Eyitayo Folashade Dada

B.B. appealed decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board that confirmed her incapacity regarding treatment with antipsychotic medications and a community treatment plan, and upheld a community treatment order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's conclusions regarding B.B.'s lack of capacity, the likelihood of substantial mental deterioration without continuing care, Dr. Pittman's consultations with health practitioners, or the substitute decision-maker's proper consent to the treatment plan.

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 appellant, MLD, appealed a community treatment order approved by the Consent and Capacity Board.

The appeal raised two main grounds: whether MLD received prompt rights advice as required by the Mental Health Act, and whether the Board erred in finding MLD unable to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of a lack of treatment.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the 15-day delay in rights advice was not unreasonable given diligent efforts by the rights advisor and lack of prejudice.

On the capacity issue, the court upheld the Board's majority finding that MLD lacked the ability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of not adhering to treatment, emphasizing that the Board's weighing of conflicting evidence was not a palpable and overriding error.

The appellant, diagnosed with schizophrenia, appealed a Superior Court decision affirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO) issued by the respondent psychiatrist.

The appeal challenged the Consent and Capacity Board's finding of the appellant's incapacity to consent to treatment and the validity of the CTO.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's application of the two-part capacity test under the Health Care Consent Act, as interpreted by Starson v. Swayze, and its assessment of the CTO's compliance with the Mental Health Act.

The court affirmed that the appellant failed to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of not receiving treatment, despite his history of non-compliance and subsequent deterioration.

S.S. appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that found her incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

S.S. argued the Board applied an incorrect legal test by focusing on her best interests and failed to consider evidence supporting her capacity.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the legal test, which requires assessing a patient's ability to understand information and appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their decision, not whether they act in their best interests.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the evidence regarding S.S.'s capacity to appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment, despite her understanding of medication side effects.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision that confirmed his incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication and a community treatment plan, and the validity of a community treatment order.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the legal standard for capacity and had ample evidence to determine the appellant's incapacity to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of treatment or lack thereof.

The court also found that the Board had a sufficient basis to confirm that all statutory criteria for issuing the community treatment order were met.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming the renewal of a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and a finding of incapacity to make decisions about his antipsychotic medications.

The court upheld the Board's finding of incapacity and the validity of the CTO, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the appellant's inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of discontinuing medication.

However, the court found an error in the Community Treatment Plan (CTP) by not accounting for COVID-19 public health restrictions.

The CTP was amended to allow for flexible meeting formats (videoconference, teleconference, or in-person) at the discretion of the respondent physician, considering public health and the appellant's needs.

This is a Hague Convention Application brought by the father seeking the return of three children to the United Kingdom.

The children were removed from the UK on August 25, 2018, by their mother without the father's knowledge or consent.

The application was commenced within one year of removal.

The court found that while the children's habitual residence was in the UK and the father held parental responsibility under UK law, he had not actively exercised custody rights at the time of removal.

The father was characterized as an access parent who maintained contact through visits and financial support but did not exercise day-to-day parental responsibility.

The mother was the primary caregiver and exercised custodial rights.

The application was dismissed as the father failed to meet the threshold requirement under Article 3(b) of the Hague Convention that custody rights be "actually exercised" at the time of removal.