Brooke Smith

The appellant, acting as substitute decision-maker for her incapable mother, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision ordering her to consent to a palliative plan of care.

The Board had found that the mother's condition would continue to deteriorate and that the palliative plan was necessary to allow her transfer to a chronic care facility.

On appeal, fresh evidence demonstrated that the mother had stabilized on continuous ventilation and had already been transferred to the chronic care facility without adopting the palliative plan.

The Superior Court of Justice admitted the fresh evidence, found that the evidentiary foundation of the Board's decision had fundamentally shifted, and quashed the Board's decision as unreasonable.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against two physicians and a hospital, alleging she suffered permanent injuries following a vaginal myomectomy.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, relying on expert evidence that the physicians met the standard of care and that the surgery did not cause the alleged injuries.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to produce any expert evidence to support her claims despite multiple extensions.

The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the action, finding that the absence of expert evidence in a medical malpractice claim is fatal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment and confirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

The appellant argued that the 28-day delay between the signing of the Community Treatment Plan and the issuance of the CTO breached the Mental Health Act.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's finding that the renewal was made in conformity with the Act, concluding there was no undue delay given the administrative processes involved.

The appellant appealed two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his incapacity to consent to treatment with anti-psychotic medication and upholding a Community Treatment Order.

The appellant, who has a history of schizophrenia, wished to discontinue his medication.

The court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's conclusion—that the appellant failed the 'appreciation test' for capacity because he did not accept his mental illness—was fully supported by the clinical evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's medical negligence action on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiff had a kidney removed in 2000 due to a misdiagnosis of cancer, which she was informed of shortly after the surgery.

She commenced the action in 2015.

The court found that the plaintiff knew the material facts necessary to make a claim by the end of 2001, as she was aware of the misdiagnosis, the unnecessary surgery, and had been encouraged by family to sue.

The court held that the claim was discovered well outside the two-year limitation period and dismissed the action.