Note on the text

Conway, Anne; Coudert, Allison P.; Corse, Taylor

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511597978.004

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tribunals "must act consistently with the Charter and its values when exercising their statutory functions." 90 In the words of the SCC:…”

Section: Potential Claims Before Mental Health Tribunals To Advancmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jurisdiction of Mental Health Tribunals to Provide Positive Remedies: Application, Challenges, and Prospects

Zuckerberg¹

2012

mlj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern mental health legislation protects the civil rights of the mentally ill by limiting the scope of permissible state interference with an individual’s autonomy. It also generally sets up mental health tribunals in charge of reviewing compliance with parts of the legislation. However, the legislation does not generally address the right to adequate mental health care. The latter (or its lack thereof) has increasingly become a source of debate among scholars and policy makers. The right to adequate care is increasingly being seen as the sine qua non of the civil rights of the mentally ill. This article explores recent Canadian jurisprudence dealing with the power of administrative tribunals to address constitutional and quasi-constitutional claims, and questions whether such power could give rise to a claim for adequate health care before mental health tribunals. It argues that, subject to some limited circumstances where mental tribunals have been given certain discretion to factor adequate care into their decisions, the recent Canadian jurisprudence does not significantly modify the limited remedies available before mental health tribunals.La législation moderne en matière de santé mentale protège les droits civils des personnes atteintes de maladies mentales en limitant la portée de l’ingérence étatique sur leur autonomie individuelle. Cette législation établit également des tribunaux administratifs chargés de faire respecter certains de ses propres éléments statuaires. Toutefois, la législation ne traite généralement pas du droit d’accès à des services de santé mentale adéquat. Ce droit (ou plutôt, son omission) est progressivement devenu une source de débat parmi les universitaires et les acteurs gouvernementaux. Le droit à des soins adéquats est de plus en plus perçu comme étant la condition sine qua non des droits civils des personnes atteintes de maladies mentales. Cet article examine la jurisprudence canadienne portant sur le pouvoir des tribunaux administratifs à statuer sur les revendications constitutionnelles et quasi constitutionnelles, et s’inter-roge plus particulièrement à savoir si un tel pouvoir pourrait mener à une revendication devant les tribunaux administratifs en matière d’accès aux soins de santé mentale. L’auteur maintient que, à l’exception de certaines circonstances où les tribunaux ont pu se prévaloir de leur discrétion pour prendre en compte l’ac-cès aux soins dans le contexte de leurs décisions, la jurisprudence canadienne ne modifie pas de manière significative les recours limités devant les tribunaux de santé mentale

show abstract

“…Tribunals "must act consistently with the Charter and its values when exercising their statutory functions." 90 In the words of the SCC:…”

Section: Potential Claims Before Mental Health Tribunals To Advancmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jurisdiction of Mental Health Tribunals to Provide Positive Remedies: Application, Challenges, and Prospects

Zuckerberg¹

2012

mlj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It had now been suggested for the first time that Spitsbergen may be an island independent of Greenland. 21 However, England was unable to enforce its claim. In 1618, a Dutch naval fleet overwhelmed the English hunting fleet in Spitsbergen waters, and in the diplomatic aftermath of these clashes England had to allow the militarily superior Dutch free whaling access to the Spitsbergen waters.…”

Section: A Brief Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Svalbard Continental Shelf Controversy: Legal Disputes and Political Rivalries

Pedersen

2006

Ocean Development & International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Note on the text

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Jurisdiction of Mental Health Tribunals to Provide Positive Remedies: Application, Challenges, and Prospects

Jurisdiction of Mental Health Tribunals to Provide Positive Remedies: Application, Challenges, and Prospects

The Svalbard Continental Shelf Controversy: Legal Disputes and Political Rivalries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About