211 total
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition transferring appellant to maximum security facility dismissed as reasonable.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him from a medium security facility to the maximum security facility at Oak Ridge.
The Court of Appeal held that the Board's decision was not unreasonable, as it was based on evidence from hospital staff that the appellant could no longer be managed in a medium secure setting.
The court noted that intervening events and further medical evidence justified the change from a previous order.
The appeal was dismissed, though the court noted the appellant could request an early review to determine if management techniques used at Oak Ridge could be applied in a medium security facility.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; appellant remains a substantial danger to the public.
The appellant appealed the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which concluded that he continued to present a real and substantial danger to the public.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's focus on the risk the appellant posed to the community and agreed with its conclusion based on the evidence.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; denial of absolute discharge despite joint submission was reasonable.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board's decision to deny an absolute discharge was unreasonable, reversed the burden of proof, and breached procedural fairness by rejecting a joint submission without express notice.
The hospital's doctor had recommended an absolute discharge, which was supported by both the appellant and the Crown.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was not unreasonable given the appellant's lack of a track record of remission and programming for substance abuse.
The Court also found no reversal of the burden of proof and held that the Board's questioning provided sufficient notice of its concerns regarding the joint submission.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board detention order dismissed; finding of significant risk to public upheld.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board which found he continued to pose a significant risk to the public and ordered his detention.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample medical evidence to support the Board's determination regarding the appellant's harassing behaviour.
The majority held that the Board's conditions for detention and its decision not to order a transfer to another facility were reasonable.
A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Board to explore less restrictive placements.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; appellant's refusal to attend justified proceeding in his absence.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing he was denied due process and Charter rights because he was not present at his hearing and was not appointed counsel.
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had refused to appear and refused to sign documents for counsel, making it open to the Board to proceed in his absence.
The Court also upheld the Board's decision to keep the appellant in a restrictive ward due to his continued denial of mental illness, refusal of treatment, and disruptive conduct.
Appeal allowed and absolute discharge granted where Review Board's finding of significant threat was unreasonable.
The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity in 1981, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision refusing him an absolute discharge.
The Board had concluded he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to concerns about alcohol abuse and personality disorder.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable as it was contrary to the evidence of his treatment team and unsupported by the record.
The court set aside the Board's order and granted the appellant an absolute discharge.
A patient's refusal of psychiatric medication upheld; capacity test does not require agreement with physician's diagnosis.
The respondent, who suffers from bipolar disorder, refused proposed medical treatment.
The attending physician found him incapable of making this decision, and the Consent and Capacity Board confirmed this finding.
On judicial review, the Superior Court of Justice overturned the Board's decision, finding it unreasonable and based on a misapplication of the statutory test for capacity.
The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding of incapacity was unreasonable because it conflated the respondent's best interests with his capacity to decide, and failed to recognize that the respondent understood his condition and the consequences of refusing treatment.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed as supported by sufficient expert evidence.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis, including clear expert opinion on continuing danger, risk assessment, and the appellant's ability to manage his behaviour, to support the Board's decision.
Failure to give the Attorney General notice of a constitutional question invalidates the resulting Charter remedy.
The respondent was found incapable of consenting to treatment and appealed the decision.
The motions judge, on her own motion, found that the respondent had a constitutional right under s. 7 of the Charter to publicly-funded counsel and ordered the government to pay his legal fees.
The Attorney General was not given formal notice of the constitutional question before the order was made.
The Attorney General appealed and brought a preliminary motion to declare the order invalid.
The Court of Appeal granted the motion, holding that s. 109 of the Courts of Justice Act is mandatory and the failure to give notice invalidates the decision.
Appeal dismissed; patient with bipolar disorder found capable of refusing psychiatric medication to preserve scientific work.
The appellants, two psychiatrists, appealed a Superior Court decision that set aside a Consent and Capacity Board finding.
The Board had found the respondent, who suffers from bipolar affective disorder, incapable of making his own treatment decisions regarding psychiatric medication.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent was capable of understanding the relevant information and appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of refusing treatment.
The Court emphasized that the respondent's refusal was based on a rational evaluation of the medication's negative impact on his scientific research, and that his decision, even if against his best interests, was protected by the Health Care Consent Act and section 7 of the Charter.
Judicial review of coroner's decision denying public interest standing at inquest dismissed.
The applicant coalition sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying them standing at an inquest into the death of a psychiatric patient.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the coroner made no serious error in principle in applying the tests for direct interest and public interest standing.
The court also rejected the applicant's argument that they were denied procedural fairness by not receiving the coroner's full brief prior to the standing hearing.
