Expert testimony will describe how the effects of prolonged solitary confinement coupled with a lack of medical care caused Plaintiff to enter a dissociative delirium and resulted in his current PTSD diagnosis. Witness testimony will describe how Defendant Barela used the solitary cells of Fox 2 pod, as a place to house the mentally ill. Witnesses will describe how the mentally ill inmates in Fox 2 were confined to their cells for long periods of time, how they did not get adequate medical care and how deplorable the conditions were in that pod. Witness testimony will describe how there were more cells in Fox 2 than hours in the day and as such it was impossible to give each inmate his one hour of “recreation” per day. The Defendants’ own expert witness will testify to the inhumane conditions of Plaintiff’s confinement.

For more on the incarceration of the mentally ill see Slaw.

Slevin – Complaint

Slevin_FirstAmendedAnswer

Slevin – Trial Brief (P)

Slevin – Trial Brief (D)

Slevin – Jury Verdict

Kusnierz v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company

Other resources include:

• Oatley, Vigmond (interveners in the case, on behalf of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA))
• Smitiuch Injury Law
• Thomson Rogers
• Daniel Strigberger of Miller Thomson at the Ontario Insurance Litigation Blog
• Alexander Rozine of D’Angela, Fox, Vanounou LLP at Canadian Health Law 

Omar Ha-Redeye at the B.C. Court of Appeal during the Insite hearing

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision today on the Insite clinic in Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services,

[148] The infringement at stake is serious; it threatens the health, indeed the lives, of the claimants and others like them. The grave consequences that might result from a lapse in the current constitutional exemption for Insite cannot be ignored. These claimants would be cast back into the application process they have tried and failed at, and made to await the Minister’s decision based on a reconsideration of the same facts. Litigation might break out anew. A bare declaration is not an acceptable remedy in this case.

[149] Nor is the granting of a permanent constitutional exemption appropriate where the remedy is for a state action, not a law. In any event, such exemptions are to be avoided: R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96. Moreover, the Minister should not be precluded from withdrawing an exemption to Insite should changed circumstances at Insite so require. The flexibility contemplated by s. 56 of the CDSA would be lost.

[150] In the special circumstances of this case, an order in the nature of mandamus is warranted. I would therefore order the Minister to grant an exemption to Insite under s. 56 of the CDSA forthwith. (This of course would not affect the Minister’s power to withdraw the exemption should the operation of Insite change such that the exemption would no longer be appropriate.) On the trial judge’s findings of fact, the only constitutional response to the application for a s. 56 exemption was to grant it. The Minister is bound to exercise his discretion under s. 56 in accordance with the Charter. On the facts as found here, there can be only one response: to grant the exemption. There is therefore nothing to be gained (and much to be risked) in sending the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration.

[151] This does not fetter the Minister’s discretion with respect to future applications for exemptions, whether for other premises, or for Insite. As always, the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter.

[152] The dual purposes of the CDSA — public health and public safety — provide some guidance for the Minister. Where the Minister is considering an application for an exemption for a supervised injection facility, he or she will aim to strike the appropriate balance between achieving the public health and public safety goals. Where, as here, the evidence indicates that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

[153] The CDSA grants the Minister discretion in determining whether to grant exemptions. That discretion must be exercised in accordance with the Charter. This requires the Minister to consider whether denying an exemption would cause deprivations of life and security of the person that are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The factors considered in making the decision on an exemption must include evidence, if any, on the impact of such a facility on crime rates, the local conditions indicating a need for such a supervised injection site, the regulatory structure in place to support the facility, the resources available to support its maintenance, and expressions of community support or opposition.

Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services

Liberal Minute Special Report #1 – Insite by JasonLamarche

The conference agenda included:

• An update on the Expert Panel’s Report to the Superintendent on Catastrophic Impairment, by Darcy Merkur
• Pediatric Catastrophic Impairment, by David Payne
• Catastrophically Injured Children, by Dr. Peter G. Rumney
• Understanding Neuro-Psychological Assessments, by Wendy Moore Johns, Dr. Carolyn Lemsky, and Dr. Janine Hay
• Future Care Costs Reports for Children and Young Adults, by Craig Brown, Stacey Stevens, Dianne Taylor, and Martha Binstock
• A patient’s perspective on catastrophic impairment, hosted by Sloan Mandel
• A panel on rehab teams, families and lawyers working together, by David MacDonald, Susan Goode, Judy Guse Salah, Jennifer Horton, Dr. Elaine McKinnon, Timothy Myland, Karen Rucas, and Jean Turgeon
• Some closing remarks by Leonard Kunka, Charissa Levy, and Judy Moir

Michael Watts, Roger Gillott and Sarah Harrison of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP warned hospitals of reputational risks to hospitals under freedom of information requests from a new law, to be enacted at the start of 2012.

But they came under scrutiny themselves after a Facebook page brought attention to their advice.

See more on Slaw.

Sections 210, 212(l)(j), and 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code were struck down as violating section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.

At para. 170 of the decision Justice Himel cites the 2006 study by the House of Commons Report of the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, The Challenge of Change: A Study of Canada’s Criminal Prostitution Laws, which states,

The vulnerability of persons engaging in street prostitution is also related to the fact that they frequently change locations. As a result of an arrest, fear of arrest, or a court order, [street prostitutes] are often forced to move to another area, effectively separating them from friends, co-workers, regular customers and familiar places. A number of witnesses indicated that this instability jeopardizes prostitutes’ health, safety and well-being.

The case has been uploaded here to assist these members of the public in accessing this information.

Bedford v. Canada, 2010 ONSC 4264

A special thanks to Simon Fodden on Slaw and the University of Toronto’s Sexual Diversity Blog for facilitating this process. See LexisNexis for a case summary, and CanLii for the complete text in html.

Debra Roberts, Deputy Chief of Staff from the Public Appointments Secretariat, spoke about the application system and how the process to get appointed to provincial boards or tribunals works.

The Public Appointments Secretariat (PAS)  administers and processes the appointment of qualified individuals to over 600 provincial agencies boards and commissions in Ontario. They support the Premier in administering the public appointments process, and serve as the focal point for queries from agencies, ministries and the public regarding the appointments process.

The Public Appointments Secretariat is also the body responsible for appointing Justices of the Peace in Ontario, and several health-related tribunals.

The Law Society of Upper Canada and the Ontario Bar Association hosted a session, The New Auto Insurance Regime – Practical Strategies for Radical Change.

Speakers included John A. McLeish and Dale V. Orlando of McLeish Orlando LLP, and Roger G. Oatley and James L. Vigmond of Oatley, Vigmond LLP.

The topics discussed included the definition of minor and catastrophic injuries,and rehabilitation, housekeeping, caregiver and attendant care benefits.

The new Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS)  can be found in Ontario Regulation 34/10 to the Insurance Act.  A table of time periods is available through Taran Virtual Associates.

For more on this talk see the notes on Slaw. The Tournay v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company FSCO decision referred to in that post can be found here.

Speakers included Prof. Giuseppina D’Agostino of Osgoode Hall Law School, and Debra Grant from the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario.