2018 QCCQ 2894, 2018 QCCQ 2894

Ungava Tulattavik Health Center c. R.S. 2018 QCCQ 2894 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF ABITIBI TOWN OF KUUJJUAQ Civil Division No: 635-40-000025-188 DATE: May 3, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE THIERRY POTVIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ UNGAVA TULATTAVIK HEALTH CENTER Plaintiff vs. R. S. Defendant and K. S.

Mise en cause ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Ungava Tulattavik Health Center files a motion for a confinement in an institution order against defendant R. S. under

section 30 of the Civil Code of Quebec (The Code) 1 . [ 2 ] After having read both mandatory assessments and after hearing the evidence, the Court will deny the motion. Here are the reasons: [ 3 ] In the present case, the diagnosis of decompensated paranoid schizophrenia is not disputed, nor is it disputed that the defendant is refusing to take his medication. [ 4 ]

Section 10 of the Code sets a fundamental principle that every person is inviolable and is entitled to the integrity of his person. This important right can only be restricted in cases provided by law. [ 5 ]

Section 30 of the Code provides that, in certain circumstances, a court shall order the confinement of a person in an institution. [ 6 ] In the present case, the plaintiff must demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that there are serious reasons to believe that the defendant is dangerous for himself or others and that his confinement is necessary. [ 7 ] Sections 28 and 30 of the Code sets that two assessments need to conclude to the necessity to confine the person in an institution in order for the Court to order so. [ 8 ] A diagnosis of mental illness does not create a presumption of dangerosity. 2 [ 9 ] In the present case, the plaintiff files two assessments that were conducted by Dr Thiffault and Dr Mercier on the 18th and 19th of april 2018. [ 10 ] While the assessment conducted by Dr Thiffault might support the motion under

section 30, it is clear that the assessment of Dr Mercier and her testimony during the hearing does not meet the required standard of proof. [ 11 ] In the

section “opinion du medecin” of Dr Mercier’s report, it is stated: [ 12 ] « Vu l’absence de traitement, sa condition mentale fait en sorte qu’on ne peut exclure toute dangerosité envers les autres ou lui- même. » [ 13 ] This assessment seems to presume dangerosity and basically says that since the defendant is not taking his medication, dangerosity cannot be excluded. [ 14 ] The Code sets that, the court must have serious reasons to believe that the person is dangerous for himself or others and that the person’s confinement is necessary.

The fact that dangerosity cannot be excluded falls well short of the standards set by the Code. [ 15 ] Furthermore, many incidents on which the assessments are based were not proven during the hearing and constitutes, as such, hearsay. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 16 ] DENIES the motion. __________________________________ THIERRY POTVIN, J.C.Q. Me David Lecours and Me Francis Germain CAIN LAMARRE, S.E.N.C.R.L., Avocats Counsels for the plaintiff _____________________ 2 G.G. c. CSSS Richelieu-Yamaska, 2009 QCCA 2359 , par.47 Date of hearing: April 23 th , 2018