Father appeals ruling allowing autistic daughter to seek assisted death

The judicial ruling that lifted an injunction blocking the assisted suicide of a Calgary woman has been appealed by her father.

Lawyers Sarah Miller and Emily Amirkhari filed two separate notices in the Alberta Court of Appeal on Tuesday appealing rulings by Justice Colin Feasby of applications made by their client, who can only be identified by the initials W.V.

On March 25, Feasby ruled a temporary injunction blocking W.V.'S daughter's access to Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) had to be lifted, paving the way for the woman, M.V., to seek the life-ending medical procedure.

Feasby stayed his ruling for 30 days to allow the father an opportunity to appeal it.

The Court of King's Bench also denied an application on March 1 to compel the daughter to answer certain questions about an affidavit she had filed in support of her application to have the injunction lifted.

“W.V. filed an application to compel further questioning and answers,” their appeal notice says.

“The decision to dismiss the application to compel was based on an error of law as to the legal test for directing answers to questions posed during examination,” the appeal states.

The lawyers are asking the appeal court to overturn the ruling and permit them to question their client's 27-year-old daughter on her MAID application.

In their second notice, they also ask the province's top court to overturn Feasby's decision to lift the temporary injunction pending an application for a judicial review of the decision to grant M.V. access to MAID.

The father wants to know how his daughter, who has autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), qualifies for the life-ending procedure, which has been approved by two doctors.

Among the errors the lawyers say Feasby made in his ruling was finding the father does not have a private interest to seek a judicial review.

“The pain of losing a child, even an adult child, is not something that any parent should experience,” Feasby said in his written decision.

“(The parents) have devoted their lives to raising M.V. from birth and have continued to support her since she has come of age.

“They will understandably be devastated by her death,” he said.

But the judge said the injunction was preventing what amounted to a medical decision between the daughter and her doctors, and “the right to choose between living or dying with dignity.”

The pain of losing a child, even an adult child, is not something that any parent should experience.

“An injunction would put M.V. in a position where she would be forced to choose between living a life she has decided is intolerable and ending life without medical assistance.

“This is a terrible choice that should not be forced on M.V., as attempting to end her life without medical assistance would put her at increased risk of pain, suffering and lasting injury.”