Ken Berger

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding her treating physician's finding that she was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication and benzodiazepines.

The appellant argued the Board made palpable and overriding errors in its assessment of her capacity and the causes of her symptoms.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusions were firmly anchored in the evidentiary record and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any palpable and overriding error.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a 'new hearing' to assess his capacity as of the rehearing date, rather than reassessing his capacity as of the original 2018 hearing date as ordered by the court.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that a 'rehearing' under s. 80(10)(c) of the Health Care Consent Act requires a contemporaneous assessment of capacity, and admitting new evidence for that purpose was appropriate.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to proposed psychiatric and medical treatments.

The appellant argued that the Board failed to properly consider his religious beliefs, which he maintained were sincere and not delusions, thereby violating his rights under section 2(a) of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the Board made an extricable error of law by failing to take into account Charter values when assessing whether the appellant's beliefs were sincere religious beliefs or manifestations of a mental illness.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Board for a rehearing.