David Reinhold Nash

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found her incapable of making treatment decisions regarding anti-psychotic medications.

The Board found she understood relevant information but could not appreciate the foreseeable consequences of her decisions due to her inability to recognize her mental condition's manifestations.

The Superior Court upheld the Board's decision, finding no error of law and that the Board's application of the capacity test was reasonable, particularly regarding the corroboration of suicidal ideation as a manifestation of her condition, despite her attributing it to life circumstances.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their Statement of Claim to include claims for punitive and aggravated damages, and costs under the Victims' Bill of Rights, 1995, arising from a motor vehicle accident involving an impaired driver.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendments constituted a new cause of action and would cause prejudice.

The court granted leave to claim punitive and aggravated damages and to plead impaired driving, finding these were not new causes of action and any prejudice could be remedied by costs or adjournment.

However, leave to claim costs under the Victims' Bill of Rights was denied, as impaired driving is not a prescribed offence under the relevant section of the Act.

A lender brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of a loan exceeding $1.6 million and dismissal of the borrower’s counterclaim.

The borrower, a First Nation, alleged that the lender negligently advanced loans and acted in an advisory capacity when financing land purchases intended for a reserve, creating a fiduciary or special relationship beyond a typical debtor‑creditor relationship.

The borrower asserted that the lender’s conduct contributed to financial losses and raised an equitable set‑off defence grounded in alleged breaches of duty.

The court held that the evidentiary record raised genuine issues regarding whether the lender assumed an advisory role and whether exceptional circumstances created a fiduciary relationship.

Because those issues required a detailed factual assessment and credibility determinations, summary judgment was inappropriate.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and varied the order below in accordance with the agreement of the parties.

No costs were ordered.