The appellant challenged a finding of incapacity to manage property on the basis that repeated defects in the psychiatric facility's leave of absence procedure meant he was no longer a patient under the Mental Health Act.
The court held that the appeal was not moot despite the later discharge and issuance of a notice of continuance, because the validity of the continuance depended on the validity of the underlying certificate.
Interpreting the statutory definition of patient flexibly and purposively, the court concluded that the procedural irregularities in granting leaves of absence did not amount to a discharge in fact or law.
The original certificate of incapacity therefore remained valid, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.
