2020 QCCQ 839, 2020 QCCQ 839

Ungava Tulattavik Health Center (Kuujjuaq) c. T.K. 2020 QCCQ 839 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF ABITIBI TOWN OF AMOS Civil Division No: 635-40-000060-201 DATE: March 24 th , 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE THIERRY R. POTVIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ UNGAVA TULATTAVIK HEALTH CENTER (KUUJJUAQ) , legal person with its principal establishment at the town of Kuujjuaq, district of Abitibi, province of Quebec, J0M 1C0; Plaintiff v. T.

K. (born on [...], 1988 ), town A district A Province of Quebec, [...], but currently hospitalized at the Ungava Tulattavik Health Center in Kuujjuaq Defendant and PUBLIC CURATOR OF QUEBEC, establish at 600, René-Lévesque West boulevard, town and district of Montreal, p rovince of Quebec, H3B 4W9 ; Mis en cause ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The court is seized with a motion to institute proceedings to obtain an order of the court for a provisory confinement in an institution in order to proceed to psychiatric evaluations. [ 2 ] After taking knowledge of the evidence, both documentary and from testimonies, the court concludes that the motion should be dismissed.

Here are its reasons. [ 3 ] The evidence shows that on the 21 st of March, the defendant was brought to the CLSC of Kangiqsujuaq by police officers following threats that the defendant would have uttered against his mother. During his stay at the CLSC, the defendant was aggressive and uttered further threats to the CLSC employees. [ 4 ] Medication and physical restraints were used in order to transport the defendant to the health center in Kuujjuaq. There, he was met by Dr Mercier who assessed that he posed a serious risk and that psychiatric evaluations were necessary.

She was of the opinion that the defendant was in a state of decompensated schizophrenia with paranoid elements. [ 5 ] The evidence shows the defendant refused to be evaluated and it is the opinion of Dr Mercier that the accused was apt to accept or refuse such an evaluation. [ 6 ] Dr Mercier testified to the effect that during the morning of the 23 rd of March, the accused was still blaming his mother for some reasons and talked about killing himself. [ 7 ] Dr Mercier mentions that the defendant is known to have mental health issues, that he had toxic induced psychosis events since 2014 and that he is diagnosed with schizophrenia with paranoid elements since August 2019.

He takes medication for this condition and to the knowledge of Dr Mercier, he has never failed to comply with the prescribed dosage in the past. [ 8 ] The last injection of medication was done on the 19 th of March, two days prior to the events that brought the defendant in front of the court. [ 9 ] After consulting with the psychiatrist who treats the defendant, it was decided to administer double the regular dosage of the same medication on Sunday the 22 nd of March.

[ 10 ] Since then, Dr Mercier mentions that she has noticed an improvement regarding the state of mind of the defendant and believes a few more days would be necessary to have a complete recovery. She also mentions that since the morning of the 24 th of March, the defendant refuses to talk to her, which limits her ability to assess his state of mind. [ 11 ] The defendant testifies. He mentions he refuses to stay and be evaluated because he wishes to go back to his normal life. He also mentions he has little to no recollection of the events that brought him at the health center last Friday.

He testifies that he has no reason to be angry towards his mother. [ 12 ] His testimony is coherent and gives no indication that his grasp of reality is impaired by his mental state. He is calm during the hearing, although at some point he did cry. ANALYSIS [ 13 ] The rule is that every person is inviolable and is entitled to the integrity of his person. [ 14 ]

Section 26 of the Civil Code of Quebec mentions that no one may be confined in a health or social services institution for a psychiatric assessment or following a psychiatric assessment concluding that the confinement is necessary, without the person’s consent or without authorization by law or the court. [ 15 ]

Section 27 of the Code provides that there must be serious reasons to believe that a person is a danger to himself or others because of his mental state before it authorizes the provisory confinement. [ 16 ] Those provisions are the exception to the rules of consent and liberty. They must therefore be interpreted in a strict manner. [ 17 ] The notion of danger must be evaluated in a strict and rigorous manner. The danger must be important or the risk of danger must be high. [1] [ 18 ] The determination of risk must be based on a serious factual basis.

Such a decision must not be taken lightly since it affects the liberty of a person. [2] [ 19 ] The jurisprudence is clear and constant that the evidence of a mental health diagnosis is not evidence, in itself, of dangerosity. The onus remains on the shoulders of the plaintiff to demonstrate dangerosity. [3] [ 20 ] The court concludes that the evidence shows a clear improvement in the state of mind of the defendant since the initial events of the 21 st of March. He is now calm and coherent. This improvement can be directly attributed to the fact that the defendant received medication during the weekend.

He mentions he has no reason to be angry at his mother and cross-examination of the defendant did not show any reasons not to believe that statement. [ 21 ] The court is of the opinion that, despite the fact that he may have posed a risk when he was brought to the CLSC and to the health center afterwards, the evidence shows that the risk now seems to have receded. [ 22 ] The defendant mentions that he will continue taking his medication if released and his history since the diagnostic gives credibility to this assertion.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT; [ 23 ] DISMISSES the motion; [ 24 ] WITHOUT cost. __________________________________ THIERRY R. POTVIN, J.C.Q. David Lecours, lawyer Cain Lamarre For the plaintiff Caroline Jennis, lawyer Legal Aid For the defendant Public Curator of Quebec, Mis en cause Date of hearing: March 24 th , 2020