r v. J... S..., 2014 QCCQ 3042

Centre de santé et de services sociaux de la Baie-des-Chaleurs c. J.S. 2014 QCCQ 3042 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF BONAVENTURE "Civil Division" No. 105-40-000174-147 DATE: March 21, 2014 PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.C.Q. CENTRE DE SANTÉ ET DE SERVICES SOCIAUX DE LA BAIE-DES-CHALEURS Petitioner v. J... S... Respondent and B... H... Impleaded party

JUDGMENT ON A PETITION FOR CONFINEMENT IN AN INSTITUTION FOLLOWING PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENTS (section 26 et seq . of the Civil Code of Québec and

section 778 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure ) JL2712 [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a petition for confinement of the respondent in an institution following psychiatric assessments. [ 2 ] The legal basis is framed in sections 26 to 31 of the Civil Code of Québec . [ 3 ] More particularly,

section 30 of the said Code prescribes the following: "Confinement in an institution following a psychiatric assessment may only be authorized by the court if both psychiatric reports conclude that confinement is necessary.

Even if that is the case, the court may not authorize confinement unless the court itself has serious reasons to believe that the person is dangerous and that the person's confinement is necessary, whatever evidence may be otherwise presented to the court and even in the absence of any contrary medical opinion." [ 4 ] The Court examined the two psychiatric assessments and heard the testimony of the respondent. [ 5 ] The respondent's mother did not appear although duly served with the petition. [ 6 ] The Court is faced with a contradictory evidence.

The main facts, which constitute the basis of the psychiatricts' opinions, are denied by the respondent.

[ 7 ] Although hearsay is admissible, many of these facts are assertions not supported by specifics. [ 8 ] The respondent declares that he knows his mental disease (bipolarity) and the type of medication he has to take every night.

He says that he will take his medication and is aware that the problems occur when he does not take it. [ 9 ] His explanations why he did not take his medication on his way back from British Columbia seem sound. [ 10 ] He denies having defecated in the yard outside and going out not well dressed under cold weather. [ 11 ] He knows people that would likely be willing to take him in or he will stay in Town A (presumably referring to the well-known shelter "A"). [ 12 ] Taking into account the teachings of the Québec Court of Appeal ( [1] ) , the Court concludes that the petitioner did not prove, on a balance of probability, that the respondent represents a danger for himself or others because of his mental disease.

FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE GIVEN ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [12] DENIES the petition; [ 13 ] THE WHOLE WITHOUT COST . ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.C.Q.

Mtre William Assels, for the petitioner Mtre Richard Lavigne, for the respondent