Adam McIver

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming her treating physician's finding that she was incapable of consenting to electro-convulsive therapy (ECT).

The appellant also sought a declaration that ECT amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Charter claim exceeded the scope of the appeal and should be brought as a separate application.

The court upheld the Board's decision on capacity, concluding it was reasonable and supported by evidence that the appellant's mental condition rendered her unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of consenting to or refusing ECT.

A child protection trial concerning a child born in 2011 who was apprehended shortly after birth due to serious concerns about the mother's parenting capacity (ADHD, FASD, prior Crown wardship of first child), the father's significant cognitive disabilities and criminal history (charged with aggravated assault on a baby he was babysitting), and the paternal grandmother's extensive child protection history involving abuse and neglect.

The court found the child to be in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act due to risk of physical harm.

The father and paternal grandmother sought placement of the child in their care under Society supervision, but the court rejected both plans as inadequate.

The child was made a Crown ward without access to facilitate adoption, as this was found to be the least intrusive option meeting the child's best interests.