Ikenna Aniekwe

Appeal under s. 80 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 from a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming a health practitioner's finding that the appellant was incapable with respect to proposed treatment in the classes of antipsychotic medications, mood stabilizers, and anxiolytics.

The appellant argued the Board erred by accepting a seven-day gap between the psychiatrist's last capacity assessment and the hearing, misapprehending a social worker's note as a clinical assessment, and failing to carefully weigh hearsay.

The court found the Board applied the correct legal test from Starson, acknowledged the presumption of capacity and onus on the health practitioner, and reasonably concluded that incapacity persisted as of the hearing date based on enduring lack of insight and corroborative clinical entries.

Appeal dismissed and Board's decision confirmed.

The respondent psychiatrist brought a motion under s. 19(1) of the Health Care Consent Act to administer antipsychotic medication to an involuntary patient pending his appeal of a Consent and Capacity Board decision.

The Board had confirmed the psychiatrist's finding that the patient was incapable of consenting to treatment for a schizophrenia relapse.

The court granted the motion, finding that the patient's condition was likely to deteriorate rapidly without treatment, that he had previously responded well to the proposed medication, and that the treatment was necessary before the final disposition of the appeal.

In an oppression application, the applicant sought the production of corporate books and records to prove financial irregularities that allegedly led to his termination as Chief Operating Officer.

At a case conference, the respondents objected that the applicant had not yet served an affidavit.

The court ordered the applicant to serve a preliminary affidavit and a detailed request for production, and scheduled a further case conference to resolve the production issue, noting that case conference judges have the power to make orders to prevent unnecessary delays.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his treating psychiatrist's finding that he was incapable of consenting to a Community Treatment Plan and long-acting antipsychotic medication.

The Board also confirmed that the Community Treatment Order met the statutory criteria under the Mental Health Act.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Board's capacity analysis or its assessment of the statutory criteria.

The appeal was dismissed.

The parties separated after a five-year marriage.

The mother sought retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found that the father engaged in monumental and self-serving financial nondisclosure regarding his businesses in Canada and Nigeria.

Drawing a strong adverse inference, the court imputed the father's income at $130,000 for most years due to intentional underemployment and hidden income.

The father was ordered to pay child support and indefinite spousal support at the high end of the SSAG range, along with a substantial equalization payment.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' medical malpractice action, which was commenced nearly 16 years after the allegedly negligent jaw surgery.

The plaintiffs argued the 15-year ultimate limitation period should be tolled under section 15(4) of the Limitations Act, 2002, claiming the mother lacked capacity to commence a proceeding and that the defendants wilfully concealed medical records.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide persuasive medical or psychological evidence of incapacity and failed to establish any wilful concealment by the defendants.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed as statute-barred.