2 total
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Consent and Capacity Board's finding that the appellant was incapable of managing property due to delusional beliefs.
F.L. appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision that upheld a Certificate of Incapacity, finding him incapable of managing his property.
The appeal raised issues of procedural fairness due to the joinder of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) and alleged errors in law regarding the onus of proof and the application of the incapacity test.
The court dismissed the appeal, distinguishing the procedural fairness arguments from a prior case (P.P. v. Oliver) and affirming that the Board correctly applied the legal tests for incapacity, including the appreciation component, and did not improperly shift the burden of proof.
The court set aside a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding the appellant incapable due to procedural unfairness.
This is an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) decision that found the appellant, P.P., incapable of managing her property.
P.P. argued that the CCB proceedings were procedurally unfair.
The Superior Court of Justice found that the procedure used by the CCB was indeed procedurally unfair, specifically regarding the granting of an adjournment to the assessor to obtain corroborating evidence and the decision to permit the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) to intervene as a party.
The court noted that the PGT's investigative role under s. 27 of the Substitute Decisions Act was improperly blurred with the voluntary assessment process under s. 16, leading to a lack of transparency and an unfair advantage for the PGT in controlling the hearing.
Emphasizing the high standard of procedural fairness required in cases affecting personal autonomy, the court set aside the CCB's decision.
