2 total
Board incapacity finding upheld on appeal.
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.
Appeal partly allowed; involuntary status set aside but incapacity to consent upheld.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his involuntary admission under s. 20(5) of the Mental Health Act and a finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment under s. 4(1) of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996.
The court held that the Board’s finding of involuntary status was unreasonable because it relied on unreliable hearsay evidence and insufficient medical evidence to establish a likelihood of serious bodily harm or serious physical impairment.
However, the court upheld the Board’s determination that the appellant lacked capacity to consent to treatment, finding clear, cogent, and compelling evidence that he was unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of refusing treatment due to his mental condition.
The appeal was therefore allowed in part.
The involuntary status finding was set aside, but the incapacity determination was confirmed.
