Bill 24 overhauls parts of New Brunswick’s Mental Health Act to create a formal supervised community care pathway, adjust language around capacity, and expand who may take and hold people in custody for mental health reasons. It gives psychiatrists a route to put people who lack capacity and meet risk criteria onto court‑style supervised community care plans, authorizes specified clinicians to provide treatment without consent under those plans (including medication and restraint as the clinician deems necessary), and sets up psychiatric patient advocate services and review board procedures.
Separately, the bill clarifies and broadens custody authorities: peace officers may use necessary force to take someone into custody on reasonable grounds regardless of whether a physician’s certificate exists; officers may enter dwellings to apprehend people in specified circumstances; and custody may be transferred to special constables, sheriffs or licensed security agents. The Act also standardizes ‘capacity’ language across provisions and requires periodic legislative review.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill establishes supervised community care plans as a statutory tool allowing psychiatrists to propose compulsory outpatient care for persons who lack capacity and meet defined risk criteria, and it explicitly authorizes clinicians to deliver treatment without consent under those plans. It also expands powers for taking people into custody (including entering dwellings), permits transfer of custody to non‑police actors, and fixes procedural timelines and hearing rights before review boards.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include psychiatrists and regional health authorities who must design, execute and amend supervised community care plans; peace officers, special constables, sheriffs and private security agents now authorized to receive custody transfers; review board members and administrative staff; and people who are subject to involuntary assessment or supervised community care, plus their nearest relatives and appointed psychiatric patient advocates. The public trustee and courts will be affected where estate‑capacity determinations arise.
Why It Matters
This is a substantial shift toward managed, enforceable community‑based treatment for people judged both incapable of consent and a serious risk, paired with stronger state enforcement tools. For clinicians and system planners it creates operational obligations (plans, notifications, availability of services); for public safety actors it formalizes new custody‑transfer arrangements; for civil liberties and compliance professionals it raises practical and legal questions about consent, detention thresholds, oversight and service capacity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes three interconnected changes that professionals should track: (1) it replaces the Act’s older ‘‘mental competence’’ terminology with a modernized ‘‘capacity’’ standard, aligning consent and estate‑management assessments across the statute; (2) it creates a supervised community care (SCC) regime giving psychiatrists statutory authority to propose compulsory, supervised outpatient plans for people who meet risk and capacity criteria; and (3) it expands and clarifies custody powers for peace officers and others when enforcing the Act.
On SCCs: an attending or community psychiatrist may establish an SCC for a person who has been evaluated, is a current or former psychiatric patient with a pattern of behaviour indicating likely serious harm or deterioration, and who does not have the capacity to consent to treatment. The psychiatrist must draft a plan describing care, treatment and supervision (explicitly including housing where needed) and may amend it; the plan must be made available to the person.
The Minister may issue policies and guidelines for SCCs, and those policies are explicitly exempt from the Regulations Act.Review and oversight: a psychiatrist can apply to the review board to have the SCC approved; the bill sets explicit hearing procedures and timelines (a hearing within ten business days in most cases, with a possible ten business‑day extension by the chair). The review board may approve, amend or reject plans and must notify the person, the nearest relative, named health professionals and the psychiatric patient advocate of decisions.
The statute establishes psychiatric patient advocate services with rights to meet the person, access records, attend hearings and be notified on non‑compliance certificates.Enforcement and non‑compliance: if a health professional or the psychiatrist finds a person is not meeting obligations under an SCC, the psychiatrist may issue a certificate of non‑compliance that expires after 30 days (and may be reissued once). A peace officer acting under the Act is justified in using necessary force on reasonable grounds to take someone into custody whether or not a physician’s certificate exists; the bill also permits entry into dwellings to apprehend a person in specified contexts and allows custody transfers to other peace officers, special constables, sheriffs or licensed security agents.
A person taken to a medical or psychiatric facility may be released by the custodian three hours after arrival if applicable provisions apply.Other structural changes: the bill sets out that the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council will determine remuneration for tribunal and review board members, formalizes notification and amendment processes for SCCs (including a 72‑hour window for the chair to request a hearing after notice of amendment), repeals and replaces several sections to create the SCC architecture (including explicit authority to administer treatment and restraints under an approved plan), and requires the Minister to conduct periodic reviews of the Act (first by Nov. 1, 2032, then every 10 years).
The Five Things You Need to Know
A psychiatrist may propose a supervised community care plan for a person who does not have the capacity to consent and who is judged likely, because of serious mental illness, to cause serious harm or undergo substantial deterioration.
An approved supervised community care plan authorizes psychiatrists or physicians to provide treatment without consent as outlined in the plan, including diagnostic procedures, medication and restraint when the psychiatrist or physician considers it necessary.
The review board must hold a hearing within ten business days after an application for an SCC or amendments, with the chair allowed one ten‑business‑day extension; the board can approve, amend or reject plans and must provide written decisions to the person, nearest relative, health professionals and the psychiatric patient advocate.
A psychiatrist may issue a certificate of non‑compliance that lasts 30 days; upon expiry the psychiatrist may issue a second 30‑day certificate. A peace officer may take custody and transfer it to another peace officer, a special constable, a sheriff or a licensed private security agent.
Peace officers are explicitly justified in using the force necessary to take and detain a person on reasonable grounds whether or not a physician’s certificate exists, and officers may enter a dwelling to take someone into custody in specified circumstances; custody holders may release the person three hours after arrival at a medical or psychiatric facility.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Justified use of force by peace officers
This addition says a peace officer acting on reasonable grounds may use the force necessary to take someone into custody and detain them, regardless of whether a physician’s certificate initiated the custody. Practically, it eliminates any implied legal dependency on a certificate to justify force by police; reasonable‑grounds standards and Charter protections still apply, but the statutory text removes a potential procedural obstacle for officers responding to acute risk.
Entry, detention, custody transfer and three‑hour release rule
Multiple sections are revised to permit entry into dwellings to apprehend persons, to allow peace officers to transfer custody to other peace officers, special constables, sheriffs or agents under the Private Investigators and Security Services Act, and to establish that a custodian may release a person three hours after the person has been taken to a medical or psychiatric facility. For operational leaders in policing and security, this creates formal transfer pathways and a short statutory custody clock that will shape arrest, transport and handoff practices and training.
Criteria and application process for supervised community care plans
These sections set out who may establish an SCC (attending psychiatrist for hospitalized persons; community psychiatrist for non‑hospitalized), the eligibility criteria (patient or former patient status, pattern of behaviour showing likely serious harm or deterioration due to serious mental illness, and lack of capacity to consent), and the mechanism to apply to the review board. The psychiatrist must include reasons showing the person meets the criteria and must provide the plan and notifications to prescribed persons. The Minister may issue policies and guidelines to govern SCCs.
Psychiatric patient advocate services and review board procedure
The Act creates a statutory psychiatric patient advocate service with rights to meet the subject person, access files, be present at hearings and be notified of non‑compliance certificates. Review board procedure is tightened: hearings within ten business days (with a one‑time extension), who has notice and attendance rights (nearest relative, health professionals, psychiatric patient advocate, others with an interest), rights to call and cross‑examine witnesses, and the board’s power to engage independent experts. The board must circulate decisions to named stakeholders.
Authority to treat without consent under an approved plan
This new section makes a confirmed SCC express statutory authority for psychiatrists or physicians to provide specified care, treatment and supervision without the person’s consent, and to use restraint as deemed necessary. That provision is the legal pivot converting an approved SCC from an administrative plan into enforceable clinical authority; it will be central to liability, consent, and standards‑of‑care discussions.
Non‑compliance, amendments, renewals and cancellations
The bill standardizes non‑compliance handling (certificates that expire after 30 days and may be reissued once), requires notification to the nearest relative and the psychiatric patient advocate upon issuance, and sets out amendment rules (psychiatrist may amend but must notify specified parties; the review‑board chair has 72 hours to require a hearing). Renewals must be applied for at least 30 days before expiry; renewals are treated differently from amendments (the board’s usual amendment procedures do not apply to renewals). The psychiatrist or the board can cancel a plan and the statute requires notice to the person if the plan is cancelled.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People subject to SCCs who lack capacity — gains include a formal review process, the statutory right to a psychiatric patient advocate with access to records and hearings, and explicit notice and participation rights for nearest relatives and cultural advisors. These provisions create additional procedural safeguards that did not exist in the same form before.
- Psychiatrists and clinical teams — gain clearer statutory authority to establish SCCs, to administer treatment without consent under an approved plan and to rely on statutory transfer and detention powers where necessary; the law clarifies the operational scope of compulsory community treatment.
- Review boards and tribunals — gain defined timelines and explicit rule‑making authority, clearer notification duties and statutory entitlement to hire independent experts; remuneration for members is now a matter for the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council, which may improve recruitment and retention.
- Nearest relatives, caregivers and cultural advisors — receive expanded participatory rights (presence at hearings with consent, notification on amendments and non‑compliance certificates), which strengthens family‑involvement and cultural consultation pathways.
Who Bears the Cost
- Regional health authorities and clinicians — must design, implement and sustain SCCs (including housing or supervised supervision when required), provide timely amendments and notifications, and ensure services referenced in plans are available; that implies new program, staffing and possibly housing costs.
- Police agencies, sheriffs, special constable programs and private security firms — will incur training, liability exposure and operational costs related to expanded custody and transfer authorities, entry into dwellings and three‑hour custody processing. Policies, memoranda of understanding and training programs will be necessary.
- The Minister/Department and review boards — bear administrative costs for hearings on an accelerated timetable, for establishing psychiatric patient advocate services and for responding to notification duties; although member remuneration is set by order‑in‑council, operational funding will be required for expanded services.
- Individuals subject to SCCs — bear an adverse liberty cost: the bill authorizes treatment without consent and possible restraint in community settings, which shifts enforcement burdens from hospitals to the community and may limit voluntary options for some people.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between enabling timely, enforceable community care for people judged both incapable of consent and at serious risk, and protecting individual liberty and due‑process safeguards: the bill strengthens clinical and law‑enforcement tools to compel care while creating procedural safeguards (patient advocates, hearings, notification), but success depends on service capacity, robust oversight of expanded custody powers and careful operational rules—a balance that is legally and practically fragile.
The bill tries to thread the needle between enforceable community treatment and procedural safeguards, but several implementation frictions remain. Chief among them is service availability: SCCs require that the care, treatment and supervision in a plan be made available, and the psychiatrist must amend the plan if services become unavailable.
If health systems cannot deliver the promised supports (housing, community supervision, specialized clinicians), the statutory authority to detain or compel treatment risks becoming an empty or inconsistent tool—and may produce repeated amendment cycles and emergency detentions. Funding and operational planning are therefore decisive but not addressed in the statute.
The expansion of custody authority raises oversight and accountability questions. The bill allows custody transfers to special constables, sheriffs and licensed private security agents; it also authorizes entry into dwellings and expressly permits force on reasonable grounds even absent a physician’s certificate.
Those are significant intrusions on liberty that rely heavily on operational policies, training and clear inter‑agency protocols to prevent misuse. The bill gives statutory footing to treatment without consent under SCCs and to short custody windows (three hours), but it does not add an independent, external auditing mechanism or a defined complaints pathway specific to SCC enforcement—gaps that will matter in disputes about proportionality and reasonableness.
Procedural design choices also reflect trade‑offs: the 10 business‑day hearing deadline prioritizes rapid review but could strain board capacity and curtail preparation time for complex cases; the chair’s ability to extend hearings by ten business days provides some flexibility but concentrates discretion. Exempting SCC policies from the Regulations Act concentrates rule‑making power within the executive (Minister) and narrows transparency and parliamentary scrutiny for those policies.
Finally, placing remuneration decisions with the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council may professionalize board appointments but raises questions about independence and budgetary dependencies.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.