors Favours the Granting of an Inlunction

5.     VCH, and its staff and board members, would suffer demonstrable harm if an injunction

against Ms. Laferriere is not granted.

6.     Ms. Laferriere’s attendance at GPC harms the ability of GPC’s staff to care for all of the

residents of GPC. As long as Ms. Laferriere continues to be able to attend GPC, the ability of VCH staff to

do their jobs is made more difficult.

7.     Ms. Laferriere’s continued attendance at GPC also causes disruption to all those around

her, including other residents at GPC and their loved ones.

8.     In addition, it is likely that if Ms. Laferriere continues to attend GPC, staff members at

GPC may quit or transfer to other departments. If staff members were to leave GPC, those departures

would be detrimental to the ability of staff at GHP to care for the residents of GPC.

9.     The interests at issue in this proceeding are not simply the interests of Ms. Laferriere in

accessing Mr. Walker, they are the interests of all parties involved, including Mr. Walker, other residents

at GPC, staff at GPC, and visitors of other residents at GPC. Considering the detrimental impact that Ms.

CW7 117020.1

Laferriere’s behaviour has on all of the parties involved, the balance of convenience favours the granting

of an injunction preventing her access to GPC.

10.     The opinion of Kevin Calder, Workplace Violence Specialist, is that nothing short of a

permanent ban of Ms. Laferriere will be effective in protecting the staff and visitors at GPC

PART 4: MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON

1. Those materials filed by VCH on March 17, 2014.

2. Affidavit #1 of Tanvirezohra Batlawala, made,LApr/2014.

3. Affidavit #1 of Louise Kokotailo, made 64Apr/2014.

The Applicant estimates that the application will take 60 minutes.

D     This matter is within the jurisdiction of a Master.

This matter is not within the jurisdiction of a Master.

TO THE PERSONS RECEIVING THIS NOTICE OF APPLICATION: If you wish to respond to this Notice of

Application, you must, within 5 business days after service of this Notice of Application or, if this

application is brought under Rule 9-7, within 8 business days after service of this Notice of Application:

(a)     file an Application Response in Form 33;

(b)     file the original of every Affidavit, and of every other document, that:

(i) you intend to refer to at the hearing of this application, and

(ii) has not already been filed in the proceeding; and

(c)     serve on the Applicant 2 copies of the following, and on every other party of record one

copy of the following:

(i) a copy of filed Application Response;

(ii) a copy of each of the filed Affidavits and other documents that you intend to

refer to at the hearing of this application and that has not already been served

on that person;

(iii) if this application is brought under Rule 9-7, any notice that you are required to

give under Rule 9-7(9).

CW7 117020.1

Date: __JApr/2014

This NOTICE OF APPLICATION is prepared by Jordan Watson of the firm of Clark Wilson LLP whose place of

business is 900-885 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 3H1 (Direct #: 604-891-7703, Fax #:

604.687.6314, Email: jjw@cwilson.com) (File #: 37794).

To be completed by the court only:

Order made

El in the terms requested in paragraphs      of Part 1 of this Notice of Application

o with the following variations and additional terms:

Date:

[dd/mmm/yyyy]      Signature of 0 Judge 0 Master

CW7 117020.1

APPENDIX

[The following information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal effect.]

THIS APPLICATION INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING:

D     discovery: comply with demand for documents

o     discovery: production of additional documents

o     other matters concerning document discoveryForm 32 (Rule 8-1(4))

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:

AUDREY JANE LAFERRIERE and RANDY MICHAEL WALKER

AND:

VANCOUVER COASTAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

Name of Applicant:     Vancouver Coastal Health Authority ("VCH")

To:     Audrey Jane Laferriere and Randy Michael Walker

TAKE NOTICE that an application will be made by the Applicant to the presiding Judge at the Courthouse

at 800 Smithe St., Vancouver, BC on 8/Apr/2014 at 9:45am for the Orders set out in Part 1 below.

PART 1: ORDERS SOUGHT

1.     An injunction, enjoining and restraining the Petitioner, Ms. Laferriere, by herself, or by

her agents and servants, from participating in any of the following activities:

(a) attending at any of the VCH properties, including but not limited to the George Pearson

Centre located at 757 West 57th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, except in circumstances in

which Mr. Walker’s physician deems that Mr. Walker is imminently terminal, in which

case VCH will promptly make arrangements for Ms. Laferriere to attend the George

Pearson Centre; and

(b) contacting, by email or phone, any doctors that care for Mr. Walker, or any staff,

administration, or board members of VCH, except for Richard Singleton, Director of Risk

Management for VCH and Romila Ang, Manager of the George Pearson Centre.

2.     An order that any peace officer, including any officer of the Vancouver Police

Department or the R.C.M.P. having jurisdiction in the province of British Columbia, who on reasonable

and probable grounds believes that Audrey Jane Laferriere is in breach of the terms of this order may

immediately arrest that person and bring her before a judge of the Supreme Court promptly after the

arrest, to be dealt with on an inquiry to determine whether she has committed a breach of this order;

CW7 117020.1

3. Costs of this application be awarded to the defendant, VCH; and

4. Such further and other directions and orders as this Honourable Court considers just

and equitable.

PART 2: FACTUAL BASIS

Background

1. The Petitioner, Randy Michael Walker, was involved in a catastrophic injury in or about

June 2010 that left him in a state of quadriplegia. Mr. Walker uses a tracheostomy tube to assist him

with breathing.

2. Mr. Walker was first transferred to George Pearson Centre located at 757 West 57th

Avenue, Vancouver, BC ("GPC") in or about November 2010 due to the need for constant care.

3. At present, Mr. Walker is in a fragile state, but his condition has not worsened for

several months and there are no signs that suggest that there is an immediate risk of death as the

Petitioner suggests.

4. Since Mr. Walker began residing at GPC, Ms. Laferriere has been a regular visitor.

5. It is unclear what relationship Mr. Walker and Ms. Laferriere have with one another. Ms.

Laferriere has, at various times, described her relationship to Mr. Walker as one of "friend", "confidant",

"surrogate", "representative", "wife", and "advocate".

6. Mr. Walker purportedly signed a Representation Agreement pursuant to section 9 of the

Representation Agreement Act on January 31, 2013, in which Ms. Laferriere was purportedly given

authority to obtain medical records, make housing choices for Mr. Walker, and negate any "do not

resuscitate" orders pertaining to Mr. Walker.

7. VCH has abided by the Representation Agreement and has treated Ms. Laferriere as Mr.

Walker’s health care decision maker when Mr. Walker is incapable of making informed decisions about

his health care. VCH health care providers contact Ms. Laferriere by phone when health care decisions

are required, and will continue to do so as long as Ms. Laferriere is Mr. Walker’s representative.

Procedural History

8. Because of Ms. Laferriere’s behaviour (described in detail below) and in efforts to

protect the safety of all parties involved, VCH has, on multiple occasions, imposed restrictions on Ms.

Laferriere’s visitation rights. Ms. LaFerriere has repeatedly and flagrantly disregarded these restrictions.

9. As a result of Ms. Laferriere’s continued aggressive behavior towards the GPC staff and

her disregard for VCH’s restrictions of access, on January 29, 2014, Richard Singleton, the Director of

Risk Management and Client Relations at VCH, issued a Trespass Notification banning Ms. Laferriere

from attending GPC for 90 days, except for any personal medical attention.

10. Although restrictions have been placed on Ms. Laferriere’s access to GPC at various

times since Mr. Walker began residing at GPC, VCH has always been and remains committed to

CW7117020.1

providing Ms. Laferriere access to Mr. Walker outside of the GPC grounds. VCH has facilitated visits at

places such as the Oakridge Mall, at the curbside of GPC, etc.

11. Ms. Laferriere filed a Petition dated March 14, 2014 in which she sought orders for 16

different forms of relief. Ms. Laferriere also sought, and was granted, short leave to have heard one of

the orders sought: that listed in Paragraph 13 of the Petition in which Ms. Laferriere sought unrestricted

and unsupervised 24/7 access to Mr. Walker.

12. VCH filed Response materials on March 17, 2014 and the hearing of the issue outlined in

Paragraph 13 of Ms. Laferriere’s Petition took place on March 18, 2014.

13. The Public Guardian and Trustee, through its counsel, attended the hearing on March

18, 2014 and sought an adjournment of the hearing in order to consider issues related to Mr. Walker’s

interests.

14. VCH consented to an adjournment, which was eventually granted by the order of

Master MacNaughton. Specifically, Master MacNaughton ordered that the matter be heard on April 8,

2014 in front of a judge, rather than a master.

Ms. Laferriere’s Behavioural History

15. Ms. Laferriere has a long history of violent and aggressive behaviour towards staff

members at GPC, VCH in general, and even the members of the Vancouver Police Department who

attended the GPC on numerous occasions to deal with or assist with escorting Ms. Laferriere out of the

facility.

16. Ms. Laferriere’s behaviour includes violent physical conduct, harassing emails, blog post

entries alleging incompetence and illegal conduct on VCH’s part, and picketing at GPC and elsewhere.

17. One particular example of Ms. Laferriere’s violent and aggressive behaviour occurred on

October 21, 2013. On that day, Ms. Laferriere trespassed into the room of a resident other than Mr.

Walker at GPC. When asked to leave the facility, Ms. Laferriere refused, then later attempted to leave

the facility with Mr. Walker in his electric wheelchair. Staff prevented Ms. Laferriere from removing Mr.

Walker, and in response, Ms. Laferriere punched two staff members, attempted to hit staff with Mr.

Walker’s wheelchair, and bit the hand of a security guard. Ms. Laferriere later punched a police officer in

the face.

18. Ms. Laferriere has created over 200 internet blog entries associated with VCH since

March 2011. Blog entries have included professional emails and phone numbers of VCH employees and

board members.

19. Ms. Laferriere has also created pamphlets that have been posted on buses and bus

stops and that relate to VCH. In these pamphlets, Ms. Laferriere has included the email addresses and

phone numbers of VCH employees and board members.

20. Ms. Laferriere has also picketed at the Oakridge Centre Mall regarding her grievances

with VCH and the George Pearson Centre.

CW7 117020.1

21. Since the Trespass Notification was issued on January 29, 2014, Ms. Laferriere has

repeatedly attempted to access GPC contrary to the terms of the Trespass Notification. On numerous

occasions, Ms. Laferriere has violated the Trespass Notification. On each of these occasions, the

Vancouver Police have been called and have attended at GPC, typically arriving 90-120 minutes after

being called, but on no occasions have they removed Ms. Laferriere from GPC.

22. GPC is a large complex with over 50 entrances, and since the Trespass Notification was

issued, Paladin Security Officers have not been able to prevent Ms. Laferriere from entering GPC, nor

have they been able to compel her to leave.

23. Since the decision of Master MacNaughton handed down on March 18, 2014, VCH has

arranged curb-side visits between Mr. Walker and Ms. Laferriere on days that Mr. Walker is physically

capable of leaving the GPC facility.

24. Dr. James Dunne, the physician of record for Mr. Walker, determines on a day-to-day

basis if Mr. Walker is fit to leave the GPC facility to visit with Ms. Laferriere.

25. Also since March 18, 2014, Ms. Laferriere has continued to attempt to access Mr.

Walker at GPC on days which Dr. Dunne deems Mr. Walker unfit to leave the GPC facility.

26. In addition, Ms. Laferriere has continued to create internet blog posts in which specific

GPC and VCH staff members are identified and their contact information provided. Ms. Laferriere has

also created and distributed flyers with contact information of specific VCH board members.

The Effect of Ms. Laferriere’s Behaviour on Staff at VCH

27. As a result of the incident on October 21, 2013, VCH brought in Dr. Georgia Nemetz, a

psychologist in private practice, to conduct two critical incident debriefing sessions with the GPC

employees. Approximately 25 workers from GPC and VCH attended these two sessions.

28. Dr. Nemetz was extremely concerned about the cumulative impact of Ms. Laferriere’s

behaviour on the staff of GPC and VCH. Dr. Nemetz identified two employees who have had indications

of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) associated to ongoing interactions with Ms. Laferriere.

29. As a result of the October 21, 2013 incident, VCH commissioned a Workplace Violence

Assessment of Ms. Laferriere (the "Assessment") by Kevin Calder, a Workplace Violence Specialist with

VCH, which report was finalized in January 2014.

30. In preparing the Assessment, Mr. Calder spoke to numerous employees at VCH and GPC

who have had interactions with Ms. Laferriere, and reviewed numerous reports prepared by the VCH’s

security officers and Paladin Security.

31. The Paladin Security Reports show that Ms. Laferriere repeatedly failed to follow

behavioural and access restrictions imposed on her by VCH, attempted to take Mr. Walker away from

GPC without permission on numerous occasions, and regularly verbally abused and acted aggressively

towards GPC staff.

CW7 117020.1

32. The Assessment concluded that Ms. Laferriere poses a high risk of demonstrating

affective (emotionally-based and unplanned) violence, and that her behaviour constitutes bullying and

harassment of GPC and the VCH staff.

33. Ms. Laferriere’s behaviour has led to significant issues amongst the staff at GPC. Many

staff members have been physically assaulted by Ms. Laferriere, and many fear that they will be singled

out and harassed by Ms. Laferriere. Ms. Laferriere poses a significant threat to staff, residents, and

visitors at George Pearson Centre.

34. Because of the above actions of Ms. Laferriere, staff and board members of VCH feel

threatened and are reluctant to interact with Ms. Laferriere out of fear that they will be singled out and

their personal information made public.

35. Certain staff members have also refused to escort Mr. Walker out of GPC to visit with

Ms. Laferriere because these interactions have been filmed, presumably at the direction of Ms.

Laferriere.

36. Ms. Laferriere’s actions negatively affect the care that Mr. Walker receives.

Police Involvement

37. The Vancouver Police Department has been called on numerous occasions in situations

where Ms. Laferriere has become threatening or violent or has accessed GPC contrary to restrictions

placed byVCH.

38. At present, when Ms. Laferriere attempts to access GPC contrary to the Trespass

Notification, staff at GPC call the Vancouver Police, who arrive, typically between 90-120 minutes after

being called. The Vancouver Police do not detain Ms. Laferriere and do not forcibly remove her from the

GPC premises. The typical response from the Vancouver Police is that the situation with Ms. Laferriere is

a civil matter and they will not involve themselves without a court order.

PART 3: LEGAL BASIS

1.     VCH relies on the following legal bases:

(a) rule 10-4 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which provides for the ability of a party to

seek an injunction by order of the Court;

(b) rule 14-1 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which provides the framework for the

assessment of costs of applications;

(c) section 39 of the Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253, which provides for the

court’s ability to enjoin a party where it appears just or convenient to do so; and

(d) the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

2.     The test for permanent injunctions is laid out in the case of Qureshi v. Gooch, 2005

B.C.S.C. 1584, in which the seminal case of Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142

is cited.

CW7 117020.1

3.     The issuance of a permanent injunction is a discretionary order and in deciding whether

to grant such an injunction, the court is to look at the nature of the rights that the injunction will

protect, the surrounding circumstances, and the balance of equities between the parties.

Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142

4.     Courts have considered a number of factors when determining if a permanent

injunction is appropriate including:

(a) whether an enforceable right and a threat/violation of that right exists;

Delta Hotels v. Okabe Canada Investments Co., (1991), 81 Alta L.R. (2d) 338 (OB)

(b) whether the applicant will suffer demonstrable harm should the injunction not be

granted;

Steeves Dairy Ltd. v. Twin City Co-operative Milk Producers Assn., [1926] 1 W.W.R. 25

(c) the hardship that would be caused to the party enjoined if the injunction were granted

compared to the hardship to the party seeking the injunction were the injunction not

granted;

Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1S.C.R. 142

(d) the conduct of the parties; and

(e) the effectiveness of an injunction.

Consideration of the Above Factors Favours the Granting of an Inlunction

5.     VCH, and its staff and board members, would suffer demonstrable harm if an injunction

against Ms. Laferriere is not granted.

6.     Ms. Laferriere’s attendance at GPC harms the ability of GPC’s staff to care for all of the

residents of GPC. As long as Ms. Laferriere continues to be able to attend GPC, the ability of VCH staff to

do their jobs is made more difficult.

7.     Ms. Laferriere’s continued attendance at GPC also causes disruption to all those around

her, including other residents at GPC and their loved ones.

8.     In addition, it is likely that if Ms. Laferriere continues to attend GPC, staff members at

GPC may quit or transfer to other departments. If staff members were to leave GPC, those departures

would be detrimental to the ability of staff at GHP to care for the residents of GPC.

9.     The interests at issue in this proceeding are not simply the interests of Ms. Laferriere in

accessing Mr. Walker, they are the interests of all parties involved, including Mr. Walker, other residents

at GPC, staff at GPC, and visitors of other residents at GPC. Considering the detrimental impact that Ms.

CW7 117020.1

Laferriere’s behaviour has on all of the parties involved, the balance of convenience favours the granting

of an injunction preventing her access to GPC.

10.     The opinion of Kevin Calder, Workplace Violence Specialist, is that nothing short of a

permanent ban of Ms. Laferriere will be effective in protecting the staff and visitors at GPC

PART 4: MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON

1. Those materials filed by VCH on March 17, 2014.

2. Affidavit #1 of Tanvirezohra Batlawala, made,LApr/2014.

3. Affidavit #1 of Louise Kokotailo, made 64Apr/2014.

The Applicant estimates that the application will take 60 minutes.

D     This matter is within the jurisdiction of a Master.

This matter is not within the jurisdiction of a Master.

TO THE PERSONS RECEIVING THIS NOTICE OF APPLICATION: If you wish to respond to this Notice of

Application, you must, within 5 business days after service of this Notice of Application or, if this

application is brought under Rule 9-7, within 8 business days after service of this Notice of Application:

(a)     file an Application Response in Form 33;

(b)     file the original of every Affidavit, and of every other document, that:

(i) you intend to refer to at the hearing of this application, and

(ii) has not already been filed in the proceeding; and

(c)     serve on the Applicant 2 copies of the following, and on every other party of record one

copy of the following:

(i) a copy of filed Application Response;

(ii) a copy of each of the filed Affidavits and other documents that you intend to

refer to at the hearing of this application and that has not already been served

on that person;

(iii) if this application is brought under Rule 9-7, any notice that you are required to

give under Rule 9-7(9).

CW7 117020.1

Date: __JApr/2014

This NOTICE OF APPLICATION is prepared by Jordan Watson of the firm of Clark Wilson LLP whose place of

business is 900-885 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 3H1 (Direct #: 604-891-7703, Fax #:

604.687.6314, Email: jjw@cwilson.com) (File #: 37794).

To be completed by the court only:

Order made

El in the terms requested in paragraphs      of Part 1 of this Notice of Application

o with the following variations and additional terms:

Date:

[dd/mmm/yyyy]      Signature of 0 Judge 0 Master

CW7 117020.1

APPENDIX

[The following information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal effect.]

THIS APPLICATION INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING:

D     discovery: comply with demand for documents

o     discovery: production of additional documents

o     other matters concerning document discoveryForm 32 (Rule 8-1(4))

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:

AUDREY JANE LAFERRIERE and RANDY MICHAEL WALKER

AND:

VANCOUVER COASTAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

Name of Applicant:     Vancouver Coastal Health Authority ("VCH")

To:     Audrey Jane Laferriere and Randy Michael Walker

TAKE NOTICE that an application will be made by the Applicant to the presiding Judge at the Courthouse

at 800 Smithe St., Vancouver, BC on 8/Apr/2014 at 9:45am for the Orders set out in Part 1 below.

PART 1: ORDERS SOUGHT

1.     An injunction, enjoining and restraining the Petitioner, Ms. Laferriere, by herself, or by

her agents and servants, from participating in any of the following activities:

(a) attending at any of the VCH properties, including but not limited to the George Pearson

Centre located at 757 West 57th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, except in circumstances in

which Mr. Walker’s physician deems that Mr. Walker is imminently terminal, in which

case VCH will promptly make arrangements for Ms. Laferriere to attend the George

Pearson Centre; and

(b) contacting, by email or phone, any doctors that care for Mr. Walker, or any staff,

administration, or board members of VCH, except for Richard Singleton, Director of Risk

Management for VCH and Romila Ang, Manager of the George Pearson Centre.

2.     An order that any peace officer, including any officer of the Vancouver Police

Department or the R.C.M.P. having jurisdiction in the province of British Columbia, who on reasonable

and probable grounds believes that Audrey Jane Laferriere is in breach of the terms of this order may

immediately arrest that person and bring her before a judge of the Supreme Court promptly after the

arrest, to be dealt with on an inquiry to determine whether she has committed a breach of this order;

CW7 117020.1

3. Costs of this application be awarded to the defendant, VCH; and

4. Such further and other directions and orders as this Honourable Court considers just

and equitable.

PART 2: FACTUAL BASIS

Background

1. The Petitioner, Randy Michael Walker, was involved in a catastrophic injury in or about

June 2010 that left him in a state of quadriplegia. Mr. Walker uses a tracheostomy tube to assist him

with breathing.

2. Mr. Walker was first transferred to George Pearson Centre located at 757 West 57th

Avenue, Vancouver, BC ("GPC") in or about November 2010 due to the need for constant care.

3. At present, Mr. Walker is in a fragile state, but his condition has not worsened for

several months and there are no signs that suggest that there is an immediate risk of death as the

Petitioner suggests.

4. Since Mr. Walker began residing at GPC, Ms. Laferriere has been a regular visitor.

5. It is unclear what relationship Mr. Walker and Ms. Laferriere have with one another. Ms.

Laferriere has, at various times, described her relationship to Mr. Walker as one of "friend", "confidant",

"surrogate", "representative", "wife", and "advocate".

6. Mr. Walker purportedly signed a Representation Agreement pursuant to section 9 of the

Representation Agreement Act on January 31, 2013, in which Ms. Laferriere was purportedly given

authority to obtain medical records, make housing choices for Mr. Walker, and negate any "do not

resuscitate" orders pertaining to Mr. Walker.

7. VCH has abided by the Representation Agreement and has treated Ms. Laferriere as Mr.

Walker’s health care decision maker when Mr. Walker is incapable of making informed decisions about

his health care. VCH health care providers contact Ms. Laferriere by phone when health care decisions

are required, and will continue to do so as long as Ms. Laferriere is Mr. Walker’s representative.

Procedural History

8. Because of Ms. Laferriere’s behaviour (described in detail below) and in efforts to

protect the safety of all parties involved, VCH has, on multiple occasions, imposed restrictions on Ms.

Laferriere’s visitation rights. Ms. LaFerriere has repeatedly and flagrantly disregarded these restrictions.

9. As a result of Ms. Laferriere’s continued aggressive behavior towards the GPC staff and

her disregard for VCH’s restrictions of access, on January 29, 2014, Richard Singleton, the Director of

Risk Management and Client Relations at VCH, issued a Trespass Notification banning Ms. Laferriere

from attending GPC for 90 days, except for any personal medical attention.

10. Although restrictions have been placed on Ms. Laferriere’s access to GPC at various

times since Mr. Walker began residing at GPC, VCH has always been and remains committed to

CW7117020.1

providing Ms. Laferriere access to Mr. Walker outside of the GPC grounds. VCH has facilitated visits at

places such as the Oakridge Mall, at the curbside of GPC, etc.

11. Ms. Laferriere filed a Petition dated March 14, 2014 in which she sought orders for 16

different forms of relief. Ms. Laferriere also sought, and was granted, short leave to have heard one of

the orders sought: that listed in Paragraph 13 of the Petition in which Ms. Laferriere sought unrestricted

and unsupervised 24/7 access to Mr. Walker.

12. VCH filed Response materials on March 17, 2014 and the hearing of the issue outlined in

Paragraph 13 of Ms. Laferriere’s Petition took place on March 18, 2014.

13. The Public Guardian and Trustee, through its counsel, attended the hearing on March

18, 2014 and sought an adjournment of the hearing in order to consider issues related to Mr. Walker’s

interests.

14. VCH consented to an adjournment, which was eventually granted by the order of

Master MacNaughton. Specifically, Master MacNaughton ordered that the matter be heard on April 8,

2014 in front of a judge, rather than a master.

Ms. Laferriere’s Behavioural History

15. Ms. Laferriere has a long history of violent and aggressive behaviour towards staff

members at GPC, VCH in general, and even the members of the Vancouver Police Department who

attended the GPC on numerous occasions to deal with or assist with escorting Ms. Laferriere out of the

facility.

16. Ms. Laferriere’s behaviour includes violent physical conduct, harassing emails, blog post

entries alleging incompetence and illegal conduct on VCH’s part, and picketing at GPC and elsewhere.

17. One particular example of Ms. Laferriere’s violent and aggressive behaviour occurred on

October 21, 2013. On that day, Ms. Laferriere trespassed into the room of a resident other than Mr.

Walker at GPC. When asked to leave the facility, Ms. Laferriere refused, then later attempted to leave

the facility with Mr. Walker in his electric wheelchair. Staff prevented Ms. Laferriere from removing Mr.

Walker, and in response, Ms. Laferriere punched two staff members, attempted to hit staff with Mr.

Walker’s wheelchair, and bit the hand of a security guard. Ms. Laferriere later punched a police officer in

the face.

18. Ms. Laferriere has created over 200 internet blog entries associated with VCH since

March 2011. Blog entries have included professional emails and phone numbers of VCH employees and

board members.

19. Ms. Laferriere has also created pamphlets that have been posted on buses and bus

stops and that relate to VCH. In these pamphlets, Ms. Laferriere has included the email addresses and

phone numbers of VCH employees and board members.

20. Ms. Laferriere has also picketed at the Oakridge Centre Mall regarding her grievances

with VCH and the George Pearson Centre.

CW7 117020.1

21. Since the Trespass Notification was issued on January 29, 2014, Ms. Laferriere has

repeatedly attempted to access GPC contrary to the terms of the Trespass Notification. On numerous

occasions, Ms. Laferriere has violated the Trespass Notification. On each of these occasions, the

Vancouver Police have been called and have attended at GPC, typically arriving 90-120 minutes after

being called, but on no occasions have they removed Ms. Laferriere from GPC.

22. GPC is a large complex with over 50 entrances, and since the Trespass Notification was

issued, Paladin Security Officers have not been able to prevent Ms. Laferriere from entering GPC, nor

have they been able to compel her to leave.

23. Since the decision of Master MacNaughton handed down on March 18, 2014, VCH has

arranged curb-side visits between Mr. Walker and Ms. Laferriere on days that Mr. Walker is physically

capable of leaving the GPC facility.

24. Dr. James Dunne, the physician of record for Mr. Walker, determines on a day-to-day

basis if Mr. Walker is fit to leave the GPC facility to visit with Ms. Laferriere.

25. Also since March 18, 2014, Ms. Laferriere has continued to attempt to access Mr.

Walker at GPC on days which Dr. Dunne deems Mr. Walker unfit to leave the GPC facility.

26. In addition, Ms. Laferriere has continued to create internet blog posts in which specific

GPC and VCH staff members are identified and their contact information provided. Ms. Laferriere has

also created and distributed flyers with contact information of specific VCH board members.

The Effect of Ms. Laferriere’s Behaviour on Staff at VCH

27. As a result of the incident on October 21, 2013, VCH brought in Dr. Georgia Nemetz, a

psychologist in private practice, to conduct two critical incident debriefing sessions with the GPC

employees. Approximately 25 workers from GPC and VCH attended these two sessions.

28. Dr. Nemetz was extremely concerned about the cumulative impact of Ms. Laferriere’s

behaviour on the staff of GPC and VCH. Dr. Nemetz identified two employees who have had indications

of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) associated to ongoing interactions with Ms. Laferriere.

29. As a result of the October 21, 2013 incident, VCH commissioned a Workplace Violence

Assessment of Ms. Laferriere (the "Assessment") by Kevin Calder, a Workplace Violence Specialist with

VCH, which report was finalized in January 2014.

30. In preparing the Assessment, Mr. Calder spoke to numerous employees at VCH and GPC

who have had interactions with Ms. Laferriere, and reviewed numerous reports prepared by the VCH’s

security officers and Paladin Security.

31. The Paladin Security Reports show that Ms. Laferriere repeatedly failed to follow

behavioural and access restrictions imposed on her by VCH, attempted to take Mr. Walker away from

GPC without permission on numerous occasions, and regularly verbally abused and acted aggressively

towards GPC staff.

CW7 117020.1

32. The Assessment concluded that Ms. Laferriere poses a high risk of demonstrating

affective (emotionally-based and unplanned) violence, and that her behaviour constitutes bullying and

harassment of GPC and the VCH staff.

33. Ms. Laferriere’s behaviour has led to significant issues amongst the staff at GPC. Many

staff members have been physically assaulted by Ms. Laferriere, and many fear that they will be singled

out and harassed by Ms. Laferriere. Ms. Laferriere poses a significant threat to staff, residents, and

visitors at George Pearson Centre.

34. Because of the above actions of Ms. Laferriere, staff and board members of VCH feel

threatened and are reluctant to interact with Ms. Laferriere out of fear that they will be singled out and

their personal information made public.

35. Certain staff members have also refused to escort Mr. Walker out of GPC to visit with

Ms. Laferriere because these interactions have been filmed, presumably at the direction of Ms.

Laferriere.

36. Ms. Laferriere’s actions negatively affect the care that Mr. Walker receives.

Police Involvement

37. The Vancouver Police Department has been called on numerous occasions in situations

where Ms. Laferriere has become threatening or violent or has accessed GPC contrary to restrictions

placed byVCH.

38. At present, when Ms. Laferriere attempts to access GPC contrary to the Trespass

Notification, staff at GPC call the Vancouver Police, who arrive, typically between 90-120 minutes after

being called. The Vancouver Police do not detain Ms. Laferriere and do not forcibly remove her from the

GPC premises. The typical response from the Vancouver Police is that the situation with Ms. Laferriere is

a civil matter and they will not involve themselves without a court order.

PART 3: LEGAL BASIS

1.     VCH relies on the following legal bases:

(a) rule 10-4 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which provides for the ability of a party to

seek an injunction by order of the Court;

(b) rule 14-1 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which provides the framework for the

assessment of costs of applications;

(c) section 39 of the Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253, which provides for the

court’s ability to enjoin a party where it appears just or convenient to do so; and

(d) the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

2.     The test for permanent injunctions is laid out in the case of Qureshi v. Gooch, 2005

B.C.S.C. 1584, in which the seminal case of Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142

is cited.

CW7 117020.1

3.     The issuance of a permanent injunction is a discretionary order and in deciding whether

to grant such an injunction, the court is to look at the nature of the rights that the injunction will

protect, the surrounding circumstances, and the balance of equities between the parties.

Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142

4.     Courts have considered a number of factors when determining if a permanent

injunction is appropriate including:

(a) whether an enforceable right and a threat/violation of that right exists;

Delta Hotels v. Okabe Canada Investments Co., (1991), 81 Alta L.R. (2d) 338 (OB)

(b) whether the applicant will suffer demonstrable harm should the injunction not be

granted;

Steeves Dairy Ltd. v. Twin City Co-operative Milk Producers Assn., [1926] 1 W.W.R. 25

(c) the hardship that would be caused to the party enjoined if the injunction were granted

compared to the hardship to the party seeking the injunction were the injunction not

granted;

Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1S.C.R. 142

(d) the conduct of the parties; and

(e) the effectiveness of an injunction.

Consideration of the Above Factors Favours the Granting of an Inlunction

5.     VCH, and its staff and board members, would suffer demonstrable harm if an injunction

against Ms. Laferriere is not granted.

6.     Ms. Laferriere’s attendance at GPC harms the ability of GPC’s staff to care for all of the

residents of GPC. As long as Ms. Laferriere continues to be able to attend GPC, the ability of VCH staff to

do their jobs is made more difficult.

7.     Ms. Laferriere’s continued attendance at GPC also causes disruption to all those around

her, including other residents at GPC and their loved ones.

8.     In addition, it is likely that if Ms. Laferriere continues to attend GPC, staff members at

GPC may quit or transfer to other departments. If staff members were to leave GPC, those departures

would be detrimental to the ability of staff at GHP to care for the residents of GPC.

9.     The interests at issue in this proceeding are not simply the interests of Ms. Laferriere in

accessing Mr. Walker, they are the interests of all parties involved, including Mr. Walker, other residents

at GPC, staff at GPC, and visitors of other residents at GPC. Considering the detrimental impact that Ms.

CW7 117020.1

Laferriere’s behaviour has on all of the parties involved, the balance of convenience favours the granting

of an injunction preventing her access to GPC.

10.     The opinion of Kevin Calder, Workplace Violence Specialist, is that nothing short of a

permanent ban of Ms. Laferriere will be effective in protecting the staff and visitors at GPC

PART 4: MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON

1. Those materials filed by VCH on March 17, 2014.

2. Affidavit #1 of Tanvirezohra Batlawala, made,LApr/2014.

3. Affidavit #1 of Louise Kokotailo, made 64Apr/2014.

The Applicant estimates that the application will take 60 minutes.

D     This matter is within the jurisdiction of a Master.

This matter is not within the jurisdiction of a Master.

TO THE PERSONS RECEIVING THIS NOTICE OF APPLICATION: If you wish to respond to this Notice of

Application, you must, within 5 business days after service of this Notice of Application or, if this

application is brought under Rule 9-7, within 8 business days after service of this Notice of Application:

(a)     file an Application Response in Form 33;

(b)     file the original of every Affidavit, and of every other document, that:

(i) you intend to refer to at the hearing of this application, and

(ii) has not already been filed in the proceeding; and

(c)     serve on the Applicant 2 copies of the following, and on every other party of record one

copy of the following:

(i) a copy of filed Application Response;

(ii) a copy of each of the filed Affidavits and other documents that you intend to

refer to at the hearing of this application and that has not already been served

on that person;

(iii) if this application is brought under Rule 9-7, any notice that you are required to

give under Rule 9-7(9).

CW7 117020.1

Date: __JApr/2014

This NOTICE OF APPLICATION is prepared by Jordan Watson of the firm of Clark Wilson LLP whose place of

business is 900-885 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 3H1 (Direct #: 604-891-7703, Fax #:

604.687.6314, Email: jjw@cwilson.com) (File #: 37794).

To be completed by the court only:

Order made

El in the terms requested in paragraphs      of Part 1 of this Notice of Application

o with the following variations and additional terms:

Date:

[dd/mmm/yyyy]      Signature of 0 Judge 0 Master

CW7 117020.1

APPENDIX

[The following information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal effect.]

THIS APPLICATION INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING:

D     discovery: comply with demand for documents

o     discovery: production of additional documents

o     other matters concerning document discoveryForm 32 (Rule 8-1(4))

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:

AUDREY JANE LAFERRIERE and RANDY MICHAEL WALKER

AND:

VANCOUVER COASTAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

Name of Applicant:     Vancouver Coastal Health Authority ("VCH")

To:     Audrey Jane Laferriere and Randy Michael Walker

TAKE NOTICE that an application will be made by the Applicant to the presiding Judge at the Courthouse

at 800 Smithe St., Vancouver, BC on 8/Apr/2014 at 9:45am for the Orders set out in Part 1 below.

PART 1: ORDERS SOUGHT

1.     An injunction, enjoining and restraining the Petitioner, Ms. Laferriere, by herself, or by

her agents and servants, from participating in any of the following activities:

(a) attending at any of the VCH properties, including but not limited to the George Pearson

Centre located at 757 West 57th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, except in circumstances in

which Mr. Walker’s physician deems that Mr. Walker is imminently terminal, in which

case VCH will promptly make arrangements for Ms. Laferriere to attend the George

Pearson Centre; and

(b) contacting, by email or phone, any doctors that care for Mr. Walker, or any staff,

administration, or board members of VCH, except for Richard Singleton, Director of Risk

Management for VCH and Romila Ang, Manager of the George Pearson Centre.

2.     An order that any peace officer, including any officer of the Vancouver Police

Department or the R.C.M.P. having jurisdiction in the province of British Columbia, who on reasonable

and probable grounds believes that Audrey Jane Laferriere is in breach of the terms of this order may

immediately arrest that person and bring her before a judge of the Supreme Court promptly after the

arrest, to be dealt with on an inquiry to determine whether she has committed a breach of this order;

CW7 117020.1

3. Costs of this application be awarded to the defendant, VCH; and

4. Such further and other directions and orders as this Honourable Court considers just

and equitable.

PART 2: FACTUAL BASIS

Background

1. The Petitioner, Randy Michael Walker, was involved in a catastrophic injury in or about

June 2010 that left him in a state of quadriplegia. Mr. Walker uses a tracheostomy tube to assist him

with breathing.

2. Mr. Walker was first transferred to George Pearson Centre located at 757 West 57th

Avenue, Vancouver, BC ("GPC") in or about November 2010 due to the need for constant care.

3. At present, Mr. Walker is in a fragile state, but his condition has not worsened for

several months and there are no signs that suggest that there is an immediate risk of death as the

Petitioner suggests.

4. Since Mr. Walker began residing at GPC, Ms. Laferriere has been a regular visitor.

5. It is unclear what relationship Mr. Walker and Ms. Laferriere have with one another. Ms.

Laferriere has, at various times, described her relationship to Mr. Walker as one of "friend", "confidant",

"surrogate", "representative", "wife", and "advocate".

6. Mr. Walker purportedly signed a Representation Agreement pursuant to section 9 of the

Representation Agreement Act on January 31, 2013, in which Ms. Laferriere was purportedly given

authority to obtain medical records, make housing choices for Mr. Walker, and negate any "do not

resuscitate" orders pertaining to Mr. Walker.

7. VCH has abided by the Representation Agreement and has treated Ms. Laferriere as Mr.

Walker’s health care decision maker when Mr. Walker is incapable of making informed decisions about

his health care. VCH health care providers contact Ms. Laferriere by phone when health care decisions

are required, and will continue to do so as long as Ms. Laferriere is Mr. Walker’s representative.

Procedural History

8. Because of Ms. Laferriere’s behaviour (described in detail below) and in efforts to

protect the safety of all parties involved, VCH has, on multiple occasions, imposed restrictions on Ms.

Laferriere’s visitation rights. Ms. LaFerriere has repeatedly and flagrantly disregarded these restrictions.

9. As a result of Ms. Laferriere’s continued aggressive behavior towards the GPC staff and

her disregard for VCH’s restrictions of access, on January 29, 2014, Richard Singleton, the Director of

Risk Management and Client Relations at VCH, issued a Trespass Notification banning Ms. Laferriere

from attending GPC for 90 days, except for any personal medical attention.

10. Although restrictions have been placed on Ms. Laferriere’s access to GPC at various

times since Mr. Walker began residing at GPC, VCH has always been and remains committed to

CW7117020.1

providing Ms. Laferriere access to Mr. Walker outside of the GPC grounds. VCH has facilitated visits at

places such as the Oakridge Mall, at the curbside of GPC, etc.

11. Ms. Laferriere filed a Petition dated March 14, 2014 in which she sought orders for 16

different forms of relief. Ms. Laferriere also sought, and was granted, short leave to have heard one of

the orders sought: that listed in Paragraph 13 of the Petition in which Ms. Laferriere sought unrestricted

and unsupervised 24/7 access to Mr. Walker.

12. VCH filed Response materials on March 17, 2014 and the hearing of the issue outlined in

Paragraph 13 of Ms. Laferriere’s Petition took place on March 18, 2014.

13. The Public Guardian and Trustee, through its counsel, attended the hearing on March

18, 2014 and sought an adjournment of the hearing in order to consider issues related to Mr. Walker’s

interests.

14. VCH consented to an adjournment, which was eventually granted by the order of

Master MacNaughton. Specifically, Master MacNaughton ordered that the matter be heard on April 8,

2014 in front of a judge, rather than a master.

Ms. Laferriere’s Behavioural History

15. Ms. Laferriere has a long history of violent and aggressive behaviour towards staff

members at GPC, VCH in general, and even the members of the Vancouver Police Department who

attended the GPC on numerous occasions to deal with or assist with escorting Ms. Laferriere out of the

facility.

16. Ms. Laferriere’s behaviour includes violent physical conduct, harassing emails, blog post

entries alleging incompetence and illegal conduct on VCH’s part, and picketing at GPC and elsewhere.

17. One particular example of Ms. Laferriere’s violent and aggressive behaviour occurred on

October 21, 2013. On that day, Ms. Laferriere trespassed into the room of a resident other than Mr.

Walker at GPC. When asked to leave the facility, Ms. Laferriere refused, then later attempted to leave

the facility with Mr. Walker in his electric wheelchair. Staff prevented Ms. Laferriere from removing Mr.

Walker, and in response, Ms. Laferriere punched two staff members, attempted to hit staff with Mr.

Walker’s wheelchair, and bit the hand of a security guard. Ms. Laferriere later punched a police officer in

the face.

18. Ms. Laferriere has created over 200 internet blog entries associated with VCH since

March 2011. Blog entries have included professional emails and phone numbers of VCH employees and

board members.

19. Ms. Laferriere has also created pamphlets that have been posted on buses and bus

stops and that relate to VCH. In these pamphlets, Ms. Laferriere has included the email addresses and

phone numbers of VCH employees and board members.

20. Ms. Laferriere has also picketed at the Oakridge Centre Mall regarding her grievances

with VCH and the George Pearson Centre.

CW7 117020.1

21. Since the Trespass Notification was issued on January 29, 2014, Ms. Laferriere has

repeatedly attempted to access GPC contrary to the terms of the Trespass Notification. On numerous

occasions, Ms. Laferriere has violated the Trespass Notification. On each of these occasions, the

Vancouver Police have been called and have attended at GPC, typically arriving 90-120 minutes after

being called, but on no occasions have they removed Ms. Laferriere from GPC.

22. GPC is a large complex with over 50 entrances, and since the Trespass Notification was

issued, Paladin Security Officers have not been able to prevent Ms. Laferriere from entering GPC, nor

have they been able to compel her to leave.

23. Since the decision of Master MacNaughton handed down on March 18, 2014, VCH has

arranged curb-side visits between Mr. Walker and Ms. Laferriere on days that Mr. Walker is physically

capable of leaving the GPC facility.

24. Dr. James Dunne, the physician of record for Mr. Walker, determines on a day-to-day

basis if Mr. Walker is fit to leave the GPC facility to visit with Ms. Laferriere.

25. Also since March 18, 2014, Ms. Laferriere has continued to attempt to access Mr.

Walker at GPC on days which Dr. Dunne deems Mr. Walker unfit to leave the GPC facility.

26. In addition, Ms. Laferriere has continued to create internet blog posts in which specific

GPC and VCH staff members are identified and their contact information provided. Ms. Laferriere has

also created and distributed flyers with contact information of specific VCH board members.

The Effect of Ms. Laferriere’s Behaviour on Staff at VCH

27. As a result of the incident on October 21, 2013, VCH brought in Dr. Georgia Nemetz, a

psychologist in private practice, to conduct two critical incident debriefing sessions with the GPC

employees. Approximately 25 workers from GPC and VCH attended these two sessions.

28. Dr. Nemetz was extremely concerned about the cumulative impact of Ms. Laferriere’s

behaviour on the staff of GPC and VCH. Dr. Nemetz identified two employees who have had indications

of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) associated to ongoing interactions with Ms. Laferriere.

29. As a result of the October 21, 2013 incident, VCH commissioned a Workplace Violence

Assessment of Ms. Laferriere (the "Assessment") by Kevin Calder, a Workplace Violence Specialist with

VCH, which report was finalized in January 2014.

30. In preparing the Assessment, Mr. Calder spoke to numerous employees at VCH and GPC

who have had interactions with Ms. Laferriere, and reviewed numerous reports prepared by the VCH’s

security officers and Paladin Security.

31. The Paladin Security Reports show that Ms. Laferriere repeatedly failed to follow

behavioural and access restrictions imposed on her by VCH, attempted to take Mr. Walker away from

GPC without permission on numerous occasions, and regularly verbally abused and acted aggressively

towards GPC staff.

CW7 117020.1

32. The Assessment concluded that Ms. Laferriere poses a high risk of demonstrating

affective (emotionally-based and unplanned) violence, and that her behaviour constitutes bullying and

harassment of GPC and the VCH staff.

33. Ms. Laferriere’s behaviour has led to significant issues amongst the staff at GPC. Many

staff members have been physically assaulted by Ms. Laferriere, and many fear that they will be singled

out and harassed by Ms. Laferriere. Ms. Laferriere poses a significant threat to staff, residents, and

visitors at George Pearson Centre.

34. Because of the above actions of Ms. Laferriere, staff and board members of VCH feel

threatened and are reluctant to interact with Ms. Laferriere out of fear that they will be singled out and

their personal information made public.

35. Certain staff members have also refused to escort Mr. Walker out of GPC to visit with

Ms. Laferriere because these interactions have been filmed, presumably at the direction of Ms.

Laferriere.

36. Ms. Laferriere’s actions negatively affect the care that Mr. Walker receives.

Police Involvement

37. The Vancouver Police Department has been called on numerous occasions in situations

where Ms. Laferriere has become threatening or violent or has accessed GPC contrary to restrictions

placed byVCH.

38. At present, when Ms. Laferriere attempts to access GPC contrary to the Trespass

Notification, staff at GPC call the Vancouver Police, who arrive, typically between 90-120 minutes after

being called. The Vancouver Police do not detain Ms. Laferriere and do not forcibly remove her from the

GPC premises. The typical response from the Vancouver Police is that the situation with Ms. Laferriere is

a civil matter and they will not involve themselves without a court order.

PART 3: LEGAL BASIS

1.     VCH relies on the following legal bases:

(a) rule 10-4 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which provides for the ability of a party to

seek an injunction by order of the Court;

(b) rule 14-1 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which provides the framework for the

assessment of costs of applications;

(c) section 39 of the Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253, which provides for the

court’s ability to enjoin a party where it appears just or convenient to do so; and

(d) the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

2.     The test for permanent injunctions is laid out in the case of Qureshi v. Gooch, 2005

B.C.S.C. 1584, in which the seminal case of Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142

is cited.

CW7 117020.1

3.     The issuance of a permanent injunction is a discretionary order and in deciding whether

to grant such an injunction, the court is to look at the nature of the rights that the injunction will

protect, the surrounding circumstances, and the balance of equities between the parties.

Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142

4.     Courts have considered a number of factors when determining if a permanent

injunction is appropriate including:

(a) whether an enforceable right and a threat/violation of that right exists;

Delta Hotels v. Okabe Canada Investments Co., (1991), 81 Alta L.R. (2d) 338 (OB)

(b) whether the applicant will suffer demonstrable harm should the injunction not be

granted;

Steeves Dairy Ltd. v. Twin City Co-operative Milk Producers Assn., [1926] 1 W.W.R. 25

(c) the hardship that would be caused to the party enjoined if the injunction were granted

compared to the hardship to the party seeking the injunction were the injunction not

granted;

Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1S.C.R. 142

(d) the conduct of the parties; and

(e) the effectiveness of an injunction.

Consideration of the Above Factors Favours the Granting of an Inlunction

5.     VCH, and its staff and board members, would suffer demonstrable harm if an injunction

against Ms. Laferriere is not granted.

6.     Ms. Laferriere’s attendance at GPC harms the ability of GPC’s staff to care for all of the

residents of GPC. As long as Ms. Laferriere continues to be able to attend GPC, the ability of VCH staff to

do their jobs is made more difficult.

7.     Ms. Laferriere’s continued attendance at GPC also causes disruption to all those around

her, including other residents at GPC and their loved ones.

8.     In addition, it is likely that if Ms. Laferriere continues to attend GPC, staff members at

GPC may quit or transfer to other departments. If staff members were to leave GPC, those departures

would be detrimental to the ability of staff at GHP to care for the residents of GPC.

9.     The interests at issue in this proceeding are not simply the interests of Ms. Laferriere in

accessing Mr. Walker, they are the interests of all parties involved, including Mr. Walker, other residents

at GPC, staff at GPC, and visitors of other residents at GPC. Considering the detrimental impact that Ms.

CW7 117020.1

Laferriere’s behaviour has on all of the parties involved, the balance of convenience favours the granting

of an injunction preventing her access to GPC.

10.     The opinion of Kevin Calder, Workplace Violence Specialist, is that nothing short of a

permanent ban of Ms. Laferriere will be effective in protecting the staff and visitors at GPC

PART 4: MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON

1. Those materials filed by VCH on March 17, 2014.

2. Affidavit #1 of Tanvirezohra Batlawala, made,LApr/2014.

3. Affidavit #1 of Louise Kokotailo, made 64Apr/2014.

The Applicant estimates that the application will take 60 minutes.

D     This matter is within the jurisdiction of a Master.

This matter is not within the jurisdiction of a Master.

TO THE PERSONS RECEIVING THIS NOTICE OF APPLICATION: If you wish to respond to this Notice of

Application, you must, within 5 business days after service of this Notice of Application or, if this

application is brought under Rule 9-7, within 8 business days after service of this Notice of Application:

(a)     file an Application Response in Form 33;

(b)     file the original of every Affidavit, and of every other document, that:

(i) you intend to refer to at the hearing of this application, and

(ii) has not already been filed in the proceeding; and

(c)     serve on the Applicant 2 copies of the following, and on every other party of record one

copy of the following:

(i) a copy of filed Application Response;

(ii) a copy of each of the filed Affidavits and other documents that you intend to

refer to at the hearing of this application and that has not already been served

on that person;

(iii) if this application is brought under Rule 9-7, any notice that you are required to

give under Rule 9-7(9).

CW7 117020.1

Date: __JApr/2014

This NOTICE OF APPLICATION is prepared by Jordan Watson of the firm of Clark Wilson LLP whose place of

business is 900-885 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 3H1 (Direct #: 604-891-7703, Fax #:

604.687.6314, Email: jjw@cwilson.com) (File #: 37794).

To be completed by the court only:

Order made

El in the terms requested in paragraphs      of Part 1 of this Notice of Application

o with the following variations and additional terms:

Date:

[dd/mmm/yyyy]      Signature of 0 Judge 0 Master

CW7 117020.1

APPENDIX

[The following information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal effect.]

THIS APPLICATION INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING:

D     discovery: comply with demand for documents

o     discovery: production of additional documents

o     other matters concerning document discoveryng.