Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Civil procedure — Appeals — Status of persons — Confinement in institution — Whether Court of Appeal exercised its discretion judicially by denying leave to appeal on ground that, in its opinion, case bound to be unsuccessful — Minimum statutory requirements for order of confinement in institution — Whether there was unjustified violation of applicant’s fundamental rights and freedoms — Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C 25, art. 523 — Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, arts. 29, 30 — Act respecting the protection of persons whose mental state presents a danger to themselves or to others, R.S.Q., c. P 38.001, s. 3.

Concerned about the applicant’s strange behaviour, the staff of the school he attended took steps to send him to the hospital, where he underwent two psychiatric assessments. The psychiatrists concluded that his confinement in an institution was necessary. The respondent hospital centre presented a motion for confinement in an institution under arts. 26 et seq. of the Civil Code of Québec. Article 30 provides:

30. Confinement in an institution following a psychiatric assessment may only be authorized by the court if both psychiatric reports conclude that confinement is necessary.

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.

After hearing testimony from the applicant and his mother, the Court of Québec concluded that both psychiatric reports filed by the hospital centre and the testimony showed that the applicant’s mental state presented a danger to himself or to others and that confinement was necessary. The Court of Québec allowed the motion and ordered that the applicant be confined to an institution for no longer than 21 days. The applicant appealed as of right one day late. Exercising its discretion under art. 523 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court of Appeal denied special leave to appeal on the ground that an appeal would be bound to fail and that it would be inappropriate to prolong the debate to rule on a confinement order that was going to end in eight days.