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.
Gone ballistic scenarios. Activist by default. audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com phone: 604-321-2276,do not leave voice mail http://voiceofgoneballistic.blogspot.com 207-5524 Cambie Street, Vancouver, B.C. V5Z 3A2 Everything posted I believe to be true. If not, please let me know.
Search This Blog
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(143)
-
▼
April
(17)
- 30 April 2014
- 25 April 2014
- No title
- 24 April 2014
- April 20, 2014
- 13 April 2014 @ 7:55 pm Sunday Randy Michael Walke...
- No title
- Randy in ICU
- Friday, April 10, 2014
- Randy is still alive
- Star Chamber (VCH)
- Back to VGH with Septis
- January 20th, 2014
- January 29th, 2014
- Audrey's banning
- No title
- Health authorities and how to deal with the public
-
▼
April
(17)