[1]                The applicant claims the sum 8 888 000 $ of the University centre of health of Estrie (named C.H.U.S. hereafter) as of the doctor-defendants who looked after it at the time of his hospitalization and other speakers.

[2]                He pleads to be interned against his liking for one 57 days period, that is to say of February 11 to April 12, 1995 inclusively.

[3]                He pleads to be poisoned against his will and to have been victim of several cruel and inhuman treatments, against his liking and without legal authorization. He claims to be persecuted of his basic rights, the such right to freedom, information, the right to accept or refuse care and the right to give his assent in a way free and lit like his right to dignity and the integrity. He also claims that the doctor-defendants prescribed, continuously, of the drugs without making sure of their effect on him and without taking account of the complaints of this one.

[4]                Hearing proceeded over several days. On September 18, 2006, when it is sworn in, the applicant declares being a warrior of the light. On September 19 it is still a warrior of light. On September 20, he declares being a special investigator in national security and Ambassador of peace, Ambassador of God and he hopes for soon the country.

(PLEASE READ, hearing was held over several days. On September 18, 2006, when it is sworn in, the applicant declares  being a warrior of the light. On September 19 he is still a warrior of the light. ON SEPTEMBER 20, HE DECLARES BEING A SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR IN NATIONAL SECURITY AND AMBASSADOR OF PEACE, AMBASSADOR FOR JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH AND HE HOPES FOR SOON AMBASSADOR OF PEACE FOR THE COUNTRY.)

He is also a warrior of the light. He draws his incomes from allowance of social security.

(PLEASE READ, IT DRAWS ITS INCOMES From a REVENUE Of DISABILITY OF the CONTROL OF the REVENUES OF QUEBEC SINCE 2003 AND Of ALLOWANCE From SOCIAL SECURITY SINCE 1998.)

[5]                At the time of the continuation of investigation on January 8, 2007, he declares being without shelters, the Warrior of the light and an special investigator in national security and Ambassador of peace.

[6]                He explains to the court why he speaks with God directly and that God gives him precise instructions.

(PLEASE READ, HE EXPLAINS TO THE COURT WHY HE SPEAKS WITH JESUS CHRIST ABOUT NAZARETH AND THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES HIM PRECISE INSTRUCTIONS.)

[7]                The applicant signs his procedures:

«Serge Bourassa-Lacombe; VICTOR OF LAMARRE II, JACQUES-CARTIER II, MARTIN LUTHER KING JR THE WHITE ALL WAS PERFECT WITH THE BLACK. »

[8]                He produced an expertise carried out by Dr. Jacques Talbot, m.d., psychiatrist, of the Institute Philippe Pinel, dated November 3, 2006, in which Doctor Talbot mentions:

«It (the applicant) realizes however which references that it makes in his writings or its remarks with or Marc Lépine or with the slaughter of Dawson can exert a negative influence and generate fears with the entourage. 

The evaluation to which I proceeded, and who extended over more than one hour, taking into account the symptomatic richness provided by the patient and of his circonstanciality allow that this diagnosis already evoked of mixed delirious disorder is retained, paranoid, mystical and imposing.

(…)

The evaluation to which I proceeded makes it possible to highlight indeed the existence of a psychiatric disease chronically present at this patient and of a register psychotic. »

 

[9]                A judgement was given on May 17, 2004 by Honourable Raynald Fréchette, j.c.s. [1], in which this one grants a request for authorization of treatment presented by the C.H.U.S., Hôtel-Dieu house, and in which it authorizes it or any other doctor called to replace it to treat the applicant, in spite of its categorical refusal and against its liking, by means of antipsychotic drugs as well as drugs to mitigate the side effects of the antipsychotic drugs while resorting to any means to manage them, including the force so necessary. It also orders in Serge Bourassa-Lacombe to be subjected to the judgement for one 3 years period, except if, inside this time, a doctor notes the aptitude to be granted this care (P-64).

 

[10]            The applicant mentions with the court that it is not followed medically in spite of the ordinance of Fréchette judge because it for of does not feel the need.

 

(PLEASE READ, the APPLICANT MENTIONS WITH the COURT THAT IT IS NOT FOLLOWED MEDICALLY IN SPITE OF the ORDINANCE OF JUDGE FRÉCHETTE BECAUSE DOCTOR WILLIAM SEEMAN It IS BEEN USEFUL OF the ORDINANCE OF TREATMENT TO TRANSFORM IT INTO ORDINANCE OF EVIL TREATMENT, the WHOLE ENDANGERING the LIFE OF the APPLICANT. FOR THIS REASON AT THE SUMMER THE 2004 APPLICANT WITH TAKEN THE ESCAPE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA BECAUSE IT REFUSED TO DIE BY THESE ILL TREATMENTS.)
 

 

[11]            The court will divide this judgement into four parts, which take again the main questions of facts and right in litigation. Of course, each part can include/understand other questions included in the four main questions in litigation:

a)      Responsibilities for the C.H.U.S. and the doctors for the hospitalization between on February 11 and on April 12, 1995;

b)      Responsibility for the C.H.U.S. and the doctors for the hospitalization between on March 17 and on April 12, 1995;

c)      Regulation of the recourse;

d)      Too bad;
 

[12]            FACTS

 

[13]            The court heard the applicant as well as the drs Lynn Gaudreault and Marc Lefebvre on the events which have occurred at the time of the hospitalization of the applicant as well as Dr. Claude Arbour.

 

[14]            The expert-psychiatrists, Dr. Michel Gregoire and Dr. Lionel Béliveau, were also heard. They have both based their expertise on the medical file as consisted the C.H.U.S. Of other witnesses were heard but their testimonies did not add anything to the debate.

 

(PLEASE READ, the expert-psychiatrists, Dr. Michel Gregoire and Dr. Lionel Béliveau, was also heard. THEY HAVE BOTH BASED THEIR EXPERTISE ON THE MEDICAL FILE AS CONSISTED THE C.H.U.S. ITS TO SAY.: PLOT, MANUFACTURE OF FORGERY, USE OF FORGERY, PERJURY, ETC… OTHER WITNESSES WERE HEARD BUT THEIR TESTIMONIES WERE VERY IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE/UNDERSTAND the WIDTH OF the DAMAGE.

 

Initially, MRS CAROLE DONATO DID CAME TO TESTIFY FOR the APPLICANT on September 19 TO DESCRIBE TO WHICH POINT the TREATMENTS WHICH THEY HAD MANAGED WITH the APPLICANT IN 2003 It HAD BROUGHT IN SIDE EFFECTS TERRIBLE.

 

IN SECOND PLACE, the DOCTOR PATRICK METCALFE, VETERINARY SURGEON AND PROFESSOR EAST COME on January 8, 2007 TO SAY TO the COURT WHICH HE HAD NEVER SAID to the DOCTOR IN 1995 the SENTENCE THAT ONE FINDS ON PAGE 29 OF the MEDICAL FILE OF the APPLICANT IS: «… MOREOVER, HE WAS AGGRESSIVE VERBALLY AND MADE THREATS TO KILL EVERYONE.»)

 

MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY

 

 

MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY

 

[15]            Dated February 11, 1995, the applicant was evaluated with the urgency by Dr. Gagnon. He notes that the history is made with the father of the applicant who is brought by police officers who were called by the joint tenant of the applicant because this last is aggressive verbally and hustled it.

 

(PLEASE READ,… BECAUSE THIS LAST EXPRESSED SA ANGER AGAINST SA JOINT TENANT MRS GAÉTANE GAINED IN FRONT OF HER FATHER AND SA MOTHER BY GIVING A PUNCH ON THE KITCHEN TABLE BECAUSE OF A LACK OF RESPECT OF THIS JOINT TENANT.)
 

 

It mentions that since December 1994, this one is aggressive.

 

(PLEASE READ, IT MENTIONS THAT SINCE DECEMBER 1994, THIS ONE IS MORE SPIRITUAL.)
 

 

Since 1994, the applicant expressed a behavioural change whose his/her father was not advised. The father of the applicant mentions to have received a call of his son preceding Thursday, this one holds of the odd remarks on his childhood. When the father visits his son, it holds of the religious remarks, an imposing speech.

 

[16]            It is mentioned with the medical file that the applicant assembles the tone quickly, that it has verbal aggressiveness, that he is being wary, aggressive and feels misunderstood. Dr. Gagnon mentions that it has imposing, incoherent remarks religious and delirious by moment with a self-criticism and a faded judgement. At this time, the doctor concludes with one is delirious religious at a patient without antecedent, poses a possible diagnosis of episodes acute psychotics and request a consultation in psychiatry.

 

[17]            The history of the patient since the beginning December 1994, indicates that the applicant started to take «wake-up pills» that it buys with pharmacy to prepare his examinations. It is at this time that its problems begin from behaviour.

 

(PLEASE READ, the HISTORY OF the PATIENT SINCE the BEGINNING DECEMBER 1994, INDICATES THAT the APPLICANT HAD GONE TO the PHARMACY OF CROSSROADS ESTRIE TO BUY it ON SALE FREE «WAKE-UP PILLS» TO PREPARE THESE EXAMINATIONS WITHOUT NEVER HOWEVER CONSUMING some. The APPLICANT RATHER DECIDED TO OBTAIN a REFUNDING WHILE TURNING OVER THEM TO PHARMACY.)
 

 

[18]            To the level of the family antecedents, it is reported that one of his/her sisters possibly suffered from major depression. One reports, that after the holidays of Christmas (1994), Mister remains in a friend who notes serious problems of behaviour, that it is very agitated, sleeps very little (2 or 3 hours per night), wants constantly to make love, works out multiple projects.

 

(PLEASE READ, TO THE LEVEL OF THE FAMILY ANTECEDENTS, IT IS REPORTED THAT SA SISTER POSSIBLY SUFFERED FROM MAJOR DEPRESSION. IT IS REPORTED, THAT AFTER the HOLIDAYS OF CHRISTMAS (1994), MR REMAINS AT MRS LUCIE TAILLON a FRIEND OF QUEBEC WHICH NOTES THAT HE SLEEPS ACCORDING TO HIS NEED, WANTS TO MAKE LOVE, WORKS OUT MULTIPLE PROJECTS.)
 

 

[19]            Of return to him on January 8, it is mentioned that it always is very agitated, that it sleeps only 2 or 3 hours per night, that he leaves every evening and returns towards 3 or 4 hours a.m. in a state of intoxication.

 

(PLEASE READ, OF RETURN TO HIM On January 8, IT IS MENTIONED THAT IT SLEEPS ACCORDING TO ITS NEED, THAT IT LEAVES A FEW EVENINGS AND RETURNS TOWARDS 3 OR 4 HOURS A.M. IN a STATE Of PERRIER WATER.)
 

 

[20]            It always uses its «wake-up pills» and spends much of money. One speaks there about violence, of recent appearance. It awakes its joint tenant with 5:00 of the morning, makes it sit of force and «you says to him will listen to me”. It is also mentioned that he utters death threats towards the pupils of his class. It presents one is delirious religious, imposing, paranoid, being said had of God, having discovered that it has a gift and that the inhabitants of Sherbrooke are blasted.

 

(PLEASE READ, IT DOES NOT HAVE MUCH MONEY SPENT BECAUSE IT IS STUDENT. IT NEVER AWAKES SA JOINT TENANT. IT MAKES a TALK WITH the PUPILS OF SA CLASSIFIES ON the GOOD AND the EVIL, AND ON the IMPORTANCE NOT TO REJECT ANYONE IN a GROUP. IT SE KNOWN AS HAD OF JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH, HAVING DISCOVERED THAT HE RECEIVED SEVERAL GIFTS WITH THE PASSING OF YEARS.)
 

 

[21]            It is not a question here to know if all the facts on which the doctors based themselves to pose a diagnosis are veracious, but rather to know if the doctors, with the facts of which they have note knowledge and them that they did themselves, can draw the diagnosis that they drew. We will return there further.

 

[22]            In addition, the court notes that the applicant confirms speech directly with God and to have gifts of healer.

 

(PLEASE READ, IN ADDITION, THE COURT NOTES THAT THE APPLICANT ASSURE TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO JESUS THE CHRIST OF NAZARETH AND THAT PEOPLE OBTAINED CURES IN CONTACT WITH HIS HANDS AND OF HIS AND/OR ITS PRAYER(S).)

 

 

[23]            In a note of evolution of February 11, 1995 [2], written by Dr. Lefebvre, the psychiatrists conclude with an episode psychotic with element from paranoid mania, possibly secondary with the catch the sympathomimetic ones [3]. To the plan of control, they recommend that Mister is kept at the hospital, taking into account the danger for others, and to resort to article 21 if the patient wishes to leave.

 

[24]            As Dr. Gregoire mentions it, the file contains notes of evaluation exhaustive, complete, which describe very well the suggestive complaints as formulated by the applicant as well as the symptoms that the doctors can objectify. The description of the behaviours is complete and precise. It mentions there that the applicant was followed assiduously sometimes on quasi-daily bases, that the doctors are attentive with the side effects caused by medication, that their reactions are prompt and that they take the appropriate measures in the circumstances.

 

[25]            Just like Dr. Gregoire, the court is impressed by the general state of the file as created during the period of February 13, 1995 to April 12, 1995.

 

[26]            The court is of agreement with the conclusions of Dr. Gregoire when he affirms:

«In addition, the reading of the medical file of Mr Bourassa-Lacombe, the diagnosis of emotional disease bipolar in phase maniac with symptoms associated psychotics is not any doubt. Let us point out the criteria of the DSM-IV for an episode maniac:

 

a) one definitely delimited period during which mood is high in an abnormal and persistent way during at least 1 week (or any other duration if a hospitalization is necessary);

 

b) during this period of disturbance of mood, at least 3 of the following symptoms (4 if mood is only irritable) persisted with a sufficient intensity:

 

(1)    increase in the regard of oneself or idea of size;

 

(2) reduction of the need for sleep (p. e.g. the subject feels rested after only 3 hours of sleep);

 

(3) greater communicability than usually or desire of speaking constantly;

 

(4) escape of the ideas or subjective feeling that the thoughts ravel;

 

(5) distractibility;

 

(6) increase in the activity directed towards a goal (social, professional, school or sexual) or psychomotor agitation;

 

(7) excessive engagement in pleasant activities but with high potential of detrimental consequences;

 

c) the symptoms do not answer the criteria of a mixed episode;

 

d) The disturbance of mood is sufficiently severe to involve a marked deterioration of professional operation, social activities or interpersonal relationships, or to require the hospitalization in order to prevent detrimental consequences for the subject or others, or there exist characteristics psychotics;

 

E) The symptoms are not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance or a general medical affection.

 

Also let us recall that the individuals carrying a similar pathology have unforeseeable behaviours. They can become very aggressive, especially if they are confronted with refusal vis-a-vis their usually unrealistic and completely unreasonable requests.

 

During a phase maniac, the symptomatologic intensity can fluctuate, sometimes even during an only day. It also should be stressed that the individuals carrying a similar pathology, when they are in phase maniac, do not have any self-criticism vis-a-vis their behaviour. They do not consider that they are sick. They feel often euphoric, exalted. He often calls upon capacities of cure and they like much to help the others. Their logical direction is very disturbed. They is usually people of the entourage who note the disordered state of their behaviour.

 

Taking into account what precedes, it is very frequent that the patients in manic phase refuse or question their hospitalization as well as the relevance of a medication, especially in the first days of hospitalization. » [4]

 

[27]            The applicant was thus hospitalized of February 11 to April 12.

 

[28]            Dated March 17, the applicant means with Dr. Gaudreault a refusal of treatment. Between on February 11 and on March 17, the court comes to the conclusion which the applicant accepted the treatments that it received. Even if the doctors believed in the need for one cure-closed, no procedure in this direction were made since the doctors usually try to obtain the collaboration of the patient before carrying out legally obtaining a judgement for guard in establishment. The heard proof convinces the court that this way of trying to obtain the assent of the patient is in conformity with the code of practice and facilitates the care received by the patient.

 

(PLEASE READ, Dated March 17, the APPLICANT MEANS WITH DR. GAUDREAULT THAT HE REFUSES MEDICATION since February 11 AND THAT If THERE WERE ASSENT IT WAS a VITIATED ASSENT.)
 

 

[29]            All are intended to affirm, that after March 17, the applicant refuses to be neat by the defendants. He categorically affirms with the defendants that he refuses to be kept in establishment and that it wishes to leave.

 

[30]            On March 17, Dr. Gaudreault concludes with the need from a guard in establishment for the applicant because of his danger, for itself and others, and this, according to his clinical evolution since the beginning of the hospitalization under his care. It thus writes a first report/ratio of clinical examination psychiatric on March 17 in order to make it possible the hospital authorities to obtain Court an ordinance of guard in establishment. It indicates like impression diagnoses that of bipolar emotional disease with phases maniacs and elements psychotics.

 

[31]            The 18 and March 19, 1995, the applicant is seen and examined by Dr. Jean-Philippe Boulenger, which also concludes with the need from a guard in establishment because of the danger of the applicant for itself and others. Thereafter, the two reports of psychiatric clinical examination are submitted to the Director of the professional services, Dr. Paul Montambault, to make it possible the hospital authorities to obtain Court an ordinance of guard in establishment.

 

[32]            Following the submission of the two reports, the defendants, Drs Lynn Gaudreault and Jean-Philippe Boulenger, never directly or were indirectly implied in the process of obtaining the ordinance of guard in establishment since this one concerned the hospital authorities. They were not at all held informed of the taken steps or the incurred times. For Dr. Gaudreault, it went from oneself that the hospital authorities had made the necessary steps to obtain a judgement ordering a guard in establishment.

 

[33]            Believer that the request for guard in establishment is granted, Dr. Gaudreault signs, on March 21, 1995, a letter warning the applicant that:

«As stipulated in article 27, we warn you in writing that you are currently in cure closed at the University hospital of Sherbrooke. The first evaluation confirming the closed cure was made on March 17, 1995 by the doctor Lynn Gaudreault, doctor psychiatrist and the second evaluation was made on March 19, 1995 by Doctor Jean-Philippe Boulenger, doctor psychiatrist. » [5]

 

[34]            Dated April 7, 1995, Dr. Lynn Gaudreault and Dr. Marc Lefebvre give with hand to hand to the applicant a letter which warns it:

«As stipulated in article 27, we warn you in writing that you are always in cure closed at the department of psychiatry of the University hospital of Sherbrooke. The first evaluation confirming the closed cure was made on March 17, 1995 by the doctor Lynn Gaudreault, doctor psychiatrist and the second evaluation was made on March 19, 1995 by Doctor Jean-Philippe Boulenger, doctor psychiatrist. As required by the law, a third evaluation was made on April 5, 1995 by the doctor Lynn Gaudreault, doctor psychiatrist, with decision to continue cure-closed. » [6]

 

[35]            In fact, on March 24, 1995, a request for guard in an health care institution and cure-closed, under the terms of article 13 of the Law on the protection of the mentally ill [7] and article 30 C.c.Q. [8] was written. The applicant is Paul Montambault represented for purposes of the request, in infringement with articles 59 and 61 C.p.c. by Dr. André Simard. This request is accompanied by a declaration under oath in the name of André Simard and by an opinion of presentation made with Mr Raynald Lacombe, father of the applicant, mentioning that the request will be presented for adjudication on March 31, 1995.

 

[36]            On April 2, 1995, Mr Raynald Lacombe, father of the applicant, receives copy to be worth significance on the request. We know that this one is not presented on March 31, 1995 and it is of proof that on April 19, 1995, judgement is given granting the aforementioned request.

 

[37]            It is also of proof, that when judgement is given on April 19, the applicant was already slackened since April 12. A dated April 12 letter confirms to the applicant the suspension of his cure-closed dated April 11, 1995.

 

[38]            We do not know what could occur between on March 24, date of the drafting of the request, and on April 19, 1995. No explanation is given by the C.H.U.S. nor by the doctors. We know, on the other hand, whether from April 11, 1995, the applicant does not represent any more one risk for itself or others. We also know that the declaration under oath with the support of the request for ordinance of guard is not any more topicality when this request is granted by judge on April 19, 1995.

 

[39]            It is also of proof that on April 10, 1995, the applicant signs a request for revision of his guard in establishment before the Commission of the social affairs [9]. This request is withdrawn since the applicant is released the following day.

 

[40]            It is always represented with the applicant that this one in cure-is closed and that this cure was authorized by the court. Moreover, on April 17, 1997, the applicant receives answer to a complaint which it had forwarded in March 1997 to Mr. Normand Legault, director of the internal administration of the engineering services. This last warns the applicant whom it will not give following his complaint given that the care which was lavished «was authorized by the Court, which, being done, judged that they were necessary» [10].

 

[41]            Consequently, defendant, even if it knows or must know that the judgement authorizing the guard in establishment is obtained only on April 19, 1995, always affirms with the applicant that a judgement authorized its guard in establishment.

 

[42]            The applicant makes several requests in order to obtain a copy of his medical file. All these requests are refused to him as much by the C.H.U.S. as by Dr. Gaudreault. It is only following one decision of the returned Commission of the social affairs on November 20, 1997 that the applicant can finally get a copy of his medical file.

 

[43]            Thereafter, the applicant deposits various complaints against the defendants.

 

[44]            A complaint is deposited with the College of the doctors on May 12, 1997 [11]. A complaint with the Control of the health insurance of Quebec is deposited on May 19, 1997 [12]. Another complaint is deposited with the Control of the health insurance of Quebec on July 3, 1997 [13]. A complaint in police deontology is also deposited by the applicant.

 

[45]            A long letter from which the applicant began the drafting with Aguanish on September 15, 1995 is addressed to the Students Association of the College of Sherbrooke.

 

[46]            This letter produced by the defendants under the dimension D-22 and D-23 is allowed by all the parts.

 

[47]            This letter is dispatched with 57 people, including the General governor of Canada, the Minister for Health, the director of the C.H.U.S., the College of the doctors like Daniel Jacoby, guard of the citizen.

 

[48]            Dr. Michel Gregoire refers to this letter on page 35 of his expert report. He mentions that it is about a letter of November 3, 1995, but are rather certified copies which would have been dated November 3, 1995.

 

[49]            The applicant refers to this letter in his interrogation of December 9, 2003 [14]. He also testifies [15], in answer to a question of the prosecutor of the defendants, to have dispatched this letter with the 57 people named in the S-4 part. This S-4 part is the autobiography also produced under the dimensions D-22 and D-23.

 

[50]            It reaffirms to have forwarded copy of this letter to 57 people in her interrogation of November 30, 1998 [16].

 

[51]            The preponderance of the proof is thus that the parts D-22 and D-23 are dispatched with the 57 people mentioned in the aforementioned letter.

 

[52]            This letter shows all the reproaches that the applicant made to the defendants concerning his hospitalization.

 

[53]            On November 13, 1997, the Commission of the rights of the person rejects the complaint of the applicant.

 

[54]            The D-45 part entitled in the book of parts of the defendants Gaudreault and Arbour:

«Resolution of the Commission of the rights of the person and the rights of youth of dated November 13, 1997 Quebec confirming that the Commission is not competent to make investigation have regard to the complaints placed by Serge Bourassa-Lacombe since this one did not subject any element likely to establish a bond between the various situations of which he complains and the reduced reasons for discrimination. »

Indicate:

«The plaintiff lodged several complaints with the Commission. He also presented many documents to support his claims.

Commission, after study and discussion, cease to act in favour of plaintiff for reason that this one does not subject any element likely to establish a bond between the various situations of which he complains and the pled reasons for discrimination. The Commission is thus of opinion, in the circumstances which it does not have competence to make investigation. »

[55]            This resolution C.P.F. 312-38, produced under the dimension D-45 relates to the file entitled:

PLAINTIFF PART:  Serge B. - L.

PARTS BLAMED:    University centre of Estrie - and College of Sherbrooke.

 

[56]            RESPONSIBILITY FOR the C.H.U.S. AND the DOCTORS FOR the HOSPITALIZATION BETWEEN on February 11 AND On April 12, 1995

 

[57]            An Hospital is not responsible for the damage undergone following an medical act posed by a doctor. The Hospital could not be responsible for damage without to have made fault. No reproach can be made at the Hospital relative with its structure, its plan of organization, with the granting or the renewal of the privileges to the doctors. Also, no reproach is made to hospital staff as for the care received by the applicant. [17]

 

[58]            As the Supreme court in Lapointe C. Hôpital pointed out it the Keeper [18]:

«The professional responsibility arises from the principles of the ordinary civil responsibility. Generally, the doctors have an obligation of means and their control must be evaluated compared to the control of a careful and diligent doctor placed in the same circumstances. According to professor Paul-Andre Crépeau in his fundamental article entitled: «The civil responsibility of the doctor» (1977), 8 R. D.U.S. 25, with pp. 28 and 29:

The doctor, except stipulation express, sees himself imposing, according to a generally allowed classification today, an obligation of means, i.e. the obligation to lavish, as the Court of appeal affirmed it, in 1936, in the Mercier business «of the care careful, attentive and conscientious and, made reserve of circumstances exceptional, in conformity with the gathered data of science”. [p. 361]”

 

[59]            A little further, the Supreme court mentions:

«As indicates it the stop General hospital of the area of Asbestos Inc., the courts must take guard not to trust with the perfect vision which the retreat allows. To equitably evaluate a particular exercise of the judgement, it is necessary to take account of the possibility limited of the doctor, when it decides control to follow, to envisage the course of the events. If not, the doctor will not be evaluated according to the standards of a reasonable doctor of competence placed in the same circumstances, but it will be rather held responsible for errors which did not become obvious that after the fact.

The doctrines and jurisprudence emphasize that the health professionals should not be held responsible for simple errors of judgement, which are distinct from the professional misconduct. » (our underlined) [pp. 362-363]

 

[60]            The court is of agreement with the experts Gregoire and Béliveau that the hospitalization, which began on February 11, 1995, was indicated and necessary taking into account the behavioural deterioration which the applicant expressed. The applicant agrees to remain at the hospital, it acts there of a current situation with individuals carrying bipolar emotional disease in phase maniac. The team of looking after tries to negotiate with the patient while trying to render comprehensible to him that her maintenance at the hospital and necessary and that it must profit from care. The first rule is always to try to obtain a collaboration with the patient to facilitate fidelity with the treatments and to preserve therapeutic alliance. During subsequent days and weeks, that is to say until March 17, 1995, the applicant put forward, on some occasions, that it is at least of agreement with his hospitalization. However, these periods of opposition are short durations and it maintained forever, at least until March 17, a firm intention to obtain a final leave. Not only no reproach can be made to the attending physicians of the Hospital, but the court is convinced that the applicant received care beyond what the standard imposes to the defendants. The doctor-defendants are, of the opinion of the court, the devoted doctors who tried to lavish to the applicant the care which its condition required.

 

[61]            It is also of proof that the applicant agrees to collaborate in the catch of his medication until March 13, 1995 and that its some refusal, during this period, all are respected. Thereafter, he refuses any medication categorically. Taking into account the fact that it does not present agitation or of aggressiveness of worrying intensity, the doctors and the medical team respect her decision. The only times where the applicant receives intramuscular injections against his liking, those are justified in the circumstances.

 

[62]            Medication is managed, when necessary, according to the standards in force and the notes of follow-up show that the doctors are very attentive with the clinical evolution of the applicant, like with the side effects which it presents. They react quickly when that proves to be necessary and no reproach can be formulated in their connection.

 

[63]            Finally, even if the court should not trust with the perfect vision which the retreat allows, it is not possible to find an error in the diagnosis posed by the doctors. The facts reported to the doctors as those which they could note themselves made it possible them to pose the returned diagnosis. The behaviour of the applicant, since 1995, at the time confirms the accuracy of the acts posed by the doctors.

 

[64]            RESPONSIBILITY FOR the C.H.U.S. AND the DOCTORS FOR the HOSPITALIZATION BETWEEN on March 17 AND On April 12, 1995

 

[65]            It is of proof that the applicant clearly meant his refusal of any treatment on March 17, 1995.

 

[66]            The relevant articles of the Civil code of Quebec into force at the time are the following:

«26. No one cannot be kept in an health care institution or social services, for a psychiatric examination or following a psychiatric report/ratio of examination, without its assent or without the law or the court authorizing it.

The assent can be given by the holder of the parental authority or, when the person is major and that it cannot express her will, by his agent, his tutor or his curator. This assent can be given by the representative only in the absence of opposition of the person.

 

27. If it has serious reasons to believe that a person represents a danger for itself or others because of her mental state, the court can, at the request of a doctor or an interested party, to order that she is, in spite of the absence of assent, kept in an health care institution or social services to undergo a psychiatric examination there. If the request is refused, it can be presented again only so of other facts are pled.

If the danger is imminent, the person can be allowed under guard, without the authorization of the court, as it is envisaged by relative laws with the protection of the people reached of mental disease.

28. The judgement which rules on the guard of a person, in order to subject it to a psychiatric examination, also orders the handing-over of a report/ratio to the court in the seven days. It can, if it is necessary, authorize any other medical examination made necessary by the circumstances.

The report/ratio cannot be revealed, except with the parts, without the authorization of the court.

29.        Report/ratio of doctor must to relate, in particular, to need of guard in establishment if the person represents a danger for itself or others because of her mental state, on the aptitude of the person who underwent the examination to take care of itself or to manage her goods and, if necessary, on opportunity of opening in her connection a mode of protection of the major one.

30. When the report/ratio concludes with the need for keeping the person in establishment, the guard cannot take place, in the absence of assent, that with the authorization of the court.

The judgement which orders the guard of a person into fixed also the duration. In all the cases, the person must be released as soon as the guard is not justified any more, even if the allowed time is not expired. » [19]

[67]            The Law on the protection of the mentally ill [20] into force at the time envisaged:

“(13) 11. A person cannot be allowed in closed cure unless its mental state is not likely to endanger the health or the safety of this person or the health or the safety of others.

(14) 12. An establishment which exploits an hospital cannot admit a person in closed cure unless this person did not undergo a psychiatric clinical examination, that the report/ratio aimed to article 7 concluded with the need from the closed cure and that this report/ratio was not confirmed by the report/ratio of another psychiatrist following a psychiatric clinical examination made by this other psychiatrist.

Temporary admission.

The establishment can however admit this person in cure closed for one period of at the most ninety-six hours as long as a second psychiatrist did not confirm the report/ratio of the first.

(15) 13. If a person refuses to subject herself to a psychiatric clinical examination which was necessary in its connection in accordance with article 4 or in article 5 or the guard to which the report/ratio aimed to article 7 concludes, the judge can order to him to subject himself to this examination or the guard in accordance with the rules envisaged with the Code of civil procedure (C-25 chapter).

Emission against the tutor.

Such an ordinance can be emitted against the tutor, the curator or the legal guard of such a person if the refusal emanates from this tutor, curator or guard.

Order of the judge in the case of a prisoner.

The judge aimed to article 6 can return a similar ordinance with regard to the person aimed at this article which refuses to be subjected to the necessary psychiatric clinical examination by this judge.

(17) 21. The director of the professional services of an establishment which exploits an hospital or, in his absence, any doctor exerting in this center can temporarily admit in an installation maintained by this establishment a person without it undergoing a psychiatric clinical examination if he judges that the mental state of this person is such as he presents for it or for others a serious and immediate danger.

Keep 48 hours.

Such a person cannot be kept more than 48 hours without her assent or without the court not authorizing it.

19) 23. An establishment which exploits an hospital cannot keep a person in cure closed more than twenty and one days after its admission without a new psychiatric clinical examination not confirming the need for prolonging the closed cure.

Other examinations.

Such an examination must again take place three months after the first and thereafter in the least once every six month, in the absence of what the closed cure of this person must end. »

[68]            It is clear that the obligation to obtain an ordinance of guard in establishment rests on the shoulders of the University hospital of Sherbrooke. Moreover, by its intrigues, the C.H.U.S. always implied with Dr. Gaudreault whom it dealt with the authorizations necessary. Nothing explains the negligence of the C.H.U.S. to obtain this authorization. A thing is certain, null cannot be kept in an health care institution or social services without its assent or without the law or the court not authorizing it.

 

[69]            This right is also conferred by the Charter of the rights and freedoms of the person [21]:

«1. Any human being is entitled to the life, like with safety, the integrity and the freedom of its person.

24. No one cannot be private of its freedom or its rights, except for the reasons envisaged by the law and according to the prescribed procedure. »

 

[70]            Obviously, the defendant, C.H.U.S., were negligent in the administration and the follow-up of her files. It is inadmissible that no mention is made with the medical file of the authorizations obtained to keep a patient in closed guard. How the doctors can be advised conditions surrounding an ordinance of care if the Director of the professional services keeps in his file the ordinances of the Court.

 

[71]            In these case, the defendant, C.H.U.S., always made it clear that an ordinance had been granted to be able to keep the applicant in closed cure. It gave to the applicant the parts D-13 and D-14 which informed him of its rights, in which he was indicated that a judgement was necessary to keep it in establishment.

 

[72]            It falls to the doctors psychiatrists who note that the mental health of a patient is likely to endanger its health to establish a closed cure. On the other hand, the admission in closed cure is responsibility for the hospital. It thus falls to the doctors psychiatrists, in the process of admission in closed cure, to subject the patient the necessary clinical examination. The facts show that the requirements of the law were respected by the doctors, they believed that the judgement necessary to the guard was given.

 

[73]            Twenty and one days after the first examination, Dr. Gaudreault revalues the applicant since she believes that a judgement was obtained.

 

[74]            The time between on March 17 and on April 19 for obtaining the judgement is unexplainable and inexcusable.

 

[75]            Within which time the ordinance does have it to be returned? We know that the applicant refuses his treatments on March 17. On March 20, the Director of the professional services has between the hands the reports/ratios necessary to the presentation of the request.

 

[76]            The C.H.U.S., without being represented by lawyer, whereas it would have owed the being [22], prepares a request. The P-7 part shows that this request can be written in a few minutes, more especially as it seems that it is about a standard request where the facts particular to the species are added to the typist. This request is signed on March 24 and nothing explains the reason for which the father of the applicant agrees to receive copy to be worth significance only on April 2, namely, after the expiry of the period for the opinion of presentation. Since it there has request for exemption of significance of the request to the applicant, and exempts interrogation of the applicant, no valid reason justifies to wait until the father of the applicant agrees to receive copy to be worth significance.

 

[77]            Moreover, the opinion of presentation of the request mentions that this one is presentable in room and not in room of practice of the Court of Quebec. Once again, no reason explains the time between the signature by the father of the applicant and the presentation of the request. We know that judgement was given on April 19 and nothing shows that somebody worried to present himself to the court before April 19.

 

[78]            Much more, the judgement returned on April 19 should never have been obtained, since the applicant was already on leave of the hospital.

 

[79]            The defendant, C.H.U.S., plead that since the law, at the time, does not establish a time in which the request for guard in an establishment must be presented, the court owes computer a reasonable delay so that the defendant can present this request at the time. She thus pleads that she had until April to present it, that is to say after the father received copy to be worth significance.

 

[80]            The court cannot entirely retain this argument. The applicant put forward his refusal of treatment and of guard on March 17 and the Director of the professional services was in position to prepare his request on March 20. Nothing explains why it waited March 24 to write its request.

 

[81]            The court believes that a time until March 24 for the presentation of the request and obtaining the judgement is more than reasonable, more especially as now, the time with this intention is 48 hours [23].

 

[82]            Consequently, a 7 days deadline for obtaining a judgement is more than sufficient. The applicant was thus kept under guard in establishment without his assent for one 19 days illegal duration, being established of March 24 to April 12, 1995 for which defendant C.H.U.S. must be held responsible.

 

[83]            REGULATION OF THE RECOURSE

 

[84]            The applicant was hospitalized of February 11 to April 12, 1995.

 

[85]            Judgement is given on April 19, 1995 authorizing the closed cure.

 

[86]            On April 17, 1997, the defendant, C.H.U.S., warns the applicant whom it rejects his complaint given that the care, which was lavished to him, was authorized by the Court. The defendant thus makes it clear still with the applicant who his guard was legal.

 

[87]            From 1995 until November 20, 1997, the defendant, C.H.U.S., and Dr. Lynn Gaudreault, always refused that the applicant receives copy of his medical file in spite of his many requests. The Commission of the social affairs returns its decision on November 20, 1997, where it grants the request of the applicant aiming at obtaining access to the information contained to its file.

 

[88]            On November 13, 1997, the Commission of the rights of the person and the rights of youth rejects the complaint of the applicant to which we refer in paragraphs 45 and following of our decision.

 

[89]            The action of the applicant is dated April 14, 1998 and was stamped the same day to be meant on April 15.

 

[90]            The defendants plead that article 2925 C.c.Q must receive application:

«The action which tends to take advantage of a personal right or a movable right in rem and whose term of limitation is not differently fixed prescribes by three years. »

 

[91]            According to them, the applicant was fully aware of the recourse which were offered to him as well as faults reproached to the defendants and it should have brought his proceedings more quickly. The applicant would have only a few days of delay.

 

[92]            The defendants plead that the judgment delivered by the Supreme court in Oznaga C. Development company of the lotteries and races of Quebec [24] must receive application, and quote the following extract:

“(…) guard should be taken well not to release the computation of the deadlines, of forfeiture like procedure, at the point to make them almost inoperative, because these clauses serve justice and have as a raison d'être the protection of rights which the legislator wanted in certain conditions of privileging, this with the detriment of those of the others was while placing them at the shelter of the litigants who appear tardily. » (p. 126)

 

[93]            The argument of the defendants does little case well owing to the fact that the defendants wrongfully affirmed with the applicant that they had obtained judgement ordering a closed cure. This assertion is made as much verbally than in writing to the applicant.

 

[94]            Although applicant affirms, as much when it is hospitalized that at the time of interrogation before defence, that it believed that the defendants kept it hospitalized without a judgement of the Court of Quebec, he was technically impossible for him at the time knowing if its guard were legal or not.

 

[95]            Indeed, no time fixes was not imposed at the time for obtaining the judgement. It was then impossible to know if one were inside the reasonable delay to obtain the judgement.

 

[96]            Moreover, the defendants always refused to let the applicant obtain copy of his medical file. Even if they were right on the dangers to leave the applicant his file because it contained personal information, it were their duties, at the very least, to give him copy of the judgement which belonged to its file.

 

[97]            The defendants want that the applicant undergoes the consequences of his ignorance of his illegal detention whereas they even plead that they did not know that judgement had not been given.

 

[98]            The judge To spangle, in Oznaga C. Development company of the lotteries and races of Quebec [25] mentions:

«Thus, I of opinion am that it is justifiably that in a general way the authors refuse to consider ignorance, by the creditor, of the generating legal facts of its right, as being an absolute impossibility in fact of acting (see Pierre Martineau, regulation, P.U.M., 1977, with pp. 353 and S.). In addition, one seems as much of agreement, and I subscribe to it, to recognize that the ignorance of the generating legal facts of its right, when this ignorance results from a fault of the debtor, is an impossibility in fact of acting provided with Article 2232 and that the starting point of the computation of the deadlines will be suspended until the creditor had knowledge of the existence of his right, in as much, would add I, whom it behaved with the vigilance of the good father of family.

If the remarks that this Court in the cause of Town of Montreal C. Vaillancourt held do not bring a way express this precision about the generating causes of ignorance, they should nevertheless be read compared to the fact that, in the species, Donalda Vaillancourt had been induced in error by the police report written by the same employees of the City, which besides Mr. judge of Grandpré, in my opinion, seems to implicitly say by reproducing in his opinion the paragraph of the declaration of the applicant where it is made by it mention. »

 

[99]            The court does not believe that the applicant was in impossibility of acting due to the fear of the police officers as he pleads it. It was rather in impossibility of acting by the intrigues of the defendants who dissimulated operative events of right to him. The stop of the Supreme court returned in Gauthier C. Beaumont [26], where a proof of neurosis post-traumatic preventing the victim of an violent act from bringing a case was made, does not apply to the present case. On the other hand, the following assertion of the judge as a chief, in his dissidence is always of topicality:

«1 (…) Moreover, as I affirmed in the stop Oznaga C. Development company of the lotteries and races of Quebec, [1981] 2 R. C.S. 113, with p. 126, the fault of a debtor which prevents a person from acting as justice, for example by dissimulating the operative events of its right, causes an impossibility in fact and obstacle the course of the regulation. The law must indeed be with the service of the right good. » (page 12)

 

[100]       There thus was suspension of the regulation, but there is more. The Charter of the rights and freedoms of the person [27] envisages:

«1. Any human being is entitled to the life, like with safety, the integrity and the freedom of its person.

24. No one cannot be private of its freedom or its rights, except for the reasons envisaged by the law and according to the prescribed procedure.

49. An illicit attack with a right or a freedom recognized by the present Charter confers on the victim the right to obtain the suspension of this attack and the compensation for damage moral or material which results from it.

In the event of illicit and intentional attack, the court can moreover condemn its author to punitive damages.

57. The Commission of the rights of the person and rights of youth is made up.

71. The Commission ensures, by all appropriate measures, the promotion and the respect of the principles contained in the present Charter.

She assumes in particular the following responsibilities:

1o to make investigation according to a no contradictory mode, of its own initiative or when a complaint is addressed to him, into any situation, which is published to him to constitute either a case of discrimination within the meaning of articles 10 to 19, including a case aimed to article 86, or a case of violation of the right to protection against the exploitation of the elderly or handicapped stated with the first subparagraph of article 48;

74. Can carry felt sorry for to the Commission any person who believes victim of a violation of the rights falling within competence of investigation of the Commission. Can gather to carry felt sorry for, several people who believe victims of such a violation in similar circumstances.

75. Very felt sorry for received by the Guard of the citizen and concerning the competence of investigation of the Commission is transmitted to him unless the plaintiff does not oppose it.

The complaint transmitted to the Commission famous is received by this one at the date of its deposit near the Guard of the citizen. 

76. The regulation of any civil recourse, bearing on the facts reported in a complaint or revealed by an investigation, is suspended date of the deposit of the complaint near the Commission or that of the beginning of the investigation which it holds of its own initiative, until the first of the following possibilities:

4o the date on which the victim and the plaintiff received notification that Commission refuses or ceases acting.

78. The Commission seeks, for all situations denounced in the complaint or revealed in the course of investigation, any piece of evidence which would enable him to determine if it is necessary to support the negotiation of a payment between the parts, to propose the arbitration of the disagreement or to subject to a court the litigation which remains.

It can cease acting when it estimates that it is useless to continue the search for pieces of evidence or when the proof collected is insufficient. Its decision must be justified in writing and it indicates, if it is, any recourse which the Commission considers convenient; it is notified with the victim and to the plaintiff. Opinion of its decision to cease acting must be given, by the Commission, with any person to whom a violation of rights was charged in the complaint. »

 

[101]       On November 28, 1997, the applicant receives certified copy of the resolution of the Commission of the rights of the person. This resolution is adopted at a held meeting on October 3, 1997. The D-45 part shows that the Commission, after study and discussion, «cease to act in favour of plaintiff for the reason that this one does not subject any element likely to establish a bond between the various situations of which he complains and the pled reasons for discrimination. »

 

[102]       The decision transmitted to the applicant also indicates:

«If you consider it convenient to exert a personal recourse in front of the courts of common right (Court of the small credits, Court of Quebec or Superior court), you must act as soon as possible since the regulation of your recourse starts again to run as soon as you received the opinion of closing of your file joint to present. »

 

[103]       Under the terms of article 71 of the Charter of the rights and freedoms, the Commission does not assume the responsibility to make investigation into a situation other than a case of discrimination within the meaning of articles 10 to 19. The Commission thus inquires into cases of discrimination and not into a case of loss of liberty.

 

[104]       In addition, article 76 of the Charter provides that the regulation of any civil recourse, bearing on the facts reported in a complaint or revealed by an investigation, is suspended date of the deposit of the complaint until the date on which the victim received a notification which the Commission refuses to act.

 

[105]       It is obviously not necessary that the plaintiff is right before the Commission so that the regulation is suspended. It is enough that its recourse is based on the facts reported in its complaint.

 

[106]       They are the defendants who were the proof of the sending of the documents D-22 and D-23 at the Commission as well as the reception of the decision produced under the D-45 dimension.

 

[107]       The court thus believes that this lodged complaint at the Commission also suspended the regulation for a sufficient time so that the action of the applicant is not prescribed at the time of the deposit of this one.

 

[108]       TOO BAD

 

[109]       The court believes that the applicant was private of his freedom during 19 days. This illicit attack with a freedom recognized by the Charter confers on the victim the right to obtain the compensation for damage moral or material which results from it.

 

[110]       Ball teaches us [28]:

«The challenge is to put a qualifier at this damage and then, a value. Jurisprudence, quite confused as soon as the quantum term is approached, has the merit to abound with examples of any nature which compensates for sometimes the loss of physical integrity, sometimes the moral damage, also the no pecuniary damage, sometimes the pains and disadvantages for then calling them troubles, damage, humiliation. Whatever the name which the chief of damage will carry, the important one is to aim at an integral compensation of the whole of the damages, such as the sign in particular the Supreme court of Canada. »

 

[111]       On the evaluation of the moral wrong, the judge the Happy one, in Quebec (public Curator) C. National union of the employees of the Hospital St-Ferdinand [29], mentions:

«The personal approach, which thus refuses to standardize the calculation of the moral wrong, is not favoured in Québécois jurisprudence when the moral wrong is serious and orders the payment of the maximum amount of moral damage. It seems nevertheless to be relevant in the case of damages of average and low importance: to see Gingras C. Robin, J.E. 84-765 (C.S.); Bolduc C. Lessard, [1989] R.R.A. 350 (C.S.); and Drolet C. Parenteau, [1991] R.J.Q. 2956 (C.S.), conf. by [1994] R.J.Q. 689 (A.C.). There is, then, separate evaluation of the various components of the moral wrong, index of the application of the personal approach.

(…)

Thus, in Québécois civil law, the three methods of calculating of the amount necessary to compensate for the moral wrong - that is to say the conceptual approaches, personal and functional - apply jointly, thus supporting the personalized evaluation of the moral wrong. »

 

[112]       In the evaluation of the moral wrong and material which results from the loss of freedom, force is to conclude that the damage which the applicant can claim, in the typical location of this file, must limit to the moral damage made exclusion of the material damage.

 

[113]       Indeed, no proof establishes a loss of wages or another material damage by the applicant. On the contrary, the aim set by the defendants by depriving the applicant of his freedom was, inter alia, «to save its reputation rather» than to harm to him. The reputation of the applicant is largely affected in the College which he attends and one of the aims set by the defendants is precisely to limit this damage. Moreover, the loss of reputation which the applicant can have undergone is due in its state rather than with the fact that it is illegally kept in institution for one period longer than necessary. Nothing nevertheless an individual of its freedom is entitled to a compensation for the moral damage undergone even if she does not suffer from any specific material damage.

 

[114]       The difficulty thus lies in the evaluation of the quantum of the damage at being granted. The applicant subjected to the court the stop Gauthier C. Beaumont [30] which does not have any common measurement with this file. The prosecutor of the defendant proposes that the judgement given by our colleague Jean Lemelin in Tremblay C. Detention centre of Quebec [31] in which it grants to the applicant a sum of 3 000 $ per day of illegal detention can be used as a basis to establish a maximum to which an individual of its freedom can have right. Obviously, each case is concrete cases.

 

[115]       The decision returned by the Supreme court of Colombia-British in the business Mullins C. Levy [32] approaches much more our case. It is about a case where the applicant is held during five days against his will. Its detention is contrary in «Mental Health Act» of Colombia-British. For its five days of loss of liberty, the court grants general damage of 15 000 $. On the other hand, it should be held account owing to the fact that, in this case, the applicant, in addition to being kept in institution, was also neat against his liking.

 

[116]       The Mullins business is also characterized by the fact that detention is considered to be illegal between obtaining the two necessary psychiatric reports/ratios to obtain the ordinance. Moreover, Mullins was plated on the ground by security agents, which constitutes, with the eyes of the judge, a big factor in the determination of the amount.

 

[117]       The court also believes that it is necessary to hold account in the evaluation of the damage claimed by the applicant, that it is necessary any to believe according to the heard proof, that the judgement which was given on April 19, 1995, would have been given front, if the request had been made and validly presented to the judge. The two expertises necessary to obtaining the judgement had been validly carried out.

 

[118]       The applicant was kept in establishment but its refusal of treatment was respected. Even if it were illegal, the guard in establishment were required all the same by the condition of the applicant. The whole of the file militates in favour of a minimal compensation rather than maximum.

 

[119]       The court referee thus to 9 500 $ the moral damage to which the applicant has right for the 19 days when it was kept in establishment.

 

(PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT CONSIDERS RIGHTLY THAT THE MORAL DAMAGE THAT IT HAS SUDDEN AT THE TIME OF THIS TEST OF ILLEGAL GUARD WAS 57 DAYS. MOREOVER, HE CONSIDERS TO HAVE SUDDEN MORAL DAMAGE VERY FULL OF CONSEQUENCE FOLLOWING THIS GUARD IN WHICH HE LIVED ANY KIND OF ILL TREATMENTS GOING UNTIL TORTURE AND THE ATTEMPTED MURDER BY OVERDOSE OF LEGAL DRUGS. WITHOUT REMUNERATIVE WORK Since February 11, 1995, FAMILY QUALITY Since February 11, 1995, CONSIDERED BY the STATE AS BEING an INVALID PERSON SINCE 2003. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICANT CONSIDERS RIGHTLY WHO THE SUM OF 9.500 $ THAT JUDGE GAETAN DUMAS GRANTS TO HIM IS RIDICULOUS IN ADDITION TO BEING RIDICULOUS.)

 

 

[120]       Although it reached there illicit, the court does not believe that this one is intentional on behalf of the defendants. It is not therefore advisable to grant punitive damages.

 

[121]       Relative with the intentional character of the attack, Madam the judge the Happy one underlines in Quebec (Public Curator) C. National union of the employees of the Hospital St-Ferdinand [33] that:

«Contrary to the compensatory damage, the granting of exemplary damage envisaged with the second subparagraph of Article 49 of the Charter does not depend on the measurement of the damage resulting from the illicit attack, but from the intentional character of this attack. However, an illicit attack being, as I already mentioned, the result of a faulty behaviour who violate a right protected by the Charter, it is thus the result of this behaviour which must be intentional. In other words, so that an illicit attack is qualified D» 'intentional”, the author of this attack must have wanted the consequences which its faulty behaviour will produce. »

[122]       It seems obvious to us that the forever desired C.H.U.S. the consequences which its faulty behaviour produced.

 

[123]       COSTS

 

[124]       The court notes that the defendants, Dr. Lynn Gaudreault and Dr. Claude Arbour, mentioned that they did not have objection so that the action of the applicant is rejected without expenses if the court comes to the conclusion to dismiss the action.

 

[125]       The court believes that it is not necessary to make support the costs by the applicant. Indeed, although the responsibility for the doctors is not retained relative with the illicit attack with freedom for the applicant, it remains that Drs Gaudreault and Lefebvre warned the applicant who it was in closed cure whereas it was not the case. A checking near the Director of the professional services of the C.H.U.S. could have put an end to the illegal detention of the applicant. The letter signed by Dr. Claude Arbour, on April 12, 1995, contributed so that the applicant is badly informed of his legal situation. As for Dr. Jean-Philippe Boulenger, this one did not appear.

 

[126]       In addition, the action of the applicant will be accommodated without expenses against the C.H.U.S. even if the costs would have been limited to spent legal, since the applicant only represented himself, the court believes that it is not necessary to grant costs in accordance with article 477 C.p.c.

 

[127]       At the request of the court, the prosecutors of the defendants assembled a book of parts and a book of the useful procedures. The prosecutors of the defendants acted as exemplary auxiliaries of justice with an aim of facilitating the hearing of the file. Their control facilitated largely the work of the court and was beyond their obligations as auxiliaries of justice. The applicant himself recognized, on several occasions, that the work of the prosecutors of the defendants, had facilitated the presentation of his proof. This work carried out by the prosecutors of the defendants caused expenses with their customers. It thus seems righter to us not to grant costs to the applicant.

 

[128]       BY THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

 

[129]       DISMISS the action of the applicant against the defendants Lynn Gaudreault, Jean-Philippe Boulenger, Claude Arbour, Paul Montambault, André Simard and Marc Lefebvre;

 

[130]       THE WHOLE without expenses;

 

[131]       ACCOMMODATE THE action of the applicant against the University centre of health of Estrie;

 

[132]       CONDEMN THE defendant, University centre of health of Estrie, to pay to the applicant the sum of 9 500 $ with interests as from the assignment and the additional allowance envisaged with the Civil code;

 

(PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT CONSIDERS RIGHTLY THAT THE MORAL DAMAGE THAT IT HAS SUDDEN AT THE TIME OF THIS TEST OF ILLEGAL GUARD WAS 57 DAYS. MOREOVER, HE CONSIDERS TO HAVE SUDDEN MORAL DAMAGE VERY FULL OF CONSEQUENCE FOLLOWING THIS GUARD IN WHICH HE LIVED ANY KIND OF ILL TREATMENTS GOING UNTIL TORTURE AND THE ATTEMPTED MURDER BY OVERDOSE OF LEGAL DRUGS. WITHOUT REMUNERATIVE WORK Since February 11, 1995, FAMILY QUALITY Since February 11, 1995, CONSIDERED BY the STATE AS BEING an INVALID PERSON SINCE 2003. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICANT CONSIDERS RIGHTLY WHO THE SUM OF 9.500 $ THAT JUDGE GAETAN DUMAS GRANTS TO HIM IS RIDICULOUS IN ADDITION TO BEING RIDICULOUS.)
 

[133]       THE WHOLE without expenses.

 

 

Update: 14/02/2007 11:38   Sherbrooke A police car explodes!     LCN In Sherbrooke, a police car literally exploded with the angle of the Lionel-Groulx boulevard and the street King this morning. The incident occurred towards 8:30 in the court of the restaurant Beigne Bec. Remains reached five or six cars which were in the vicinity. The panes of the restaurant were also crashed to pieces. A police officer was on board police car when he heard the deflagration. He had just time to leave before the vehicle explodes. The agent underwent minor wounds, but suffers from a violent one nervous shock. The cause of the explosion is always unknown. Technicians in explosives of the Safety of Quebec opened an investigation. The complete fleet of the police vehicles of the municipality will be checked by precautionary measure. In video, listen to the explanations of Josée Cloutier.   Copyright © 1998-2005 Groups VAT Inc. - All rights reserved

 

Update: 14/02/2007 17:15   Sherbrooke A police officer victim of an car bomb attack LCN     LCN The police force of Sherbrooke confirms that one of its police officers was victim of an car bomb attack. Its car-patrol exploded this morning in the parking of a restaurant of the street King, in the west of the city. The police officer just had time to extirpate car before it takes fire. According to the Police service of Sherbrooke, an explosive device had been placed in the vehicle. The police officer victim of the attack underwent minor wounds, but underwent a violent one nervous shock. Technicians in explosives of the Safety of Quebec take part in the investigation. The complete fleet of the police vehicles of the municipality was checked by precautionary measure. In video, listen to the explanations of Josée Cloutier, which attended the press conference of the police officers of Sherbrooke.   Copyright © 1998-2005 Groups VAT Inc. - All rights reserved

 

 

Update: 15/02/2007 21:22   Attack with Sherbrooke The police officers seek indices LCN     LCN A headquarters of the Safety of Quebec was established in the parking of a small shopping mall of Sherbrooke where a car-patrol of the municipal police was destroyed Wednesday by an attack. The vehicle exploded in the parking of a restaurant of the street King, in the west of the city. The police officer just had time to extirpate car before it takes fire. He suffers from a violent one nervous shock. This car bomb attack aiming at the police force would be a first in Quebec. The Safety of Quebec invites the population to communicate all information which could advance the investigation. The headquarters will remain on the spot for the major part of the day. In video, listen to the explanations of Josée Cloutier. Copyright © 1998-2005 Groups VAT Inc. - All rights reserved

Update: 22/02/2007 13:44   Sherbrooke It sinks on a police car LCN     LCN In Estrie, the police officers of the town of Sherbrooke are once again mingled with a history which does not have anything of reassuring. This morning, a 39 year old man has literally dark on one their cars. The individual then escaped. A continuation at high speed was followed from there in the streets of the city. A few minutes later, three police cars succeeded in wedging the roadhog, street Western King. The individual was stopped and it was to undergo a interrogation this afternoon. In video, Jean-François Desbiens has more details. Copyright © 1998-2005 Groups VAT Inc. - All rights reserved

 

 

(IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THE APPLICANT EAST ALL THE SAME HAPPY FOR THIS MORAL VICTORY WHO WILL NOT LEAVE ANYBODY INDIFFERENT. MOREOVER, the APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT IN THE FUTURE WHEN ONE PLACES a PERSON UNDER GUARD IN ESTABLISHMENT WHICH ONE WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS IN LEGAL GUARD.)

 

doctrines = recent developments

Bar of Quebec, Obligations and recourse against a curator, tutor or agent weakening 2008, Cowansville (QC), Yvon Blais, 2008

Nearly ten years of application to
 Law on the protection of the people of which
the mental state presents a danger for them same or others

Our report:
the respect of freedoms and basic rights always in danger

Judith Lauzon*

On February 16, 2007, the honourable Gaetan Dumas, judge of the Superior court, gave judgement in the business Bourassa-Lacombe C. University centre of health of Estrie62. Mr Bourassa-Lacombe applied to the Superior court on April 14, 1998 so, in particular, receiving a compensation for a detention, against his liking, at the University centre of health of Estrie for one period of fifty-seven days, namely of February 11 to April 12, 1995 inclusively. Without it being relevant to go into the details of this business, we will indicate that the Superior court concluded that the applicant was actually kept with the establishment, against his liking, without the suitable authorizations being obtained, for one nineteen days period. It is in these terms that the court

[Page 34]

concludes that the applicant is entitled to a compensation for 500 $ per day for illegal detention. The court also believes that it is necessary to hold account in the evaluation of the damage claimed by the applicant, that it is necessary any to believe according to the heard proof, that the judgement which was given on April 19, 1995, would have been given front, if the request had been made and validly presented to the judge. The two expertises necessary to obtaining the judgement had been validly carried out. The applicant was kept in establishment but its refusal of treatment was respected. Even if it were illegal,

the guard in establishment was required all the same by the condition of the applicant. The whole of the file militates in favour of a minimal compensation rather than maximum.

The court referee thus to 9.500 $ the moral damage to which the applicant has right for the 19 days when it was kept in establishment.

Although it reached there illicit, the court does not believe that this one is intentional on behalf of the defendants. It is not therefore advisable to grant damages punitifs.63 Although this decision relates to an illegal detention which has occurred before the coming into effect of the L.P.P.É.M., therefore on a different legislative basis, we are of opinion that the principle remains the same one and which this judgement must be used to inspire the held person and the legislator. Considering the imposing number of illegal civil detentions revealed by our analysis, we think that it would be however unreasonable to require each vulnerable person whom she undertakes a recourse in damages before the Superior court to receive a compensation at least as minimal as that envisaged in the business Bourassa-Lacombe C. University centre of health of Estrie. Consequently, the installation, with very the L.P.P.É.M., of provisions

61. J. LAUZON, loc. cit., note 1,313.
62. Bourassa-Lacombe C. University centre of health of Estrie, EYB 2007-114629 (C.S.).
63. Ibid, par. 117 to 120.

© 2008 Bar of Quebec - All rights reserved

penal envisaging the commission of an infringement for the disrespectful establishments of the deadlines and making them liable to a fine could be considered.

[Page 35]

*. The autHOR is lawyer near the public Curator of Quebec. The opinions expressed in this text engage only its autHOR and at all the public Curator of Quebec. The autHOR offers its thanks to Me Natalie Lejeune, for invaluable time that it granted to him, with Mrs. Sabra Ghayour and Me Emilie Bourret for their contribution to the collection and the data analysis having been used to illustrate the matter of AUTHOR, like with Me Helene Laberge and Mrs. Rita Lambert Davignon which brought to the revision of the text their critical direction and their good council.

to see the integral one and the conclusion of me. Judith lauzon

YDR SERGE J. A. BOURASSA-LACOMBEY

SERGE JOSEPH ADRIEN DOCTOR OF THE GRACE AND THE REPENTANCE OF GOD
BORN IN VERDUN QUEBEC CANADA JUNE 20^TH 1957 9:12AM
FOR THE SAKE OF THE LIVING GOD AND OF THE KING of kings AND THE LORD of lords
BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT GLORIFIED BY THE LAMB OF GOD IN 2004
ALLELUIA AND HAPPY NEW YEAR 2008 ...

[ CV ]    [ Photos Gallery ]    [ Press Revue ]    [ Testimonies ]

SERGE JOSEPH ADRIEN DOCTOR DE LA GRACE ET DE LA REPENTANCE
NÉ À VERDUN QUÉBEC CANADA LE 20 JUIN 1957 9:12AM
POUR L'AMOUR DU DIEU VIVANT ET POUR L'AMOUR DU ROI des rois
 ET POUR L'AMOUR DU SEIGNEUR des seigneurs
PAR LA PUISSANCE DE L'ESPRIT SAINT GLORIFIÉ PAR L'AGNEAU DE DIEU EN 2004
ALLÉLUIA ET BONNE ET HEUREUSE ANNÉE 2008 ...

[ CV ]    [ Galerie de Photos ]    [ Revue de Presse ]    [ Témoignages ]

SERGIO JOSÉ ADRIEN DOCTOR DE LA GRACIA Y DEL ARREPENTIMIENTO
NACIDO A VERDUN QUEBEC EL CANADÁ EL 20 DE JUNIO 1957 9:12AM
PARA EL AMOR DEL DIOS VIVO Y PARA EL AMOR DE REY de reyes Y SEÑOR de los señores
POR LA POTENCIA DEL ESPÍRITU SANTO GLORIFICADO POR EL CORDERO DE DIOS EN 2004
ALELUYA Y BUENO Y FELIZ AÑO 2008 ...

[ CV ]    [ Galería de Fotografías ]    [ Revista de Prensa ]    [ Testimonios ]

وسف أدرين دكتوراه في غرايس والتوبة بورنيد في يونيو/حزيران الجزء من العشرين فيردن كويبيك كندا 1957 9:12 صباحا

لأجل الإله الحيّ وملك الملوك ولورد اللوردات بقوّة روح القدس مجّد بحمل الإله في 2004 اليلويا وعام جديد سعيد 2008

MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY