Case arose from certification for psychiatric care under British Columbia's Mental Health Act
The British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled that a man’s objection to his wife’s involuntary admission and psychiatric treatment under BC’s Mental Health Act, 1996, did not create the hospital’s and mental health team’s duty of care to him.
In Li v. Vancouver General Hospital, 2025 BCCA 247, the patient received a chronic schizophrenia diagnosis in 2016. In May 2017, she was certified and admitted for involuntary psychiatric treatment based on safety concerns for her and her daughter under s. 22 of the Mental Health Act. She was then released on extended leave.
In March 2018, police at the Vancouver Police Department apprehended her and took her to a hospital due to aggressive and threatening behaviour toward herself and her daughter. Again, she was certified and later released on extended leave, renewed across multiple review hearings.
In December 2018, the patient and her husband brought a petition seeking to discharge her from mandatory treatment. They alleged that the Vancouver General Hospital and South Mental Health Team (Vancouver Coastal Health), as the healthcare providers who received and certified her, fabricated or falsified reasons to detain her.
In March 2019, the British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the petition upon finding the patient’s involuntary detention justified under the Mental Health Act. In October 2020, the BC Court of Appeal rejected the spouses’ appeal.
In December 2021, the spouses filed an action seeking damages against the respondents – Vancouver Coastal Health, the Vancouver Police Department, and Vancouver City – for physically and mentally harming the patient.
The action wanted the respondents to end the patient’s involuntary drug treatment, which was allegedly unnecessary and based on false information. The action claimed negligence, deprivation of her human rights, and breaches of her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In June 2023, the patient’s certification under the Mental Health Act expired and went unrenewed. No longer subject to involuntary treatment, the patient discontinued her action in January 2024 and opposed her husband’s plan to keep pursuing the action.
In January 2024, the respondents applied to dismiss the underlying claim for failure to state a reasonable cause of action. They asserted that many issues were moot and the husband lacked the standing to pursue the remaining claims.
Claims deemed moot
In February 2024, a BC Supreme Court chambers judge allowed the respondents’ application, dismissed the action, and ordered the husband to pay Vancouver Coastal Health and Vancouver City lump sum costs of $4,500 and $5,000, respectively.
The judge determined that:
- The patient’s discharge and decertification made the claims seeking to end her involuntary admission and medical treatments moot
- The tort-based claims concerned harm to the patient, not to her husband, due to her involuntary admission and treatment
The judge said the husband had no standing since the claim alleged harm only to the patient. The judge added that amending his action to add a personal claim for damages would not give him standing as the respondents owed no duty of care to the patient’s spouse.
The husband appealed and filed a fresh evidence application. For the first time on appeal, he assailed the constitutionality of BC’s Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, 1996. He claimed he had the public interest standing to challenge this legislation.
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal. The appeal court saw no errors in the chambers judge’s findings that the issues regarding the patient’s involuntary treatment were moot or that her husband lacked standing to pursue the Charter and other claims on his wife’s behalf.
The appeal court noted that certification involves an individual who is dangerous to themselves or others, needs care to prevent substantial mental or physical deterioration, and is incapable of voluntary admission as a patient. The appeal court explained that those acting under the Mental Health Act owed a duty of care to patients, not to their families.
The appeal court concluded that the husband lacked a reasonable cause of action based on a duty of care owed to him and that the judge appropriately prevented him from amending the pleadings to proceed with his action.
The appeal court determined that the husband failed to meet the applicable tests for public interest standing, fresh evidence on appeal, and due diligence. The appeal court said he could and should have raised the constitutional challenge before the chambers judge.
