Mercedes Perez

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) appealed a decision by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that granted David Aliko an absolute discharge after he was found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for various offences due to mental disorder.

CAMH sought to set aside the absolute discharge and reinstate a conditional discharge, citing Mr. Aliko's significant deterioration and new criminal charges post-disposition.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence detailing Mr. Aliko's post-discharge behaviour and mental state, which indicated a substantial risk of serious harm to the public without Board supervision.

The court found it was in the interests of justice to admit this evidence.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention at a high secure unit.

He sought a transfer to a less restrictive medium secure facility.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable given the appellant's continued threat to public safety, the unsuitability of other facilities due to risk management concerns and long waitlists, and recent aggressive incidents.

The court affirmed that reweighing evidence is not its role in reviewing Board decisions.

The parents of a one-year-old infant who suffered a catastrophic brain injury appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board.

The Board had found that the parents failed to comply with the principles of substitute decision-making under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 by refusing to consent to the withdrawal of life support proposed by the treating physician.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board made no error in its objective assessment that the withdrawal of life support was in the infant's best interests, given her irreversible condition and lack of any prospect of recovery.

The appellants, parents of an infant with a catastrophic brain injury, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision directing them to consent to a palliative care treatment plan proposed by the treating physician.

As the parents' legal aid certificates did not cover the appeals and the matter was highly urgent, the court issued a procedural direction appointing their previous counsel and the infant's counsel as amicus curiae to ensure the appeals could proceed fairly and quickly without waiting for Legal Aid Ontario decisions.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding a finding that he was incapable of consenting to a Community Treatment Plan and confirming a Community Treatment Order.

The appellant argued that his capacity to consent to the plan should be assessed based only on his understanding of its administrative consequences, separate from his incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication.

He also argued that the likelihood of substantial mental deterioration required for an order must occur within its six-month lifespan.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the therapeutic aspects of a plan cannot be ignored in the capacity test, and that the legislation does not require a precise temporality of within six months for the likelihood of mental deterioration.

Sharon Atkinson, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for arson, appealed the Ontario Review Board's conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge or a new hearing.

The appellant, diagnosed with Prader-Willi syndrome, intellectual disability, and personality disorder, argued the Board erred in finding her a significant threat to public safety and in assessing the sufficiency of civil mechanisms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's finding that the appellant remained a significant threat due to her persistent behavioural issues, high risk of recidivism, and lack of a viable plan for an absolute discharge, concluding that civil mechanisms would be inadequate to manage the risk.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in 2002, appealed a conditional discharge order issued by the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued that the Board's finding of a "significant threat to the safety of the public" was unreasonable and that the Board misapprehended the sufficiency of available civil mechanisms to manage his risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on "significant threat" to be within the range of reasonable outcomes, considering factors such as the appellant's major mental illness, serious index offences, lack of insight, and stated intention to discontinue medication if absolutely discharged.

The second ground of appeal regarding civil mechanisms was not pressed.

The appellant, Officer in Charge of North Bay Regional Health Centre, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision ordering the transfer of an involuntary civil patient, Peter Armstrong, from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health to North Bay's forensic program under section 41.1 of the Mental Health Act.

North Bay argued its policy precluded placing civil patients in forensic beds and that the Board erred in jurisdiction and by failing to consider the facility's ability to manage care.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had jurisdiction to override hospital policy and that its decision was reasonable, supported by detailed reasons and evidence that North Bay could manage the patient.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, detained at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health under a warrant of committal, challenged the Board's May 8, 2018 disposition imposing a detention order on a general secure unit and refusing community living privileges.

The appellant did not contest the Board's finding that she posed a significant threat to public safety but argued the conditions were not the least onerous and restrictive.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable based on the evidence regarding the appellant's mental illness, risk of reoffending, and the evidentiary basis for the alcohol prohibition condition.

A dual-status offender appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to decline his request for a placement review hearing as part of his annual disposition review.

The appellant had been found Not Criminally Responsible in 1997 and subsequently convicted of murder in 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in declining to conduct a placement review hearing where the appellant had not requested one prior to the scheduled hearing date, other parties were not ready to proceed, and the disposition review hearing was already significantly overdue.

The court noted that the appellant remained entitled to request a placement review hearing under section 672.69(2) of the Criminal Code.

This is an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) decision ordering the substitute decision-maker (SDM) to consent to the withdrawal of life support for her husband.

The appellant, the husband's wife, challenged the CCB's jurisdiction to make a decision binding on her and its finding that cessation of life support was in the patient's best interests.

The court affirmed the CCB's decision, finding its procedural approach reasonable and its determination of the patient's best interests supported by the evidence, including the adequacy of accommodations for the appellant's communication disabilities.

The appellant appealed a finding of incapacity to consent to anti-psychotic medication made by a physician and confirmed by the Consent and Capacity Board.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible (NCR) on criminal charges and was detained at a psychiatric facility.

Subsequently, her appeal of the NCR verdict was allowed and a new trial was ordered, but she remained detained under the Mental Health Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the incapacity finding was not moot despite the successful appeal of the NCR verdict, as the appellant remained lawfully detained at the time the incapacity determination was made.

The Court upheld the Board's finding that although the appellant could understand relevant information about treatment, she could not apply it to her own circumstances due to her delusional disorder.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable with respect to mood stabilizers, anti-psychotic, benzodiazepines, and anticholinergic medications.

The appellant challenged the procedural fairness of the Board hearing, the reasonableness of the decision, and the adequacy of reasons.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no procedural unfairness, no unreasonable decision, and adequate evidentiary foundation for the findings of incapacity.

Following the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to amendments to the Mental Health Act enacted through Brian's Law, the unsuccessful public interest applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered whether this was one of the rare and exceptional cases where costs should be awarded to an unsuccessful constitutional litigant.

Applying the discretionary principles governing costs under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and jurisprudence on public interest litigation, the court emphasized factors including the importance of the issues, the novelty of the constitutional challenge, the applicant’s limited resources, and the quality of the litigation.

The court also considered that interim funding might have been granted had it been requested.

Weighing all factors, the court concluded that the circumstances justified a partial costs award.

Applicants challenged the constitutionality of amendments to Ontario’s Mental Health Act introduced by Brian’s Law, including expanded civil commitment criteria (Box B) and the community treatment order regime.

They alleged the provisions violated ss. 7, 9, 10, 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by permitting involuntary psychiatric assessment, detention, and community-based treatment for persons not posing a danger to themselves or others.

The court held that the legislation pursued a dual purpose of public safety and improved treatment for individuals with serious mental illness, and that the impugned provisions were neither overbroad, arbitrary, vague, nor grossly disproportionate.

Procedural safeguards, individualized clinical assessments, and consent mechanisms supported the statutory scheme’s constitutionality.

The Charter challenge was dismissed.

Following a guardianship application and the subsequent death of the incapable person, her former counsel, Swadron Associates, brought a motion for directions under Rule 75.06 regarding unpaid legal fees.

The applicant, Glen Salzman, brought a cross-motion seeking costs personally against the firm.

The court determined several preliminary issues, finding that Swadron Associates had standing under Rule 75.06 but denying its requests for preservation of funds and security for costs.

The court also held that Glen Salzman, as executor, had the authority to waive solicitor-client privilege on behalf of the estate for the purpose of his costs motion, as he was not adverse in interest to the estate on that issue.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board finding that she was incapable with respect to treatment by antipsychotic medication under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996.

The court applied reasonableness review to factual and mixed findings, correctness to pure law, and held the practitioner bore the burden of rebutting the presumption of capacity on a balance of probabilities.

The court found there was corroborative evidence and sufficient evidence supporting the Board's two-part incapacity analysis, including evidence from both the treating physician and the appellant's own testimony.

The court also held the Board's reasons were adequate in context and entitled to deference given the statutory timelines for Board proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed and the Board decision was upheld.