Ken. J. Berger

The appellant, G.H., appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that upheld a physician's finding of her incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication and a Community Treatment Plan (CTP), and confirmed the renewal of a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's determination that G.H. was unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of her treatment decisions due to her mental disorder, and that the CTO criteria were met.

The court also upheld the Board's dismissal of preliminary objections.

The appellant appealed an order from the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) confirming his involuntary patient status and incapacity to consent to treatment.

The appeal regarding involuntary status became moot as the appellant was discharged.

The court focused on the finding of incapacity.

The CCB found the appellant incapable of consenting to treatment, relying on his repeated denial of a mental disorder despite exhibiting symptoms.

The court applied a palpable and overriding error standard of review to the CCB's factual conclusions.

The appeal was dismissed, as the court found no palpable and overriding error in the CCB's conclusion that the appellant's condition prevented him from appreciating the consequences of his treatment decisions.

The appellant, N.H., appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found him incapable of consenting to medical treatment for a mental disorder (antipsychotic medication and/or electroconvulsive therapy).

The Board's decision was based on N.H.'s inability to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his treatment decisions due to his mental illness, despite understanding the relevant information.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the Board's decision on a standard of palpable and overriding error, finding that the Board's conclusion regarding N.H.'s lack of appreciation was amply supported by the evidence, including his inconsistent testimony about his mental illness.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Board's finding of incapacity.

This appeal concerned a decision by the Consent and Capacity Board (the "Board") confirming the appellant's incapacity to consent to treatment.

Subsequent to the Board's decision, the appellant regained capacity, leading both parties to seek to admit new evidence.

The court admitted the new evidence but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding it moot as the live controversy regarding the appellant's capacity had disappeared.

In the alternative, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the Board's original decision, which had correctly applied the legal test for capacity under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996.

The appellant, MAK, appealed decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board that found him incapable of making treatment decisions for his bipolar condition and confirmed a Community Treatment Order.

MAK argued that the Board erred in law and fact by misapprehending evidence, failing to assess his capacity at the time of the hearing, and incorrectly concluding he met the requirements for a Community Treatment Order.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Board correctly applied the legal tests for capacity and Community Treatment Orders, and that its factual findings, including MAK's inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of non-treatment, were entitled to deference.

The appellant, Kevin Luangchaleun, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition that ordered his detention in the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences with conditions allowing community living in approved accommodation.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge with a residence requirement, arguing the Board's order was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, based on the treating psychiatrist's opinion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety if not closely supervised and monitored.

This is an appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board concerning a restriction of liberty hearing for an appellant found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) for aggravated assault.

The appellant, who has schizophrenia, had his liberty restricted and was transferred to a more secure forensic unit after his mental health deteriorated due to discontinuing medication.

The appellant argued that the Board failed to consider his liberty interests and other needs, including a request for a lateral transfer to another unit, and that the Board's findings were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board considered all required factors and that there was sufficient evidence to support the transfer to a more secure unit, including testimony from the treating psychiatrist regarding the appellant's unmanageability and risk of harm.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the restriction of liberty was necessary to be reasonable.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for past violent offences due to mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing that the ORB's conclusion of significant public safety risk was unsupported and its reasons insufficient.

The Court of Appeal found the ORB's conclusion reasonable, based on evidence of the appellant's major mental illness, lack of insight, intent to stop medication, and unwillingness to abstain from drug use, which posed a substantial risk of decompensation and violent relapse.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the ORB's conditional discharge.

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning a patient's capacity to consent to psychiatric treatment.

The appellant, diagnosed with schizophrenia, was found incapable by the Consent and Capacity Board of consenting or refusing antipsychotic medication, a decision upheld by the Superior Court.

The core issue was whether the appellant could appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his treatment decision, particularly in light of his delusional beliefs about environmental factors affecting his health.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the Board correctly applied the two-branch capacity test under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Starson v. Swayze, which requires a patient to recognize how their mental condition's manifestations affect them.

The Court found no error in the Board's factual findings or its application of the legal standard, concluding that the appellant's decision was dictated by his delusions, preventing a rational appreciation of treatment benefits.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to commence an urgent constitutional application challenging the regulation governing physiotherapy licensing in Ontario, while an appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) was ongoing.

The court denied the motion for urgency and permission to file the application, finding it premature and an attempt to circumvent the administrative tribunal process.

The court emphasized that parties should exhaust tribunal proceedings before seeking judicial review or constitutional challenges in court, especially when the tribunal can address constitutional rights related to its process.

The court also noted the lack of a full evidentiary basis for the proposed constitutional challenge and the absence of demonstrated substantial prejudice.

An appeal by an NCR (not criminally responsible) accused against the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety.

The appellant had been living unsupervised in the community for over a decade with stable mental health and medication compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable based on the appellant's lack of insight into his illness, his history of violence when unmedicated, and concerns that the civil mental health system could not adequately manage the risk of treatment non-compliance.

The appellant appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board requiring his continued detention at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care with permission to live in approved accommodation.

The appellant sought to quash the order and substitute a Conditional Discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition, finding no error in the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety and that the detention disposition was the least onerous and restrictive option available.

The appeal was dismissed.

An appeal from the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing a conditional discharge for an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant argued that the Board's conclusion that he remained a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable, particularly given his 17-year history without violent behaviour while subject to Board jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it fell within the range of reasonable outcomes based on evidence including the appellant's serious index offences, lack of insight into his mental illness, resistance to treatment, high risk assessment scores, and the unanimous opinion of his treatment team that he remained a significant risk.

The appellant, a health care professional, appealed his conviction for two counts of sexual assault.

The Crown cross-appealed against the lenient three-month jail sentence.

The appellant argued unreasonable verdict, misapprehension of evidence, and unfairness due to improper re-examination of the complainant.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the trial judge's assessment of credibility reasonable, no misapprehension of evidence, and proper re-examination procedures.

The court also dismissed the Crown's cross-appeal against sentence, noting the Crown was not seeking re-incarceration and the sentence, while lenient, was not a reversible error in the circumstances.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition maintaining a detention order for an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge but the Board continued the detention order at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, finding the appellant presented a significant threat to public safety due to lack of insight into his condition, poor medication compliance without supervision, and substance abuse issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was supported by evidence and represented the least onerous and least restrictive disposition appropriate in the circumstances.

The appellant appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board that imposed a hybrid detention order requiring detention at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with discretion to transfer to the General Forensic Unit or allow community residence in approved accommodation.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for threatening others with a knife in 2011, had been living in the community under conditional discharge but experienced significant deterioration in 2017 due to medication non-compliance and substance use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's findings of significant threat and the necessity of the detention order were amply supported by evidence.

An appeal from a December 14, 2016 Ontario Review Board disposition ordering the detention of a not criminally responsible accused at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant, diagnosed with bipolar disorder and substance-use disorder, had committed index offences in 2004 involving robbery and theft.

The Board found the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety due to continued substance abuse and manic symptoms.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence of post-decision disruptive conduct and upheld the detention order, finding the Board reasonably applied the "significant threat" standard and selected the least restrictive disposition appropriate in the circumstances.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering that the appellant remain subject to a conditional discharge.

The appellant, a 62-year-old woman with schizophrenia, was found not criminally responsible for assaulting a five-year-old child in 2011.

The Board concluded she remained a significant threat to public safety based on her history of non-compliance with medication and the risk of decompensation if she ceased treatment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion unreasonable and speculative.

The court held that the evidence did not meet the onerous standard required under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code for maintaining restraints on an NCR accused's liberty, and ordered an absolute discharge.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition maintaining a detention order for his care.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for assault, forcible confinement, and criminal harassment.

The Board accepted a joint submission from the appellant's counsel and physician to continue detention with increased community passes.

The appellant argued the Board erred in accepting the joint submission without properly discharging its inquisitorial duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board was entitled to rely on the joint submission and had conducted its own inquiry concluding the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

This appeal concerned the mootness of a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming the appellant's involuntary admission to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and her incapacity for treatment.

The appellant was discharged from CAMH, rendering the involuntary admission decision moot.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the constitutional questions related to the 'Box B' provisions of the Mental Health Act and the Charter, citing the lack of a live controversy, the availability of a new procedural route for constitutional challenges, and the recent upholding of the 'Box B' criteria by the Court of Appeal.

The appeal of the involuntary admission decision was dismissed without costs, though the treatment capacity decision remained in force.