DECLARATION - TO SUPPORT HIS ACTION

CANADA    S U P E R I O R     C O U R T

(Civil chamber)

PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
DISTRICT OF ST-FRANÇOIS    
NO: 450-05-002521-983   [forward]

(A translation of a original document at my best knowledge)

SERGE BOURASSA-LACOMBE, a resident at 19, rue Gerin-Lajoie apt.3 at Coaticook, province of Quebec, district of St-François, J1A 1R3;

                      Plaintiff

c.

CENTRE UNIVERSITAIRE DE SANTE DE L'ESTRIE, located at 580, rue Bowen Sud, at Sherbrooke, province of Quebec, district of St-François, J1G 2E8;

and

LYNN GAUDREAULT, physician, psychiatrist, practising her profession at Centre Universitaire de Sante de l'Estrie, located at 580, rue Bowen Sud, at Sherbrooke, province of Quebec, district of St-François, J1G 2E8;

and

JEAN-PHILIPPE BOULANGER, physician, psychiatrist, practising his profession at Centre Universitaire de Sante de l'Estrie, located at 580, rue Bowen Sud, at Sherbrooke, province of Quebec, district of St-François, J1G 2E8;

and

CLAUDE ARBOUR, physician, psychiatrist, practising his profession at Centre Universitaire de Sante de l'Estrie, located at 580, rue Bowen Sud, at Sherbrooke, province of Quebec, district of St-François, J1G 2E8;

and

PAUL MONTAMBAULT, physician, psychiatrist, practising his profession at Centre Universitaire de Sante de l'Estrie, located at 580, rue Bowen Sud, at Sherbrooke, province of Quebec, district of St-François, J1G 2E8;

and

ANDRE SIMARD, m.d., practising his function at Centre Universitaire de Sante de l'Estrie, located at 580, rue Bowen Sud, at Sherbrooke, province of Quebec, district of St-François, J1G 2E8;

and

MARC LEFEBVRE, physician, practising his profession at Centre Universitaire de Sante de l'Estrie, located at 580, rue Bowen Sud, at Sherbrooke, province of Quebec, district of St-François, J1G 2E8;

                      Defendants

DECLARATION

[forward]

TO SUPPORT HIS ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF EXPOSE RESPECTFULLY WHAT IT FOLLOWING :

1. The plaintiff was born at Verdun June 20th 1957, under the name of Serge Lacombe, name that he officially take until July 12th 1996;

2. In date of July 12th 1996, the plaintiff was authorized by the civil state Director to use the name of Serge Bourassa-Lacombe;

3. In date of February 11th 1995, the plaintiff had not any psychiatric past or not any mental disorder;

4. On the contrary, the plaintiff had a very good past having notably studied during more than 18 years in different schools, colleges and formation centers, obtaining at every occasion excellent academics results the main thing like that appear of the copy of academics grade sheets to be produce to support the present action under the mark P-1;

5. He had worked as well since 1970, and even often during his studies, at different jobs whom he offer an excellent output, the main thing like that will be more abundantly demonstrate at the time of the inquiry;

6. The plaintiff had mainly work in the Automotive domain, over a period in the region of 25 years, as a Travelling Salesman, among others for the company Bear Automotive inc. from 1984 to 1987, and for the company Moog Canada Ltd. From 1987 to 1990;

7. The plaintiff has obtain excellent results, the main thing like the different correspondences from his employers and from his clients to be produce to support the present action under the mark P-2;

8. Since September 1992, the plaintiff has studied as Animal Health Technician at the College de Sherbrooke;

9. One more time he has obtain excellent academics results and he has act even as a President of his class;

10. Toward the end of the year 1994 and the beginning of 1995, in spite of not much support obtain by the teaching profession of the Animal Health Technique at College de Sherbrooke, The plaintiff has obtained that his trainees of the third year could be perform in Florida, in a Treatment Center for the racehorses, the main thing like that appear from different correspondences to be produce to support the present action under the mark P-3;

11. February 11th 1995, the parents of the plaintiff has visited him to his apartment;

12. Beforehand to this visit, as the relation between the plaintiff and his roommate was rather strained, it was as agreed between both that the latter will not show to the apartment which his live in during the visit of the plaintiff parents;

13. In spite of this understanding, the roommate of the plaintiff went into the apartment and so as almost inevitably a quarrel has been start between this latter and the plaintiff, in the course of the aforementioned had pretended that the plaintiff was not more going to the College and taking drugs;                                           

14. When the conflict was at its most intense, the plaintiff thump one's fist on the table without that menace or assault his roommate;

15. The roommate of the plaintiff his founded this act aggressive, had decided to communicate with the Sherbrooke Police in order to request the assistance of policemen since she claim she's been victim of violence from the part of the plaintiff;

16. Seeing this unlikely scenario that draw up in front of his eyes, the plaintiff had decided to do not leave it at that and to goes himself to the Police Station in order to having them knowledge his version of the facts and to avoid the humiliation of an police intervention in his own apartment;

17. On time arrived at the Police Station, those latter never had permit to the plaintiff to give is version of the facts, they had rather let him waiting in the hall before to ask him to follow them in a place where they let him think that he can gives his reasons;

18. He was taking place into a patrol vehicle and drive directly to the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, located on the 12th North Avenue at Fleurimont;

19. The plaintiff was, immediately taking in charge by the personal of the hospital who, without delay and all ways under the supervision of the police forces had places the plaintiff in a separately room is number 22 of the emergency of the hospital previously mentioned;

20. All in all the plaintiff was kept during forty eight (48) hours at the emergency of the before mentioned hospital and was after wards transferred at the wing 4B without knowing to the plaintiff who they told him that they bringing him in a more comfortable room;

21. The plaintiff who had never consent in a freeway and enlightened to his maintain into a hospital was in this way prisoner contrary his will for a total period of fifty-seven (57) days, so be it until April 12th 1995 inclusively;

22. The plaintiff was totally private of his freedom during this period, except for three (3) conditionals outing that was being authorized for March 5th, march 11th as well as April 11th 1995;

23. About thirty (30) hours after his admission to the hospital, while that he was still at the department of the emergency of the hospital, the employees of the hospital had administrated by force and against the will of the plaintiff sleeping and neuroleptic drugs;

24. The hospital as the intervening physicians in this present file had never respected the legislative dispositions applicable in the case of point keeping the plaintiff against his will, having him suffering from the cares or the treatments without his authorization and acting without judiciary authorization;

25. Not any emergency in the case point, the plaintiff did not any presented a danger for the health and the security for himself or others, and his mental health state was not like that it represented for himself or others an grave peril and immediately;

26. Moreover, following to this illegal detention of 48 hours at the hospital emergency not any request for psychiatric examination was not being presented to the court;

27. It was of the fundamental responsibility to the hospital to take the necessary measures so that the plaintiff to put him through an examination by the court;

28. Furthermore this sequestration and this arbitrary detention, the plaintiff was victim of several cruel  and inhuman treatments and that of course all ways against his will and without a judiciary authorization, notably but not restrictive what is following;

29. The medical team and the nurse employees of the University Hospital had being haze several renewals and on a continued period of fifty-seven (57) days the fundamental rights of the plaintiff, such the right of liberty, the right of the information, the right to accept or to refuse some cares, the right to give his consent in a free way and enlightened as well as his right to the dignity and to the integrity, the main thing like it will be more abundantly demonstrate at the time of the inquiry;

30. Until March 13th 1995 inclusively, the medical and nurse employees of the hospital had being taking to the plaintiff without his consent, chemicals drugs like the Lithium, Haldol, Rivotril, Dalmane and Ativan in a negligent way and without the medical obligation to divulge to the plaintiff the possible did effects of those medicine being not respected;

31. Moreover, It appear that the attending physicians Lynn Gaudreault and Marc Lefebvre has prescribed in a continuous way during all this period the mentioned drugs, without to make sure of their effects on the plaintiff, and without considering the complaints of the latter to this effect, the main thing like it will be more abundantly demonstrate at the time of the inquiry;

32. This taken of drugs lead to extremely prejudicial consequences to the plaintiff, among others : [back]  [forward]

        (7) days, so be it from February 13th to 20th 1995; quasi absence of urine and not any faeces during one continued period of seven

        lost of a certain percentage of vision who lead to out focus and having a blurred vision from February 12th to March 27th 1995;

        ache cause by this febrile state from February 12th to April 9th 1995;

        convulsions and stiffness from February 12th to March 20th 1995;

        fatigue, muscular weakness, ataxia, sleepiness and trembling from February 28th to March 20th 1995;

        confusion, mislead, muscular spasms, hyper-reflexibility from March 11th to 16th 1995;

        problems of sleep, having slept only 140 hours for a period of fifty-six (56) days going from February 11th to April 11th 1995 inclusively;

        mental and physical torture of all kinds over a period going from February 11th to April 11th 1995 inclusively;

        lost of sexual functions from February 12th to April 9th 1995;

        lost of academic concentration from February 112th to April 27th 1995;

33. In date of March 13th 1995, the physicians Marc Lefevbre and Lynn Gaudreault, in the purpose to try to relieve the sides effect caused to the plaintiff by the administrated drugs to this latter, they had asked him to cut half his daily consumption of water, it what the plaintiff had made immediately;

34. Right the day after, so be it March 14th 1995, the plaintiff having being found victim of a severe intoxication caused by an overdose of drugs that was administrated to him;

35. At the time of this chemical overdose, the attendant physician Marc Lefevbre had inform the plaintiff that we'll having to stop the taking of Lithium, what it was made immediately;

36. Following this severe overdose, the plaintiff had renewal firmly his intention to do not taking the medication and that whatever it so be it;

37. Evenly, from that day, the plaintiff had to make one-s way alone and without medical support a extremely hard severing;

38. March 15th 1995, the physician Marc Lefevbre explain finally to the plaintiff that the Lithium it is a medication who does not work for all;

39. He explain also that it is for this reason why Stelazine does exist, a medication who work, according to him like the Lithium with however less side effects and he attempt to convince the plaintiff to take this medication;

40. From this epoch, the medical personnel and nurses, who gave up to use the force to administrate the medication, continue to use different stratagems like menaces, harassing and blackmail, notably they had private the plaintiff, since March 14th 1995, of all liberty inside the psychiatric wing, of all activity with the group of psychiatric patients and in certain occasions also see deprival of food with psychological pressures to aim notably at doing believe to the plaintiff that his detention in close cure will be just longer if the refuse to take the prescribed medication;

41. This attitude it's pursue until April 5th 1995, date in which the defendants had permit to the plaintiff to go back to group activities, but all ways haunted by psychological pressures in order to convince this latter to take the medication;

42. April 9th 1995, following different blackmail and menaces, the plaintiff give up and resign, weighed down by the constraint, to take half tablet of 5mg of Stelazine, while that the medical personnel ask him to take a full tablet;

43. The effect of this administrated medication was violent for the plaintiff, who had fortunately take care to dilute the product with some liter of water, was well really terribly ill.   [back]   [forward]

REPORTS OF EXPERTISE AND JUDICIARIES AUTHORIZATIONS

44. March 21st 1995, the plaintiff had received from the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke a letter personally to him, it was in Dr Lynn Gaudreault hand writing, advising him that following of two (2) evaluations carried out March 17th 1995 and March 19th 1995, respectively Lynn Gaudreault and Jean-Philippe Boulanger, the plaintiff happens to be in a close cure, the main thing like that appear of the copy of the aforesaid letter to be produce under the mark P-4;

45. April 7th 1995, the plaintiff had received from the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke a letter personally to him, it was in physicians Marc Lefevbre and Lynn Gaudreault hands writing confirmed to the plaintiff that following to an evaluation carried out April 5th 1995, by the attendant physician Lynn Gaudreault that it was decided to pursue the close cure, the main thing like that appear of the copy of the aforesaid letter to be produce under the mark P-5;

46. Around one week before, so be it March 31st 1995, the plaintiff was advised by Dr Lynn Gaudreault that he was admit at the hospital because that he had a potential of killer;

47. In date of April 10th 1995, the plaintiff learned from Dr Claude Arbour's mouth, psychiatrist, that he will be free April 11th 1995 for a period of 24 hours, and if everything taking place without incidental, the cure might come to an end April 12th 1995;

48. Following to his sojourn without incidental the day of April 11th 1995, the plaintiff return to the hospital and April 12th 1995 the plaintiff had received his definitive sick leave signed by Dr Marc Lefevbre and Claude Arbour, the main thing like that appear of the copy from the document to be produce under the mark P-6;

49. It was quite in date of April 19th 1995, that the Honourable Judge Louis-Denis Bouchard, of the Court of Quebec, had giving a to keep in close cure presented by the physician Andre Simard in the name of physician Paul Montambault, and this precisely seven (7) days after the plaintiff have leave the hospital, the main thing like that appear of the copy aforesaid petition and the order to refer to be produce to support this present under the mark P-7;

50. This request was never signified to the plaintiff, seeing that the defendants had put forward that a such signification will be injurious to the health or to the security of this latter or others;

51. The plaintiff had never being interrogated at the time of the audition of this petition seeing that the defendants had put forward that It was manifestly useless to interrogate the respond party in reason of his state of health;

52. The plaintiff consider at good right this act like abusive because he was not ether dangerous for himself nor for others to receive signification of the aforesaid petition and to be able to testify at the time of the awarding, the main thing like that will be more abundantly demonstrate at the time of the inquiry;

53. The plaintiff consider at good right he had suffering of serious harm and a result of the petition was not presented within the prescribed time by the law, rather than seven (7) days after the end of his institutional Calvary; [back]  [forward]

AFTER THE LIBERATION

54. Since April 9th 1995, the plaintiff have not until this day never take legal or illegal drugs to control his mood;

55. The 1st to the 12th of may 1995, the plaintiff had do well in six (6) exams on the nine (9) as planned originally in order to permit him to complete his Animal Health Technique;

56. The plaintiff however had to put an hand to this series of finals exams notably because incapable to concentrate adequately following to the after-effects suffering at the time of his illegal detention in the hospital of the defendants;

57. In date of July 18th 1995, the plaintiff attempt to have his feet cure in different hospitals of Montreal he saw himself refuse to be cure at several times when the medical personal of those hospital consulted the file of Mister Bourassa-Lacombe;

58. The plaintiff have being notably ended up under contention at Verdun Hospital before that a physician of the hospital had asked to transfer this latter to Queen Mary Hospital Center;

59. The Queen Mary Hospital Center had communicated with the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke in date of July 19th 1995, in order to obtain some information of the plaintiff, the main thing like it appear of the copy from the medical report to be produce to support this present under the mark P-8;

60. The Queen Mary Hospital Center had in all likelihood receive from the physician Lynn Gaudreault some information at the effect that the plaintiff had being admit in close cure for notably a problem of bipolarity disorder with paranoid schizophrenia episodes, the main thing like it appear, produce under the mark P-8;

61. The plaintiff consider, at good right, that the existence of the medical file like it was put together but the defendants, is the direct cause of his restraint at Verdun Hospital and of all the related troubles including his detention during more than eight (8) hours at Queen Mary Hospital;

62. In date of September 15th 1995, the plaintiff who had all ready ask in vain at several times during his hospitalization the access of his medical file, addressed to the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke by writing in order to obtain the aforesaid medical file;

63. December 5th 1995, the plaintiff had received an negative answer from the hospital at the motive that a such transmission of the integral file will caused him a prejudice;

64. In date of March 27th 1997, the plaintiff had formulated a complaint at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, became at this epoch the Centre Universitaire de Sante de l'Estrie, relatively to the events making the object of the present lawsuit, the main thing like it appear of the copy of the complaint to be produce under the mark P-9;

65. In answer to this complaint, the plaintiff had received, in date of April 17th 1997 a letter issue from the Centre Universitaire de Sante de l'Estrie and signed from the hand of Mister Normand Legault at the effect that the Center will not giving a following to the complaint considering that the cares who have being lavished by the defendants had been authorized by the court, the main thing like it appear from the copy aforesaid letter to be produce under the mark P-10;

66. Considering that the only judiciary authorization was knock down April 17th 1995, the plaintiff consider at good right, that the University Center had so illegally and deliberately act with the intention to lead the plaintiff in error, notably in tempting to let him believe that the events having been there between the month of February and April 1995, had been done in the most complete legality as in the rules of art;

67. It has followed a serial of steps who end at November 20th 1997 in a decision of the Commission of Social affairs giving order to the defendant Hospital Center to give to the plaintiff a integral copy of his medical file, the main thing like it appear of aforesaid decision of the Commission of Social affairs to be produce to support the present under the mark P-11;

68. December 16th 1997, the plaintiff had received a copy of his medical file who will be produce to support the present under the mark P-12;

69. In taking knowledge of his medical file who was transmitted to him the plaintiff had found out several falsities and omissions, the main thing like it will be abundantly demonstrate in the time of the inquiry;

70. It also appear that during the year 1996, When the plaintiff was in United-States, that the Dr Lynn Gaudreault had been revealed certain information relative to the medical file of the plaintiff to the Police of Atlanta also the Royal Canadian Mounted Police;

71. The plaintiff had suffered and still suffer the grave sides effects and serious damages following all the events aforementioned in non-exhaustive way;

72. The plaintiff consider at good right that the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke existing now under the name of Centre Universitaire de Sante de l'Estrie, should be take responsible notably as the employer of the nurses and medical personal having act illegally and having caused serious damages to the plaintiff;

73. Since all those events, the plaintiff his still without job;

74. Considering the bad faith, the deliberately undermine to the fundamentals rights as the malicious damages from the defendants, the plaintiff is in right to call them jointly and severally for exemplary and punitive damages;

75. The defendants having act illegally and deliberately with the intention to harm and considering the abuse of rights whose he was victim, the plaintiff is in right to call to the defendants, jointly and severally the total amount of ONE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT DOLLARS ($1, 888, 000.00) for damages and interests, distribute like following : [back]  [forward]

      pains, physicals suffering $250,000.00

      mental damage and humiliation $250,000.00

      undermine to the fundamental rights $250,000.00

      troubles and inconvenience $250,000.00

      exemplary damages $888,000.00

 

76. Also, the plaintiff consider at good right, that the existence a such medical file as seen it been put together by the defendants and consist of notably, a diagnosis of bipolarity disorder with paranoid schizophrenia episodes, hallucinatory, delusions of grandeur, etc., harm greatly to the existence of the plaintiff attribute to him among other stick a label extremely prejudicial of "mental illness";

77. In consequence, the plaintiff is in right to ask that his medical file, such as it being constitute at the Centre Universitaire de Sante de l'Estrie be destroy as quickly as possible and that the Centre Universitaire de Sante de l'Estrie, as all the members of personal as working, and as include the attendants physicians stop immediately to do circulate no matter how that it be, all information who can put undermine to his dignity and reputation notably the allegations concluding to a mental disorder of this latter;

78. The present action is well founded in facts and it's this right.

 

Canada     S U P E R I O R      C O U R T
(Civil chamber)
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
DISTRICT OF ST-FRANÇOIS
NO: 450-05-002521-983

 

SERGE BOURASSA-LACOMBE;

                Plaintiff

c.

CENTRE UNIVERSITAIRE DE SANTE DE L'ESTRIE;

and

LYNN GAUDREAULT;

and

JEAN-PHILIPPE BOULANGER; and

CLAUDE ARBOUR;

and

PAUL MONTAMBAULT;

and

ANDRE SIMARD;

and

MARC LEFEBVRE

                Defendants

TAKE ADVISE that the plaintiff intend to invoke to support to his defence the following pieces :

Piece P-1: Copies of academics grade sheets;

Piece P-2: Correspondences from of employers and of clients;

Piece P-3: Correspondences relative to trainees offer out country;

Piece P-4: Letter confirming the close cure signed by Dr Lynn Gaudreault;

Piece P-5: Letter signed by Dr Marc Lefebvre and Dr Lynn Gaudreault which indicate that it was decided to pursue the aforesaid close cure;

Piece P-6: Definitive leave signed by Dr Marc Lefevbre and Dr Claude Arbour;

Piece P-7: Copy of the request for the petition in close cure;

Piece P-8: Medical file from the Queen Mary Hospital Center

Piece P-9: Copy of the complaint which was deposit at the Centre Universitaire de Sante de L'Estrie;

Piece P-10:Answer for the aforesaid complaint signed by Mister Normand Legault;

Piece P-11:Copy of the decision of the Commission of Socials Affairs;

Piece P-12:Copy of the medical file of the plaintiff;

( ) Copy of the aforesaid pieces been annexed to the present.

Sherbrooke, April 14th 1998
CAZA, CAOUETTE and ASSOCIETED
Prosecutor of the plaintiff

BY THOSE MOTIVES, PLEASE TO THE COURT :

GREET the present lawsuit;

CONDEMN the defendants to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff the sum of ON MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT THOUSANDS DOLLARS ($1,888,000.00), plus all additional indemnity;

ALL THAT carrying interest to the legal rate since the summons;

ORDER to the Centre Universitaire de Sante de L'Estrie to destroy immediately the totality of the plaintiff's file bearing the number 398068;

ORDER to the defendants as well as all the personal working or having worked for the Centre Universitaire de Sante de l'Estrie, to do not having circulate in any case some information which may reach the reputation of the plaintiff including all information from the file number 398068, and of all event which had taken place between February 11th and April 12th 1995;

CONDEMN the defendants to the entire costs;

Sherbrooke, April 14th 1998
CAZA, CAOUETTE and ASSOCIETED
Prosecutor of the plaintiff

ADVISE TO THE DEFENDANT PARTY

TAKE ADVICE that the plaintiff party had deposit to the record office of the Superior Court of St-François judiciary district of St-François this present request.

To contest this request, at the firs place, you have to appear to the record office of the Courthouse of Sherbrooke to fill a appearance. You can also give the mandate to a lawyer that could represent and act in your name.

( X ) In civil matter

If you desire to contest the request, at the first place, you have to appear to the record office of the tribunal in a delay of 10 days.

( ) In familial matter

If you desire to contest the request, at the first place, you have to make it in the same delay that it giving to you to, so be it the following delay :

None additional delay will be add to the one that we have giving you for appear.

TAKE AS WELL AS ADVICE that for want of for you to appear or to contest into the delay, the plaintiff party will be able to obtain a judgment by fault against you. And, If you have not appear, the plaintiff party will not be having to inform you of his further steps.

Sherbrooke, April 14th 1998
CAZA, CAOUETTE and ASSOCIETED
Prosecutor of the plaintiff

[top]