Canadian landmark case, Smith v. Jones, supreme court of Canada: confidentiality and privilege suffer another blow.
نویسندگان
چکیده
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada titled Smith v. Jones has made major changes to the way forensic psychiatry may be practiced in Canada and may have implications for other jurisdictions as well.' This decision has made major inroads into the limitations of privileged communication and confidentiality between a criminal defendant and the forensic psychiatrist retained by defense counsel to assess the defendant. In this case, the Court was willing to utilize pseudonyms to protect the confidentiality of the defendant until the case was decided. Smith is the pseudonym of a forensic psychiatrist practicing in Vancouver and Jones is the pseudonym of the defendant.
منابع مشابه
Supreme Court reaffirms landmark informed-consent ruling in chickenpox case.
In June the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a British Columbia family physician had adequately discharged her duty to disclose even though she failed to tell her patient of a serious but very small increased risk to her fetus posed by a case of chickenpox. The patient, Carole Arndt, gave birth in 1986 to a daughter who was diagnosed with congenital varicella syndrome. She requires feeding th...
متن کاملTestimonial privilege and the problem of death: the Vincent Foster case and beyond.
This article discusses what happens to testimonial privilege following a patient's death. First, the article reviews the concepts of confidentiality and testimonial privilege. Second, the article discusses the case of Jaffe v. Redmond, in which the Supreme Court ruled that testimonial privilege applies to licensed psychotherapists under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Third, the arti...
متن کاملCanadian landmark case: Regina v. Swain: translating M'Naughton into twentieth century Canadian.
Since their adoption in 1892, the insanity laws in the Criminal Code of Canada have utilized a modified M'Naughton rule. The Department of Justice began work in the 1970s to update these laws. In 1983, soon after the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was proclaimed, the case of Regina v. Swain provided the impetus for this change. In 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the old la...
متن کاملThe ethical and legal implications of Jaffee v Redmond and the HIPAA medical privacy rule for psychotherapy and general psychiatry.
The 1996 Jaffee v Redmond US Supreme Court decision established a privilege for psychotherapeutic communications in the federal courts. The new privilege has both substantive and symbolic importance. In its strongly worded opinion in Jaffee v Redmond, the US Supreme Court made clear that confidentiality in psychotherapy takes precedence over certain other important societal goals. The new Healt...
متن کاملCivil Liability for Negligent Police Investigation: Canadian Developments
In October of 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its ruling in Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, a case in which the Court addressed the legitimacy of a tort for negligent police investigation. The holding by a majority of six Justices recognized the tort of negligent police investigation at Canadian law. As such, Canada is now one of the only common law countries...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
دوره 27 4 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 1999