Mental Health Theory and Approach (14:III): Difference between revisions

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= August 14, 2024}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = mentalhealth}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = mentalhealth}}


Admission to a mental health facility can seriously affect an individual’s rights. Textbooks have advocated a functional approach to mental health law, encouraging courts to consider only how the disability may relate to the specific issue brought before them. Incapacity in one area does not necessarily mean incapacity in all areas. Most mental health legislation, however, is over-inclusive, and therefore impairs the rights  of mentally ill persons in areas where they might have the mental capacity to act for themselves. The common-law tests for capacity can be found in Chapter 15: Adult Guardianship.
Admission to a mental health facility can significantly impact an individual’s ability to exercise their rights. Textbooks have advocated for a functional approach to mental health law, encouraging courts to consider solely how the disability may relate to the specific issue brought before them. Incapacity in one area does not necessarily mean incapacity in all areas. Most mental health legislation, however, is over-inclusive, and therefore impairs the rights  of mentally ill persons in areas where they might have the mental capacity to act for themselves. The common-law tests for capacity can be found in [https://wiki.clicklaw.bc.ca/index.php?title=Introduction_to_Adult_Guardianship_and_Substitute_Decision-Making_(15:I) '''Chapter 15: Adult Guardianship'''].


Section 15(1) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' [''Charter''] has made it easier to preserve the rights of those affected by mental health law. While most discriminatory legislation in BC remains unchallenged, the MHA "deemed consent provisions" and the HCCFA and Representation Agreement Act "substitute decision making" provisions, are currently being challenged as unconstitutional at the BC Supreme Court (see MacLaren v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2018 BCSC 1753). This litigation isn’t expected to be resolved for quite some time however.  
Section 15(1) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' [''Charter''] has made it easier to preserve the rights of those affected by mental health law. While most discriminatory legislation in BC remains unchallenged, the ''MHA'' "deemed consent provisions" and the ''HCCFA'' and ''Representation Agreement Act'' "substitute decision making" provisions, was challenged as unconstitutional at the BC Supreme Court (see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1753/2018bcsc1753.html?autocompleteStr=maclaren%20v%20british&autocompletePos=1 ''MacLaren v British Columbia (Attorney General)'', 2018 BCSC 1753]). This litigation isn’t expected to be resolved for quite some time, however. The Attorney General of BC raised the issue of public interest standing in the above case which resulted in the case being dismissed.  This decision was appealed to the BC Court of Appeal and the appeal was allowed on the issue of public interest standing in favour of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (see [https://canlii.ca/t/j9c0x ''Council of Canadians with Disabilities v British Columbia (Attorney General)'', 2020 BCCA 241]).  The Attorney General of BC applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal January 13, 2022. The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on June 23, 2022. The SCC has held that the Council of Canadians with Disabilities has the standing to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation (see [https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19424/index.do#:~:text=The%20claim%20asserts%20that%20the,of%20a%20substitute%20decision%E2%80%91maker. ''British Columbia (Attorney General) v Council of Canadians with Disabilities'', 2022 SCC 27)]. However, this litigation is still ongoing and will take time to resolve.


All ''Charter'' challenges have been directed towards either the MHA, the HCCFA, or the ''Criminal Code''. The Community Legal Assistance Society may be able to assist with serious ''Charter'' challenges, including test litigation.
All ''Charter'' challenges have been directed towards either the ''MHA'', the ''HCCFA'', or the ''Criminal Code''. The Community Legal Assistance Society may be able to assist with serious ''Charter'' challenges, including test litigation.




{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= August 14, 2020}}
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}}
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}}

Latest revision as of 21:04, 21 August 2024

This information applies to British Columbia, Canada. Last reviewed for legal accuracy by the Law Students' Legal Advice Program on August 14, 2024.



Admission to a mental health facility can significantly impact an individual’s ability to exercise their rights. Textbooks have advocated for a functional approach to mental health law, encouraging courts to consider solely how the disability may relate to the specific issue brought before them. Incapacity in one area does not necessarily mean incapacity in all areas. Most mental health legislation, however, is over-inclusive, and therefore impairs the rights of mentally ill persons in areas where they might have the mental capacity to act for themselves. The common-law tests for capacity can be found in Chapter 15: Adult Guardianship.

Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter] has made it easier to preserve the rights of those affected by mental health law. While most discriminatory legislation in BC remains unchallenged, the MHA "deemed consent provisions" and the HCCFA and Representation Agreement Act "substitute decision making" provisions, was challenged as unconstitutional at the BC Supreme Court (see MacLaren v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2018 BCSC 1753). This litigation isn’t expected to be resolved for quite some time, however. The Attorney General of BC raised the issue of public interest standing in the above case which resulted in the case being dismissed. This decision was appealed to the BC Court of Appeal and the appeal was allowed on the issue of public interest standing in favour of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (see Council of Canadians with Disabilities v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCCA 241). The Attorney General of BC applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal January 13, 2022. The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on June 23, 2022. The SCC has held that the Council of Canadians with Disabilities has the standing to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation (see British Columbia (Attorney General) v Council of Canadians with Disabilities, 2022 SCC 27). However, this litigation is still ongoing and will take time to resolve.

All Charter challenges have been directed towards either the MHA, the HCCFA, or the Criminal Code. The Community Legal Assistance Society may be able to assist with serious Charter challenges, including test litigation.


© Copyright 2024, The Greater Vancouver Law Students' Legal Advice Society.