On an appeal from the Consent and Capacity Board, the court considered whether a physician renewing a community treatment order had sufficient basis to conclude that the substitute decision-maker gave informed consent to the treatment plan.
The court held that, although direct physician communication with the substitute decision-maker is not statutorily required, the Board must still be satisfied that the information required by s. 11 of the Health Care Consent Act was provided before consent was obtained.
Because the record and case worker notes did not address whether the substitute decision-maker received the required information about the treatment plan, the Board erred in law by failing to apply the correct consent test.
The appeal was allowed and the matter was referred back with directions that the Board address consent under s. 11 at the upcoming review.
