The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision upholding a Consent and Capacity Board finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medications.
The amicus curiae argued the appeal judge improperly considered the appellant's subsequent involuntary patient status, the Board's decision was unreasonable, and the appellant was denied a fair hearing.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appeal judge only used the subsequent status as background, there was ample evidence of the appellant's inability to appreciate the consequences of his treatment decisions due to delusions, and any curtailment of cross-examination was on tangential matters.
