B.C. court rules involuntary mental health treatment laws unconstitutional, gives province six months to reform
The court found B.C. allows forced psychiatric treatment without assessing whether patients can consent, calling the province an 'outlier' among Canadian jurisdictions.
Sources · local media reports
The day's top stories, food & events — every morning at 7. Unsubscribe anytime.
British Columbia's laws allowing mental health facilities to consent to psychiatric treatment for involuntarily admitted patients are unconstitutional, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled this week. The province has six months to reform the legislation.
The Council of Canadians with Disabilities brought the case, challenging the Consent Act and Representation Agreement Act. The council argued that the laws unconstitutionally denied involuntarily admitted patients the right to direct their own care even when they are capable of doing so.
The court found the legislation perpetuates a stereotype that people with mental disorders "lack capacity" to consent or refuse care. It also found B.C. is an "outlier" among provinces: no other Canadian jurisdiction grants facilities "unilateral power" to treat people against their will without independently assessing the patient's capacity to decide on care.
"The legislation's purpose is 'pressing and substantial,' but laws in every other province and territory that deal with consent rights of patients are 'significantly less drastic,'" the ruling stated.
The court declared the sections infringe on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the ruling does not dispute B.C.'s need for an involuntary admission regime for people unable to recognize their mental illness is impairing their judgment, it found the blanket power to treat capable patients against their will goes too far.
"The treatment of those in our society who struggle with mental illness can generate strong opinions," the ruling said. "The issue before me is not whether B.C. should have an involuntary admission regime for those individuals who are unable to recognize that their mental illness is impeding their ability to appreciate their need for treatment."
"While a capable involuntarily admitted patient can consent to their psychiatric treatment, this case is centred on those individuals who do not."
The province must "take whatever steps it sees fit to draft Charter-compliant legislation" within the six-month window.
What specific changes does the court expect the province to make in the six-month timeframe?
How many people in B.C. are currently affected by these involuntary admission laws?
We'll update this story as answers emerge.
The facts
What did the B.C. Supreme Court rule this week?
The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that British Columbia's laws allowing mental health facilities to consent to psychiatric treatment for involuntarily admitted patients are unconstitutional.
How long does B.C. have to reform its mental health laws?
British Columbia has six months to reform the legislation following the court's ruling.
Who brought the case challenging B.C.'s mental health laws?
The Council of Canadians with Disabilities brought the case, challenging the Consent Act and Representation Agreement Act.
How does B.C. differ from other provinces on forced psychiatric treatment?
British Columbia is an outlier among Canadian jurisdictions—no other province or territory grants mental health facilities unilateral power to treat involuntarily admitted patients against their will without independently assessing whether the patient can consent.
