The P-38 as a Weapon: When a Superior Court Judgment Documents the Weaponization of a Forced Psychiatric Assessment

An Exemplary Judgment

On February 7, 2026, Justice Daniel Urbas of the Superior Court of Québec rendered a 53-page judgment documenting, with exceptional rigour, the weaponization of a provisional custody application for a psychiatric assessment — the procedure commonly known as "P-38."

In this case (2026 QCCS 365), the judge concluded that the defendant had "leveraged her role as a caring daughter in order to gain an advantage as a frustrated landlord, to the detriment of the fundamental rights" of her mother, a woman in her seventies who lived alone in a unit in a building owned by her daughter.

The Court ordered the defendant to pay $22,500 in punitive damages and $17,500 in moral damages. The defendant's $100,000 cross-demand was dismissed in its entirety. At the time of publication, no appeal has been reported.

What makes this judgment remarkable is not just the outcome. It is the demonstration, paragraph by paragraph, of what the Court characterized as the misuse of a procedure designed to protect vulnerable persons.

The Two-Phase Plan

The judge did not mince words. He described the defendant's actions as "an elaborate two-phase plan that was devised and carried out."

Phase 1: The defendant filed a provisional custody application with the Court of Québec, ex parte — meaning without informing her mother. She presented herself as a concerned daughter before a judge sitting by Teams in another district, claiming extreme urgency. She alleged paranoid behaviour, death threats, harassment and imminent danger. She requested — and obtained — that her mother not be informed or heard.

The judge, after listening to the audio recording of the hearing before the Court of Québec and reviewing the full evidence at trial, concluded that these allegations were "false, incomplete and distorted" and that they had "actively misled the judge of the Court of Québec."

There was no paranoia. No death threats. No barricading. No danger. The defendant had never mentioned any psychiatric issue during the 49-year mother-daughter relationship. The judge noted that she had "provided no evidence that she had ever observed any psychological problems in [her mother] during her lifetime."

Phase 2: Less than two hours after obtaining the order, while the elderly woman was being held at the hospital for an examination she had never refused (because she had never been asked), the defendant arrived at the apartment with her partner and two friends equipped with a trailer rented within the hour. They began removing all of the elderly woman's furniture and personal belongings.

The defendant's brother, who had come to visit his mother, discovered the scene and alerted her at the hospital. Police intervened to stop the move.

The psychiatrist who examined the plaintiff released her immediately. He concluded that her condition warranted neither detention nor any particular attention.

The elderly woman returned home by taxi, late at night. She had to borrow a tool from a police officer to force open the door of her own apartment — her daughter had changed the lock.

What Justice Urbas Documented

The judgment reviews, section by section, the custody application form filled out by the defendant. The judge confronted each allegation with the evidence presented at trial and systematically concluded that the facts presented to the Court of Québec were false or distorted.

Among the Court's findings:

"The allegations of paranoia are not supported by any prior medical evidence or by any personal knowledge [of the defendant] on the subject. [...] These allegations are a pure and simple fabrication that is not supported by any evidence." — par. 104

"There was no death threat. The allegations of death threats are an expression of exaggeration on the part of [the defendant]." — par. 109

"[The defendant] did indeed make serious allegations. They also turned out to be false, incomplete and distorted." — par. 98

The judge also noted that the defendant never set foot in the hospital to inquire about her mother's health — the very person she claimed to be protecting. Instead, she focused on emptying the apartment.

The Court further established that the allegation of a smoke odour justifying entry into the apartment was not supported by the defendant's own witnesses, nor by the police officer who had spent an entire hour inside the apartment just minutes before the defendant's arrival.

Five Fundamental Rights Violated

The judge concluded that there had been an intentional violation of several rights protected by Québec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms: the right to integrity, the right to the safeguard of dignity, the right to privacy and the inviolability of the home, the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property, and the exploitation of an elderly person under section 48 of the Charter.

The Court noted that the custody application form itself contained a notice reminding applicants of the fundamental rights at stake. The defendant had this document in her hands when she filed her application. She "cannot credibly claim that she did not know that each of them was at stake."

The judge added that the parties had provided "no precedent in which a defendant had weaponized a provisional custody application without any factual basis, expressly for the purpose of gaining an advantage as a landlord."

Me Yanick Péloquin

Behind this victory stands Me Yanick Péloquin, a lawyer from Sorel-Tracy known in the legal community as "the people's lawyer."

Me Péloquin's career path is atypical. Having become a lawyer at age 48, after a previous professional life, he practises primarily in legal aid and specializes in areas that directly affect the lives of the most vulnerable citizens: housing law, family and youth law, and health law.

What Me Péloquin accomplished in this case is twofold. First, he obtained a judgment that delivers justice to his client — $40,000 in punitive and moral damages. Second, and perhaps more importantly, he contributed to a thorough documentation of the mechanisms by which a P-38 can be weaponized, in a judgment that may serve as a reference for future cases.

This judgment represents what should exist in every case where a vulnerable citizen faces a disproportionate power imbalance: a lawyer who doesn't give up and a judge who examines the evidence.

Related Article: The Criminal Dimension and the DPCP

Justice-Quebec.ca also documented, in a separate article published on February 26, 2026, a case in which the DPCP (Québec's Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) chose to terminate criminal proceedings arising from a private prosecution — despite video evidence, despite a convinced judge, and despite a reprimand from the Superior Court that had found an abuse of process. That judgment is available on CanLII (2025 QCCS 3894).

In that case, a lawyer had pursued a private prosecution after the DPCP declined to press charges. A judge reviewed the evidence, was satisfied, and issued summonses. The DPCP intervened to stay the proceedings. The Superior Court quashed the stay and ordered the DPCP to reconsider. The DPCP maintained its decision. Without explanation. Without appeal.

This type of case raises a systemic question: even when a citizen prevails in civil court, the criminal path — the one that fully recognizes victim status — can be unilaterally closed.

Further Reading: Julien, Autistic Father Targeted by Two P-38 Applications

The case documented by Justice Urbas is not an isolated one. Justice-Quebec.ca has been documenting for several weeks the story of Julien (name changed), an autistic father with Tourette syndrome, whose ex-partner weaponized the P-38 procedure against him on two occasions. Both times, he was released — the first time after being forcibly taken to the hospital, the second time before he was even transported. The mechanism is the same. The question this case raises is this: how can a person with a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis defend themselves against a weaponized P-38, when the system is already predisposed to perceive them as unstable?

• "Someone Like You Doesn't Deserve to Have Children" — An Autistic Father Separated from His Children
• The Spunt & Carin Case: An Autistic Father Separated from His Twins, a Ghost Lawyer, and Silent Institutions

The P-38 in Brief

Provisional custody for the purpose of a psychiatric assessment is governed by article 27 of the Civil Code of Québec and by the Act respecting the protection of persons whose mental state presents a danger to themselves or to others (commonly known as the "P-38 Act"). Article 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure grants jurisdiction to the Court of Québec to hear such applications.

The application may be presented ex parte, meaning without the targeted person being informed or heard. If granted, an order is issued for the person to be taken by police to a hospital and held for the duration of the assessment.

It is one of the most intrusive procedures in Québec civil law. It temporarily suspends the right to liberty, the right to integrity and the right to be heard. Case law has repeatedly established that this procedure "cannot be used to gain a strategic advantage in an existing dispute between the parties."

This judgment demonstrates what happens when it is used that way regardless.

When the System Protects — and When It Fails

This case illustrates what happens when a judge of integrity takes the time to hear a case on its merits and a good lawyer takes care of his client: the result is a strong judgment. But it also illustrates that a judicial victory does not always close the file, when other institutions choose not to follow through.

Me Péloquin continues to fight. Testimonies continue to come in at Justice-Quebec.ca. The investigation continues.

Sources: Judgment 2026 QCCS 365, Superior Court of Québec, February 7, 2026 — Judgment 2025 QCCS 3894, Superior Court of Québec — Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms — Code of Civil Procedure — DPCP — Public posts by Me Yanick Péloquin on LinkedIn — Articles and testimonies published on Justice-Quebec.ca.

This site does not provide legal advice. The information published is based on public court documents, public statements and cited journalistic sources. The identity of certain parties has been anonymized in accordance with applicable court decisions. The nickname "the people's lawyer" attributed to Me Péloquin is reported as used in the legal community and does not constitute an official designation.