Meghan Payne

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which confirmed a community treatment order issued by the respondent physician.

The appellant argued that the order was invalid because a copy was not provided to the hospital's officer in charge as required by the Mental Health Act.

The Board assumed a procedural breach had occurred but declined to revoke the order because the statutory criteria were otherwise met and the appellant suffered no prejudice.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's exercise of its discretion.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions to strike claims for contribution and indemnity brought by various Children's Aid Societies (CAS) against Dr. Gideon Koren and the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC) in the context of the "Motherisk Cases." The court partially granted the motions, striking claims for contribution and indemnity based on the Negligence Act, as the CAS was not found liable to the original plaintiffs.

However, the court dismissed the motions to strike claims for contribution and indemnity based on breach of contract, finding it was not plain and obvious that such claims, including those relying on a principled exception to privity of contract, would fail.

HSC's claim was struck as unopposed.

One of Dr. Koren's crossclaims was struck with leave to amend to properly plead a contract claim.

The court also ordered consolidation of one of Dr. Koren's actions with a related M.M. Action.

B.B. appealed decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board that confirmed her incapacity regarding treatment with antipsychotic medications and a community treatment plan, and upheld a community treatment order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's conclusions regarding B.B.'s lack of capacity, the likelihood of substantial mental deterioration without continuing care, Dr. Pittman's consultations with health practitioners, or the substitute decision-maker's proper consent to the treatment plan.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by the plaintiff seeking to strike the defendant’s statement of defence and requesting that defence counsel be charged with perjury under the Criminal Code, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The defendant sought $5,000 in costs, arguing the motion was improper, vexatious, and unnecessary.

Applying Rule 57.01 and the principles articulated in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario), the court emphasized that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay rather than reflective of actual legal expenses incurred.

Considering the circumstances and the plaintiff’s lack of success, the court awarded reduced costs to the defendant.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion seeking to strike the defendant hospital’s statement of defence and requesting that defence counsel be charged with perjury.

The plaintiff alleged failures to comply with a discovery timetable, failure to provide documents including surveillance footage, interference during examinations for discovery, and non-compliance with undertakings.

The court held that it had no jurisdiction to order criminal charges against counsel and found that the evidentiary record did not support striking the defence.

The court determined that the hospital had substantially complied with procedural obligations and that any alleged delays or issues did not justify the drastic remedy sought.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing a negligence, intentional tort, and Charter damages claim arising from the plaintiff’s involuntary detention for psychiatric assessment under the Mental Health Act.

The plaintiff alleged improper issuance and confirmation of a Form 1 and improper medical treatment during a brief detention at hospital.

The court held that medical malpractice claims require expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation.

The plaintiff filed no expert evidence and relied solely on allegations in the statement of claim, while the defendants filed expert reports confirming that the physicians’ conduct met the standard of care.

As no genuine issue requiring a trial was raised, summary judgment was granted dismissing the claims against the physicians and the hospital.