Kate A. Hunt

The respondent doctor brought a motion to appoint amicus curiae in an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming the appellant's incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication.

The self-represented appellant had taken no steps to perfect the appeal.

The court found the appointment necessary in the interests of justice to assist the court and ensure the appeal proceeds.

The court directed Legal Aid Ontario to investigate the appellant's status and ordered the appointment of amicus curiae if a certificate could not be issued expeditiously.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of making treatment decisions regarding antipsychotic and ancillary side effect medications.

The appellant argued the Board erred in finding that the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the treatment were that his condition would improve, and erred in finding him incapable regarding ancillary medications without specific evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's findings were reasonable and supported by the psychiatric evidence.

The court also confirmed that under section 23 of the Health Care Consent Act, a finding of incapacity for a primary treatment extends to necessary and ancillary treatments, including side effect medications.

The appellant, Craig Barker, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board.

The respondent, Dr. Kiran Patel, requested the appointment of amicus curiae because the appellant was self-represented and had not taken steps to perfect the appeal.

The court found the appointment of amicus curiae appropriate and necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of the proceeding, directing that one be appointed within seven days and that a proposed timetable for the appeal be submitted for approval.

The appellant appealed decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and a finding of incapacity regarding antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the appeal was moot due to the CTO's expiration, but the court found an ongoing dispute because the CTO had been renewed.

The court held that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant would likely suffer substantial deterioration without the CTO and that she lacked the capacity to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of her treatment decisions due to her schizoaffective disorder.

The appeal was dismissed.