the Vancouver Province and Elaine Peaston v. BC College of Physicians and Surgeons

I tried to find out more about Elaine Peaston vs BC College of Physicians and Surgeons (see post August 29 2015) and I searched the Province newspaper for her name.  Quess what.  I could not find it in the Province search function.  It is gone like it never was there.  It reminded me of wanting to find out what happened to Mary Turner in 2013.  I put an ad in the Prince George paper and it was to be on-line.  I could not find it.   VCH knew I wanted to know what happened to Mary and now Elaines litigation is not on its database.  When I checked the court registry on Randys case to find Dr. Dunnes Affidavit and the Affidavit of Kip Woodwards secretary, both were missing.  Is this called damage control. Well, I can only speculate that the medical establishment seems to have tremendous power with the courts and the press.

I feel vomitoid.

PS Sept 2 2015, I found the Province article on a post. Elaines segment had  5,322,247 page views. So much for damage control. I hope she is aware of what happened was read by millions.  Why cannot doctors tell the truth and then there would be no need for risk management departments to hide the truth (evidence). To think the College of Physicians and Surgeons might have gone that far to protect itself.  But then it might have been Elaine who did not want it in the newspapers.  I do not know. 


What tangled webs we weave when we set out to deceive.


from Voice of Gone Ballistic blog September 1 2015
Audrey Jane Laferriere
5976 Cambie Steet
Vancouver, BC
604.321.2276;778.689.2276
amended 3 Septemer 2015



see Bullyville.com partners with Guns N'Roses Lead Guitarist DJ Ashba, search Elaine Peaston BullyVille.com

page views at September 4, 2015 at 7;00 pm :5,336,289

How many of you are aware of what is happening to Planned Parenthood in the United States.  It is going to be the end of Hillary Clinton.  Planned Parenthood is a non-profit but it gets half of its yearly $billion budget from the US government to do abortions.  It also sells aborted baby parts (see videos).  I can not find any information on this aspect of Planned Parenthood in the Canadian media but it is on the internet and LifeNews is a good source.The President of Planned Parenthood and her high level executives who are not even doctors make more money than the President of the United States.


.

.


.

.



.

Randy's 6 month anniversary of his death.

I am doing okay so far.  It is 13 minutes into the 13th of October, 2014.

Yesterday was a really bad day as I saw Randy everywhere. I so wanted him back. I was paralyzed with grief.

A woman at the Senior Centre said it took her four years to get over her husband's death and she didn't even like him.  So it might seem that I still have 3.5 years to go.

I still do not understand how Vancouver Coastal Health allowed us to be so victimized. A system of policies which they do not follow unless it suits them.  Even the direction of the chair, Kip Woodward was disrespected.  I suspect Kip was convinced by the government that if he quit the Board it would tarnish the reputation of the government and its health system and Randy and I were expendable. They gambled that no one would take any notice of us.  

The individual means nothing; only what is good for the government.  The majority that is made up of tax paying citizens who believe that they will be treated fairly.  .

Randy so wanted to live.  He would try his very best to get better.  I remember in 2012 after St. Paul's gave him a passey muir speaking valve so he could speak and they surprised me when I attended at Christmas and I heard Randy say  he loved me.  It was a whisper but it was an audible whisper.

GPC should have been exercising his vocal cords but they didn't.  I suspect the cuts were part of Ostrow's mean management policy. Yes, it was called mean management.

But when Randy was returned to George Pearson Centre against his will and mine, I fought to have him remain at St. Pauls.  St. Pausl said I had no proof that GPC wasn't safe.

 GPC took away his talking valve not because Randy could not handle it but because VGH screwed up (staff can't read instructions) and three patients died while using them. Of course that wasn't the reason GPC used on Randy, it was that Randy's secretions were too heavy.  Not true.

Randy always said I was stupid so can someone tell me why Moira Stilwell, MLA for Langara, would tell me when I spoke to her in January 2014 not to picket GPC.  She asked me what I was going to do about the banning and I said I wanted to picket.  She said do not do that.  I do not know why she would tell me not to do a legal protest but then at that time I was so demoralized I could hardly find my shoes in the mornings.  Even now I still feel like picketing GPC with a sign that GPC banned me.  The use of the property is for patients and their families, so VCH telling me that they have the right to ban me if they want as it is private property doesn't sound right. I did not have $200,000 to fight the system nor did I have a powerful support network. The media and the support advocacy groups support did not come to by aid. 

Randy was so angry with the RTs that he would not allow them to suction him or change his trach.  Randy was so stubborn.  He allowed the floor nurses to do it.  Randy said he won't allow the RTs to touch him until he got his passey muir valve back again. The RTs were very upset over Randy's refusal to have them touch him.  How deceitfully cruel VGH was.

Deconstructing Calder's Erroneous Report Amended 29/08/14

The frist Paragraph 1 wrote by me is missing.  I will have to reconstruct it in the next day or two.  

*The paragraph missing had to do with Calder's recommendation that I be permanently restricted from attending George Pearson Centre and from all other VCH facilities and this was incorporated in the Notice of Trespass letter I received on January 29 2014 and what risk management said.* 


Unless staff and Dr. Dunne are harshly interrogated by the police as if they were terrorists rather than saints, I will never know.  If I had not been there on November 18 2013 and December 26 2013 during my limited access to Randy and I calling 911 Randy would have died. Because of the missing paragraph, this sentence was to refer if the staff or Dr. Dunne shut off Randy's heart monitor (the audio).  This was conveniently countered later by Paladin Security who said the alarm was on after I brought it to management's attention.  Anything to save Palladin's multimillion contract with VCH. Randy's heart rate was 142 and 155 and maybe beyond.  In Randy's frail condition his heart rate should have been alarmed at 100.

The staff was instructed not to call 911 because Randy had a DNR on him. Randy did not have terminal cancer, he had respiratory problems, maybe a pneumonia (an infection), he wasn't at the end of a painful cancer death because he did not have cancer; he had a spinal cord injury due to an acquired brain injury. 

My ideation is that Mr. Calder be run out of his profession post haste.

His report was given to WorkSafeBC, Vancouver Coastal Health and the Public Guardian and Trustee. And now it is a court record accessible to the public in the Supreme Court Registry.
(Action No. S142003).

How could Vancouver Coastal Health commission such a disparaging report.


On a lighter note, I have custody of Randy's doggie being a mixed terrier-poodle. It is so spolit that it won't eat anything unless I feed him by spoon or else from my hand.   I suspect it is his way of getting undivided attention from me.  Like Randy when he stubbornly refused for months to have the respiratory technicians tend to him after they took away his passey-muir talking valve...  I blame myself for not fighting harder for Randy...They had no right to take away his means of communication limited although it could have been.  The first word he spoke to me as he looked at me and this is documented in his health record was the word "stupid."  And that is exactly what I am: stupid and also stupid for believing in the system.

Press Release to IPFCC

On Friday I attended at the Vancouver Convention.  I handed out 200 Press Releases.  The convention was attended by 700. I saw no one from VCH.

8 August 2014

TO: 6^th International Conference on Patient and Family Centered Care

        Bayshore, Vancouver, B.C.

 PRESS RELEASE

 Woman banned from all Vancouver Coast Health Facilities on January 29 2014 for disrespectful conduct for ninety days while husband is dying at George Pearson Centre. (with a threat that it will be extended forever)

Woman unable to access husband until she alone self-litigated and got a court order only long enough to watch him die from what could have been a preventable urinary track infection in Vancouver General Hospital in the Intensive Care Unit on 13 April 2014.  I saw him for ninety minutes him being non responsive before being sent to ICU. 

Disrespectful or not, this woman should have had access to her husband 24/7 because of his fragile health and not a cruel banning.  One complaint was that she sent emails to Kip Woodward, the chairman of the Board of Vancouver Coastal Health.  Another one was she was being too friendly with the residents and visitors and she was barred from talking to them. She was also barred from talking to the nursing staff and Randy’s doctors. Randy was 57 years old. 

Randy’s right to security of person was violated by VCH.  He was imprisoned. He had no right to see who he wanted, when he wanted or where he wanted. This was part of his health care plan for which he was denied.  Since he was dying I should have been there. Randy had a spinal cord injury, an ABI and a trach so he could not talk. Because of $rationing he was denied a passey-muir talking valve.

Randy gave Audrey the lawful rights given under BC legislation : the Representation Agreement and an Enduring Power of Attorney both of which VCH refused to honour. And a will dated in 2006.

Audrey Jane Laferriere

voiceofgoneballistic.blogspot.com

604-321-2276

5976 Cambie Street

Vancouver, B.C.

V5Z 3A9

Louise Kokotallo

I was downtown yesterday being July 31, 2014, and I decided to check on the court file which had my application to access Randy.

An Affidavit sworn by Louise Kokotailo was missing.  I reported it to the supervisor of the department and he agreed that Louise's affidavit wasn't in the file.  I asked him to check his computer records of documents filed and again it did not show up.  Interesting.  Louise Kokotailo is what in my time would be described as a secretary to the now Chairman of the Board of Vancouver Coastal Health, Kip Woodward. In the Affidavit were allegations that were not true.   What is this VGH Watergate.

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.