3 total
Appeal dismissed; Consent and Capacity Board’s incapacity finding was reasonable.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming a psychiatrist’s finding that the patient was incapable of consenting to or refusing treatment with antipsychotic and related medications.
The appeal concerned the statutory test for incapacity under s. 4(1) of the Health Care Consent Act and whether the Board’s findings were reasonable.
Applying the reasonableness standard from Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court held the Board reasonably concluded that the patient could not understand relevant treatment information or appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment due to a mental disorder.
The Board was entitled to rely on the psychiatrist’s evidence and aspects of the patient’s testimony demonstrating lack of insight into the illness.
No basis existed for judicial interference.
Estate negligence claim barred by strict two‑year limitation under Trustee Act.
The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of a medical negligence action arising from the death of a patient in hospital.
The plaintiffs commenced the action more than two years after the deceased’s death and argued that discoverability and fraudulent concealment should extend the limitation period because the alleged negligence was not discovered immediately.
The court held that s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act imposes a strict two‑year limitation period running from the date of death with no discoverability exception.
As the action was commenced outside that period, the estate’s claim was statute‑barred.
The derivative claims under the Family Law Act were also barred.
Leave to appeal denied; hospital failed to prove constructive dismissal fell under Public Hospitals Act.
The defendants sought leave to appeal an order lifting a stay of the plaintiff's constructive dismissal action.
The defendants argued the action was barred because the Public Hospitals Act provides a comprehensive code for disputes over hospital privileges.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the motion judge's conclusion that the hospital failed to demonstrate the decision to substantially alter the plaintiff's privileges was made pursuant to the Act or hospital by-laws.
