Judge upholds doctor’s verbal authorization of certification before completion of forms
The British Columbia Supreme Court has dismissed a claim alleging battery, false imprisonment, negligence, and Charter breaches against doctors and others involved in a patient’s certification as an involuntary patient under s. 22 of BC’s Mental Health Act, 1996.
In P.C. v Fraser Health Authority (Burnaby General Hospital), 2026 BCSC 1587, the plaintiff visited a hospital’s outpatient neurology clinic on July 11, 2024, because he was worried about possibly having a stroke.
Later, a doctor verbally advised hospital staff that she was certifying the plaintiff under s. 22. The doctor found a risk of suicide or self-harm if the plaintiff would depart from the premises. The certification lasted less than three hours, with the plaintiff leaving the hospital that same day.
Claim against doctors and others
The plaintiff sued the health authority that operated the hospital, two doctors, a patient care coordinator, and two other individuals for the allegedly unlawful certification.
The plaintiff claimed damages for battery, false imprisonment, negligence, and breaches of his rights under ss. 7 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He alleged:
- violations of the Mental Health Act’s statutory requirements during certification
- failure to fully execute the required forms for involuntary admission and treatment before detaining him and chemically sedating him against his will
- use of excessive force
Supreme Court of British Columbia denies claim
The BC Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and awarded the defendants costs at scale B.
The court found no medical evidence of a lasting injury that would warrant a damages award. Regarding punitive damages, the court saw no evidence of malicious, oppressive, or high-handed misconduct.
The court added that the plaintiff abandoned any claim for economic losses and gave no evidence relevant to special damages.
Mental Health Act’s purpose
The BC Supreme Court emphasized that the Mental Health Act sought to protect patients’ safety and well-being.
The court doubted that the legislature intended “to have a competition between a doctor or director scrambling to fill out a form, and a person lacking insight into their own need for care and supervision rushing to leave a hospital.”
No battery, false imprisonment, or Charter breaches
Upon applying a liberal and purposive interpretation of s. 22, the BC Supreme Court ruled that the verbal authorization for the plaintiff’s certification, the completion of the forms around 40 minutes later, and the plaintiff’s detention and treatment were consistent with and authorized under the Mental Health Act.
Thus, the court denied the plaintiff’s claim for battery, false imprisonment, and Charter breaches. The court saw no arbitrary detention because the restriction on the plaintiff’s liberty aligned with fundamental justice principles.
The court added that the medications administered to the plaintiff were a form of chemical restraint, not involuntary psychiatric treatment.
No negligence found
The BC Supreme Court held that the defendants satisfied the applicable standard or duty of care in certifying and treating the plaintiff. Thus, the court rejected the plaintiff’s negligence claim.
The court noted the following opinions of the defendants’ experts:
- A clinical nurse specialist found the nursing staff’s conduct consistent with the expected practice in an emergency department in BC
- An emergency physician confirmed that it was a routine and necessary practice to physically restrain and chemically sedate a patient in such circumstances before completing the relevant sections of forms 4.1 and 5
No excessive force used
The BC Supreme Court determined that the defendants did not use excessive force on the plaintiff at any time. Thus, the court affirmed that the plaintiff’s claim for battery or negligence should fail.
An emergency room nurse testified that the security officers’ manner of controlling and restraining the plaintiff was nothing out of the ordinary. The nurse added that she would have noted in her chart if an officer had dug an elbow into the plaintiff’s chest as alleged.
British Columbia’s other cases involving health professionals
Here are some other recent decisions relating to medical professionals in the province.
Following the summary dismissal of a former doctor and lawyer’s civil fraud and negligence claims against his treating physicians, the British Columbia Court of Appeal issued an Aug. 28 decision allowing his applications for an extension of time to appeal and a no fees order.
In a case involving physician-prescribed pain medications, the BC Court of Appeal made a Mar. 6 decision seeing error in a finding that ss. 26.2 and 53 of BC’s Health Professions Act, 1996, denied access to the court, in breach of s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest medical malpractice law news on the main page!
