Mullins v. Levy

Mullins v. Levy

Court held appellant was a 'mentally ill person' under the Mental Health Act, the statutory requirement that a physician 'examine' a person prior to certification is to be given a broad meaning (including observation, chart review and collateral information, and interview when possible), the certifying physicians here had sufficient basis and acted in good faith so certificates were valid, s.16 immunity and deference to medical judgment precluded liability, appellant lacked standing for the broad constitutional challenge, therefore appeal dismissed and cross-appeals allowed, action dismissed against all defendants.

Citation
2009 BCCA 6
Parties
Appellant/respondent by Cross Appeal (plaintiff): Stephen Norman Mullins; Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant): Dr. John Mark Levy; Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant): Dr. Joelle Materi; Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant): Dr. Rua Roxanne Mercier; Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant): Dr. Soma Ganesan; Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant): Vancouver Hospital & Health Sciences Centre; Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant): Western Pacific Security Group Ltd.; Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant): Geoff Brown; Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant): Donna Wright; Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant): Robert Coleman; Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant): Raymond Weipprecht; Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant): Cyrus Farivar; Intervenor: British Columbia Schizophrenia Society; Respondent (pursuant to Notice of Constitutional Question): The Attorney General of British Columbia
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Trial Judgment (tort, Mental Health Statutory Claim, Charter Challenges) / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal and Cross Appeals (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeals allowed; action dismissed against all defendants
Legal Topics
Involuntary Commitment, Interpretation of Mental Health Act S.22, Medical Certification and 'examination', Section 16 Immunity, Charter Challenges (ss.7, 8, 9, 10(b), 12, 15), False Imprisonment, Negligence, Standing and Public Interest Standing, Consent to Treatment
Source Language
English
Mental Health Law Constitutional Law Tort Law Administrative Law Health Law Involuntary Commitment Interpretation of Mental Health Act S.22 Medical Certification and 'examination' +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Norman Mullins

Appellant/respondent by Cross Appeal (plaintiff)

Dr. John Mark Levy

Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant)

Dr. Joelle Materi

Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant)

Dr. Rua Roxanne Mercier

Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant)

Dr. Soma Ganesan

Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant)

Vancouver Hospital & Health Sciences Centre

Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant)

Western Pacific Security Group Ltd.

Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant)

Geoff Brown

Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant)

Donna Wright

Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant)

Robert Coleman

Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant)

Raymond Weipprecht

Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant)

Cyrus Farivar

Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal (defendant)

British Columbia Schizophrenia Society

Intervenor

The Attorney General of British Columbia

Respondent (pursuant to Notice of Constitutional Question)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Trial Judgment (tort, Mental Health Statutory Claim, Charter Challenges) / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal and Cross Appeals (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant was a 'mentally ill person' under the Mental Health Act
  2. 2 Whether physicians conducted the required 'examination' under s.22 prior to involuntary admission
  3. 3 Liability of physicians, nurse, hospital and security staff for false imprisonment and negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Court held appellant was a 'mentally ill person' under the Mental Health Act, the statutory requirement that a physician 'examine' a person prior to certification is to be given a broad meaning (including observation, chart review and collateral information, and interview when possible), the certifying physicians here had sufficient basis and acted in good faith so certificates were valid, s.16 immunity and deference to medical judgment precluded liability, appellant lacked standing for the broad constitutional challenge, therefore appeal dismissed and cross-appeals allowed, action dismissed against all defendants.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeals allowed; action dismissed against all defendants

Orders

  • Dismiss the appeal
  • Allow the cross-appeals