The civil liability of the psychiatrist in Canada following the suicide of a patient: an analysis based on case law

Context In the exercise of his practice, the psychiatrist is commonly called upon to assess the suicidal risk of a patient and may, under the circumstances, engage his professional liability and become the subject of a civil suit in the event of the death of the patient. Despite the existence of guidelines and tools for the assessment and management of suicide risk, the practice often remains unstandardized. Few studies have focused on the assessment and management of this risk from a legal perspective. Some knowledge of case law could be useful to psychiatrists in making future decisions, both from a medico-legal point of view and to improve the care offered. Objectives This article aims to study the civil liability of the psychiatrist following the suicide of a patient by analyzing Canadian case law from a perspective of continuous improvement of practice with particular attention to the assessment and management of suicide risk. Method A systematic review of the judgments was carried out on CanLII.org, a virtual library of Canadian legal information allowing access to the judgments rendered by the courts of first instance, the Courts of Appeal as well as those of the Supreme Court of Canada. The search strategy consisted in using the key words "suicide," "psychiatrie," "faute" and "responsabilite" as well as their English translation to retain the recourses where a judgment was rendered by the court and where at least one psychiatrist acted as a defendant or co-defendant following the suicide of a patient. Results Nine judgments met our inclusion criteria. Since elements were of interest for our research question, it seemed wise to us to also include three decisions where the patient did not die of his suicidal attempt but kept significant sequelae. The analysis of the judgments made it possible to identify the alleged faults most often reproached to the psychiatrist by the plaintiff and to present the usual position of the courts, and the arguments which underlie them. The alleged faults can be grouped into three categories: an assessment of the suicide risk deemed faulty, a management of the suicide risk by supervisory measures deemed faulty and an omission to have used legal custody measures when they should have been applied. In nearly all cases, Canadian courts render a decision in favor of the psychiatrist, demonstrating sensitivity to the reality of psychiatrists' practice. The recommendations resulting from our analysis of Canadian case law support the guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association and the Ontario Hospital Association practice guidelines for suicide risk assessment and management, particularly in terms of the content of evaluation, specific moments of re-evaluation and documentation. Conclusion Knowledge of Canadian case law on civil liability for the suicide of a patient represents an additional asset for the practice of responsible and quality psychiatry.