Bell v. Hagger

Bell v. Hagger

The respondent failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances; credible expert evidence did not establish that facilitated communication produces meaningful independent communication by Martin; further assessment risked harm and was unnecessary; therefore the application to increase access was denied, the petitioner's request to prohibit the respondent's use of the board was dismissed, but to prevent repetitive vexatious litigation the respondent must obtain leave under s.18 before bringing further applications to vary the July 2002 access order.

Citation
2009 BCSC 327
Parties
Petitioner: Angela Jeanne Bell; Respondent: David Hagger
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Patients Property Act Petition (access and Committee Matters) / In Chambers Reasons; Motion to Vary Access and S.18 Leave Application
Outcome
Respondent's application to increase access denied; petitioner's prohibition order dismissed; order under s.18 requiring leave for future applications granted.
Legal Topics
Variation of Final Access Order, Facilitated Communication, Material Change in Circumstances, Section 18 Leave Requirement, Double‑blind Assessment
Source Language
English
Guardianship and Committeeship Family Law (access to Adult Child) Mental Capacity and Disability Procedural Law (vexatious Litigant/leave to Commence) Evidence (expert Assessment) Variation of Final Access Order Facilitated Communication Material Change in Circumstances +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Jeanne Bell

Petitioner

David Hagger

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patients Property Act Petition (access and Committee Matters) / In Chambers Reasons; Motion to Vary Access and S.18 Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances to vary the July 2002 access order
  2. 2 Whether facilitated communication demonstrates meaningful independent communication by Martin
  3. 3 Whether to prohibit the respondent from using facilitated communication with Martin

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances; credible expert evidence did not establish that facilitated communication produces meaningful independent communication by Martin; further assessment risked harm and was unnecessary; therefore the application to increase access was denied, the petitioner's request to prohibit the respondent's use of the board was dismissed, but to prevent repetitive vexatious litigation the respondent must obtain leave under s.18 before bringing further applications to vary the July 2002 access order.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application to increase access denied; petitioner's prohibition order dismissed; order under s.18 requiring leave for future applications granted.

Orders

  • Respondent's application for increased access is dismissed.
  • Petitioner's application to prohibit the respondent from using facilitated communication is dismissed; use by the respondent within existing access is not prohibited but others are not to attempt facilitated communication with Martin.