r v. C. R., 2016 QCCQ 16482

Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux du Bas-Saint-Laurent c. C.R. 2016 QCCQ 16482 COURT OF QUEBEC Administrative and Appellate Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF RIMOUSKI TOWN OF RIMOUSKI Civil Division No: 100-40-000729-164 DATE: June 13, 2016 BY THE HONOURABLE ANDRÉE ST-PIERRE, JCQ CENTRE INTÉGRÉ DE SANTÉ ET DE SERVICES SOCIAUX DU BAS-SAINT-LAURENT Petitioner v. C. R.

Respondent and LE CURATEUR PUBLIC DU QUÉBEC Impleaded party ORDER FOR CONFINEMENT IN AN INSTITUTION [ 1 ] The petitioner is filing a petition for confinement in an institution of respondent. [ 2 ] Petitioner relies on two psychiatric assessments. [ 3 ] In her assessment, Dre Frédérique Nadeau-Marcotte says respondent is in danger since he was seen walking in the middle of the streets several times. He shook people at the community kitchen.

When he arrived at the hospital, he had not eaten for 24 hours. [ 4 ] She also says that respondent’s judgment is disrupted and he needs to stay at the hospital to get stabilised. [ 5 ] In her assessment, Dre Catherine Lebel says he is disturbing where he lives and he has a hard time taking care of himself (his apartment is unhealthy, he eats less, he neglects his hygiene). She also says he pushed people including his social worker. [ 6 ] Both doctors refer to the fact that respondent has a TOC and a schizoaffective disorder.

They also both write that he has a religious frenzy and lots of rituals. [ 7 ] Respondent testifies and he says he did not push anyone in Matane. He was pushed at the community kitchen. He says he crossed St-Jérôme Street in Matane because the traffic was heavy and he couldn’t wait all day. [ 8 ] He was depressed in November and December so his apartment was a mess at that time but it is clean now. [ 9 ] He thinks about his family a lot so he says «we » when he talks. He says his medication gets him tired but he agrees to take it, like he agrees to see his social worker. [ 10 ] LAW [ 11 ]

Section 30 CcQ puts two conditions for the confinement in an institution: first, two psychiatrics assessments saying such a confinement is necessary and second, the court itself has to have serious reasons to believe that the person is dangerous and that his confinement is necessary. [ 12 ] In CSSS Pierre-Boucher vs A.G. [1] , Quebec’s Appeal Court says that the fact that a person has a mental illness doesn’t mean he is in danger.

Appeal Court says the court has to decide if there is a danger based on serious facts. [ 13 ] ANALYSIS [ 14 ] The fact that respondent disturbs people in Matane doesn’t mean he is dangerous. [ 15 ] But the proof shows that he is not only disturbing. The fact that he was seen several times walking in the middle of the street is worrisome. Respondent says he wasn’t in the middle of the street but more on the side, yet it is still worrisome. [ 16 ] When he got to the hospital, he said he hadn’t eaten for 24 hours. He now says he said that because he was very hungry but we

can still wonder why he was so hungry. [ 17 ] The Court also has to consider that something happened at the community kitchen: he was pushed or pushed someone. [ 18 ] The facts have to be looked at keeping in mind that respondent has a schizoaffective disorder and a TOC.

Each thing in itself, taken separately, might not be sufficient enough to say that respondent is in danger but taken all together, it leads to that conclusion. [ 19 ] The evidence adduced before the Court is sufficiently compelling for the Court to consider that there are serious reasons to believe that respondent puts himself in danger and that his confinement is necessary. [ 20 ] Petitioner asks for a 90 days confinement. It seems too long since respondent agrees to take his medication and to work with his social worker. [ 21 ] The Court finds a 60 days confinement is a more appropriate duration.

Of cause if confinement is no longer justified before 60 days respondent must be released. [ 22 ] FOR ALL THESES REASONS, THE COURT : [ 23 ] ALLOWS the motion; [ 24 ] ORDERS the respondent to submit himself immediately to confinement in an institution at Hôpital régional de Rimouski; [ 25 ] SETS the maximum duration of the confinement to 60 days; [ 26 ] AUTHORISES that respondent be taken to Hôpital régional de Rimouski by a peace officer if necessary; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE, without costs.

ANDRÉE ST-PIERRE, JCQ Me Julie Lechasseur avocats bsl For the petitioner Me Corinne Lestage centre communautaire juridique du bas-saint-laurent For de respondent Date of hearing: June 10 th 2016