2019 QCCQ 563, 2019 QCCQ 563

Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Estrie- Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CIUSSS de l'Estrie- CHUS) (Hôpital de Granby) c.

M.H. 2019 QCCQ 563 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD TOWN OF GRANBY Civil Division No: 460-40-002014-191 DATE: February 4 th , 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARTIN TÉTREAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ CENTRE INTÉGRÉ UNIVERSITAIRE DE SANTÉ ET DE SERVICE SOCIAUX DE L’ESTRIE-CENTRE HOSPITALIER UNIVERSITAIRE DE SHERBROOKE (CIUSSS DE L’ESTRIE-CHUS) (HÔPITAL DE GRANBY) Plaintiff v. M. H. Defendant and. E. P.

Mise en cause ______________________________________________________________________ transcript of the judgment rendered at the hearing January 16, 2019 [1] ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff requests that the Defendant be confined in its institution for a period of 30 days. [ 2 ] This demand is made under

section 30 of the Civil Code of Quebec which reads as follows: “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. 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.” [ 3 ] According to the jurisprudence [2] , this

section must be applied keeping in mind that the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Code of Quebec recognize every person’s right to integrity, inviolability and freedom. [ 4 ] Therefore any restriction or interference with these fundamental rights must be interpreted strictly. [ 5 ] As mentioned before, aside two psychiatric reports concluding that confinement is necessary, the Court must itself have serious reasons to believe that Defendant is dangerous to himself or to other owing to his mental state and that confinement is necessary. [ 6 ] The importance of the danger must be specifically described.

The risk that the danger be carried out must be high though its materialisation may not be imminent. [ 7 ] The Court heard the case yesterday. However, since the proceedings had only been notified at Mise en cause’s door in Montreal yesterday morning and in view of the fact that her testimony might be important [3] , a safeguard order was issued in order to obtain the Mise en cause’s position towards Plaintiff’s request. [ 8 ] An email from Plaintiff’s attorney was received this morning confirming that the Mise en cause did not intend to testify in this proceeding.

Therefore, as agreed with the attorneys, the Court rendered its decision based upon the proof made yesterday. [ 9 ] Plaintiff’s proof relies on the following documents: 1) Order for Provisional confinement to undergo a clinical psychiatric examination issued by justice Gilles Lareau on January 11, 2019 [4] ; 2) “Rapport d’examen psychiatrique pour ordonnance de garde en établissement” dated January 12, 2019 by Dr Inès Senouci [5] ; 3) “Rapport d’examen psychiatrique pour garde en établissement” dated January 13, 2019 by Dr Claude Blondeau [6] . [ 10 ] According to Dr Senouci and Blondeau reports, the Defendant, a nurse, suffers from narcissic personnality and bipolar disorders.

[ 11 ] He would actually be in a manic episode. [ 12 ] He would have broken two television sets at the Mise en cause’s house.

After this event, she would have changed the locks of her residence. [ 13 ] During his medical examinations, the Plaintiff would have been irritable and shown an absence of self-critic and a disturbed judgment. [ 14 ] He said to Dr Senouci that : 1) he inherited 28 millions dollars that he will totaly give away to communities in need; 2) he is the grandson of Napoléon; 3) he has over 400 diplomas; 4) he is a former professionnal hockey player surrounded by celebrities. [ 15 ] Both physicians conclude that the Defendant is probably dangerous to himself and to others because of his illness, his lack of judgement and his irritability. [ 16 ] At the hearing, the Defendant admitted his mental disorder.

However, he says that he has always taken his medication, except once when he was involved in a car accident. [ 17 ] He denies having said what Dr Senouci and Blondeau wrote in their reports. He adds that : • He would not be Napoléon’s grandson, but only related to him; • He would not have 400 diplomas, but has taken about 40 formations related to his work as a nurse; • He would have played 1 year and a half for the Toronto Marlies in the AHL; • He never broke the television sets of the Mise en cause.

He barely touched the screen with the tip of his finger. [ 18 ] Defendant testified that a has been through difficult events lately : 1) Last october, he had to attend to a young person who had shot himself. Despite his experience as a nurse, he was shocked at this horrifying sight; 2) Recently, he lost his father and his own son; 3) He was involved in a car accident which left him with severe injuries. He had to undergo several surgeries from which he is still recovering.

He still feels pain. [ 19 ] Defendant admits that he can « lash out » when he is pushed, that is to mean when he is under big pressure. [ 20 ] The Court believes that in view of the recent events, Defendant is still under a lot of pressure. [ 21 ] Therefore, Defendant could « lash out » and expose himself, and others, to danger. [ 22 ] The Court is also suspicious as to the truthness of Defendant’s testimony.

He prefers the version mentionned in the reports filed by physicians Senouci and Blondeau. [ 23 ] Under those circonstances, the Court will allow Plaintiff’s Demand but will reduce the confinement period to a maximum of 21 days, since no reason has been provided to support the additional period of 9 days compared to the usual period requested. [ 24 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 25 ] ORDONNE le huis clos; [ 26 ] ORDONNE que soit assuré l’anonymat des personnes concernées; [ 27 ] ORDONNE la confidentialité et que l’accès au dossier et aux enregistrements des débats soit restreint; [ 28 ] ABRÉGE les délais de présentation de la demande; [ 29 ] ACCUEILLE en

partie la demande; [ 30 ] ORDONNE au défendeur, M. H., de se soumettre à la garde en établissement, au CIUSSS de l’Estrie – CHUS (site Hôpital de Granby), pour une période d’au plus 21 jours; [ 31 ] PRÉCISE que les ordonnances du jugement à intervenir s’appliquent, en faisant les adaptations nécessaires, à tout établissement où le défendeur serait transféré, en application de l’article 11 de la

Loi sur la protection des personnes dont l’état mental présente un danger pour elles-mêmes ou pour autrui , c. P-38.001. __________________________________ Martin Tétreault, J.C.Q.

Me Olivier Normandin Normandin Gravel Rhéaume Avocats inc. Procureurs du demandeur Me Pascale Gauthier Gauthier, Piette et associés Procureure du défendeur [1] As allowed by

section 334 CCP and the jurisprudence ( Kellogg’s Company of Canada c. P.G. du Québec , [1978] C.A. 258 , pp. 259 et 260 ; Desjardins c. Barreau du Québec , 2009 QCCA 419 , par. 8 ), the Court reserved its right to reorganize the motives and to add or modify certain elements in order to improve the presentation and understanding of the judgment.