Michelle O’Bonsawin

M.B. appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that confirmed his incapacity to manage property.

The appellant argued that the Board erred in law by misconstruing the purpose of cross-examination of an expert witness and by failing to properly evaluate the evidence against the presumption of capacity.

The court found that the Board considered all evidence holistically, including the extensive cross-examination, and did not err in its assessment.

The Board's finding of incapacity was upheld, based on M.B.'s history of poor financial decisions and persistent delusional beliefs that prevented him from understanding relevant financial information or appreciating the foreseeable consequences of his decisions.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication and mood stabilizers.

The Board found the appellant met the first part of the capacity test (understanding information) but failed the second (appreciating foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack thereof) due to his denial of illness and active psychosis.

The Superior Court applied a reasonableness standard of review for questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The court found the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by strong medical evidence from Dr. Smith and Dr. Watts, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on his appeal from decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board regarding his capacity to consent to treatment with Clozapine and the appointment of a substitute decision-maker.

The proposed fresh evidence included an affidavit and medical records regarding his prior capable wishes.

The court applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence could have been adduced at the original hearings with due diligence, the appellant had chosen not to testify, and the reliability of the new evidence was questionable.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on his appeal from decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board regarding his capacity and the appointment of a substitute decision-maker.

The proposed evidence related to his prior capable wishes regarding treatment with Clozapine.

The court applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence could have been adduced at the original hearings with due diligence and that its reliability was questionable given the appellant's periods of incapacity.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that he should have received an absolute discharge as he was no longer a significant threat to public safety, or alternatively, that the Board failed in its inquisitorial role regarding the timing of his 24-hour supervised community living placement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant required ongoing supervision to ensure medication compliance and prevent relapse.

The Court also noted that the Board had appropriately questioned the hospital on the timing of the placement, and fresh evidence indicated a bed would soon be available.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interim order made by the Ontario Labour Relations Board requiring the provision of properly trained security personnel in a forensic psychiatric unit.

The respondents argued that reviewing the interim order before the Board had completed its proceedings would be an inappropriate, fragmented approach.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the application premature as the Board's proceedings were still ongoing and the impugned order was only one aspect of a broader safety regime being considered.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent unions.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's order was reasonable and that the Board did not misapprehend evidence regarding cultural reactions to mental illness or the attitude of the appellant's parents toward his illness.

On a motion pending an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision upholding incapacity to consent to treatment, the court authorized interim antipsychotic treatment under ss. 19(1)-(2) of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996.

The central dispute concerned necessity under s. 19(2)(d), as the responding party conceded the other statutory criteria.

The court accepted evidence that prolonged untreated psychosis would worsen prognosis, increase deterioration, and delay discharge from hospital, while also negatively affecting physical health management.

Treatment pending appeal was therefore found necessary and ordered.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition continuing his detention in a hospital.

The appellant argued he did not suffer from a mental illness and that the Board's reasons were insufficient to establish he posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of mental illness but agreed the Board's reasons were insufficient, particularly regarding its reliance on uncorroborated hearsay evidence and its failure to explain why the threat was deemed 'significant' despite contrary psychiatric evidence.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her transfer to the Brockville Mental Health Centre.

She argued the order was unreasonable due to delays in the transfer and that it was not the least onerous disposition.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence showing the transfer had recently occurred, rendering the delay arguments moot.

The Court found the Board's conclusion that the transfer was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition was reasonable and supported by psychiatric evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding a Community Treatment Order (CTO) under the Health Care Consent Act and Mental Health Act.

He argued that the statutory criteria for the CTO were not satisfied and that the Board’s decision was unreasonable, particularly given medication side effects.

The court held that the standard of review for the Board’s decision was reasonableness, except where statutory criteria raised questions of jurisdiction.

After reviewing the evidence, including the physician’s testimony and psychiatric history, the court found that the statutory criteria were met and that the Board’s decision was reasonable.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The respondent psychiatrist brought a motion under s. 19 of the Health Care Consent Act seeking an interim treatment order while an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision remained outstanding.

The appellant had appealed a finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment but had taken no steps to advance the appeal, resulting in a statutory suspension of treatment.

Evidence from the treating psychiatrist demonstrated that the appellant’s untreated psychotic disorder had significantly deteriorated, leading to aggression toward another patient and heightened risk to himself and others.

The court held that the statutory criteria for interim treatment were satisfied, including that treatment would substantially improve the appellant’s condition and that the benefits outweighed the risks.

An interim treatment order authorizing treatment without consent was granted pending the final disposition of the appeal.