James P. Thomson

The appellant, M.R., appealed from a Superior Court order upholding the Consent and Capacity Board’s finding that he lacked capacity to consent to treatment.

The respondent, Dr. Achal Mishra, moved to adduce fresh evidence showing that M.R. was found capable of consenting to treatment in July 2024 and has maintained capacity since.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal to be moot, as there was no longer a live issue, and dismissed the appeal, admitting the fresh evidence and making no order as to costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Pierre Dartiguenave from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Crown requested dismissal on the basis that Mr. Dartiguenave was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Board, and the appellant could not be located.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a patient with schizophrenia and a history of being found not criminally responsible, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medications.

The appellant argued the Board was overly deferential to his treating psychiatrist and misapplied the law.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's conclusion that the appellant lacked the ability to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his treatment decision due to his lack of insight into his illness.

The respondents, facing multiple class actions related to the manufacture and distribution of opioids over a 20-year period, sought coverage for defence costs from their successive primary and excess liability insurers.

The application judge allowed the respondents to select a single primary insurer to fund the entire defence, permitted the exhaustion of self-insured retentions (SIRs) using payments from other insurers, granted relief from forfeiture for pre-tender defence costs, and required insurers to sign a Defence Reporting Agreement (DRA) to receive privileged defence information.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurers' appeals in part, holding that defence costs must be allocated on a pro rata time-on-risk basis, that the insureds must exhaust each applicable SIR before an insurer's duty to defend is triggered, and that relief from forfeiture was unavailable for pre-tender costs.

The Court upheld the DRA requirement for insurers seeking to associate in the defence to mitigate reasonable apprehensions of conflict of interest.

The appellant, Mark Roberts, sought a suspension of an Ontario Review Board order directing his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health due to his difficult and harassing behaviour towards female staff at CAMH.

The court applied the specific, higher test under s. 672.76 of the Criminal Code for suspending Board dispositions, which requires compelling reasons to doubt the Board's decision's validity or soundness based on the accused's mental condition, and exceptional circumstances.

The court found the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the transfer's impact on his mental condition to justify a suspension, especially considering the severe adverse impact of his conduct on CAMH's operations and staff safety.

The motion for suspension was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCR), appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety and affirmed the majority's decision for a detention order, rejecting the appellant's request for an absolute or conditional discharge.

However, the court amended the detention order to include specific directives for the hospital to explore culturally appropriate programs, housing, and care for the appellant, particularly in Owen Sound, in accordance with Gladue principles.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision affirming a Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) finding that the appellant, S.H., was incapable of consenting to anti-psychotic treatment.

S.H. had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) and detained under the Ontario Review Board.

The core issue was S.H.'s capacity to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of taking or refusing treatment, particularly given his delusional disorder and religiously-toned beliefs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' findings, concluding that S.H.'s inability to recognize his mental condition and its manifestations prevented him from appreciating the consequences of treatment decisions.

The Court also addressed the interplay of Charter values, specifically freedom of religion, in capacity determinations, affirming that while such values are important, they do not alter a finding of incapacity when beliefs are a manifestation of a mental condition that precludes appreciation of treatment consequences.

The appeal and a fresh evidence motion were dismissed.

This appeal concerned the Ontario Review Board's refusal to order a psychiatric assessment for an accused, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCRMD) for double murder, who had been designated a "high-risk accused." The accused sought the assessment to promote an application to the Superior Court to remove his high-risk designation, arguing his progress meant he no longer qualified.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Board's decision.

The Court clarified that the "substantial likelihood" test for reviewing a high-risk designation assesses the accused's inherent risk of violence if not subject to external constraints, not their risk under current supervised conditions.

Given the accused's history and ongoing risk factors, the Board's conclusion that an assessment would not change its determination was reasonable.

The Court also noted the Board's error in applying an "onus" on the accused in inquisitorial proceedings, though found it non-prejudicial.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition that continued his detention.

He sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, a transfer to a less secure psychiatric facility.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, supported by expert evidence.

The request for transfer was also denied as the proposed facilities lacked all-male units, a necessary condition given the appellant's history.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition ordering his detention at a forensic psychiatry program, arguing for a conditional discharge.

The ORB had vacated his previous conditional discharge due to concerning behaviours and a deteriorated mental state, supported by psychiatric and risk assessment evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable and supported by evidence, noting that a detention order was necessary to allow the Hospital to approve accommodation, consistent with the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for sexual assault, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his continued detention.

The primary issue was whether he should be transferred to a less secure facility.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board applied the correct legal standard of "least onerous and least restrictive" and that its decision, based on the assessment of expert evidence regarding the appellant's readiness for transfer, was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the continued detention.

The appellant, a patient found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, sought a stay of a Superior Court order authorizing involuntary antipsychotic treatment.

This motion for a stay was brought pending his appeal of a Consent and Capacity Board decision that found him incapable of consenting to treatment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding that there was no serious question to be determined on appeal, the appellant would not suffer irreparable harm if the stay was denied, and the balance of convenience and interests of justice favored denying the stay.

The court emphasized the patient's suffering and the risk to hospital staff when he remained untreated.

The appellant, Officer in Charge of North Bay Regional Health Centre, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision ordering the transfer of an involuntary civil patient, Peter Armstrong, from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health to North Bay's forensic program under section 41.1 of the Mental Health Act.

North Bay argued its policy precluded placing civil patients in forensic beds and that the Board erred in jurisdiction and by failing to consider the facility's ability to manage care.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had jurisdiction to override hospital policy and that its decision was reasonable, supported by detailed reasons and evidence that North Bay could manage the patient.

N.J., a patient found not criminally responsible, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of consenting to treatment for a delusional disorder.

Dr. Corriveau, N.J.'s attending physician, brought a motion under s. 19 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, seeking authorization to administer anti-psychotic medication pending the appeal.

The court granted the motion, finding that the statutory criteria for urgent treatment were met, including a likelihood of substantial improvement with treatment, deterioration without it, benefits outweighing risks, and the treatment being the least restrictive and necessary before the appeal's final disposition.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for offences including break and entry, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, escaping lawful custody, and robbery, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention at a forensic mental health facility.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge, arguing the Board unreasonably concluded detention was necessary and improperly considered the risk of illicit drug use and the ease of readmission as factors in its decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that supervision of housing and readmission capability are relevant considerations for the Board in determining appropriate dispositions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking the release of $500,000 held in escrow following a share purchase agreement.

The defendants brought cross-motions seeking an interpleader order and a portion of the funds for uncollectible accounts receivable.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to bring their motion after setting the action down for trial, finding it was an efficient step.

The court held that partial summary judgment was appropriate as the issue could be resolved on uncontested facts.

The court found that the defendants failed to provide the required notice under the escrow agreement, entitling the plaintiffs to the return of the full escrow amount plus interest.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of consenting to antipsychotic and mood stabilizer treatment.

The board had granted an adjournment to allow the appellant to obtain counsel, but when the hearing resumed, the appellant appeared without counsel.

The majority held that the board did not breach procedural fairness because the appellant did not refuse legal representation but rather indicated he was prepared to represent himself.

The dissent argued the board failed to follow its own guidelines requiring a mini-inquiry to determine whether the appellant was making an informed decision to proceed without counsel, and that the board should have intervened when the appellant's condition deteriorated during the hearing.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendants to fulfill undertakings and answer questions refused at discovery.

While most issues were resolved prior to the hearing, the plaintiffs continued to seek production of the defendant accountant's working papers related to the 2014 financial statements of a business sold by the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the motion for production of the working papers, finding they were the property of the accountant and not relevant to the issues in the action.

However, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to conduct further examinations for discovery regarding the recently produced financial statements.

Following a prior proceeding, the court determined the appropriate costs payable by the unsuccessful party.

The successful defendants sought costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered factors including indemnity, the reasonable expectations of the parties, and the fairness and reasonableness of the time and rates charged.

The court awarded the Drabble defendants the full amount claimed, finding the costs reasonable and reasonably anticipated, but reduced the costs sought by the Webb defendants after concluding their time spent was excessive in the circumstances.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a negligence and breach of contract claim against financial advisors on the basis that the action was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged negligent investment advice relating to a 2010 flow‑through investment that generated significant capital gains tax.

The court applied the discoverability principle under ss. 4 and 5 of the Act and held that the plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known the material facts when he received and approved his 2010 income tax return in May 2011.

The plaintiff’s failure to carefully review the return did not postpone the commencement of the limitation period.

As the action was commenced more than two years later, the claim was barred.