M.B. appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that confirmed his incapacity to manage property.
The appellant argued that the Board erred in law by misconstruing the purpose of cross-examination of an expert witness and by failing to properly evaluate the evidence against the presumption of capacity.
The court found that the Board considered all evidence holistically, including the extensive cross-examination, and did not err in its assessment.
The Board's finding of incapacity was upheld, based on M.B.'s history of poor financial decisions and persistent delusional beliefs that prevented him from understanding relevant financial information or appreciating the foreseeable consequences of his decisions.
