Four more suspected criminals — including an accused Internet child predator and an alleged drunk driver — have escaped convictions because of the bloated caseload of British Columbia's courts, prompting one judge to issue a direct attack on Premier Christy Clark and her government's handling of the matter.
In one ruling out of New Westminster, B.C., Judge Daniel Steinberg called the current state of the provincial court in B.C. "abysmal."
"There are no amount of press releases or talk show appearances that are going to fix the over-stretched limits of our institutional resources," Steinberg said in a ruling posted Wednesday on the provincial court website.
"There is only one course of action that will fix the current situation and that is action, not words."
Clark, a former radio talk show host, appeared on her old station's airwaves Monday to discuss her government's priorities, including the conundrum in the justice system. Steinberg's decision is dated Jan. 25 and was posted Wednesday on the provincial court website.
Last week, Clark promised a complete review of the court system to discover why delays and costs are increasing while crime goes down.
Five-month review
Suggested solutions for the problem are at least five months away as lawyer Geoffrey Cowper investigates the problem. But in the meantime, hundreds of cases may be timing out of the system.
Steinberg stayed charges against David Blattler — who was accused of attempting to lure an underage teenager over the Internet — because he'd waited 27 months for his case to get to trial.
"I find that the consequences of the government's decision-making and priority-setting have meant the creation in this case, as in many others, of an intolerable delay that offends the ... [Charter of Rights]," he concluded.
"It offends the very real need ... to suppress predatory behaviour on the Internet."
In Chillwack, Judge Wendy Young stayed the case of Wilfred Friesen who was accused of drunk driving because his trial took almost three years to get to court.
And earlier this week in Kelowna, Judge Robin Smith threw out marijuana cultivation charges against Lin To and her brother Quo To because they had waited years to get their day in court.
Smith said the government has a constitutional obligation to provide sufficient resources to prevent unreasonable delays.
"This is a pretty simple, straight-forward case that ought not require 23 months of systemic delays to be heard just because resources aren't available to have it heard earlier."
Smith brushed off the government announcement last week that nine new judges had been appointed, saying it only replaces retiring judges.
Even with the nine new appointments, there are still 14 fewer judges working in the B.C. courts than there were in 2005.
Backlog growing
The backlog of cases is still growing.
Statistics show there are more than 7,000 provincial court criminal cases that have been pending for a year or more and over 2,000 cases have been waiting in the system for 18 months.
B.C. New Democrat Leader Adrian Dix said the delays are the direct result of years of inaction by the government.
"It didn't happen overnight," Dix told the legislature. "It's one thing to complain about judges, which is apparently what the government is doing. It's another thing to take the issue seriously and the government hasn't."
Clark said her government is taking real action and that includes the appointment of 23 new judges recently, hiring new sheriffs, more money for legal aid and more money for jail capacity in the Interior.
"That is a substantial investment in a system that needs it," she said. "Because stays and delays are unacceptable for victims, they're unacceptable for society, no one wants the system to work that way."
Cowper's review is expected to look for efficiencies and how to accelerate the court process and is expected to be completed by July.
The provincial government spends about $1.4 billion dollars a year on the justice system.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
University says it is reviewing the findings of a major research project into the asbestos industry and cancer caused by exposure to the fibrous material.
MONTREAL - McGill University says it is reviewing the findings of a major research project into the asbestos industry and cancer caused by exposure to the fibrous material.
David Eidelman, the university's dean of medicine, says allegations in a CBC report that several decades of research led by J. Corbett McDonald could have been influenced by the asbestos industry must be taken seriously.
But he also says holding scientific views different from those of the majority does not constitute research misconduct.
McDonald, who is now retired, began studying mortality rates associated with asbestos in 1966, looking at about 11,000 Quebec miners and millers of chrysotile, an asbestos fibre.
He and his research team published a series of studies between 1971 to 1998 which were funded in part by the Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health of the Quebec Mining Association, something which McDonald acknowledged.
While Eidelman says McDonald drew different conclusions about the safe use of asbestos from some current-day authorities, he did demonstrate that asbestos is a carcinogen associated with lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Eidelman says McGill researchers perform their work to the highest ethical standards and the university is not currently getting any funding from the asbestos industry.
David Eidelman, the university's dean of medicine, says allegations in a CBC report that several decades of research led by J. Corbett McDonald could have been influenced by the asbestos industry must be taken seriously.
But he also says holding scientific views different from those of the majority does not constitute research misconduct.
McDonald, who is now retired, began studying mortality rates associated with asbestos in 1966, looking at about 11,000 Quebec miners and millers of chrysotile, an asbestos fibre.
He and his research team published a series of studies between 1971 to 1998 which were funded in part by the Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health of the Quebec Mining Association, something which McDonald acknowledged.
While Eidelman says McDonald drew different conclusions about the safe use of asbestos from some current-day authorities, he did demonstrate that asbestos is a carcinogen associated with lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Eidelman says McGill researchers perform their work to the highest ethical standards and the university is not currently getting any funding from the asbestos industry.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 4 Docket: 33884 Date: 20120209
Source: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2012/2012scc4/2012scc4.html
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 4
Date: 20120209
Docket: 33884
IN THE MATTER OF the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission’s Broadcasting Regulatory Policy
CRTC 2009-329 and Broadcasting Order CRTC 2009-452;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by way of a reference to the
Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to ss. 18.3(1) and 28(2) of the
Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.
Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists,
Canadian Media Production Association,
Directors Guild of Canada and Writers Guild of Canada
Appellants
v.
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, LP, Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc.,
MTS Allstream Inc., Rogers Communications Inc.,
TELUS Communications Company, Videotron Ltd.
and Shaw Communications Inc.
Respondents
- and -
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
Intervener
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 11):
The Court
Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.
reference re broadcasting act
IN THE MATTER OF the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the Canadian Radio‑Television and Telecommunications Commission’s Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009‑329 and Broadcasting Order CRTC 2009‑452;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by way of a reference to the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to ss. 18.3(1) and 28(2) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F‑7.
Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists,
Canadian Media Production Association,
Directors Guild of Canada and Writers Guild of Canada Appellants
v.
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, LP,
Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc., MTS Allstream Inc.,
Rogers Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Company,
Videotron Ltd. and Shaw Communications Inc. Respondents
and
Canadian Radio‑Television and Telecommunications Commission Intervener
Indexed as: Reference re Broadcasting Act
2012 SCC 4
File No.: 33884.
2012: January 16; 2012: February 9.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ.
on appeal from the federal court of appeal
Communications law — Broadcasting — Internet — Internet service providers providing end‑users with access to broadcasting over the Internet — Whether Internet service providers are broadcasters when they provide end‑users with access to broadcasting through the Internet — Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, ss. 2, 3.
The Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission referred to the Federal Court of Appeal the question of whether retail Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) carry on, in whole or in part, “broadcasting undertakings” subject to the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end‑users. The court held that they do not.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
The terms “broadcasting” and “broadcasting undertaking”, interpreted in the context of the language and purposes of the Broadcasting Act, are not meant to capture entities which merely provide the mode of transmission. The Broadcasting Act makes it clear that “broadcasting undertakings” are assumed to have some measure of control over programming. The policy objectives listed under s. 3(1) of the Act focus on content. When providing access to the Internet, which is the only function of ISPs placed in issue by the reference question, they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content. The term “broadcasting undertaking” does not contemplate an entity with no role to play in contributing to the Act’s policy objectives. Accordingly, ISPs do not carry on “broadcasting undertakings” under the Broadcasting Act when they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end‑users.
Cases Cited
Referred to: Electric Despatch Co. of Toronto v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada (1891), 20 S.C.R. 83; Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427; Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. Canadian Radio‑Television Commission, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, ss. 2(1) “broadcasting”, (3), 3(1).
Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, s. 2(1) “telecommunications common carrier”.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (Noël, Nadon and Dawson JJ.A.), 2010 FCA 178, 322 D.L.R. (4th) 337, 404 N.R. 305, [2010] F.C.J. No. 849 (QL), 2010 CarswellNat 2092, in the matter of a reference brought by the Canadian Radio‑Television and Telecommunications Commission regarding the Broadcasting Act. Appeal dismissed.
Thomas G. Heintzman, Q.C., and Bram Abramson, for the appellants.
John B. Laskin, Yousuf Aftab and Nicole Mantini, for the respondents Bell Aliant Regional Communications et al.
Nicholas McHaffie and Dean Shaikh, for the respondent Shaw Communications Inc.
The following is the judgment delivered by
The Court —
[1] In a 1999 report, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) concluded that the term “broadcasting” in s. 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, included programs transmitted to end-users over the Internet. At that time, the CRTC concluded that it was not necessary to regulate broadcasting undertakings that provided broadcasting services through the Internet. It exempted these “new media broadcasting undertakings” from the requirements of the Broadcasting Act. In 2008, after public hearings, the CRTC revisited this exemption. One of the issues raised was whether Internet service providers – ISPs – were subject to the Broadcasting Act when they provided end-users with access to broadcasting through the Internet. The CRTC opted to send this issue to the Federal Court of Appeal for determination on a reference (2010 FCA 178, 322 D.L.R. (4th) 339). The specific reference question was:
Do retail Internet service providers (“ISPs”) carry on, in whole or in part, “broadcasting undertakings” subject to the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end-users?
[2] ISPs provide routers and other infrastructure that enable their subscribers to access content and services made available on the Internet. This includes access to audio and audiovisual programs developed by content providers. Content providers depend on the ISPs’ services for Internet delivery of their content to end-users. The ISPs, acting solely in that capacity, do not select or originate programming or package programming services. Noël J.A. held that ISPs, acting solely in that capacity, do not carry on “broadcasting undertakings”.
[3] We agree with Noël J.A., for the reasons he gave, that the terms “broadcasting” and “broadcasting undertaking”, interpreted in the context of the language and purposes of the Broadcasting Act, are not meant to capture entities which merely provide the mode of transmission.
[4] Section 2 of the Broadcasting Act defines “broadcasting” as “any transmission of programs … by radio waves or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public”. The Act makes it clear that “broadcasting undertakings” are assumed to have some measure of control over programming. Section 2(3) states that the Act “shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings”. Further, the policy objectives listed under s. 3(1) of the Act focus on content, such as the cultural enrichment of Canada, the promotion of Canadian content, establishing a high standard for original programming, and ensuring that programming is diverse.
[5] An ISP does not engage with these policy objectives when it is merely providing the mode of transmission. ISPs provide Internet access to end-users. When providing access to the Internet, which is the only function of ISPs placed in issue by the reference question, they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content. We agree with Noël J.A. that the term “broadcasting undertaking” does not contemplate an entity with no role to play in contributing to the Broadcasting Act’s policy objectives.
[6] This interpretation of “broadcasting undertaking” is consistent with Electric Despatch Co. of Toronto v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada (1891), 20 S.C.R. 83. In Electric Despatch, the Court had to interpret the term “transmit” in an exclusivity contract relating to messenger orders. Like the ISPs in this case, Bell Telephone had no knowledge or control over the nature of the communication being passed over its wires. This Court had to determine whether the term “transmit” implicated an entity who merely provided the mode of transmission. The Court concluded that only the actual sender of the message could be said to “transmit” it, at p. 91:
It is the person who breathes into the instrument the message which is transmitted along the wires who alone can be said to be the person who "transmits" the message. The owners of the telephone wires, who are utterly ignorant of the nature of the message intended to be sent, cannot be said ... to transmit a message of the purport of which they are ignorant. [Emphasis added]
[7] This Court relied on Electric Despatch in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, a proceeding under the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, to conclude that since ISPs merely act as a conduit for information provided by others, they could not themselves be held to communicate the information.
[8] The appellants in this case argued that we should instead follow Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. Canadian Radio-Television Commission, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141. In Capital Cities, decided under a 1968 version of the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC had amended Rogers Cable’s licence, allowing Rogers to delete and substitute the television advertisements in the American broadcasts it received before it distributed the broadcast to viewers. The American broadcasting stations argued that the Broadcasting Act was ultra vires Parliament since it purported to regulate systems situated wholly within provincial boundaries. As part of this argument, the American stations attempted to sever the function of receiving television signals from the distribution or retransmission of those signals within a particular province. The Court rejected this severance of reception and distribution, stating that it was a “single system” coming under federal jurisdiction. The appellants argue before this Court that ISPs similarly form part of a single broadcasting system that is subject to regulation under the Broadcasting Act.
[9] Like Noël J.A., we are not convinced that Capital Cities assists the appellants. The case concerned Rogers Cable’s ability to delete and substitute advertising from American television signals. There was no questioning in Capital Cities of the fact that the cable television companies had control over content. ISPs have no such ability to control the content of programming over the Internet.
[10] Contrary to the submissions of the appellants, we need not decide whether the fact that ISPs use “routers” prevents them from being characterized as telecommunications common carriers. Noël J.A. was not asked to decide whether ISPs are a “telecommunications common carrier” under the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38. Nor, based on the record before us, do we feel it appropriate for us to do so.
[11] We therefore agree with Noël J.A.’s answer to the reference question, namely, that ISPs do not carry on “broadcasting undertakings” under the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end-users. We would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitors for the appellants: McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondents Bell Aliant Regional Communications et al.: Torys, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondent Shaw Communications Inc.: Stikeman Elliott, Ottawa.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 4
Date: 20120209
Docket: 33884
IN THE MATTER OF the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission’s Broadcasting Regulatory Policy
CRTC 2009-329 and Broadcasting Order CRTC 2009-452;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by way of a reference to the
Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to ss. 18.3(1) and 28(2) of the
Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.
Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists,
Canadian Media Production Association,
Directors Guild of Canada and Writers Guild of Canada
Appellants
v.
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, LP, Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc.,
MTS Allstream Inc., Rogers Communications Inc.,
TELUS Communications Company, Videotron Ltd.
and Shaw Communications Inc.
Respondents
- and -
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
Intervener
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 11):
The Court
Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.
reference re broadcasting act
IN THE MATTER OF the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the Canadian Radio‑Television and Telecommunications Commission’s Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009‑329 and Broadcasting Order CRTC 2009‑452;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by way of a reference to the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to ss. 18.3(1) and 28(2) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F‑7.
Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists,
Canadian Media Production Association,
Directors Guild of Canada and Writers Guild of Canada Appellants
v.
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, LP,
Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc., MTS Allstream Inc.,
Rogers Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Company,
Videotron Ltd. and Shaw Communications Inc. Respondents
and
Canadian Radio‑Television and Telecommunications Commission Intervener
Indexed as: Reference re Broadcasting Act
2012 SCC 4
File No.: 33884.
2012: January 16; 2012: February 9.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ.
on appeal from the federal court of appeal
Communications law — Broadcasting — Internet — Internet service providers providing end‑users with access to broadcasting over the Internet — Whether Internet service providers are broadcasters when they provide end‑users with access to broadcasting through the Internet — Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, ss. 2, 3.
The Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission referred to the Federal Court of Appeal the question of whether retail Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) carry on, in whole or in part, “broadcasting undertakings” subject to the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end‑users. The court held that they do not.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
The terms “broadcasting” and “broadcasting undertaking”, interpreted in the context of the language and purposes of the Broadcasting Act, are not meant to capture entities which merely provide the mode of transmission. The Broadcasting Act makes it clear that “broadcasting undertakings” are assumed to have some measure of control over programming. The policy objectives listed under s. 3(1) of the Act focus on content. When providing access to the Internet, which is the only function of ISPs placed in issue by the reference question, they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content. The term “broadcasting undertaking” does not contemplate an entity with no role to play in contributing to the Act’s policy objectives. Accordingly, ISPs do not carry on “broadcasting undertakings” under the Broadcasting Act when they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end‑users.
Cases Cited
Referred to: Electric Despatch Co. of Toronto v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada (1891), 20 S.C.R. 83; Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427; Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. Canadian Radio‑Television Commission, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, ss. 2(1) “broadcasting”, (3), 3(1).
Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, s. 2(1) “telecommunications common carrier”.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (Noël, Nadon and Dawson JJ.A.), 2010 FCA 178, 322 D.L.R. (4th) 337, 404 N.R. 305, [2010] F.C.J. No. 849 (QL), 2010 CarswellNat 2092, in the matter of a reference brought by the Canadian Radio‑Television and Telecommunications Commission regarding the Broadcasting Act. Appeal dismissed.
Thomas G. Heintzman, Q.C., and Bram Abramson, for the appellants.
John B. Laskin, Yousuf Aftab and Nicole Mantini, for the respondents Bell Aliant Regional Communications et al.
Nicholas McHaffie and Dean Shaikh, for the respondent Shaw Communications Inc.
The following is the judgment delivered by
The Court —
[1] In a 1999 report, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) concluded that the term “broadcasting” in s. 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, included programs transmitted to end-users over the Internet. At that time, the CRTC concluded that it was not necessary to regulate broadcasting undertakings that provided broadcasting services through the Internet. It exempted these “new media broadcasting undertakings” from the requirements of the Broadcasting Act. In 2008, after public hearings, the CRTC revisited this exemption. One of the issues raised was whether Internet service providers – ISPs – were subject to the Broadcasting Act when they provided end-users with access to broadcasting through the Internet. The CRTC opted to send this issue to the Federal Court of Appeal for determination on a reference (2010 FCA 178, 322 D.L.R. (4th) 339). The specific reference question was:
Do retail Internet service providers (“ISPs”) carry on, in whole or in part, “broadcasting undertakings” subject to the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end-users?
[2] ISPs provide routers and other infrastructure that enable their subscribers to access content and services made available on the Internet. This includes access to audio and audiovisual programs developed by content providers. Content providers depend on the ISPs’ services for Internet delivery of their content to end-users. The ISPs, acting solely in that capacity, do not select or originate programming or package programming services. Noël J.A. held that ISPs, acting solely in that capacity, do not carry on “broadcasting undertakings”.
[3] We agree with Noël J.A., for the reasons he gave, that the terms “broadcasting” and “broadcasting undertaking”, interpreted in the context of the language and purposes of the Broadcasting Act, are not meant to capture entities which merely provide the mode of transmission.
[4] Section 2 of the Broadcasting Act defines “broadcasting” as “any transmission of programs … by radio waves or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public”. The Act makes it clear that “broadcasting undertakings” are assumed to have some measure of control over programming. Section 2(3) states that the Act “shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings”. Further, the policy objectives listed under s. 3(1) of the Act focus on content, such as the cultural enrichment of Canada, the promotion of Canadian content, establishing a high standard for original programming, and ensuring that programming is diverse.
[5] An ISP does not engage with these policy objectives when it is merely providing the mode of transmission. ISPs provide Internet access to end-users. When providing access to the Internet, which is the only function of ISPs placed in issue by the reference question, they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content. We agree with Noël J.A. that the term “broadcasting undertaking” does not contemplate an entity with no role to play in contributing to the Broadcasting Act’s policy objectives.
[6] This interpretation of “broadcasting undertaking” is consistent with Electric Despatch Co. of Toronto v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada (1891), 20 S.C.R. 83. In Electric Despatch, the Court had to interpret the term “transmit” in an exclusivity contract relating to messenger orders. Like the ISPs in this case, Bell Telephone had no knowledge or control over the nature of the communication being passed over its wires. This Court had to determine whether the term “transmit” implicated an entity who merely provided the mode of transmission. The Court concluded that only the actual sender of the message could be said to “transmit” it, at p. 91:
It is the person who breathes into the instrument the message which is transmitted along the wires who alone can be said to be the person who "transmits" the message. The owners of the telephone wires, who are utterly ignorant of the nature of the message intended to be sent, cannot be said ... to transmit a message of the purport of which they are ignorant. [Emphasis added]
[7] This Court relied on Electric Despatch in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, a proceeding under the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, to conclude that since ISPs merely act as a conduit for information provided by others, they could not themselves be held to communicate the information.
[8] The appellants in this case argued that we should instead follow Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. Canadian Radio-Television Commission, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141. In Capital Cities, decided under a 1968 version of the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC had amended Rogers Cable’s licence, allowing Rogers to delete and substitute the television advertisements in the American broadcasts it received before it distributed the broadcast to viewers. The American broadcasting stations argued that the Broadcasting Act was ultra vires Parliament since it purported to regulate systems situated wholly within provincial boundaries. As part of this argument, the American stations attempted to sever the function of receiving television signals from the distribution or retransmission of those signals within a particular province. The Court rejected this severance of reception and distribution, stating that it was a “single system” coming under federal jurisdiction. The appellants argue before this Court that ISPs similarly form part of a single broadcasting system that is subject to regulation under the Broadcasting Act.
[9] Like Noël J.A., we are not convinced that Capital Cities assists the appellants. The case concerned Rogers Cable’s ability to delete and substitute advertising from American television signals. There was no questioning in Capital Cities of the fact that the cable television companies had control over content. ISPs have no such ability to control the content of programming over the Internet.
[10] Contrary to the submissions of the appellants, we need not decide whether the fact that ISPs use “routers” prevents them from being characterized as telecommunications common carriers. Noël J.A. was not asked to decide whether ISPs are a “telecommunications common carrier” under the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38. Nor, based on the record before us, do we feel it appropriate for us to do so.
[11] We therefore agree with Noël J.A.’s answer to the reference question, namely, that ISPs do not carry on “broadcasting undertakings” under the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end-users. We would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitors for the appellants: McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondents Bell Aliant Regional Communications et al.: Torys, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondent Shaw Communications Inc.: Stikeman Elliott, Ottawa.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Ma lettre ouverte au Premier ministre du Canada concernant la réforme de pensions du Canada
Récemment, je leur ai envoyé le bureau du Premier ministre au sujet des changements proposés au système canadien de sécurité de la vieillesse. Pour tout non-Canadien, il s'agit d'un complément de retraite supplémentaire qui complète le Régime de pensions du Canada, qui est le peuple de retraite généraux peuvent demander et recevoir actuellement à l'âge de 65 ans. Cependant, qui pourrait être changer, mais nous ne savons pas encore. Voici ma lettre ouverte au Premier ministre au sujet de mes préoccupations et aux critiques de la façon dont il gère le débat sur la réforme des retraites. J'encourage tout citoyen canadien pour envoyer un courriel à leur député ou au bureau du premier ministre de leurs préoccupations. Ils ne sont certainement pas fournir aux médias des informations. Vous pouvez rejoindre le premier ministre du Canada au
Bureau du premier ministre
80, rue Wellington
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Télécopieur: 613-941-6900
E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca
Si vous habitez au Canada rechercher votre député local (membre du Parlement) dans l'annuaire téléphonique ou des tracts d'information, ils envoient parfois ou en ligne en utilisant votre code postal (code postal pour toute personne vivant aux États-Unis et pour tous ceux en Europe, il est différent pour chaque pays).
Sans plus tarder, s'il vous plaît faites défiler et lire ma lettre.
Alors, vous, le Parti conservateur, veulent réformer le système de retraite du Canada. Vous ne nous dites pas à ce sujet lorsque vous êtes dans le pays, mais nous en informer d'un tel changement alors qu'en Suisse. Cela me semble très lâche pour moi. Votre patron, le PM est notre leader national élu et les retraites sont une question de politique intérieure et devrait plaire à votre public national et non pas à partir d'un forum financier dans un pays étranger. Ensuite, il ressort que la seule partie du système de retraite que vous avez l'intention de réformer en quelque sorte se trouve sur le système de sécurité de la vieillesse supplément. Vous n'allez pas nous dire comment il va être réformé tant que le budget sort conduisant tout citoyen le revenu actuel ou futur aînés à faible de s'interroger sur l'impact de ces changements sur leur revenu actuel ou futur. Aujourd'hui, fév 2/12, le ministre des Finances affirme que le système de pension canadien dans son ensemble est à l'étude des éventuelles modifications. C'est une déclaration tout à fait nouveau. Je pourrais mentionner que le ministre des Finances a cassé les nouvelles alors qu'il était en Israël. Quoi avec vous les gars? Les deux principales déclarations des médias livrés à partir de sites internationaux et non à la maison pour la consommation domestique internautes à nouveau.
Je ne suis pas un fan de ces réponses extrêmement scénarisés des ministres et députés en disant que vous souhaitez conserver le système durable. Et votre deuxième réponse la plupart du temps populaire aux questions des médias est celui dont personne ne doit se soucier du Régime de pensions du Canada car il dispose d'un financement parfaitement sain. Ensuite, il ya le commentaire Flaherty d'aujourd'hui sur l'examen des système de retraite entière et pas seulement la sécurité de la vieillesse. VOUS ÊTES ICI spooking nombreuses générations. QUAND EN SAVOIR CE QUE se passe vraiment? CECI N'EST PAS UN GAGNANT DE VOTE!
Très concerné, mais énervé citoyen.
Have a nice day.
Bureau du premier ministre
80, rue Wellington
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Télécopieur: 613-941-6900
E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca
Si vous habitez au Canada rechercher votre député local (membre du Parlement) dans l'annuaire téléphonique ou des tracts d'information, ils envoient parfois ou en ligne en utilisant votre code postal (code postal pour toute personne vivant aux États-Unis et pour tous ceux en Europe, il est différent pour chaque pays).
Sans plus tarder, s'il vous plaît faites défiler et lire ma lettre.
Alors, vous, le Parti conservateur, veulent réformer le système de retraite du Canada. Vous ne nous dites pas à ce sujet lorsque vous êtes dans le pays, mais nous en informer d'un tel changement alors qu'en Suisse. Cela me semble très lâche pour moi. Votre patron, le PM est notre leader national élu et les retraites sont une question de politique intérieure et devrait plaire à votre public national et non pas à partir d'un forum financier dans un pays étranger. Ensuite, il ressort que la seule partie du système de retraite que vous avez l'intention de réformer en quelque sorte se trouve sur le système de sécurité de la vieillesse supplément. Vous n'allez pas nous dire comment il va être réformé tant que le budget sort conduisant tout citoyen le revenu actuel ou futur aînés à faible de s'interroger sur l'impact de ces changements sur leur revenu actuel ou futur. Aujourd'hui, fév 2/12, le ministre des Finances affirme que le système de pension canadien dans son ensemble est à l'étude des éventuelles modifications. C'est une déclaration tout à fait nouveau. Je pourrais mentionner que le ministre des Finances a cassé les nouvelles alors qu'il était en Israël. Quoi avec vous les gars? Les deux principales déclarations des médias livrés à partir de sites internationaux et non à la maison pour la consommation domestique internautes à nouveau.
Je ne suis pas un fan de ces réponses extrêmement scénarisés des ministres et députés en disant que vous souhaitez conserver le système durable. Et votre deuxième réponse la plupart du temps populaire aux questions des médias est celui dont personne ne doit se soucier du Régime de pensions du Canada car il dispose d'un financement parfaitement sain. Ensuite, il ya le commentaire Flaherty d'aujourd'hui sur l'examen des système de retraite entière et pas seulement la sécurité de la vieillesse. VOUS ÊTES ICI spooking nombreuses générations. QUAND EN SAVOIR CE QUE se passe vraiment? CECI N'EST PAS UN GAGNANT DE VOTE!
Très concerné, mais énervé citoyen.
Have a nice day.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
My open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada regarding Canadian Pension reform
Recently, I emailed the Prime Minister's office about the proposed changes to the Canadian Old Age Security system. For any non-Canadian, it is an additional pension supplement that compliments the Canada Pension Plan which is the general pension people can apply for and receive currently at the age of 65. However, that might be changing but we do not know yet. Following is my open letter to the Prime Minister about my concerns and criticism of how he is handling the pension reform debate. I encourage any Canadian citizen to email their MP or the Prime Minister's office with their concerns. They are certainly not providing the media with any information. You can reach the Prime Minister of Canada at
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca
If you live in Canada look up your local MP (Member of Parliament) in the phone book or information fliers they sometimes send or online by using your Postal Code (zip code to anyone living in the US and for anyone in Europe it is different for each country).
Without further ado, please scroll down and read my letter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, you, the Conservative Party, want to reform the entire pension system of Canada. You don't tell us about this when you're in the country but inform us of such a change while in Switzerland. That seems very cowardly to me. Your boss, the PM is our elected national leader and pensions are a domestic issue and should appeal to your domestic audience and not from a financial forum in a foreign country. Then it emerges that the only part of the pension system that you intend to reform in some fashion is on the old age security supplement system. You won't tell us how it will be reformed until the budget comes out leading any current or future low income senior citizen to wonder about the impact of such changes on their present or future income. Today, Feb. 2/12, the Finance Minister says the ENTIRE Canadian pension system is being looked at for possible changes. That is a completely new statement. I might mention that the Finance Minister broke the news while he was in Israel. What's with you guys? Both major media statements delivered from international locations and not at home for domestic consumption... again.
I am not a fan of these extremely scripted responses from Ministers and MP's saying that you are keeping the system sustainable. And your second mostly popular response to media inquiries is the no one needs to worry about the Canada Pension Plan as it has perfectly sound funding. Then there is the Flaherty comment of today about reviewing the entire pension system and not just the old age security. YOU ARE SPOOKING MANY GENERATIONS HERE. WHEN DO FIND OUT WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON? THIS IS NOT A VOTE WINNER!
Very concerned but pissed off citizen.
Have a nice day.
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca
If you live in Canada look up your local MP (Member of Parliament) in the phone book or information fliers they sometimes send or online by using your Postal Code (zip code to anyone living in the US and for anyone in Europe it is different for each country).
Without further ado, please scroll down and read my letter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, you, the Conservative Party, want to reform the entire pension system of Canada. You don't tell us about this when you're in the country but inform us of such a change while in Switzerland. That seems very cowardly to me. Your boss, the PM is our elected national leader and pensions are a domestic issue and should appeal to your domestic audience and not from a financial forum in a foreign country. Then it emerges that the only part of the pension system that you intend to reform in some fashion is on the old age security supplement system. You won't tell us how it will be reformed until the budget comes out leading any current or future low income senior citizen to wonder about the impact of such changes on their present or future income. Today, Feb. 2/12, the Finance Minister says the ENTIRE Canadian pension system is being looked at for possible changes. That is a completely new statement. I might mention that the Finance Minister broke the news while he was in Israel. What's with you guys? Both major media statements delivered from international locations and not at home for domestic consumption... again.
I am not a fan of these extremely scripted responses from Ministers and MP's saying that you are keeping the system sustainable. And your second mostly popular response to media inquiries is the no one needs to worry about the Canada Pension Plan as it has perfectly sound funding. Then there is the Flaherty comment of today about reviewing the entire pension system and not just the old age security. YOU ARE SPOOKING MANY GENERATIONS HERE. WHEN DO FIND OUT WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON? THIS IS NOT A VOTE WINNER!
Very concerned but pissed off citizen.
Have a nice day.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Bell Canada donates $2 million to upgrade and expand Douglas Institute Brain Bank.
Bell Canada donates $2 million to upgrade and expand Douglas Institute Brain Bank
Lynne McVey, Executive Director, Douglas Institute
George Cope, CEO Bell and BCE
Naguib Mechawar, Director of the Douglas-Bell Canada Brain Bank
Martine Turcotte, Exec. Vice Chair, Québec, Bell
Jane Lalonde, President, Douglas Foundation
Thanks to an unprecedented $2 million gift from Bell Canada, the Douglas Mental Health University Institute will be able to improve facilities and expand recruitment and research activities for its brain bank. Part of the Bell Let’s talk mental health initiative, this financial support represents one of the largest donations ever made in Quebec to a university-affiliated mental health institute. The only brain bank of its kind in Canada and one of a select few worldwide, the facility will be called the Douglas-Bell Canada Brain Bank.
Jane Lalonde, President of the Douglas Foundation, thanked Bell for the generous donation: “On behalf of the Douglas Institute Foundation, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Bell. This significant gift will greatly facilitate our researchers’ work and produce innovative advances in mental health research - good news for individuals living with mental illness.”
“The Douglas Institute plays a leading role in mental health research and treatment and we are proud to welcome the organization as our newest partner in the Bell Let’s Talk mental health initiative,” said George Cope, President and CEO of Bell Canada and BCE. “Aligned directly with our initiative’s research pillar, the work that the Douglas is undertaking here in Montréal will grow our understanding of the causes and effects of mental illness.”
“Bell Let’s Talk embraces a range of mental health partners in Québec and across Canada, from major institutions such as the Douglas to the many grassroots organizations that are part of the Bell Let’s Talk Community Fund,” said Martine Turcotte, Bell’s Vice Chair, Québec. “As we prepare for Bell Let’s Talk Day a week from today, on February 8, we are pleased to begin this new partnership with the Douglas Institute team as they work both to enhance research into mental illness, and to underline the need for and value of brain donation.”
“Mental health research has made great strides in recent decades. Much work, however, remains to be done. This Bell donation will allow us to take another great leap forward in gaining a better understanding of mental illnesses, and how to treat and prevent them. It will also allow us to further strengthen our leadership role in mental health research.Thank you, Bell, for your commitment.” Lynne McVey, inf., M.Sc., director general, Douglas Mental Health University Institute.
A one-of-a-kind brain bank
Established in 1980 and holding an archive of close to 3,000 brains, it is considered Canada’s oldest brain bank and the only one of its kind in the country:
■It operates around-the-clock, every day of the year;
■One brain can support dozens of research projects;
■The Douglas-Bell Canada Brain Bank provides high-quality brain tissue samples to scientists all across Canada and in countries such as Japan, France, and the United States, thus enabling them to increase their understanding of mental and neurodegenerative illnesses and develop better prevention, treatment and recovery strategies;
■Comparing healthy brain tissue samples with those of individuals who had a mental illness is the best way to understand the causes of it such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorders.
■Bell Canada’s donation will go towards:
■Attracting and retaining highly qualified individuals to coordinate the brain bank’s operations;
■Creating a Bell senior research fellowship in mental health;
■Upgrading existing technology and purchasing state-of-the-art equipment;
■Improving and expanding laboratories and storage facilities.
Brain donation: the ultimate gift to help advance mental health research
Naguib Mechawar, PhD, Director of the Douglas-Bell Canada Brain Bank, took the opportunity to emphasize the immense value of a brain donation: “Pledging your brain to science is an opportunity to make a lasting contribution to mental health research. All it takes is a few minutes to complete and sign our consent form. Although it's a simple process, very few people have heard about it. We desperately need healthy brains, for comparative purposes, as well as brains affected by neurological or psychiatric disorders.”
In Quebec, the organ donor sticker that is signed and affixed to the health insurance card covers all organs except the brain. Learn more about brain donation.
IN A NUTSHELL – The Douglas-Bell Canada Brain Bank
■The only operational brain bank in Canada
■Contains close to 3,000 human brains;
■Operates around-the-clock, every day of the year;
■One brain can support the work of dozens of researchers;
■A brain cannot be donated even if the Quebec health insurance card has a signed organ donor sticker;
■The oldest brain tissue bank in Canada, established 30 years ago.
Lynne McVey, Executive Director, Douglas Institute
George Cope, CEO Bell and BCE
Naguib Mechawar, Director of the Douglas-Bell Canada Brain Bank
Martine Turcotte, Exec. Vice Chair, Québec, Bell
Jane Lalonde, President, Douglas Foundation
Thanks to an unprecedented $2 million gift from Bell Canada, the Douglas Mental Health University Institute will be able to improve facilities and expand recruitment and research activities for its brain bank. Part of the Bell Let’s talk mental health initiative, this financial support represents one of the largest donations ever made in Quebec to a university-affiliated mental health institute. The only brain bank of its kind in Canada and one of a select few worldwide, the facility will be called the Douglas-Bell Canada Brain Bank.
Jane Lalonde, President of the Douglas Foundation, thanked Bell for the generous donation: “On behalf of the Douglas Institute Foundation, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Bell. This significant gift will greatly facilitate our researchers’ work and produce innovative advances in mental health research - good news for individuals living with mental illness.”
“The Douglas Institute plays a leading role in mental health research and treatment and we are proud to welcome the organization as our newest partner in the Bell Let’s Talk mental health initiative,” said George Cope, President and CEO of Bell Canada and BCE. “Aligned directly with our initiative’s research pillar, the work that the Douglas is undertaking here in Montréal will grow our understanding of the causes and effects of mental illness.”
“Bell Let’s Talk embraces a range of mental health partners in Québec and across Canada, from major institutions such as the Douglas to the many grassroots organizations that are part of the Bell Let’s Talk Community Fund,” said Martine Turcotte, Bell’s Vice Chair, Québec. “As we prepare for Bell Let’s Talk Day a week from today, on February 8, we are pleased to begin this new partnership with the Douglas Institute team as they work both to enhance research into mental illness, and to underline the need for and value of brain donation.”
“Mental health research has made great strides in recent decades. Much work, however, remains to be done. This Bell donation will allow us to take another great leap forward in gaining a better understanding of mental illnesses, and how to treat and prevent them. It will also allow us to further strengthen our leadership role in mental health research.Thank you, Bell, for your commitment.” Lynne McVey, inf., M.Sc., director general, Douglas Mental Health University Institute.
A one-of-a-kind brain bank
Established in 1980 and holding an archive of close to 3,000 brains, it is considered Canada’s oldest brain bank and the only one of its kind in the country:
■It operates around-the-clock, every day of the year;
■One brain can support dozens of research projects;
■The Douglas-Bell Canada Brain Bank provides high-quality brain tissue samples to scientists all across Canada and in countries such as Japan, France, and the United States, thus enabling them to increase their understanding of mental and neurodegenerative illnesses and develop better prevention, treatment and recovery strategies;
■Comparing healthy brain tissue samples with those of individuals who had a mental illness is the best way to understand the causes of it such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorders.
■Bell Canada’s donation will go towards:
■Attracting and retaining highly qualified individuals to coordinate the brain bank’s operations;
■Creating a Bell senior research fellowship in mental health;
■Upgrading existing technology and purchasing state-of-the-art equipment;
■Improving and expanding laboratories and storage facilities.
Brain donation: the ultimate gift to help advance mental health research
Naguib Mechawar, PhD, Director of the Douglas-Bell Canada Brain Bank, took the opportunity to emphasize the immense value of a brain donation: “Pledging your brain to science is an opportunity to make a lasting contribution to mental health research. All it takes is a few minutes to complete and sign our consent form. Although it's a simple process, very few people have heard about it. We desperately need healthy brains, for comparative purposes, as well as brains affected by neurological or psychiatric disorders.”
In Quebec, the organ donor sticker that is signed and affixed to the health insurance card covers all organs except the brain. Learn more about brain donation.
IN A NUTSHELL – The Douglas-Bell Canada Brain Bank
■The only operational brain bank in Canada
■Contains close to 3,000 human brains;
■Operates around-the-clock, every day of the year;
■One brain can support the work of dozens of researchers;
■A brain cannot be donated even if the Quebec health insurance card has a signed organ donor sticker;
■The oldest brain tissue bank in Canada, established 30 years ago.
Friday, February 3, 2012
The Douglas Mental Health University Institute (formerly the Douglas Hospital) is a Canadian psychiatric hospital
The Douglas Mental Health University Institute (formerly the Douglas Hospital) is a Canadian psychiatric hospital located in the borough of Verdun in the city of Montreal, Quebec.[1] It is also a teaching hospital affiliated with McGill University. The nearest Montreal Metro station is Monk.[2]
[edit] HistoryFounded on July 19, 1881[3] by Alfred Perry and a group of Protestant clergy and Montréal citizens, the Douglas Institute was originally named the “Protestant Hospital for the Insane."[4][5] In 2006 the Douglas was designated a University Institute in Mental Health.
Mission
A view of the gardens of the hospitalThe Douglas provides specialized mental health care services for the very young to the elderly. It contributes to destigmatizing mental illness through its public education program: among them, Mini-Psych School[6] and Frames of Mind[7] film festival. In keeping with prevention and recovery principles, the Douglas contributes to the advancement of knowledge and best practices through state-of-the-art research and teaching. It also respects the basic human rights of patients, as stated in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights, keeping them in the hospital against their will, if they prove to be a danger to themselves or others in accordance with the Quebec Justice system.[8]
[edit] Maison Claude-LaraméeMaison Claude-Laramée, also known as Old Brewery Mission, located at 60 De l'Eglise Street in Verdun, is a Douglas Hospital affiliated homeless shelter, and is dedicated to preventing homelessness among people suffering from mental health problems and substance abuse. The first of its kind in Quebec, its funding and clinical psychiatric support is provided by the Douglas Hospital, and its day-to-day operations are managed by the Old Brewery Mission.[9]
InfrastructureThe Reed Pavillion, takes in patients with who call to receive treatment through the emergency. It consists of a Intensive Care unit on one the right side and Psychiatric Emergency on the left. Patients are held there for evaluation by a psychiatrist. After diagnosis the standard procedure is, if the patient accepts the treatment, the patient stays until he/she is well enough to return to society. If the patient refuses treatment, they are usually sent to court and there they can defend their stance. After court, the patients either leave the hospital or return to the hospital and they are usually transferred to another unit. One of these units is called the "Centre Psychiatrique Communautaire" (The Psychiatric Community Center) or CPC2. The CPC2 is a place where the patients usually stay for a maximum 20 days until they can re-enter the community. Sometimes they stay longer than the maximum if through court order, the patient had to stay longer. Regardless, the patients receive adequate food, there are 2 tv's for entertainment a radio, some gym equipment, and some board games. The patients are given their medication at appropriate times and must usually stay until the psychiatrist gives clearance to leave.
] See alsoDouglas Mental Health University Institute Foundation
Allan Memorial Institute
Philippe Pinel Institute
References1.^ Douglas Hospital Contact (English)
2.^ Getting from the Douglas to Station Monk (15 minutes walk)
3.^ The Douglas is 125 years old, press release, Montreal, July 19, 2006
4.^ The Douglas is 125 years
5.^ Alfred Perry of Montreal testifies at the trial of John Wilkis Booth (the Trial of the Conspirators, page 33)
6.^ http://www.douglas.qc.ca/page/mini-psych-school
7.^ http://www.douglas.qc.ca/page/frames-of-mind
8.^ Information on mental health (English)
9.^ "Maison Claude-Laramée". Old Brewery Mission. http://www.oldbrewerymission.ca/laramee.html. Retrieved 2009-11-05. [dead link]
[edit] External links(English) Official Website
(English) Douglas Research Center
(English) [http://www.fondationdouglas.qc.ca Douglas Institute Founda
(English) Douglas Hospital interactive map
(English) Official Website - Justice and Mental Health in Quebec
(English) Quebec Charter of Human Rights
(English) Aniti-Psychiatry.org
Coordinates: 45°26′32″N 73°35′07″W / 45.442206°N 73.585401°W / 45.442206; -73.585401
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Mental_Health_University_Institute&oldid=470080316"
View page ratingsRate this page
[edit] HistoryFounded on July 19, 1881[3] by Alfred Perry and a group of Protestant clergy and Montréal citizens, the Douglas Institute was originally named the “Protestant Hospital for the Insane."[4][5] In 2006 the Douglas was designated a University Institute in Mental Health.
Mission
A view of the gardens of the hospitalThe Douglas provides specialized mental health care services for the very young to the elderly. It contributes to destigmatizing mental illness through its public education program: among them, Mini-Psych School[6] and Frames of Mind[7] film festival. In keeping with prevention and recovery principles, the Douglas contributes to the advancement of knowledge and best practices through state-of-the-art research and teaching. It also respects the basic human rights of patients, as stated in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights, keeping them in the hospital against their will, if they prove to be a danger to themselves or others in accordance with the Quebec Justice system.[8]
[edit] Maison Claude-LaraméeMaison Claude-Laramée, also known as Old Brewery Mission, located at 60 De l'Eglise Street in Verdun, is a Douglas Hospital affiliated homeless shelter, and is dedicated to preventing homelessness among people suffering from mental health problems and substance abuse. The first of its kind in Quebec, its funding and clinical psychiatric support is provided by the Douglas Hospital, and its day-to-day operations are managed by the Old Brewery Mission.[9]
InfrastructureThe Reed Pavillion, takes in patients with who call to receive treatment through the emergency. It consists of a Intensive Care unit on one the right side and Psychiatric Emergency on the left. Patients are held there for evaluation by a psychiatrist. After diagnosis the standard procedure is, if the patient accepts the treatment, the patient stays until he/she is well enough to return to society. If the patient refuses treatment, they are usually sent to court and there they can defend their stance. After court, the patients either leave the hospital or return to the hospital and they are usually transferred to another unit. One of these units is called the "Centre Psychiatrique Communautaire" (The Psychiatric Community Center) or CPC2. The CPC2 is a place where the patients usually stay for a maximum 20 days until they can re-enter the community. Sometimes they stay longer than the maximum if through court order, the patient had to stay longer. Regardless, the patients receive adequate food, there are 2 tv's for entertainment a radio, some gym equipment, and some board games. The patients are given their medication at appropriate times and must usually stay until the psychiatrist gives clearance to leave.
] See alsoDouglas Mental Health University Institute Foundation
Allan Memorial Institute
Philippe Pinel Institute
References1.^ Douglas Hospital Contact (English)
2.^ Getting from the Douglas to Station Monk (15 minutes walk)
3.^ The Douglas is 125 years old, press release, Montreal, July 19, 2006
4.^ The Douglas is 125 years
5.^ Alfred Perry of Montreal testifies at the trial of John Wilkis Booth (the Trial of the Conspirators, page 33)
6.^ http://www.douglas.qc.ca/page/mini-psych-school
7.^ http://www.douglas.qc.ca/page/frames-of-mind
8.^ Information on mental health (English)
9.^ "Maison Claude-Laramée". Old Brewery Mission. http://www.oldbrewerymission.ca/laramee.html. Retrieved 2009-11-05. [dead link]
[edit] External links(English) Official Website
(English) Douglas Research Center
(English) [http://www.fondationdouglas.qc.ca Douglas Institute Founda
(English) Douglas Hospital interactive map
(English) Official Website - Justice and Mental Health in Quebec
(English) Quebec Charter of Human Rights
(English) Aniti-Psychiatry.org
Coordinates: 45°26′32″N 73°35′07″W / 45.442206°N 73.585401°W / 45.442206; -73.585401
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Mental_Health_University_Institute&oldid=470080316"
View page ratingsRate this page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)