Everything You Want to Know about Changes to the Mental Health Act in Alberta

The Mental Health Amendment Act, 2007 received Royal Assent on December 7, 2007, and was proclaimed into force stages. (1) The first set of amendments was proclaimed into force on September 30, 2009. (2) The remaining amendments were proclaimed into force on January 1, 2010. (3) This article will provide an overview of the key amendments, as well as brief explanation of the reasons for the amendments. The three main areas covered by the amendments are as follows: * changes the criteria to become formal patient; * implementation of community treatment orders (CTO's); and * disclosure of information to family doctor. These amendments have resulted changes to the role and mandate of the Mental Health Patient Advocate and of the Review Panels. A. Changes Criteria to Become Formal Patient The criteria have undergone substantial revision. As of September 30, 2009, person must meet all three of the following criteria order to be admitted and detained as formal (involuntary) patient: * suffering from disorder; and * to cause harm to that person to suffer substantial physical deterioration serious physical impairment; and * unsuitable for admission to facility other than as formal patient. (4) The first and third criteria remain the same; as well, the definition of mental has not changed. Mental disorder is defined as a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognize reality, ability to meet the ordinary demands of life. (5) The second criterion has undergone significant changes. Formerly, the person must have been in condition presenting to present danger to the person (6) As of September 30, 2009, the person must be likely to cause harm to the person others to suffer substantial physical deterioration serious physical impairment. (7) The changes are meant to allow for earlier intervention when person's condition is deteriorating. The amendments respond to concerns raised by families and clinicians that the former criteria only allowed for intervention after the person became dangerous. Criteria based on danger have been replaced with those based on As well, the categories of harm are not restricted; as such, the new criteria could be interpreted as applying to different types of harm, including physical, emotional, and financial. There is no reference to the immediacy imminence of the harm. Finally, criteria based on deterioration impairment have also been added. Under the previous criteria, order to be admitted as an involuntary patient Alberta, the patient had to present be to present danger to himself/herself others. The interpretation of the Mental Health Act provisions was further constrained by case law. Danger was interpreted to mean serious risk of physical harm, rather than emotional harm. As well, there had to be some immediacy to the danger. This interpretation persisted despite legislative amendments that were intended to make the criteria less restrictive. The development of the case law was summarized the Court of Queen's Bench decision Russell v. Calgary General Hospital as follows: This court M. v. Alberta (1985), 63 A.R. 14 (Q.B.) considered the requirement of danger to oneself others. Justice McDonald found this to mean present imminent danger. A danger which might arise matter of weeks was insufficient. Despite subsequent amendment to the legislation to include the words, or to present danger to himself others, this court has continued to require evidence of imminent risk of harm (See Wurfel v. Alberta Hospital (Edmonton), [1999] A.J. No. 868). (8) The purpose of changes to the involuntary committal criteria was explained as follows during second reading of what was then Bill 31: Mr. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.