Brooke F. Smith

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision upholding a finding of incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication.

The appellant, a 64-year-old woman involved in ongoing employment litigation, attempted to cycle to British Columbia in winter without adequate preparation or training.

She was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and subsequently found incapable of consenting to treatment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the CCB's decision on grounds of bias, procedural fairness, and misapprehension of evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the CCB's determination of incapacity was reasonable and supported by evidence of the appellant's impaired judgment and inability to appreciate the consequences of her decisions in the context of her mental illness.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board, which upheld a psychiatrist's finding that the appellant was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia.

The appellant argued the Board misapplied the legal test for capacity and made a palpable and overriding error in its factual findings.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test for capacity under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, and that its factual findings regarding the appellant's inability to appreciate the manifestations of his mental condition and the foreseeable consequences of treatment decisions were supported by the evidence.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, commenced an action for damages against several physicians, the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB), and Providence Care Hospital.

The CCB and the defendant doctors requested an order under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the claim as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, appointed as the plaintiff's litigation guardian, did not oppose the dismissal on the condition that no costs be ordered against the plaintiff personally.

The court found the statement of claim to contain hallmarks of vexatious proceedings and that the substance of the claim fell within the CCB's jurisdiction, thus dismissing the action without costs.

The appellant appealed two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming a Community Treatment Order and upholding a finding of incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medications.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review to the Board's factual findings.

The court found ample evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that the appellant lacked sufficient insight to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his treatment decisions and that he would suffer substantial deterioration without the CTO.

The appeals were dismissed.