Kevin Gray

The appellant, a patient with schizophrenia and a history of being found not criminally responsible, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medications.

The appellant argued the Board was overly deferential to his treating psychiatrist and misapplied the law.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's conclusion that the appellant lacked the ability to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his treatment decision due to his lack of insight into his illness.

The Crown appealed the Stage One and Stage Two decisions regarding the interpretation of the Robinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior Treaties of 1850.

The trial judge found that the Treaties' augmentation clause imposed a mandatory obligation on the Crown to increase the perpetual annuities if the economic circumstances of the ceded territories warranted it, without a hard cap of $4 per person.

The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the Crown has an obligation under the honour of the Crown to diligently implement the augmentation promise and that its discretion is not unfettered.

The Court unanimously set aside the trial judge's finding of an ad hoc fiduciary duty and her specific remedial directives regarding a 'fair share' of net resource revenues.

The Court also unanimously dismissed the Crown's limitations defence.

The Court split on the standard of review for historical treaties and whether the trial judge made extricable errors of law in her interpretation, but the majority upheld her core interpretation of the augmentation clause.

The Crown applied for a restraining order under s. 9 of the Reopening Ontario Act to prevent the respondents from contravening COVID-19 public health restrictions at three churches.

The court found that the Crown established clear and repeated breaches of capacity limits, masking, and physical distancing requirements.

The respondents failed to establish any exceptional circumstances, such as a pre-existing Charter right or evidence that the unlawful conduct would cease.

The application was allowed and the restraining order was issued.