By Warren Cass 2L, Justine Connelly 2L, and Phaydra Falkner 1L
On Feb. 7, 2011, law students and other interested members of the University of Toronto community gathered at the Faculty of Law for a panel discussion hosted by the Mental Health Law Society on the recently released report “Navigating the Journey to Wellness: The Comprehensive Mental Health and Addictions Action Plan for Ontarians.” Recently tabled by the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions in the Ontario legislature, the report calls for significant changes in institutional, legal and client-care strategies for Ontario mental health and addiction services.
It proposes that Ontario’s mental health legislation be amended to expand the criteria for involuntary admission and treatment. This controversial suggestion has been strongly criticized by many who advocate on behalf of individuals with mental health issues, and was a heated topic of discussion among panelists Matt Cohen (Pro Bono Law Ontario), Ryan Fritsch (Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office), Jennifer Chambers (Empowerment Council), and Vani Jain (Schizophrenia Society of Ontario). Due to the last-minute cancellation by Liberal MPP Kevin Flynn, chair of the Select Committee, the Committee’s perspective was unrepresented.
Criticism of the suggestion to change mental health legislation came from across the panel. Most speakers said the report is based on an incorrect understanding of existing laws. It was pointed out that Bill 68 (“Brian’s Law”) amended Ontario’s legislation in 2000 to facilitate involuntary admission and treatment of individuals with mental health issues. The Select Committee Report’s statement that involuntary admission is only possible in the context of violent behaviour reflects an inadequate study of past legislation.
The panelists expressed concern that forcibly administered treatment may be a deep infringement of civil liberties – especially in light of studies that demonstrate that mental health issues do not negatively impact a person’s capacity to make decisions regarding their treatment.
Fritsch, Cohen and Chambers all suggested the legislative reforms recommended by the Select Committee appear to represent the interests of caregivers who struggle to deal with their loved ones’ mental illness. In failing to represent the interests of the clients of the mental health system themselves, some of the proposed reforms raise serious concerns with individual freedom and autonomy.
Jain spoke to some positive aspects of the report, commending the government for bringing the topic of mental health to the forefront. In Ontario’s broken and uncoordinated mental health care system, the effort to make reforms a political priority are positive. The report recommends ensuring the availability of a core basket of services across the province – crucial, but currently lacking. Panelists also praised proposals to facilitate navigation of the system. Panelists Jain and Cohen expressed support for the introduction of neutral “system navigators” to help inform people about the range of services available to them. Jain praised the idea of creating an umbrella organization to facilitate navigation, though Chambers expressed reservations that by consolidating services, they may become less sensitive to the needs of clients they serve.
