Non-Official English Translation

Citizen Critical of Government sent back to Loony Bin for a “Closed Cure” due to his alleged “Quarrelsomeness toward the C.S.S.T.“

His father has “contempt” for him, he had an “altercation” with his sister, and he’s been suing the C.S.S.T. for appropriate compensation following broken vertebrae in a work-related accident. He says he can’t work, he needs physiotherapy and readjustment, not psychiatric treatments. He’s angry because the C.S.S.T. is not providing what he says he needs for his physical recovery. Three officials on a mere administrative board send the young man back to the lunatic asylum on the ground of his “quérulence” because he’s still mad at the C.S.S.T.

What is the C.S.S.T.?  The acronym is short for the French name Commission de la Santé et de la Sécurité au Travail. In English, that would be the “Work Health and Safety Board”, but that’s not an official name. The C.S.S.T. is a socialist style government body created by statute to supervise the allotment of medical care to victims of job-related injuries. The following short judgment might be a good advertisement for private medical insurance.

Speculation: This fellow’s lawyer apparently filed a motion which obliged his own client to prove that he was entitled to be set free from civil detention in a mental hospital. The three-person panel of this purely administrative tribunal objected that the lawyer had pleaded as though he were trying to appeal from the original judgment at the Court of Quebec, rather than pleading in respect to the motion for this hearing. In order to obtain his client’s release, the man’s lawyer would likely have been better off filing a motion for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which puts the onus on those detaining the man to prove that he needs to be detained. In particular, in seeking such a writ, his lawyer should have commenced with the obvious legal prohibition of civil detention other than for contempt of court, set out clearly at Article 1 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure.

Another pleading that the lawyer should likely have raised in a vigorous defense of his client would have be the suspect motives of the government in detaining this man, i.e., to prevent him from eventually establishing a legal precedent against the government and the C.S.S.T. by suing the latter to pay for the health-related expenses which the man himself viewed as necessary to his own physical recovery. What we seem to see here is the view of the State as to a man’s health requirements being substituted for his own personal estimate of his own health needs after serious injuries in a work-related accident. This little case might be a good advertisement for personal medical insurance. Have your own health insurance, or risk the lunatic asylum in battling for your own rights with your socialist Nanny Government. So, who is this lawyer? Inexperienced? Legal Aid? Or controlled opposition? Why is the man incarcerated as a lunatic for suing the C.S.S.T. for proper medical services relating to the broken vertebrae in his back?

Source: (Original citation in French): D. M. c. Centre hospitalier Anna-Laberge, 2001 CanLII 35569 (QC TAQ)

Date: 2001-06-05
File: SAS-M-064392-0101
Reference: D. M. v. Anna-Laberge Hospital, 2001 CanLII 35569 (QC TAQ), consulted 2015-12-222015-12-15

Social Affairs Section

As regards the protection of people whose mental state presents a danger to themselves or for others

Date: June 5th, 2001

File: SAS-M-064392-0101

Members of the Court:
Georges Wurtele, lawyer
Yolène Jumelle, social worker
Pierre Hélie, psychiatrist

D… M…

Applicant

v.

ANNA-LABERGE HOSPITAL

Respondent

DECISION

As regards the protection of people whose mental state presents a danger to themselves or to others

[1] This is a matter of a motion to lift the order against the Applicant for a closed cure on January 23rd, 2001.

[2] The Applicant disputes an order of detention issued against him on January 23rd, 2001. This order had been issued on the faith of two medical reports, one signed by Dr. St-Hilaire and the other by Dr. T. Malec.  Dr. St-Hilaire wrote in his report dated January 17th, 2001 that the Applicant presented “a paranoid delirium concerning the C.S.S.T.” and concluded as to the need for detention to treat his episode of decomposed paranoid schizophrenia. The report of Dr. Malec dated January 18th, 2001 was to the same effect.

[3] During the hearing, the Applicant testified that he had a work-related accident which broke vertebrae in his back. Since that time, he has been involved in a lawsuit with the C.S.S.T to obtain just compensation. He says he is unable to work. He needs physiotherapy and retraining, not psychiatric treatment. He affirms that his father has contempt for him and that the latter lacks objectivity. He had a dispute with his sister.

[4] He is living circumstances of rejection. He admits having been followed in psychiatry, but this is the first time that he has been hospitalized. He was treated between 1996 and 2001 by Dr. Bergeron who calmed his anxieties. He declares that he can no longer live with his father, who has kicked him out, but that he can go to live with a neighbor with whom has made arrangements.

[5] He started to take medicaton on January 23rd.

[6] The Court, having heard the testimony of the Applicant, concludes that his detention must be maintained. Indeed, the Applicant shows no self-criticism, still presents this quarrelsomeness towards the C.S.S.T and a certain aggressiveness toward his father. It is the opinion of the undersigned that it would be dangerous for his mental health or for the health of others that the order for a closed cure be lifted at present.

[7] During the hearing, the Applicant’s attorney claimed that it was up to the hospital to prove the cogency of the order against the Applicant and that in the absence of this proof, the Applicant must be released. The Court does not share this opinion. The motion to lift an order of detention presented before the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec is not an appeal against the order issued by the Judge of the Court of Quebec.

[8] In the opinion of the undersigned, it belongs to the Applicant, during a hearing on the motion to lift the order of detention issued against him, to show that his mental state no longer presents any danger either to him, or for others.

[9] For these reasons, the Court

− DISMISSES THE MOTION.

Georges Wurtele
Yolène Jumelle
Pierre Hélie

June 5th, 2001

Maître Ian-Kristian Ladouceur
Attorney for the applicant

/lb