I have to preface this by saying I am a medical doctor and not a lawyer. I actually had an opportunity to speak with Professor Steven Penney, a professor at the faculty of law, University of Alberta, to give me the Reader's Digest condensed versions of section 16. Certainly our individuals with FASD would qualify for mental disorder.
The diagnostic process I very quickly outlined is a rigorous process. We look for three different areas of brain impairment. It's not just a little; there is significant impairment. We actually do a numerical ranking system where three is the highest level of impairment. There is a scientific rigour to how we approach the diagnosis with FASD.
My discussion with Professor Penney was that, yes, we have a mental disorder, but are our individuals incapable of appreciating the nature of the act or omission, or knowing it was wrong? We know we must show the impairment to know the natural consequences of the act, and to know that it was wrong either legally or morally. When I look at the impairments in brain function that I can assess every day in clinic, most of the individuals who get diagnosed with FASD would qualify for that level of impairment, but they do need the in-depth assessment.