M. Davies

The appellant, an involuntary patient with schizophrenia, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment.

The appellant argued the Board applied the wrong legal test and made unreasonable findings regarding his risk of violence and appreciation of the treatment decision.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the test from Starson v. Swayze and reasonably concluded that the appellant's condition prevented him from recognizing its manifestations and appreciating the consequences of his decision.

The appellant, an inpatient diagnosed with schizophrenia, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable with respect to treatment with anti-psychotic medication and incapable of managing his property.

The appellant argued the Board misapprehended evidence and reached unreasonable conclusions.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the reasonableness standard of review to the Board's findings of mixed fact and law.

The court found that the Board's conclusions regarding the appellant's inability to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his decisions, due to his denial of illness and paranoid delusions, were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to resolve outstanding issues regarding pre-judgment interest and costs following a settlement of a motor vehicle accident claim.

The court held that the recent amendment to the Insurance Act regarding pre-judgment interest was substantive and did not apply retroactively, meaning the 5% rate under Rule 53.10 applied.

The court also ordered the defendants to pay a portion of the costs the plaintiff incurred in a successful accident benefits arbitration, as the defendants benefited from the resulting deduction.

Finally, the court reduced the overall costs of the tort claim to ensure proportionality.