Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Mental Health Law and Legal Rights (14:IV)"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Line 74: Line 74:
A more recent Supreme Court decision, [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc22/2010scc22.html?resultIndex=1 ''R v Conway'', 2010 SCC 22] at para 78 [''Conway''] responded to the issue of whether the Ontario Review Board (ORB) under the Mental Disorder Provisions of the ''Criminal Code'' has the authority to grant remedies under section 24(1) of the ''Charter''. The challenge was brought by Paul Conway, an individual found not responsible by reason of a mental disorder in 1983. He argued that his treatment and detention violated his ''Charter'' rights, and therefore entitled him to an absolute discharge. The Supreme Court developed a test to determine whether an administrative tribunal is authorized to grant ''Charter'' remedies. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to section 24(1), the ORB is a “court of competent jurisdiction”, but that an absolute discharge was not a remedy that could be granted by the ORB under the particular circumstances. Ultimately, the ''Conway'' decision affirms the application of the Charter to administrative tribunals, including the ''Criminal Code of Canada', Part XX.1 (Mental disorder provisions)'' provincial Review Boards, which includes the British Columbia Review Board (BCRB). However, this decision limits the scope of available remedies under section 24(1) to those that have been specifically granted to a given body by the legislature. In ''Conway'', the Review Board could make a determination that the provision was unconstitutional, but did not have the authority to strike it down.  
A more recent Supreme Court decision, [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc22/2010scc22.html?resultIndex=1 ''R v Conway'', 2010 SCC 22] at para 78 [''Conway''] responded to the issue of whether the Ontario Review Board (ORB) under the Mental Disorder Provisions of the ''Criminal Code'' has the authority to grant remedies under section 24(1) of the ''Charter''. The challenge was brought by Paul Conway, an individual found not responsible by reason of a mental disorder in 1983. He argued that his treatment and detention violated his ''Charter'' rights, and therefore entitled him to an absolute discharge. The Supreme Court developed a test to determine whether an administrative tribunal is authorized to grant ''Charter'' remedies. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to section 24(1), the ORB is a “court of competent jurisdiction”, but that an absolute discharge was not a remedy that could be granted by the ORB under the particular circumstances. Ultimately, the ''Conway'' decision affirms the application of the Charter to administrative tribunals, including the ''Criminal Code of Canada', Part XX.1 (Mental disorder provisions)'' provincial Review Boards, which includes the British Columbia Review Board (BCRB). However, this decision limits the scope of available remedies under section 24(1) to those that have been specifically granted to a given body by the legislature. In ''Conway'', the Review Board could make a determination that the provision was unconstitutional, but did not have the authority to strike it down.  


A case in which CLAS acted as an intervener--([https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc45/2012scc45.html?resultIndex=1 ''Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society'', (2012) 2 SCR 524] at paras 73-74) opened the door for groups of individuals to bring ''Charter'' challenges. In this case sex workers were granted public standing as a group to bring ''Charter'' challenges. This decision impacts mentally ill people as well by enabling patients that are detained in mental health facilities to bring ''Charter'' challenges as a group, rather than being forced to do so on an individual basis. Additionally, organizations can begin an action on behalf of a group of vulnerable people if there is no other way for the issue to be brought before a court.
A case in which CLAS acted as an intervener - ([https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc45/2012scc45.html?resultIndex=1 ''Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society'', (2012) 2 SCR 524] at paras 73-74) opened the door for groups of individuals to bring ''Charter'' challenges. In this case sex workers were granted public standing as a group to bring ''Charter'' challenges. This decision impacts mentally ill people as well by enabling patients that are detained in mental health facilities to bring ''Charter'' challenges as a group, rather than being forced to do so on an individual basis. Additionally, organizations can begin an action on behalf of a group of vulnerable people if there is no other way for the issue to be brought before a court.


== K. Legal Rights of Those in Group Homes ==
== K. Legal Rights of Those in Group Homes ==
2,734

edits