2021 QCCA 1892, 2021 QCCA 1892

N.G. c. Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital 2021 QCCA 1892 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029569-217 (500-17-109374-192) DATE: December 14, 2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS PELLETIER, J.A. JEAN BOUCHARD, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. N. G. APPELLANT – Defendant v. SIR MORTIMER B. DAVIS JEWISH GENERAL HOSPITAL, administered by the CIUSSS DU CENTRE-OUEST-DE-L’ÎLE-DE-MONTRÉAL LOUISE MINER RESPONDENTS – Plaintiffs and S. G.

IMPLEADED PARTY – Interested person JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellant contests a judgment rendered by the Honourable Silvana Conte of the Superior Court of Québec, district of Montréal, on June 10 th , 2021. The judgment grants the respondent’s application for an authorization for treatment of the appellant.

The treatment plan authorizes the respondents to administer antipsychotic medication, medication to manage side effects, basic care, minimally-invasive investigations, tests and exams, as well as follow up examinations. [ 2 ] The trial judge engages in a brief but structured and rigorous analysis in accordance with the F.D. framework [1] .

Moreover, she did not commit any palpable and overriding errors of fact; her conclusions are grounded in the medical evidence and the appellant’s testimony. [ 3 ] The file includes three medical reports in support of the authorization for treatment: the August 26, 2019 report of Drs. Roy and Benrimoh, the March 12, 2020 report by Drs. Arthur Propst (“ Dr. Propst ”) and Daniel Frank (“ Dr. Frank ”), and the May 31, 2021 report by Dr. Propst and Dr. Frank. Dr. Propst also testified at trial.

All three reports conclude that the appellant does not understand that he has an illness, the benefits of treatment and the risks of not receiving treatment. In fact, the appellant categorically refuses to follow the treatment plan. In view of this, the trial judge made no reviewable error in the first portion of the F.D. analysis (art 16 C.C.Q .). [ 4 ] The same can be said in exercising her jurisdiction pursuant to art. 12 C.C.Q . [ 5 ] The trial judge’s reasoning demonstrates that she was convinced that the treatment is required and is in the appellant’s interest.

She describes the appellant’s mental health history, and concludes that the appellant “suffers from a delusional disorder and requires anti-psychotic medication”. [ 6 ] This conclusion is rooted in the expert evidence, and contains no palpable and overriding error. All three reports, in fact, state that the appellant is able to function well when he is medicated, but is unwell when he is not. [ 7 ] It is true that the trial judge does not discuss all of the side effects that the appellant claims to feel; the only side effect that she explicitly names is fatigue.

Nevertheless, the phrasing of her analysis demonstrates that she was aware of other side effects. Moreover, Dr. Propst’s skepticism about how many side effects the appellant actually experiences could explain the trial judge’s focus on fatigue. [ 8 ] Also, although dangerousness is a relevant criterion in determining whether to grant a confinement order, it is not part of the framework for assessing an application pursuant to arts. 16 and 12 C.C.Q. [ 9 ] Finally, the trial judge’s reliance on the most recent medical reports indicates that the appellant’s argument about Dr.

Myron’s letter dated August 19, 2019 is without merit. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 10 ] DISMISSES the appeal, without costs, given the nature of the matter. FRANÇOIS PELLETIER, J.A. JEAN BOUCHARD, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. Mtre Gordon M. Selig For the Appellant Mtre Philippe Frère Lavery, De Billy For the Respondents Date of hearing: December 9, 2021