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 defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a cargo-damage claim arising from an international shipment of a container holding vehicles and personal items.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because the material facts were largely undisputed and the dispositive question was the applicable limitation period.

Applying the contractual terms, the bill of lading, and the Marine Liability Act incorporating the Hague-Visby Rules, the court concluded that a one-year limitation period governed the action rather than the provincial two-year limitation period.

The action, commenced more than one year after delivery or the date the goods should have been delivered, was therefore statute-barred.

Summary judgment dismissing the claim was granted, and the carrier's abandoned counterclaim was dismissed.

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.

The plaintiffs sold their business, Tracks & Wheels Equipment Brokers Inc., to the defendants.

Disputes arose regarding options to purchase the lands on which the business operated, post-closing adjustments, and the conduct of the parties' shared accountant.

The court found that the accountant breached professional and contractual duties by acting in a conflict of interest.

The court also held that the defendants' counterclaim for post-closing adjustments was not time-barred.

Specific performance was granted to the defendants for the optioned lands, subject to certain severance conditions.

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.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment for a mental disorder.

At the Board hearing, the respondent provided a new disclosure package just before commencement.

The Board denied an adjournment request, prompting the appellant's counsel to withdraw.

The Board then gave the self-represented appellant only seven minutes to review over 20 pages of dense medical material.

The Superior Court of Justice held that this constituted a clear and palpable error and a denial of procedural fairness.

The Board's decision was rescinded and the matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The applicants sought declarations concerning insurers’ duty to defend multiple opioid class actions, the insureds’ right to select a single defending policy, allocation of defence costs, exhaustion of SIRs and deductibles, and the terms on which insurers could receive defence-side reporting.

The court held that, subject to exhaustion of the relevant SIRs or deductibles, each applicant could select any single policy under which there was a duty to defend, and the selected insurer was required to pay all reasonable defence costs associated with covered claims even if those costs also furthered uncovered claims.

Time-on-risk allocation was accepted only as an equitable mechanism among insurers with concurrent obligations, not as a basis to reduce contractual defence obligations owed to the insureds.

The court further held that pre-tender defence costs could attract relief from forfeiture, that disputed SIR exhaustion issues required a trial, and that insurers seeking privileged defence-side reporting had to maintain robust ethical screens through a defence reporting agreement because both party-based and coverage-based conflicts were present.

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, who had been found not criminally responsible for violent offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board requiring his continued detention at a mental health centre.

He argued the Board erred in rejecting an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given expert evidence that the appellant posed a high risk of violence, lacked insight, and was unwilling to follow conditions.

A detention order was found to be the least restrictive disposition.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board's finding that he remained a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable, and that it erred in refusing to transfer him to a less secure hospital.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence of the treating psychiatrist and the appellant's history of violence.

The refusal to transfer was also reasonable given the hospital risk assessment indicating the appellant required better symptom control before moving to a less secure environment.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR), had been eligible to live in a community residential setting since 2014 but remained in forensic custody due to a lack of funded supportive housing.

He brought a Charter application arguing his continued detention violated his section 7 liberty rights.

The Ontario Review Board dismissed the application, claiming it lacked jurisdiction to grant a funding remedy and that the proper parties were not present.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board had broad inquisitorial powers and jurisdiction to grant the remedy.

The Court held that the appellant's continued detention due solely to a lack of funding was arbitrary and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The government was ordered to address the appellant's accommodation at his next scheduled annual review.

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.