3 total
Request to add individual doctor as respondent denied due to delay and lack of central involvement.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a doctor as an individual respondent to her human rights application against a hospital.
The application alleged a failure to accommodate her multiple chemical sensitivities.
The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and denied the request, finding that the doctor's individual conduct was not a central issue and that adding him 17 months after the incident would cause significant prejudice.
Finding of incapacity set aside as unreasonable due to lack of evidence regarding treatment benefits.
The appellant appealed a decision upholding a finding of incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication.
The Court of Appeal found that the Consent and Capacity Board's decision was unreasonable because there was no evidence that the proposed treatment would benefit the appellant, nor any evidence of the consequences of refusing treatment.
The appeal was allowed and the finding of incapacity was set aside.
Capacity appeal dismissed; Board's incapacity finding upheld as reasonable and adequately supported.
The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board finding that she was incapable with respect to treatment by antipsychotic medication under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996.
The court applied reasonableness review to factual and mixed findings, correctness to pure law, and held the practitioner bore the burden of rebutting the presumption of capacity on a balance of probabilities.
The court found there was corroborative evidence and sufficient evidence supporting the Board's two-part incapacity analysis, including evidence from both the treating physician and the appellant's own testimony.
The court also held the Board's reasons were adequate in context and entitled to deference given the statutory timelines for Board proceedings.
The appeal was dismissed and the Board decision was upheld.
