[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Nope. Absolute Discharge doesn't mean he wouldn't have a Community Treatment Order issued by a psychiatrist or have psychiatric monitoring after being removed from needing to go before the Alberta Review Board. Not saying that's what de Grood would get, but technically these are not one and the same.

Either way, if he's back in hospital because after suffering a psychotic relapse, there's very little chance he can get an AD. Reintegration in the community would need to happen first and likely with a conditional discharge.

Can you provide the legal basis for this process. It’s okay to admit you are wrong here. Also still waiting for evidence of your claim that LI had non voluntary monitoring.

Because in order to be on a CTO it requires the consent of the patient in most cases. Where consent is not required it’s in limited circumstances. Circumstances that just happen to be conditions that would prevent a person from getting an absolute discharge.

Is consent required for a CTO to be issued?
Yes. The person (if competent) or their substitute decision- maker (SDM) must give their consent for a CTO to be issued. Consent is outlined in Section 28 of the MHA.
Are there any exceptions to consent?
A person’s consent is not required for a CTO if the issuing physicians are of the opinion that the person:
• has a history of not obtaining/continuing with treatment or
care in the community that is necessary to prevent the
likelihood of harm to others; or
• is suffering negative effects, including substantial mental
or physical deterioration or serious physical impairment, as a result of or related to the mental disorder,
• the CTO is reasonable in the circumstances and less restrictive than retaining the person as a formal patient.

Which one one of the above conditions apply to a person who met the following requirements:

In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Winko,provided guidance on section 672.54 and ruled that if the accused does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, the court or Review Board must order an absolute discharge. This decision reflects the basic principle that the only rationale for using the state's criminal law power to impose restraints on an individual who has been found not criminally responsible for his or her actions is the need to secure the safety of the public.[4]

The Supreme Court of Canada further clarified in R. v. Winko that Section 672.54 does not create a presumption of dangerousness. In other words, while the protection of society is paramount, there must be clear evidence of a significant risk to the public before a court or Review Board can maintain control over an accused through the imposition of a conditional discharge or detention order.

From the Justice Canada link from before

https://www.albertahealthservices.ca...-infosheet.pdf

Essentially if a person meets the requirements of an absolute discharge they clearly do not meet the requirements for a non-voluntary CTO

Also would need to meet section 9.1 of the health act items a,b,c, AND d. (Spoiler Alert: one of the requirements is around risk of harm)

So this started when I said after he receives an absolute discharge there would be no mandatory requirement for compliance with medication. You then have said without evidence a bunch of things. When asked for a link to your claims you provided a link that directly refuted your claim. When challenged on that link you changed your argument to something else without any kind of link.

So do you have any reference case of a person who recieved an absolute discharge from an NCR being put on a non-voluntary CTO? Can you map us through a path where how you would meet the requirements of a non-voluntary CTO at the same moment as meeting the requirements for an absolute discharge?

Or perhaps you could drop this line of argumentation and make the argument that this person is of similar risk to any other random person on the street (it’s not quite that low) but that at least is a reasonable justification to support the no mandatory monitoring on an an NCR discharge.

Remember your original claim was

The first statement is clearly wrong
The second statement appears to be not legally possible