2022 QCCA 792, 2022 QCCA 792

Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de l'Outaouais c. J.L. 2022 QCCA 792 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-700064-215 ( 550-40-006506-216 ) MINUTES OF HEARING WARNING : Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding regarding confinement in an institution to be identified (arts. 15 and 16 C.C.P .).

DATE: June 3, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL Centre Intégré de santé et de services sociaux de l'Outaouais Mtre Catherine Laprade ( CISSS de l'Outaouais ) RESPONDENT COUNSEL J… L… ABSENT AND Unrepresented IMPLEADED PARTY COUNSEL S… C… ABSENT AND Unrepresented On appeal from a judgment rendered on November 23, 2021 by the Honourable Stéphane D. Tremblay of the Court of Québec , District of Gatineau . NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Application for confinement in institution rejected – Conformity of psychiatric report.

Clerk at the hearing: Ariane Simard-Trudel Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault

HEARING 9:35 Commencement of the hearing. Continuation of the hearing held on June 2, 2022. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT : Judgement – see page 4. Conclusion of the hearing.

Ariane Simard-Trudel, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT WARNING : Disclosure and circulation prohibited: The Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P .”) provides that, except as authorized by the court, no person shall disclose or circulate any information that would allow a party or a child whose interests are at stake in a proceeding regarding confinement in an institution to be identified (arts. 15 and 16 C.C.P .). [ 1 ] The Appellant made a motion on November 22, 2021 to have the Respondent confined in an institution under

Article 30 C.C.Q. on the ground that he was dangerous to himself or to others. The Appellant filed the reports of two psychiatrists and a social worker and the emergency room triage note, and the Respondent and his mother both testified. [ 2 ] Upon reviewing the evidence, the judge observed that the psychiatric reports were insufficiently substantiated and that they failed to convince him that there was an imminent and serious danger to the Respondent or to the public.

On this basis, he dismissed the Appellant’s motion. [ 3 ] The Appellant appeals, arguing that the judge should have given the Appellant the chance to remedy the deficiency in its evidence rather than dismiss the motion. *** [ 4 ] The appeal is in principle moot. [ 5 ] A motion for confinement in an institution pursuant to

Article 30 C.C.Q. requires the contemporary evaluation of the Respondent’s dangerousness. There was a real debate between the parties on that issue in November 2021. However, the question of whether the Respondent was dangerous in November 2021 and whether he should have been confined at that time is no longer relevant.

If the Appellant is of the view that the confinement of the Respondent is warranted today, it should make a fresh motion. [ 6 ] The parties, each in their own way, recognize that the appeal is moot: the Appellant asks the Court to declare that the judge made an error in law, but asks for no further order, and the Respondent, who apparently resides out of the province, does not contest the appeal. [ 7 ] The Court has the discretion to decide an appeal which is moot. [1] It is appropriate for the Court to exercise that discretion in the present case. The application of

Article 30 C .C.Q. is an important matter of public interest which arises frequently. However, given the short-term duration of the orders issued under

Article 30 C.C.Q. , it is unlikely that a live issue will reach the Court. Consequently, it is appropriate to take the opportunity offered by the present appeal to clarify what judges must do if they are dissatisfied with the evidence tendered by the institution in such situations. [2] *** [ 8 ]

Article 30 C.C.Q. provides that two conditions must be fulfilled for the judge to grant a motion for confinement in an institution, (1) two independent psychiatrists must conclude that such confinement is necessary and (2) the judge must be convinced that the person subject to the order is dangerous to himself or to others and that confinement is necessary:

30 . Confinement in an institution following a psychiatric assessment may only be authorized by the court if both psychiatric reports conclude that confinement is necessary. 30. La garde en établissement à la suite d’une évaluation psychiatrique ne peut être autorisée par le tribunal que si les deux rapports d’examen psychiatrique concluent à la nécessité de cette garde.

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.

Même en ce cas, le tribunal ne peut autoriser la garde que s’il a lui-même des motifs sérieux de croire que la personne est dangereuse et que sa garde est nécessaire, quelle que soit par ailleurs la preuve qui pourrait lui être présentée et même en l’absence de toute contre-expertise. [ 9 ] In the present case, the Appellant filed the reports of two psychiatrists, who were not present and did not testify. This appears to be the practice in the Court of Québec on such matters. [ 10 ] The judge is not bound by the conclusions of the psychiatric reports.

In this case, he concluded that the reports were insufficiently substantiated and that they did not convince him that the Respondent constituted a danger to himself or to others. [ 11 ] The Court decided in 2009 in Centre de santé et de services sociaux Pierre Boucher c. A.G . that given the public interest involved in these matters, it would be appropriate for the judge to advise the lawyers, under

Article 292 C.C.P. as it then was, that he is not satisfied with the evidence and to give them the opportunity to remedy the deficiency rather than dismiss the motion [3] : [36] Avec les plus grands égards pour le juge de première instance, j’estime cependant qu’il a commis une erreur. En effet, il aurait dû user de la discrétion que lui confère l’article 292 C.p.c. pour signaler à l’avocat de l'appelant une lacune dans sa preuve et lui permettre de la combler. Dans Technologie Labtronix Inc. c.

Technologie Micro Contrôle inc ., la Cour rappelait qu’un juge d’instance a le devoir de souligner une lacune dans la preuve, particulièrement lorsqu’il constate l’absence de preuve sur un élément essentiel ayant pour conséquence une insuffisance de preuve déterminante sur le sort du litige. Ce devoir me semble encore plus pressant dans une matière qui touche l’intérêt public. Dans une telle situation, un juge d’instance se doit d’être vigilant, voire même proactif. [References omitted] [ 12 ] The same reasoning applies under the current

Article 268 C.C.P : 268. At any time before judgment, the court may draw the parties' attention to any deficiency in the proof or procedure and authorize the parties to remedy it, subject to the conditions it determines. 268. À tout moment avant le jugement, le tribunal peut, dans les conditions qu’il fixe, signaler aux parties les lacunes de la preuve ou de la procédure et les autoriser à les combler. [ 13 ] Moreover, after the decision in Centre de santé et de services sociaux Pierre Boucher c. A.G ., the legislator added

Article 50 C.C.P. to the Code.

Article 50 C.C.P . applies in matters of personal integrity, and gives judges the power, even on their own initiative, to require the presence of witnesses or the presentation of evidence: 50. When sitting in first instance in non- contentious cases or in cases in which a child’s interests or a person’s personal integrity, status or capacity are at issue, the courts, even on their own initiative, may require the attendance of a person or the presentation of evidence, and without formality hear persons who may enlighten them and, after calling them, persons whose interests may be affected by the decision. 50.

Les tribunaux qui, en première instance, siègent dans les affaires non contentieuses ou dans des affaires où l’intérêt d’un enfant ou l’intégrité, l’état et la capacité d’une personne sont en cause, peuvent, même d’office, demander la présence d’une personne ou la présentation d’une preuve et entendre sans formalités les personnes qui peuvent les éclairer et, après convocation, celles dont les intérêts risquent d’être touchés par la décision. [ 14 ] In the present matter, the judge could have used

Article 50 C.C.P. or

Article 268 C.C.P. to alert the Appellant to his dissatisfaction with the psychiatric assessments and to require the presence of one or both of the psychiatrists. Given the importance of the judge coming to an informed decision, both in terms of respecting the Respondent’s personal integrity and assessing whether he was a danger to himself or to others, the judge should have exercised that discretion. His failure to do so is an error of law justifying the intervention of this Court. [4] However, given the theoretical nature of the appeal, we will not issue any further order. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] ALLOWS the appeal, without costs. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A.

STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. PETER KALICHMAN, J.A.