Court finds B.C.’s involuntary mental health treatment scheme unconstitutional

VANCOUVER — The British Columbia Supreme Court has given the provincial government six months to reform laws that allow directors of mental health facilities to consent to psychiatric treatments for people who are involuntarily admitted for care.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities took the provincial government to court over separate but related pieces of legislation, claiming they unconstitutionally denied patients who were admitted involuntarily the right to direct their care if capable to do so.

The court found the council had established the legislation also perpetuated a stereotype that people with mental disorders “lack capacity” to consent or refuse care.

The court ruling released this week said B.C. is an “outlier” among provinces, with no requirement to assess the patients’ capacity to decide on care, while granting facilities “unilateral power” to treat people against their will with no independent oversight.

The ruling said the legislation’s purpose is “pressing and substantial” but laws in every other province and territory that deal with consent rights of patients are “significantly less drastic.”

The court declared sections of the province’s Consent Act and Representation Agreement Act infringe on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it gave the province six months to “take whatever steps it sees fit to draft Charter-compliant legislation.”

“The treatment of those in our society who struggle with mental illness can generate strong opinions,” Justice Lauren Blake says in the ruling.

“The issue before me is not whether B.C. should have an involuntary admission regime for those individuals who are unable to recognize that their mental illness is impeding their ability to appreciate their need for treatment.”

“While a capable involuntarily admitted patient can consent to their psychiatric treatment, this case is centred on those individuals who do not.”

The Minister of Attorney General said in a statement on Friday that “involuntary care is an important part of mental health care systems across the country.”

The ministry said mental health care delivery won’t be interrupted during the six-month period when the province has to bring the legislation in line with the Charter.

“We are reviewing the decision and will determine next steps once that review is complete,” the ministry said. “We are committed to ensuring that people continue to get access to the care they need.”

The Community Legal Assistance Society said in a news release Friday that it was a “landmark decision,” decades in the making.

“B.C.’s Mental Health Act was created in 1964 and hasn’t undergone comprehensive revision in decades,” said lawyer Danielle Sabelli, one of several lawyers representing the council in the case. “It’s time to make B.C. a leader, not the last jurisdiction in Canada clinging desperately to a dysfunctional, outdated system.”

Patrick Williams, a lawyer with McCarthy Tétrault in Vancouver, said he and many other lawyers worked for years on the case for the plaintiff.

“It’s been a big team and my efforts have built on the good work of others. But for those of us at trial, myself and the rest of the team and the client were thrilled with the result,” Williams said in an interview on Friday.

He said the court heard from “some very brave witnesses who testified about their experience with B.C.’s system and the trauma and harm that it caused them.”

Williams said the court’s ruling delves into the differences between B.C.’s system and others jurisdictions and said there was a lack of evidence showing it led to any better outcomes for patients.

He said the case wasn’t about all forms of involuntary treatment, but rather focused on how B.C.’s system differed from others, harming many patients who found themselves involuntarily admitted.

“The ball is really in the government’s court and more accurately the legislature’s court for how it wants to respond to the decision,” he said. “We’re waiting to see what the attorney general does next in terms of a potential appeal and what the legislature does next, in terms of a potential response.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 31, 2026.

The Canadian Press