Julia L. Lefebvre

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding a physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board erred by relying on outdated medical history and by conflating his disagreement with the proposed treatment with incapacity.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the appellate standards of review from Vavilov, finding that the Board's treatment of medical history was a question of mixed fact and law entitled to deference.

The court concluded the Board correctly applied the legal test for capacity without resorting to a best interests analysis.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was detained under an Ontario Review Board order following a finding of not criminally responsible for arson, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law and made palpable and overriding errors of fact in applying the test for capacity under s. 4(1) of the Health Care Consent Act.

The Superior Court of Justice found no errors in the Board's application of the law or its assessment of the evidence, including its credibility findings, and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff, a long-term employee without formal accounting qualifications, was terminated from her position as Controller following a corporate merger.

She brought an action for wrongful dismissal, discrimination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against her former employer, its national affiliate, and its external auditor.

On a motion for summary judgment brought by the defendants, the court dismissed the claims against the national affiliate and the auditor, as well as the claims for discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court awarded the plaintiff 18 months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal, along with unpaid vacation pay and a promised legal fee allowance.

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.