On an appeal from the Consent and Capacity Board, the appellant challenged findings that he was incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment and that his involuntary status should be confirmed.
Applying the reasonableness standard to factual and mixed fact-law issues and correctness to pure questions of law, the court held the Board properly applied the capacity test under s. 4 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 as explained in Starson.
The Board reasonably concluded that, although the appellant understood treatment information, his psychotic illness prevented him from appreciating the consequences of refusal.
The court also upheld the finding that the substitute decision maker provided informed consent and that the appellant was likely to deteriorate without treatment.
