J.P. Thomson

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay a costs award.

The plaintiff provided uncontested affidavit evidence demonstrating ownership of two properties in Ontario with a combined net worth of $291,000.

The court found this sufficient to pay the defendants' costs if required and dismissed the motion, awarding costs to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found him incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

The appellant, who suffers from a primary psychotic disorder, argued he was capable.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the Board's application of the two-part test under the Health Care Consent Act.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the court upheld the Board's finding that the appellant lacked the ability to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his decision due to his lack of insight into his illness.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, arguing that his continued detention as an involuntary psychiatric patient following completion of a criminal sentence was unlawful and violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He alleged the practice of “psychiatric gating” and argued that his detention constituted double jeopardy.

The court held that the detention was authorized under the Mental Health Act following lawful execution of a Form 1 and Form 3 and repeated confirmation by the Consent and Capacity Board that the statutory criteria for involuntary admission remained satisfied.

The court also found that civil committal following a completed criminal sentence does not breach Charter protections against arbitrary detention or cruel and unusual punishment.

The proper remedy for disagreement with the board’s decisions was an appeal, not habeas corpus.