Case information

Charter of Rights — Freedom of association — Procedural fairness — Applicant’s brother suffering from serious developmental disability and residing in group home facility — Other sibling named as brother’s representative — Representative sibling terminating applicant’s in-person visits with brother — Applicant filing petition to be named “committee of the person” for brother, to enforce visitation schedule, and for other relief — Courts below dismissing applicant’s attempts to reinstate in-person visits on interim basis, pending outcome of petition — Whether applicant’s and brother’s right to freedom of association was unlawfully breached by termination of in-person visits — Whether procedural fairness was breached when brother not permitted to appear at hearing and not represented at any level of court — Representation Agreement Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 405, ss. 7, 9, 10 — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(d).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Paul Kierans suffers from a serious developmental disability; since 1992, he has resided in a group home (L’Arche of Greater Vancouver). In 2021, one of Mr. Kierans’ sisters — the respondent Margaret Mary Kierans — was named as his representative in a representation agreement pursuant to provincial legislation. After L’Arche expressed concerns that in-person visits from another sister (the applicant Kathleen Walker) were disruptive, Ms. Kierans exercised her purported powers as representative to refuse any further in-person visits from Ms. Walker. In February 2022, Ms. Walker filed a petition asking to be made “committee of the person” of her brother, requesting that the Public Guardian and Trustee be made guardian of his estate, and seeking other relief (including her designation as an “essential visitor”, the enforcement of a visitation schedule, damages for missed visits, and a declaration that any pre-existing representation agreement is void). While awaiting a hearing, Ms. Walker filed an application seeking an interim order to reinstate her in-person visits, pending the outcome of her petition.

A chambers judge dismissed Ms. Walker’s application for interim relief, finding that further in-person visits would not be in Mr. Kierans’ best interest. A single appellate judge denied Ms. Walker leave to appeal the initial chambers decision and refused her request for a stay; and a unanimous panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed her application to vary or overturn that order.