Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: July 10, 2025
Docket: COA-24-CV-0578

Before: Thorburn, Copeland and Monahan JJ.A.

In the Matter

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board, pursuant to the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, Sched A

AND IN THE MATTER OF M.R., a patient at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, Penetanguishene, Ontario

Between

M.R.
Appellant (Appellant/Responding Party)

and

Dr. Achal Mishra
Respondent (Respondent/Moving Party)

Appearances:
Naomi Sayers, for the appellant/responding party
Julia Lefebvre and James Thomson, for the respondent/moving party

Heard and released orally: July 9, 2025

On appeal from the order of Justice Paul M. Perell of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 7, 2024, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 2673, dismissing an appeal from the decision of the Consent and Capacity Board, dated December 21, 2023, with reasons dated January 2, 2024.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant appeals from the order of the Superior Court upholding the decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that he lacked capacity to consent to treatment.

[2] The respondent has filed a motion to adduce fresh evidence and argues that the appeal is moot. The fresh evidence discloses that the appellant was found capable of consenting to treatment in July 2024, and has maintained capacity to consent to treatment since that date.

[3] The appellant argues that the appeal is not moot, and also that the appeal raises issues of broader impact under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, Sched A.

[4] The appeal is moot. The relief sought by the appellant in the appeal is a declaration that he has the capacity to consent to treatment. As there is no dispute that he currently has the capacity to consent to treatment, there is no longer a live issue in the appeal. This case is indistinguishable from Adsett v. Labelle, 2024 ONCA 366.

[5] Further, we are not persuaded that this appeal raises any issues of broader importance that would warrant the court exercising its discretion to hear a moot appeal.

[6] The fresh evidence is admitted. The appeal is dismissed as moot. No order as to costs.

“Thorburn J.A.”
“J. Copeland J.A.”
“P.J. Monahan J.A.”