UPDATE NOVEMBER 3, 2023: URGENT TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

I am planning a protest in front of Coles Building, Charlottetown, P.E.I. across from the Murphy Community Centre on Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 12:30p.m.  I have never done this before in my life but I am willing to come out of my comfort zone to save Andrew's life.  This protest is not only for Andrew but all the Andrews who are suffering with mental illness.  I encourage families like ours to come and show your support for those that are mentally ill.  

I will cancel the protest, if Minister McLane assures me in writing on Monday, that he will sign the Ministerial Order.  I received a glimmer of hope today.  Please stay tuned.

We received the e-mail printed below from Hon. Mark McLane, P.E.I. Minister of Health and Addictions yesterday. At first glance we thought Andrew's lifesaving medical transfer was denied. On second look we are wondering what Hon. Mark McLane is saying.

Is the Minister of Health, Mark McLane refusing to authorize the Ministerial Order that will save Andrew's life? Or is Minister Mark McLane saying he needs medical evidence to support the Ministerial Order? Or is Minister Mark McLane saying he needs guidance and direction from Andrew's P.E.I. and Ontario psychiatrists?

HUMBER RIVER HOSPITAL AND ANDREW'S P.E.I. PSYCHIATRIST FULLY SUPPORT THE MEDICAL TRANSFER!

Both psychiatrists have told us that Andrew is seriously ill and requires hospitalization and medications to achieve clarity. His anosognosia blocks his understanding that he is mentally ill. He also does not have the ability to make good decisions. He will do risky things like walking in front of cars or not wearing appropriate clothing in freezing weather.

LLOYD AND I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED AS SUBSTITUTE DECISION MAKERS AND AUTHORIZED ANDREW'S MEDICATIONS TO BEGIN.

Andrew entered the Humber River Hospital October 10, 2023. ANDREW WILL BE DISCHARGED TO THE STREETS OF TORONTO WITH THE ADDRESSES OF SHELTERS AND WALK-IN CLINIC, IF THE MINISTERIAL ORDER IS NOT RECEIVED FROM HON. MARK MCLANE, P.E.I. MINISTER OF HEALTH. THIS IS A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH. THE CLOCK IS TICKING!

Hon. Mark McLane did not say, "I am denying your request for a medical transfer." Are we to read between the lines to determine that the Minister of Health is denying our request for the Ministerial Order and medical transfer to P.E.I.? We are are not clear on the intent of the e-mail. What do you think?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is some legal information: "Section 7 also protects a sphere of personal autonomy involving “inherently private choices” that go to the “core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence” (Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844 at paragraph 66; Association of Justice Counsel v. Canada (Attorney General), [2017] 2 S.C.R. 456 at paragraph 49). Where state compulsions or prohibitions affect such choices, s. 7 may be engaged (A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 181, at paragraphs 100-102; Blencoe, supra at paragraphs 49-54; Siemens v. Manitoba (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 6 at paragraph 45) This aspect of liberty includes the right to refuse medical treatment (A.C., supra, at paragraphs 100-102, 136) and the right to make “reasonable medical choices” without threat of criminal prosecution: R. v. Smith, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 602 at paragraph 18. It may also include the ability to choose where one intends to live (Godbout; but see Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v. Cunningham, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 670 at paragraph 93), as well as a protected sphere of parental decision-making for parents to ensure their children's well-being, e.g., a right to make decisions concerning a child's education and health (B.(R.), supra, at paragraph 80). It does not, however, encompass lifestyle choices such as the smoking of marihuana (R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571 at paragraphs 86-87; R. v. Clay, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735 at paragraph 32). Conditions of employment requiring employees to be on standby duty, and therefore less available to their families for several weeks a year, do not engage the s. 7 liberty interest (Association of Justice Counsel, supra at paragraph 51)."

The argument is of course that the individual concerned (Andrew) cannot make "reasonable medical choices" due to lack of insight/anosognosia and diminished mental capacity. The CRPD Committee's interpretation and implementation of the UNCRPD does not recognize diminished mental capacity as under their interpretation all "persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others".

He also is unable to have the ability to choose where he wants to live/reside if he has no understanding of what that means.

Is there any legal action to be taken due to the fact that a citizen is unable to enjoy or exercise their basic rights and freedoms as per the Charter due to diminished mental capacity or based on discrimination of those with severe mental illnesses (SMIs)?

By the UN CRPD ignoring the barriers caused by the symptoms of severe mental illness (like diminished mental capacity/lack of awareness, etc..) and lumping all disabilities together and treating them the same, is this not discrimination to those with severe mental illnesses?

Precedent: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/.../bvg16-059.html
In this precedent the patient (under custodianship/confined to an institution) has schizoaffective disorder and was later diagnosed with Breast cancer. She was unable to understand the consequences of refusing treatment so The German High Court ruled that the State has an obligation to protect those who suffer with mental illnesses which prevent them from having mental capacity to make such decisions and understand the consequences of those decisions.
So because of the mental illness and the probability, and eventuality of death - had the state not intervened to access treatment on this patient’s behalf - imminent death would have been the outcome.

In the case of Andrew (who is hospitalized and whose parents are SDMs), if he is discharged given his prior history of both stopping medication for his SMI and his refusal to use shelters or food banks (due to paranoia) it is probable and possible he will decompensate and as a result, could die on the streets during winter. He has no warm clothes or money and does not have the mental capacity to manage belongings or money.

In this case does the State not have an obligation to medically transfer him back to PEI based on his SDM’s wishes where they can support him and ensure he has support through his recovery until his mental capacity is restored? What do you think?

German High Court Ruling: [The influence of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on the German jurisdiction and legislating compulsory measures] - PubMed (nih.gov)

"The German government does not accept the Committee's interpretation of the CRPD. The Federal Constitutional Court has declared that the Committee's statements are not legally binding under public international law, neither for national nor for international courts. Furthermore, the Federal Constitutional Court has criticized the Committee's position. Particularly, it has declared that the CRPD does not imply a total ban of substitute decisions and coercive measures. The Federal Constitutional Court rather acknowledges the state's duty to protect especially those people who cannot decide freely and who are in a helpless situation because of illness or disability. The Court has declared that the state must not abandon these people to their fate .The Federal Constitutional Court has interpreted the CRPD by balancing different fundamental rights and by differentiating between the free and the natural will. In contrast, the Committee has absolutized a naïvely understood right for self-determination.”

Sabine Müller. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2018 Aug.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is the e-mail from Hon. Mark McLane, P.E.I. Minister of Health.
On 11/02/23 09:49 AM, Mark McLane <mamclaneminister@gov.pe.ca> wrote:
FROM THE DESK OF HON. MARK MCLANE, P.E.I. MINISTER OF HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS
Further to my Acting Deputy’s correspondence to you on October 25, 2023, I wanted to personally respond to your correspondence.

While I share your concern about your son’s wellbeing, I have limited access to your son’s personal health information, other than what you have shared publicly. Even so, I would be unable to discuss specifics with you based on laws and policies surrounding an individual’s right to privacy and confidentiality.

In Canada, individuals have the right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to move to and from any province. Each province has specific legislation to provide health support to any individuals who live in those provinces. Our province must respect the health systems and medical professionals of other provinces.

As a parent, I recognize how difficult this situation must be.
Mark McLane
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is an e-mail that I received yesterday.
November 2, 2023
Suzanne Dennison DCS., RP, (cert)OAMHP
Chief of Staff
Office of the Honourable Michael Tibollo
Associate Minister Mental Health and Addictions
Ministry of Health Ontario

HI Marlene:
Reaching out by email as my phone is unavailable for the moment. I have also written to Daniel Tziatis, the Program Director at HRH, with this same information so he too is aware of the process.

After discussing this matter at several levels in the Ministry and obtaining a legal opinion, I am connecting with you to ensure that you understand what exactly is required to obtain the transfer orders you are seeking.

Since your son has been admitted as an involuntary patient and is being treated as such, any transfer order changing his disposition or transferring him to alternate care outside of Ontario needs to be initiated by the receiving territory.

Now that all concerned have agreed he should be returned to PEI, the PEI hospital involved needs to reach out to the PEI Minister of Health, Mark McLane, or his designate to arrange for a Ministerial Directive from PEI ordering the return.

The way our act is written does not support Ontario ‘Directing’ the transfer of an involuntary patient to another jurisdiction. You were correct in this assumption just not which jurisdiction needs to act.

Once PEI provides the Ministerial Directive (or the delegate permitted to do so) then the hospitals on each end will be able to make arrangements. Hope this helps.
Suzanne Dennison
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The PLEASE BRING ANDREW BRYENTON HOME TO P.EI. PETITION has 10985 signatures from caring and compassionate Ontario and P.E.I. residents. Here is the link: https://chng.it/TMKMZfHH2p It is fast and free.

I believe this song with all my heart. It is titled GOD WILL MAKE A WAY! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zo3fJYtS-o

I have dubbed myself as MAMA BEAR. Here is a song that speaks to that. It is titled YOU WILL ALWAYS BE MY SON. Caleb + Kelsey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUsLT0hIOus

Please continue to pray for Andrew and our family. Also pray that Hon. Mark McLane will do the right thing and authorize Andrew's Ministerial Order for a medical transfer.

MAMA BEAR WILL NEVER GIVE UP!