精神衛生法已於2007 年修正並於隔年施行，且本次修正也開東亞之先河，引進強制社區治療制度。然精神衛生法之條文規定，仍存有某程度之解釋疑義存在，而撰文之時尚未出現任何案例，故難以求諸實務見解答上開疑義。本文由比較法出發，先對於此一國人極度陌生之制度，由定義、歷史脈絡、爭議點等不同面相，予以概略性之介紹。次而以加拿大為例，介紹其強制社區治療制度，並輔以實證研究之成果，探討強制社區治療在加拿大之實踐情況。從而以比較法之經驗為借鏡，主張現行強制社區治療之適用標準，可依文義解釋及擴張解釋，而納入加拿大造成自己或他人傷害或是惡化性之標準，彌補我國法適用標準空泛之弊病。此外，本文也認為我國法可無視病人之反對施予強制社區治療之規定有所不妥，應予刪除。另應明定每次延長治療均應經過審查會實體審查通過方可為之。最後在程序保障以及資訊提供方面，由於加拿大法制也較缺乏，可以西澳洲之法制規定為借鏡，建議我國於修法時，應對於強制社區治療病患之權利清單以及救濟途徑有所規定，以達法制完備之目的。

Taiwan's Mental Health Act was revised in 2007, and came into effect in 2008. After this revision, Mandatory outpatient treatment (MOT) was formally induced into Taiwan. Although there hasn't been any case in Taiwan since 2008, There are still certain problems that need to be solved in interpreting laws. In this article, I will review Canadian's system, and try to find solutions to the Taiwanese problems via Canadian and other countries'expe rience First, I will define the concept of MOT, classifies the type of MOT, especially so-called community treatment order (CTO), and point out some of common arguments about CTO. Then I will focus on Canadian's experience. Next section I will contend that Canadian's standard can be used to help us deal with the abstract Taiwanese Mental health Act. Furthermore, some part of the Act, such as the duration of CTO, the consent of receiving CTO, and the procedural protection of patients, need to be improved and revised.