Fast Facts
We’ve put together some fast facts to help people better understand what’s going on with the Mental Health Act and involuntary treatment in BC.
British Columbia Supreme Court found that BC’s Mental Health Act violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
In July 2026, the British Columbia Supreme Court found that BC’s Mental Health Act violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically in its approach to involuntary treatment. In the case, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities argued that specific sections of the Mental Health Act, the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, and the Representation Agreement Act (Deemed Consent Laws) violate section 7 and section 15 of the Charter because they override health care consent rights for involuntary patients when it comes to psychiatric treatment decisions. You can find a longer breakdown of the Court’s decision here. If you’re looking for a short video summary, you can find one here.
The Court decision reflects what people with lived and living experience of involuntary treatment have been saying for decades: BC’s approach to involuntary treatment is rife with systemic failures.
Six findings that should guide any upcoming amendments to the Mental Health Act:
-
BC’s Deemed Consent Laws assume that clinicians, and particularly psychiatrists, are the ideal substitute decision-maker. This policy approach reflects an assumption that professional expertise puts clinicians in a better position to make treatment decisions than the individual experiencing treatment or the people who know them (and their values and wishes) or those who provide relational care for them. [1]
However, the Court makes clear:
Outside of emergency situations, this is not the practice in any other area of health care. [2]
Assuming that a physician is inevitably the best form of substitute decision-maker ignores that our healthcare system is built on the value of an individual’s right to consent to their own treatment. [3]
There is inherent benefit to people – or their chosen representative – maintaining decision-making rights even if a physician believes a proposed treatment is in the person’s best interest. [4]
Healthcare system decision-making can and does reflect stigma and prejudice about people with mental disorders. [5]
Laws can’t tell a healthcare provider how to exercise their clinical judgement, but they can establish a system where healthcare providers deliver treatment in a way that protects and advances the rights and needs of involuntary patients in accordance with the Charter. [6]
Informed consent in healthcare is not about professional knowledge. It is about having a process in place for professional knowledge to be shared with the individual (or the people they choose) in a way that allows them to meaningfully make decisions about whether to consent or refuse treatment.
-
Another flawed assumption within BC’s mental health system is that involuntary treatment and its potential impact on human rights and dignity is somehow less harmful than detention. [7] This appears to be based on a premise that any rights infringement or harm caused by the administration of involuntary treatment is justified because it may benefit the person or it may lead to faster discharge, including on extended leave.
The Court decision is clear that these are unsound, paternalistic factual assumptions and a legally incorrect way of thinking about Charter rights under the MHA. The rights protected by the Charter cannot be ranked in terms of importance and just because a law has a well-intentioned purpose doesn’t mean it can’t violate the Charter:
The rights deprivations at issue are not solely tied to the ones that flow from detention; it is fundamentally about the deprivation of choice, within the context of medical self-determination and medical treatment. [8]
It goes against well established law to assume that, because involuntary treatment can be effective and alleviate psychiatric symptoms, restore a patient’s mental capacity, or lead to discharge, it ultimately enhances liberty and autonomy. The argument that eliminating personal choice in psychiatric treatment “advances” that person’s right to liberty and autonomy has no basis in the accepted law. The purpose of a law cannot eliminate the rights deprivations. [9]
The Court decision found that psychiatric treatments — like medical treatments in general — are accompanied by risk or potential side effects. Psychiatric treatment delivered on an involuntary basis carries inherent risks. While these risks depend on an individual’s characteristics and circumstances, they exist. That’s true regardless of whether the treatment may also be beneficial. [10]
It does not matter how “temporary” the infringement to health care consent rights is or how brief the harm. [11]
-
When addressing the use of involuntary treatment, the BC’s public materials and communications often default to the benefits of involuntary treatment and risks of not providing involuntary treatment. [12] There is rarely, if ever, any mention of any risks or harms associated with involuntary treatment itself, regardless of the specific treatment or the way it is administered (this is addressed further below). [13] This skewed focus is misleading and minimizes the importance and extent of the harms that can be caused by involuntary treatment. It also leads to a biased policy direction that prioritizes treatment at all costs while undermining the quality, safety and efficacy of that treatment. Overall, this approach contributes to a system culture that fails to take rights seriously.
The Court decision includes a number of clear findings that involuntary treatment itself (i.e. the state overriding someone’s healthcare consent rights) regardless of the specific course of treatment, causes lasting and serious harm. This includes psychological harm, stigma, damaging therapeutic relationships, a hindered recovery and undermining of treatment safety and efficacy. [14]
Any amendments to the MHA must acknowledge and reflect the full range of benefits and harms related to involuntary treatment in order to further the purpose of the MHA.
-
The scope of “treatment” under the MHA is broad. That breadth is relied on by designated facilities to administer involuntary medications and neuromodulations and employ seclusion, restraint, forced clothing removal, use or threat of force by numerous security guards, and physical procedures tied to a mental disorder like forced insertion of feeding tubes. The Court decision also found that detention alone (“warehousing”) is considered treatment in BC. [15] It’s clear that designated facilities are utilizing the full spectrum of authority granted to them under the definition of “treatment.”
The Court decision found that there are serious, life-threatening, and real harms that flow from specific treatment options in terms of side-effects. [16] In addition, the Court determined that serious harm occurs from the way involuntary treatment is administered. This can include:
a risk of death [17]
rare but serious complications from the use of restraints [18]
lead to feelings of fear, anger, and distress from being grabbed, restrained, secluded, having clothing forcibly removed, forced injections in buttocks, forced tube insertion, etc., which can be degrading, dehumanizing, and akin to experiencing sexual assault. [19]
Continued downplaying and ignoring the harms caused by involuntary treatment and the way that treatment is administered makes evaluating its safety and efficacy impossible. Taking steps to protect patient decision-making rights and engage patients in decision that impact them will reduce the need for the use of tools like force, seclusion, and restraint. This will make treatment safer.
-
There is a fundamental disconnect in how the BC characterizes treatment efficacy under the MHA. As set out in the previous findings, BC often focuses solely on the potential benefits of involuntary treatment with little or no acknowledgement of the risks.
In addition, provincial guidance and public commentary are often misleading about the potential efficacy of treatment, presenting involuntary treatment as a quick fix. [20]
However, the Court heard from experts on the subject and found that relevant psychiatric treatments are effective at achieving symptom remission in only about 50% of patients. [21]
The Court went on to make a number of findings related to approaches that actually improve treatment efficacy:
involving patients in decision-making, [22]
providing clear information about treatment options, [23]
respecting patient preferences, [24]
advanced directive planning, [25]
positive and trusting therapeutic alliance, [26]
family or supporter involvement, [27]
family or supporter substitute decision-making, and
procedural safeguards all improve treatment efficacy. [28]
Rather than undermining treatment efficacy or interfering with treatment access, as it is often framed, involving patients in their treatment and advancing their rights actually support a patient’s health and wellbeing. However, these approaches are not currently part of provincial guidance or statutory approach to involuntary treatment in BC.
Respecting the rights at issue in the decision does not undermine treatment efficacy, it improves it.
-
BC’s approach to involuntary treatment has been repeatedly described as “treatment first.” This appears to mean that administering treatment as quickly as possible, with as few interferences as possible, is purported to lead to better outcomes. This has been repeatedly used as a reason that BC’s mental health system cannot respect rights – as set out above, there is an incorrect assumption that rights will delay treatment enough to cause harm.
However, the Court made clear findings about the impact of delays that may result from respecting patients rights through capacity assessments, building relationship and negotiating with a capable patient who refuses treatment, locating SDMs or representatives, and involving them in decision-making:
Any delay in assessing capacity rarely takes more than a day or two even in complex cases. [29]
Short delays of up to a week or two are not associated with worse treatment outcomes. [30]
Outcomes associated with the length of time that a patient goes without treatment, referred to as Duration of Untreated Psychosis, is measured in weeks or months, not hours or days. [31]
The involvement of concerned family members or support person is of greater benefit than harm to people with mental disorders. [32]
These findings illustrate that respecting healthcare consent rights will not negatively impact treatment efficacy or undermine the purposes of the MHA.
-
Examples of these assumptions are reflected in the AG’s arguments that the physician or director are a substitute decision maker under BC’s scheme; Dr Vigo’s guidance memos, which focus on physicians being best placed to make treatment decisions; Guide to the Mental Health Act (2005) which sets out that individuals or families need to request specific needs be met and decisions will be left to the physician or detaining facility administration.
Council of Canadians with Disabilities v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2026 BCSC 1416 at Para 977.
Para 1030.
Para 978.
Para 629.
Para 826.
For example, the AG repeatedly argued that BC takes a “treatment first” approach because it may lead to symptom reductions that leads discharge/increases liberty and that deemed consent only results in a “temporary interference” with healthcare consent rights. These arguments are often connected to assuming that goal of involuntary treatment is discharge, regardless of whether a person is on extended leave or not. This perspective fails to engage with the harm resulting from not having self-determination over healthcare treatment and the benefits of self-determination being an equally important goal.
Para 765.
Paras 766; 782; 793.
Para 767.
Para 1067.
For example, the Guide to the Mental Health Act (2005) does not contain a single mention of potential harms connected to involuntary treatment, and instead only offers a focus on the potential benefits: “Without involuntary admission and treatment made possible by the Mental Health Act, these seriously mentally ill people would continue to suffer, causing significant disruption and harm to their lives and the lives of others.” Similarly, A Pathway to Hope frames involuntary treatment as helping, protecting, and supporting safety, which must be balanced “against” rights. There is no acknowledgement of the potential trauma or re-traumatization that can occur from involuntary treatment in the operating standards, despite including a section on “cultural safety and humility” that also covers trauma-informed approaches.
For example, see the casual reference to the use of Clozapine in “General guidance for physicians on the use of the Mental Health Act when treating adults with substance use disorders” without any acknowledgement of the well-known risk and precautions recommended by Health Canada, as well as repeated suggestion of the appropriateness of using buprenorphine off label in a clinical vignette; the repeated suggestion of the appropriateness of using buprenorphine off label in a clinical vignette with no reference to risks; A Pathway to Hope’s framing of involuntary treatment as helping, protecting, and supporting safety; Guide to the Mental Health Act (2005) does not contain any reference to risk or potential harms.
Paras 539, 541, 605, 609, 837.
Paras 493-494.
Para 602.
Para 774.
Para 600.
Para 795.
Guide to the Mental Health Act (2005), page 1.
Paras 507-509.
Para 528.
Para 530.
Paras 531, 865.
Para 851.
Para 529.
Paras 532-526.
Para 631.
Paras 153, 523, 524.
Para 595.
Paras 498-499.
Para 536.
If the above findings were used to guide upcoming Mental Health Act amendments, what could that look like? Check out the roadmap linked below to find out.
Find this resource useful? Share it!
Involuntary Treatment in BC in 2024
This list of 10 facts aims to provide basic facts from law, data, and research so we can have better informed conversations about the current state of involuntary treatment in BC, as of 2024.
-
The Mental Health Act is one of the main laws in BC that authorizes police to apprehend someone and take them to a health care facility, where doctors and nurse practitioners can detain someone against their will and administer involuntary treatment. [1]
There is no limit on how long someone can be detained or involuntarily treated. The Mental Health Act authorizes detention and involuntary treatment to be imposed indefinitely for the rest of someone’s life. [2]
-
The Mental Health Act authorizes doctors to place involuntary patients in the community on leave from a detaining facility while they are still being administered involuntary treatment. [3]
Involuntary patients on extended leave in the community are subject to conditions they must comply with, and they are closely supervised by mental health teams. [4]
-
1 in 5 people detained and involuntarily treated under the BC Mental Health Act have a primary diagnosis of substance use disorder. This makes substance use disorders the third most common type of diagnosis for involuntary patients. [5]
Substance use disorders represented the largest growing diagnosis type for people detained and involuntarily treated under the Mental Health Act over the time period 2008/2009 to 2017/2018, with a 139% increase. [6]
-
There are no age parameters on detention and involuntary treatment under the BC Mental Health Act. Children and youth of any age can be apprehended by police and involuntarily admitted to facilities by physicians or nurse practitioners. [7]
Children and youth do not have the right to make autonomous decisions about their treatment when they are involuntary patients under the Mental Health Act. Just like adults, they are subject to involuntary treatment that is unilaterally determined by their doctor. [8]
The Representative for Children and Youth found that the number of children and youth who are detained and involuntarily treated has “increased alarmingly.” Between 2008/09 and 2017/18 involuntary admissions of children and youth rose by 162%. [9]
-
While Riverview Hospital closed in 2012, there are currently over 70 facilities in BC where people can be detained for mental health and substance use health treatment throughout the province, including a detaining facility that currently operates on the grounds of the former Riverview Hospital. [10]
There are secure, locked units in facilities where people are detained under the Mental Health Act and involuntary patients cannot leave without permission from the treatment team. [11]
-
There have always been forms of detention and involuntary treatment for people with disabilities, mental health issues, and substance use health issues in BC since colonization began. However, the use of detention and involuntary treatment has been dramatically increasing in BC since the mid-2000s. [12]
The rates of detention and involuntary treatment under BC’s Mental Health Act have doubled in the last 15 years. [13] There are now over 20,000 people detained under the Mental Health Act in BC every year. [14] To put that in perspective, there were only 662 patients at Riverview Hospital in the year 2000. [15]
The number of involuntary patients who are placed in the community on extended leave while receiving involuntary treatment has increased significantly in recent years. In 2008/2009 there were 848 people placed from detaining facilities on extended leave and in 2021/2022 that number reached 3,567. [16]
-
The law generally protects the right of adults to make our own health care consent decisions. It presumes we are capable of making those decisions unless we are assessed as incapable.[17] When we are assessed as incapable of making a health care consent decision, the law protects our right to have the people who know us best make the decision, like our families or other personal supporters we choose. [18] However, these rights are removed for involuntary patients under BC’s Mental Health Act. [19]
BC’s “deemed consent” laws mean that anyone can be made an involuntary patient, and all involuntary patients are “deemed” to consent to any form of psychiatric treatment the doctor chooses. There are no requirements to assess whether a person can make their own treatment decisions, to ask the person for consent, or to involve loved ones like the person’s family members or friends. [20]
-
The Mental Health Act states that every patient is “during detention, subject to the direction and discipline” of the facility staff. [21] This means that patients can be solitarily confined in seclusion rooms, mechanically restrained with straps that tie them to their beds, or otherwise punished. There are no limits on when, how, or why someone can be subject to these restraints and no independent review.
The Representative for Children and Youth has criticized this authorization in the Mental Health Act: “To permit the unregulated use of restraint and confinement of patients, and specifically of children, is unacceptable.” [22]
-
Unlike other laws that authorize serious impacts on rights and freedoms, [23] there is no independent review automatically built in for detention and involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act. Instead, an independent review by a tribunal or court only takes place if involuntary patients make a request for one – the result is only approximately 3% of detentions are independently reviewed annually. [24]
Other Canadian jurisdictions have enshrined provincial Mental Health Advocates in their mental health legislation or have hired former judges and independent investigators to conduct reviews of their mental health legislation to ensure their laws are regularly evaluated and improved. [25] BC’s Mental Health Act has never been independently evaluated and reviewed.
-
There is little evidence to show that detention and involuntary treatment improves the health, safety, and well-being of individuals who receive the involuntary treatment or their surrounding communities.
Studies have generally not found evidence that involuntary substance use health treatment leads to improved outcomes (like lower rates of substance use or lower rates of engaging in criminal activity in the future), and some studies show there are potential harms from the involuntary treatment (such as higher rates of overdose and drug poisoning deaths following release). [26]
Studies have generally demonstrated that people who received compulsory mental health treatment in the community were no more likely to be connected with services, did not have higher rates of social functioning, mental state, or quality of life, and did not have lower rates of readmission to hospital when compared with people who received voluntary treatment.[27]
People who are detained and treated against their will can experience trauma and harms leading to fear and avoidance of health care services.[28]
While other places in Canada and the world have mental health laws that reflect commitments to providing a range of mental health services, BC has no standardized set of services that are consistently available during involuntary treatment. [29] Instead, there is evidence that a range of holistic, person-centred supports are often not available during involuntary treatment in BC. [30]
The Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction report that government refers to in its September 15, 2024 announcement says that systemic studies examining the effectiveness of involuntary care for people with substance use disorders “are limited and inconclusive” and focus groups with people with lived and living experience with substance use “did not endorse involuntary care under the inadequate conditions of the existing health system.” [31]
-
Mental Health Act, RSBC 1996, c288, sections 20 and 22. www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96288_01
Mental Health Act, RSBC 1996, c288, sections 20 and 24. www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96288_01
Mental Health Act, RSBC 1996, c288, section 37. www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96288_01
BC Government, Guide to the Mental Health Act, 2005. https://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2005/MentalHealthGuide.pdf
Jackson P. Loyal, M. Ruth Lavergne & Will Small, Trends in Involuntary Psychiatric Hospitalization in British Columbia: Descriptive Analysis of Population-Based Linked Administrative Data from 2008 to 2018, published in Canadian Journal of Psychiatry Volume 68, Issue 4, 2024. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07067437221128477#bibr4-07067437221128477
Jackson P. Loyal, M. Ruth Lavergne & Will Small, Trends in Involuntary Psychiatric Hospitalization in British Columbia: Descriptive Analysis of Population-Based Linked Administrative Data from 2008 to 2018, published in Canadian Journal of Psychiatry Volume 68, Issue 4, 2024. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07067437221128477#bibr4-07067437221128477
Mental Health Act, RSBC 1996, c 288, section 22. www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96288_01
Mental Health Act, RSBC 1996, c 288, section 31. www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96288_01
Representative for Children and Youth, Detained: Rights of children and youth under the Mental Health Act, 2021, page 29. https://rcybc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/RCY_Detained-Jan2021.FINAL_.pdf
BC Government, Designations under the Mental Health Act section 3(1) and 3(2), Ministerial Order M 393/2016. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/managing-your-health/mental-health-substance-use/facilities-designated-mental-health-act.pdf
BC Government, Guide to the Mental Health Act, 2005. www.bcmhrb.ca/app/uploads/sites/431/2018/11/Mental-Health-Guide-by-Ministry-of-Health-2005.pdf
Laura Johnston, Operating in Darkness: BC’s Mental Health Act Detention System, published by Community Legal Assistance Society, 2017, page 24. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/clastest/pages/1794/attachments/original/1527278723/CLAS_Operating_in_Darkness_November_2017.pdf?1527278723
Office of the Ombudsperson, Systemic Investigation update: Report on the Implementation of the Recommendations from Committed to Change: Protecting the Rights of Involuntary Patients under the Mental Health Act, 2022, page 31. https://bcombudsperson.ca/assets/media/Committed-to-Change_Report-Update_July21-2022.pdf ;
BC Ministry of Health Consolidated Analytics Services, Mental Health Hospitalizations in BC: Voluntary and Involuntary Discharges (detained under the Mental Health Act with one or two certificates at sometime during the stay, 2008/09 - 2015/16), Freedom of Information (FOI) Request HTH-2017-72558, 2017Office of the Ombudsperson, Systemic Investigation update: Report on the Implementation of the Recommendations from Committed to Change: Protecting the Rights of Involuntary Patients under the Mental Health Act, 2022, page 31. https://bcombudsperson.ca/assets/media/Committed-to-Change_Report-Update_July21-2022.pdf ;
BC Ministry of Health Consolidated Analytics Services, Mental Health Hospitalizations in BC: Voluntary and Involuntary Discharges (detained under the Mental Health Act with one or two certificates at sometime during the stay, 2008/09 - 2015/16), Freedom of Information (FOI) Request HTH-2017-72558, 2017.
British Columbia Mental Health and Addiction Services, Riverview Hospital: A Legacy of Care and Compassion (Revised edition), 2010. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e34ed207332cf46d561c2da/t/638977a93bf83439023bd24e/1669953470122/Riverview+Hospital_History.pdf
Ministry of Health, Health Sector Information, Analysis Reporting Division, Annual case counts of involuntary patients released on extended leave pursuant to the Mental Health Act. (Date Range for Record Search: From 4/1/2016 To 3/31/2022), Freedom of Information (FOI) Request HTH-2022-21471, 2022;
BC Ministry of Health Consolidated Analytics Services, Mental Health Hospitalizations in BC: Voluntary and Involuntary Discharges (detained under the Mental Health Act with one or two certificates at sometime during the stay, 2008/09 - 2015/16), Freedom of Information (FOI) Request HTH-2017-72558, 2017.
Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, RSBC 1996, c181, section 3. www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96181_01
Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, RSBC 1996, c 181. www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96181_01
Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, RSBC 1996, c 181, section 2. www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96181_01;
Mental Health Act, RSBC 1996, c288, section 31. www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96288_01
Mental Health Act, RSBC 1996, c 288, section 31. www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96288_01
Mental Health Act, RSBC 1996, c 288, section 32. www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96288_01
Representative for Children and Youth, Detained: Rights of children and youth under the Mental Health Act, 2021, page 59. https://rcybc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/RCY_Detained-Jan2021.FINAL_.pdf
See for example, Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20, Part 3. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-44.6;
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, RSC 1985, c R-10 at Part VI. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-10;
Police Act, RSBC 1996, c 367, Parts 7.1 and 9. https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96367_01;
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, section 57. https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5.
Health Justice, Upstream Barriers, Downstream Crisis: Denial of Justice under BC’s Mental Health Act, 2024, page 84. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e34ed207332cf46d561c2da/t/663a5d6cad7d53078a2565a3/1715101070129/FINAL_MAY07_DenialofJustice_optimizedforweb.pdf
For example, Alberta established the Mental Health Patient Advocate in 1990 under the Alberta Mental Health Act: https://www.alberta.ca/alberta-mental-health-patient-advocate.aspx;
Nova Scotia engaged a former Supreme Court of Canada judge to conduct an independent report, Minister of Health and Wellness, “Report of the Independent Panel to Review the Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment Act and Community Treatment Orders”, by Gérard V. La Forest and William Lahey (July, 10, 2013): https://novascotia.ca/dhw/mental-health/reports/IPTA-Review-2013.pdf;
Every five years, Ontario engages with an independent agency to review amended mental health legislation with Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, The Third Review of Community Treatment Orders, prepared by R.A. Malatest & Associates, 2019: https://files.ontario.ca/moh-third-review-community-treatment-orders-dec-2019-en-2023-03-09.pdf
D. Werb & al., The effectiveness of compulsory drug treatment: A systematic review, published in International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 28, 2016, pages 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.12.005;
Andreas Pilarinos & al., Secure care: More harm than good, published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, Volume 190, Issue 41, 2018, pages 1219-1220. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/190/41/E1219
Steve Kisely, Leslie Anne Campbell & Richard O’Reilly, Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders, published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017, Issue 3. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004408.pub5/full ;
Jorun Rugkåsa, Effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders: The International Evidence, published in Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 61, Issue 1, 2016, pages 15-24. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756604/
Tara Seed, John Fox & Katherine Berry, The experience of involuntary detention in acute psychiatric care. A review and synthesis of qualitative studies, published in International Journal of Nursing Studies, Volume 61, 2016, pages 82-94. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27314181 ;
Representative for Children and Youth, Detained: Rights of children and youth under the Mental Health Act, 2021. https://rcybc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/RCY_Detained-Jan2021.FINAL_.pdf
Health Justice, A Path Forward: Human rights-based guiding principles for BC’s mental health law and services, 2022, pages 42-51, and 57-62. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e34ed207332cf46d561c2da/t/6441b4d29e4f84365c114a9f/1682027749916/FINAL_APR2023_GuidingPrinciples_HealthJustice_Updated.pdf
Health Justice, “Pathologize the systems and not the people”: Decolonizing BC’s mental health law, 2023, pages 60-64. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e34ed207332cf46d561c2da/t/656946dc3b442563d8a0a69d/1701398248704/FINAL_+Pub2_PathologizeTheSystemsNotPeople_Optimized.pdf
Representative for Children and Youth, Detained: Rights of children and youth under the Mental Health Act, 2021, page 70, recommendation 9. https://rcybc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/RCY_Detained-Jan2021.FINAL_.pdf;
Health Justice, A Path Forward: Human rights-based guiding principles for BC’s mental health law and services, 2022, pages 42-51, and 57-62. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e34ed207332cf46d561c2da/t/6441b4d29e4f84365c114a9f/1682027749916/FINAL_APR2023_GuidingPrinciples_HealthJustice_Updated.pdf
Daniel Vigo et al., Exploring Care Options for Individuals with Severe Substance Use Disorders in British Columbia: Final Report, 2019. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/conducting-health-research/exploring-care-options-for-individuals-with-severe-substance-use-disorders-in-british-columbia.pdf
Find this resource useful? Share it!