Dr. Liu

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment from a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its treatment of expert and lay evidence, relied on hearsay, and misapplied the causation test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably rejected the appellant's expert evidence after the expert recanted his opinion upon being presented with contradictory medical and benefits records.

The court also held that hearsay evidence is admissible before the Tribunal and the causation test was properly applied.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace on long-term disability, sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council recommending her removal from office.

The Council found she committed judicial misconduct by practicing law without a license or insurance on three occasions.

The applicant argued the hearing panel breached procedural fairness by not granting a further adjournment and that the penalty was unreasonable due to her cognitive disabilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the hearing was procedurally fair and the recommendation for removal was reasonable given the lack of reliable medical evidence supporting a cognitive deficit and the severity of the misconduct.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for killing his sister, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

He argued the Board failed to order the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by not directing the hospital to grant him indirectly supervised passes without requiring his participation in structured programming.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the hospital needed the appellant to engage in structured programming to assess his risk to the community, and that no treatment impasse existed.

An appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health under a hybrid order requiring detention in the Secure Forensic Unit with discretion to transfer to the General Forensic Unit.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for attacks on strangers in 2007.

The Board found the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety but was considering a treatment plan involving transfer to a more supportive general unit with behavioural programs.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's disposition unreasonable given the identified treatment impasse, the appellant's advancing age and declining health, and the lack of meaningful progress.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for an independent assessment and rehearing.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition finding that an NCR accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordering a conditional discharge rather than an absolute discharge.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible in 2002 for serious violent offences including aggravated assault, kidnapping, and assault with a weapon, argued the Board's finding was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the appellant poses a significant threat within the meaning of the Criminal Code, based on his serious index offences, ongoing psychiatric symptoms including paranoid delusions, lack of insight into his mental illness, substance abuse, and stated intention to discontinue medication if absolutely discharged.

Two appellants, both found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and incapable of consenting to medical treatment under provincial law, appealed detention orders imposed by the Ontario Review Board.

The central issue was whether an accused person incapable of consenting to medical treatment could nonetheless consent to a condition regarding psychiatric or other treatment under section 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal held that the capacity required to consent to such a condition differs from the capacity required to consent to the treatment itself.

An accused need only understand information relevant to the operation of the condition and appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of agreeing to it, including potential consequences for liberty.

The Court overruled its prior jurisprudence to the contrary and allowed the appeals, remitting the matters back to the Board for re-hearing.