Clinically Significant Differences among Canadian Mental Health Acts: 2016

Method We compared involuntary admission criteria, treatment authorization mechanisms, and compulsory community treatment provisions in the 13 Canadian mental health acts in effect as of January 15, 2016, noting significant amendments.6 To analyze clinical effects of the laws, we used the same fictional illustrative case in our 2001 article. By 2016, 7 provinces-British Columbia,3,s.22(3) Alberta,10,s.6(d)(ii) Saskatchewan,1,s.24(2) Manitoba,2,s.17(1) Ontario under specific circumstances,4,s.20(1.1) Nova Scotia,8,s.17(c)(ii) and Newfoundland and Labrador9,s.17(1)(b)(ii)-included substantial mental or physical deterioration as an alternative to the harm criterion. [...]even if Victoria does not meet the harm criterion of these jurisdictions, her untreated illness might be found to be likely to cause substantial mental or physical deterioration, thereby meeting this involuntary admission criterion.