2016 QCCQ 16855, 2016 QCCQ 16855

Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Gaspésie, réseau local de services de la Baie-des-Chaleurs c. C.L. 2016 QCCQ 16855 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF BONAVENTURE LOCALITY OF NEW-CARLISLE « Civil Division » N° : 105-40-000226-160 DATE : December 29, 2016 _____________________________________________________________________ PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE DENIS PARADIS, J.C.Q. _____________________________________________________________________ CENTRE INTÉGRÉ DE SANTÉ ET DE SERVICES SOCIAUX DE LA GASPÉSIE, RÉSEAU LOCAL DE SERVICES DE LA BAIE-DES-CHALEURS Plaintiff -v.- C. L.

Defendant -and- M. A. Impleaded party ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON DEMAND FOR A REGULAR CONFINEMENT IN AN INSTITUTION AND PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff asks this Court to order at Mrs C. L. to submit to an institutionnal custody for a period of 21 days. [ 2 ] Mrs L. is present at the hearing with her lawyer. She disagrees with the custody.

THE EVIDENCE [ 3 ] The plaintiff evidence consists of two medical reports, signed by Dr Julie Laroche and Dr Jean-Philippe Vaillancourt, psychiatrists. [ 4 ] Mrs L. testifies. She has 52 years old. She’s on welfare state. If the Court releases her today, she comes back at Mr M. A.’s house, the impleated party. [ 5 ] If she goes there today, Mrs L. will take her medication " cause I don’t have the choice ", she says. [ 6 ] She has no family doctor but she’s looking for one. [ 7 ] In cross examination, Mrs L. says that she lives with the impleated party since a long time, 15 or 16 years. She has a lot of friends.

She talks about radio and neighbour that make her confused. [ 8 ] She adds that at the hospital, she follows the rules, cause she has no choice. [ 9 ] Never she stopped to take her medication. However, she promises to take her pils she adds. [ 10 ] Mr M. A. is the second witness. He’s ready to take Mrs L. back at his appartment. [ 11 ] He answer at Mrs L.’s lawyer that he could make sure that she takes her medication.

Both of them have family in the greater area of Town A and Town B. [ 12 ] In cross-examination, he admits that he does not know what is change since the temporary order of Mrs Justice Aubry, dated december 22 th , 2016, one week ago. [ 13 ] Mr A. does not know why Mrs L. called 911 last week. ANALYSIS AND DECISION

[ 14 ] The

section 30 of the civil code provides : " […] 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." [ 15 ] In a A. c.

Centre hospitalier de St-Mary, the court of appeal writes : « [16] La mise sous garde forcée, fut-elle simplement en établissement hospitalier n'est en effet pas à prendre à la légère […] Si le législateur permet parfois qu'il soit fait exception à ce principe de liberté, ce n'est jamais que pour des raisons sérieuses et graves, raisons qui doivent être connues et qui doivent par conséquent être exprimées d'une façon explicite, afin qu'elles puissent être contrôlées [1] . » [ 16 ] Concerning the concept of danger, Mrs Justice Bich adds : « [17] De même, la nature du danger que l'on redoute doit-elle être précisée et explicitée.

Il doit également s'agir d'un danger important ou d'un potentiel de danger élevé. Le danger ainsi appréhendé n'a peut-être pas à être imminent, mais il doit certainement être sinon probable du moins clairement envisageable dans le présent ou dans un avenir relativement rapproché, ce qui justifie une mise sous garde immédiate [2] . » [ 17 ] Our colleague, Mr Justice Parent, wrote in Centre hospitalier régional de Sept-Îles c. A.S. : « [23] En ce qui concerne la dangerosité dans le temps, la potentialité du danger doit être présente à court ou à moyen terme.

La nécessité d'une cure fermée ne peut reposer sur un simple doute concernant un danger réel. Le danger doit être réel et susceptible d'exister à court terme. La dangerosité doit être prévisible et s'apprécier dans l'immédiat.

La question à se poser n'est pas de savoir si le requérant va redevenir dangereux après la levée de sa garde, le cas échéant, mais s'il est dangereux au point de justifier le maintien de sa garde actuelle [3] . » [ 18 ] It is clear that Mrs L. has a mental disease, but does she dangerous for herself or other people? [ 19 ] She’s not violent, she has no suicidal idea and she does not denie that she has problems. She’s a little bit confuse before court. [ 20 ] In Dr Laroche’s report, at the

section " Évaluation de la gravité de l’état mental et de ses conséquences probables (dangerosité) pour le patient ou pour autrui ", we can read : " Perte de jugement, dangereuse pour elle-même de par sa désorganisation." [ 21 ] For Dr Vaillancourt : " Patiente avec altération sévère avec jugement qui la rend imprévisible, vulnérable et à haut risque d’aggravation de son état si quitte.

" [ 22 ] Mrs L. has a place to stay and Mr A. testifies that he could make sure that she will take her medication. [ 23 ] The court concludes that concept of danger is still present. [ 24 ] She is still confuse and the testimony of Mr A. does not insured court that he can control Mrs L. He does not know why she called the 9-1-1, and he cannot say what is the change since the order of Mrs Justice Aubry. [ 25 ] The doctor Vaillancourt writes in his report that Mrs L. " est partiellement améliorée ".

But she’s too frail to come back house. [ 26 ] The court sees in her testimony some indicies that she’s not feeling good. By example, when she talks about the radio and the neighbour. The court is worried before that and has serious reasons to believe that Mrs L. is dangerous for herself. [ 27 ] It is important to stabilize mental health of Mrs L., in order to avoid putting her in danger. THEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 28 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 29 ] ORDERS the defendant, C.

L., to submit without delay to confinement in an institution at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux, réseau local de la Baie-des-Chaleurs, at Maria Hospital, at 419, Perron Boulevard, Maria, district of Bonaventure or any institution considered convenient by the medical staff of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Gaspésie; [ 30 ] ORDERS that notice of this judgment be given to the person on whom the motion was served; [ 31 ] FIX the maximal duration of the confinement in an institution to 21 days or until that a new clinical psychiatric assessment confirmated that the confinement is not required anymore. [ 32 ] THE WHOLE , without costs. __________________________________ DENIS PARADIS, J.C.Q.

Me Cedric Leblanc Falardeau for Me Josée Méthot Attorney for the plaintiff Me Richard Lavigne Attorney for the defendant Date of hearing : December 29, 2016