The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming a Community Treatment Order and a finding that the appellant lacked capacity to consent to treatment.
The appellant argued that the Board erred by failing to ensure the risks and benefits of treatment were explained, relying on uncorroborated medical opinion, improperly obtaining substitute consent before a capacity assessment, and failing to establish the feasibility of the community treatment plan.
The court applied correctness review for legal issues and reasonableness for factual and mixed findings.
It held that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant lacked capacity given evidence that he did not recognize his mental disorder and could not apply relevant information to his circumstances.
The court also found adequate corroborative evidence and rejected procedural objections regarding the sequence of capacity assessment and substitute consent.
The appeal was dismissed.
