D. M. c. Centre hospitalier Anna-Laberge

This is NOT an official Law Report. You cannot present this page in court, by photocopying or otherwise. If you need this report for a case, you must get the official law report. For this purpose, you may inquire with a Reference Librarian at an accredited (i.e., university) law library.

Citizen Critical of Government sent back to Loony Bin for a “Closed Cure” due to his alleged “Quarrelsomeness toward the C.S.S.T.

His father has “contempt” for him, he had an “altercation” with his sister, and he’s been suing the C.S.S.T. for appropriate compensation following broken vertebrae in a work-related accident. He says he can’t work, he needs physiotherapy and readjustment, not psychiatric treatments. He’s angry because the C.S.S.T. is not providing what he says he needs for his physical recovery. Three officials on a mere administrative board send the young man back to the lunatic asylum on the ground of his “quérulence” because he’s still mad at the C.S.S.T.

What is the C.S.S.T.?  The acronym is short for the French name Commission de la Santé et de la Sécurité au Travail. In English, that would be the “Work Health and Safety Board”, but that’s not an official name. The C.S.S.T. is a socialist style government body created by statute to supervise the allotment of medical care to victims of job-related injuries. The following short judgment might be a good advertisement for private medical insurance.

Speculation: This fellow’s lawyer apparently filed a motion which obliged his own client to prove that he was entitled to be set free from civil detention in a mental hospital. The three-person panel of this purely administrative tribunal objected that the lawyer had pleaded as though he were trying to appeal from the original judgment at the Court of Quebec, rather than pleading in respect to the motion for this hearing. In order to obtain his client’s release, the man’s lawyer would likely have been better off filing a motion for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which puts the onus on those detaining the man to prove that he needs to be detained. In particular, in seeking such a writ, his lawyer should have commenced with the obvious legal prohibition of civil detention other than for contempt of court, set out clearly at Article 1 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure.
Another pleading that the lawyer should likely have raised in a vigorous defense of his client would have be the suspect motives of the government in detaining this man, i.e., to prevent him from eventually establishing a legal precedent against the government and the C.S.S.T. by suing the latter to pay for the health-related expenses which the man himself viewed as necessary to his own physical recovery. What we seem to see here is the view of the State as to a man’s health requirements being substituted for his own personal estimate of his own health needs after serious injuries in a work-related accident. This little case might be a good advertisement for personal medical insurance. Have your own health insurance, or risk the lunatic asylum in battling for your own rights with your socialist Nanny Government. So, who is this lawyer? Inexperienced? Legal Aid? Or controlled opposition? Why is the man incarcerated as a lunatic for suing the C.S.S.T. for proper medical services relating to the broken vertebrae in his back?


Source: D. M. c. Centre hospitalier Anna-Laberge, 2001 CanLII 35569 (QC TAQ)

Date :  2001-06-05
Dossier :  SAS-M-064392-0101
Référence :  D.M. c. Centre hospitalier Anna-Laberge, 2001 CanLII 35569 (QC TAQ), consulté le 2015-12-222015-12-15

Section des affaires sociales

En matière de protection des personnes dont l’état mental présente un danger pour elles-mêmes ou pour autrui

Date : 5 juin 2001

Dossier : SAS-M-064392-0101

Membres du Tribunal :
Georges Wurtele, avocat
Yolène Jumelle, travailleuse sociale
Pierre Hélie, psychiatre

D… M…

Partie requérante



Partie intimée


En matière de protection des personnes dont l’état mental présente un danger pour elles-mêmes ou pour autrui

[1] Il s’agit d’une requête pour faire lever l’ordonnance de cure fermée rendue à l’encontre du requérant le 23 janvier 2001.

[2] Le requérant conteste une ordonnance de garde en établissement rendue contre lui le 23 janvier 2001. Cette ordonnance avait été rendue sur la foi de deux rapports médicaux, l’un signé par le Dr St-Hilaire et l’autre par le Dr T. Malec. Le Dr St-Hilaire écrivait dans son rapport daté du 17 janvier 2001 que le requérant présentait «un délire paranoïde autour de la C.S.S.T.» et concluait à la nécessité d’une garde en établissement pour traiter son épisode de schizophrénie paranoïde décompensée. Le rapport du Dr Malec daté du 18 janvier 2001 était au même effet.

[3] Lors de l’audience, le requérant témoigne qu’il a eu un accident de travail qui lui a brisé des vertèbres dans le dos. Depuis ce temps, il est en procès avec la C.S.S.T. pour obtenir une juste compensation. Il se dit incapable de travailler. Il a besoin de physiatrie et de réadaptation, non de traitements psychiatriques. Il affirme que son père le méprise et que ce dernier manque d’objectivité. Il a eu une altercation avec sa sœur.

[4] Il vit une situation de rejet. Il admet avoir été suivi en psychiatrie, mais c’est la première fois qu’il est hospitalisé. Il fut traité entre 1996 et 2001 par le Dr Bergeron qui a calmé ses angoisses. Il déclare qu’il ne peut plus vivre chez son père qui l’a expulsé, mais qu’il peut aller vivre chez le voisin avec lequel il aurait pris des arrangements.

[5] Il a commencé à prendre des médicaments depuis le 23 janvier.

[6] Le Tribunal après avoir entendu le témoignage du requérant en vient à la conclusion que la garde en établissement doit être maintenue. En effet, le requérant ne démontre aucune autocritique, présente toujours cette quérulence envers la C.S.S.T. et une certaine agressivité contre son père. Il serait de l’avis des soussignés dangereux pour sa santé mentale ou pour la santé d’autrui que l’ordonnance de cure fermée soit présentement levée.

[7] Lors de l’audience, le procureur du requérant a prétendu qu’il appartenait à l’hôpital de prouver le bien-fondé de l’ordonnance rendue à l’encontre du requérant et qu’en l’absence de cette preuve, le requérant devait être libéré. Le Tribunal ne partage pas cette opinion. La requête pour faire lever une ordonnance de garde en établissement présentée devant le Tribunal administratif du Québec n’est pas un appel de l’ordonnance rendue par le juge de la Cour du Québec.

[8] De l’avis des soussignés, il appartient au requérant, lors de l’audience portant sur une requête pour faire lever la garde en établissement rendue contre lui, de démontrer que son état mental ne présente plus de danger ni pour lui, ni pour autrui.

[9] Par ces motifs, le Tribunal


Georges Wurtele
Yolène Jumelle
Pierre Hélie

5 juin 2001

Me Ian-Kristian Ladouceur
Procureur du requérant



Random Quote

The social tyranny of extorting recantation, of ostracism and virtual outlawry as the new means of coercing the man out of line, is the negation of democracy.

— Justice Ivan Cleveland Rand of the Supreme Court of Canada, Canadian Bar Review (CBR)
The Judicial Madness Gallery
The Judicial Madness Image Gallery
"Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" — Juvénal, Satires, VI, 346.  En français : « Qui nous protègera contre ceux qui nous protègent ? »  In English: " Who will protect us from those who protect us? "

 — Mauro Cappelletti dans Louis Favoreu (dir.), Le pouvoir des juges, Paris, Economica, 1990, p. 115.
Le Spécialiste DOSSIER: Extreme Behavior
Yves-Marie Morissette's Poster Boy for 'Legalizing' Chemical Lobotomies: Valéry Fabrikant

Yves-Marie Morissette's Poster Boy for 'Legalizing' Chemical Lobotomies: Valéry Fabrikant

Judicial Madness Signature Video

Judicial Madness Signature Video & Sharing Buttons

Yves-Marie Morissette The Works The Mind
Judicial Declarations of Madness in Quebec Courts
On the “Rule of Law”
“In public regulation of this sort there is no such thing as absolute and untrammelled ‘discretion’, that is that action can be taken on any ground or for any reason that can be suggested to the mind of the administrator; no legislative Act can, without express language, be taken to contemplate an unlimited arbitrary power exercisable for any purpose, however capricious or irrelevant, regardless of the nature or purpose of the statute. Fraud and cor­ruption in the Commission may not be mentioned in such statutes but they are always implied as exceptions. ‘Discretion’ necessarily implies good faith in discharging public duty; there is always a perspective within which a statute is intended to operate; and any clear departure from its lines or objects is just as objectionable as fraud or corruption.”

— Mr. Justice Ivan Cleveland Rand writing in the most memorable passage in Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121 at the Supreme Court of Canada, page 140.
Random Quote
Fears are mounting that the psychiatrist Anatoly Koryagin is near to death in the notorious jail of Christopol in central Russia. Letters that have reached the West from his wife and a friend indicate that he is so weak that unless he is given expert medical care he could die at any time. Dr. Koryagin has been in prison for the last four years for actively opposing the political abuse of psychiatry. The abuse takes the form of labeling dissidents as mad and forcibly treating them with drugs in mental hospitals.   ― Peter B. Reddaway, "The Case of Dr. Koryagin", October 10, 1985 issue of The New York Times Review of Books
"If we were lawyers, this would be billable time."
A Word on Caricature
“Humor is essential to a successful tactician, for the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule.”

— “The Education of an Organizer”, p. 75, Rules for Radicals, A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals by Saul Alinsky, Random House, New York, 1971.

I am no fan of Saul Alinsky's whose methods are antidemocratic and unparliamentary. But since we are fighting a silent war against the subversive Left, I say, if it works for them, it will work for us. Bring on the ridicule!  And in this case, it is richly deserved by the congeries of judicial forces wearing the Tweedle suits, and by those who are accurately conducting our befuddled usurpers towards the Red Dawn.

— Admin, Judicial Madness, 22 March 2016.
Flag Counter