Azin Ghatreh Samani

The applicant, a Black trans-male, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination claims against a walk-in clinic.

The applicant alleged he was misgendered and denied treatment based on his gender identity and race.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's dismissal of the race discrimination claim was reasonable, as it rested on unassailable credibility findings.

However, the court held the HRTO's analysis of the misgendering allegations was fundamentally flawed because it improperly focused on whether the clinic staff intended to discriminate, contrary to established jurisprudence that intent is not required for prima facie discrimination.

The misgendering issue was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming she was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medications for a schizoaffective condition.

The appellant, supported by amicus curiae, argued the initial capacity assessment was inadequate and that she was denied procedural fairness.

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding error in the Board's conclusion that the appellant could not recognize she was affected by manifestations of a mental condition and was therefore unable to appreciate the consequences of treatment decisions.

The appeal was dismissed.

S.S. appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that found her incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

S.S. argued the Board applied an incorrect legal test by focusing on her best interests and failed to consider evidence supporting her capacity.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the legal test, which requires assessing a patient's ability to understand information and appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their decision, not whether they act in their best interests.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the evidence regarding S.S.'s capacity to appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment, despite her understanding of medication side effects.