B.F. v. Prince Albert Victoria Hospital et al.

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Judge: Goebel, J.
• Citation: 2015 SKQB 237,(2015), 481 Sask.R. 309 (QB)
• Date: 10 August 2015

B.F. v. Prince Albert Victoria Hospital (2015), 481 Sask.R. 309 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.010

B.F. (plaintiff) v. Prince Albert Victoria Hospital, Mental Health Unit Chief Psychiatrist Dr. Mohammed Z. Hussain, Psychiatrist Dr. Anita Taz, RCMP Waskesiu SK Detachment, RCMP Cst. Sean Brown, RCMP Cst. Shayne Provenac, Sgt. Allen Presler (all undetermined parties)

(defendants)

(2015 Q.B. No. 48; 2015 SKQB 237)

Indexed As: B.F. v. Prince Albert Victoria Hospital et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Goebel, J.

August 10, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff commenced a proceeding naming numerous defendants, including a hospital, physicians, and various members of the RCMP. Essentially, the plaintiff alleged that she was taken, against her will and on specious grounds, by RCMP officers to the hospital where she was held for several weeks and forced to undergo unnecessary and harmful treatment. She claimed that the incident offended her Charter rights and caused her personal injury and other damages. She further alleged that as a result of the defendants' actions, she was a victim of crime entitled to bring criminal complaints against the wrongdoers and seek the assistance afforded by the system to other victims of crime. She alleged that the police were ignoring her complaints, refusing to proceed with any formal action and threatening to further detain her. The plaintiff applied for a court-appointed lawyer, in part, pursuant to ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Civil Rights - Topic 4633

Right to counsel - Appointment of counsel by the court or the state - Where party impecunious - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4654.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4654.1

Right to counsel - Entitlement - Civil cases - The plaintiff commenced a proceeding naming numerous defendants, including a hospital, physicians, and various members of the RCMP - Essentially, the plaintiff alleged that she was taken, against her will and on specious grounds, by RCMP officers to the hospital where she was held for several weeks and forced to undergo unnecessary and harmful treatment - She claimed that the incident offended her Charter rights and caused her personal injury and other damages - She further alleged that as a result of the defendants' actions, she was a victim of crime entitled to bring criminal complaints against the wrongdoers and seek the assistance afforded by the system to other victims of crime - She alleged that the police were ignoring her complaints, refusing to proceed with any formal action and threatening to further detain her - The plaintiff applied for a court-appointed lawyer, in part, pursuant to ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter - The plaintiff argued that she was entitled to publicly-funded legal counsel for the following reasons: 1. She alleged that the matter was quasi-criminal in that she was seeking damages arising from an arbitrary detention under the Mental Health Services Act, which was in breach of her Charter rights; 2. While she currently did not stand charged with an offence, she feared that she faced potential jeopardy because the police might charge her, or otherwise detain her, in the future; 3. The police refused to act upon her complaints; 4. The matter was complex; and 5. She was indigent and in receipt of social assistance - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The court stated that "There is no constitutional right to publicly-funded legal counsel in a civil dispute. The situation, as presented, does not engage the right to counsel as articulated in G.(J.). While this matter is of great importance to the plaintiff, no significant public interests are at stake. The plaintiff was capable of articulating the basis for her claim in chambers and indicated to the court that she was prepared to represent herself in the civil action if she felt that her victim's rights were otherwise being protected".

Counsel:

Katherine M. Roy, for court services;

B.F., present.

This application was heard before Goebel, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the following judgment on August 10, 2015.