Health Law - ONCA

The appellant doctor appealed a Superior Court decision that reversed a Consent and Capacity Board finding that the respondent was incapable of consenting to proposed psychiatric treatment.

Following the commencement of the appeal, the respondent's NCR verdict was overturned, he was discharged from the facility, and the proposed treatment was never commenced.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case as a decision would have no practical effect on the parties and the appellant's concerns regarding a prior capable wish could be addressed under section 36 of the Health Care Consent Act.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a psychiatric facility, arguing he did not pose a significant threat to public safety and should receive an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board reasonably addressed conflicting medical evidence and properly considered a recent incident where the appellant brought methamphetamine into the facility.

The appeal was dismissed, as the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a March 2016 disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the March order had been overtaken by a subsequent order made in August 2016, which the appellant had also appealed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and failing to comply with probation, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board imposing a detention order with community living privileges.

He argued the ORB applied the wrong legal test and should have granted a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB applied the correct test and reasonably concluded that a detention order was necessary to manage the appellant's risk, ensure medication compliance, and allow for expeditious return to the hospital if his condition decompensated.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him to Waypoint, arguing it was not the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence supported the Board's disposition as Waypoint would be better able to transition the appellant out of seclusion and provide necessary structure.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and attempt to choke, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering a conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board's finding that he remained a significant risk to public safety was unreasonable and overly focused on potential medication non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board reasonably relied on expert psychiatric evidence indicating the appellant would likely discontinue treatment if absolutely discharged, which would increase his risk of violent behaviour.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

He had been granted permission to travel to Egypt but failed to return, resulting in an arrest warrant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant's absence without leave deprived the court of the necessary record to properly consider the matter.

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of Brian's Law, which amended the Mental Health Act to expand criteria for involuntary committal and introduce community treatment orders (CTOs).

They argued the law violated section 7 of the Charter by authorizing forced treatment with neuroleptic medication.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's dismissal of the challenge, finding that the legislation's highly individualized assessment criteria ensured it was not arbitrary, overly broad, or grossly disproportionate.

The court also dismissed claims under sections 9, 10, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for violent offences in 2002, appealed the Ontario Review Board's refusal to grant her an absolute discharge.

The Board had ordered the continuation of her conditional discharge, finding she remained a significant threat to public safety due to her history of medication non-compliance, limited insight into her mental illness, and lack of a concrete follow-up plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board did not misapply the test for significant threat to public safety and that its conclusion was reasonable and supported by psychiatric evidence.

The appellant physician appealed a partial summary judgment order in a medical malpractice action arising from the delayed diagnosis of a brain tumour.

The appellant had admitted breach of the standard of care and causation, leaving only contributory negligence and the specific list of injuries to be determined.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no error in the burden of proof regarding contributory negligence, and no error in the motions judge's listing of specific injuries based on uncontradicted expert reports.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board had no obligation to make further inquiries beyond the joint position of the parties based on the record.

The Court noted the appellant's progress, the existence of a treatment plan, and concluded that the Board's disposition was the least onerous and least restrictive available.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision upholding a Consent and Capacity Board finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment for a schizoaffective disorder.

The appellant argued the Board's reasons were insufficient, unreasonable, and failed to properly consider his refusal of medication due to side effects.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's chain of analysis clear, its decision reasonable, and noting the appellant's inability to recognize his illness rendered him incapable with respect to all proposed medication.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Board relied on uncontroverted evidence from CAMH staff that the appellant could no longer be effectively treated there.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's determination was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that the circumstances leading to the order were germane to a subsequent proceeding that led to a detention order at Waypoint, which was the subject of a separate appeal.

The respondent physician commenced an action for loss of income after his hospital privileges were temporarily restricted following an incident in the operating room.

The appellant hospital and doctors brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent had not first proceeded to a hearing before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) under the Public Hospitals Act.

The motion judge dismissed the jurisdictional challenge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the respondent had followed through with the hospital's internal dispute resolution process, which concluded with his return to full practice, and therefore he was not required to seek a hearing before the HPARB before commencing his civil action.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to issue the least onerous and restrictive disposition, seeking a transfer to a less secure facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board applied the correct test and reasonably concluded that continued detention at the secure facility was necessary for public protection given the appellant's recent history of violence and recent medication change.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for forcible confinement and assault due to a delusional disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention on the Secure Forensic Unit at CAMH.

He sought a transfer to the less secure General Forensic Unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable because the appellant's refusal to engage with his treatment team prevented the hospital from assessing his risk, and the higher staff-to-patient ratio on the secure unit actually allowed him more escorted passes.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the decision not to transfer him from a Medium Secure Unit to a General Unit was unreasonable and that the Board failed to recognize a treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions reasonable based on evidence that the appellant refused to cooperate with programs and continued to demonstrate delusions.

The Court noted the upcoming annual review would assess any progress or need for an independent assessment.

The appellant law firm appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of s. 39(6) of the General Regulation under the Health Insurance Act, which dictates how the Ontario Health Insurance Plan shares the legal costs of an insured person who recovers damages including a subrogated claim for the Plan.

The Court of Appeal held that 'the total recovery of the insured person' includes the amount recovered on behalf of the Plan.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that when an insured person recovers costs, those costs must first be deducted from the total legal costs payable to their lawyer before calculating the Plan's proportionate share of the net costs.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's reliance on expert psychiatric evidence indicating that the appellant posed a significant risk of violence to hospital staff if he remained in a medium secure facility without a medication change.

The court found it was reasonable for the Board to rely on evidence regarding enhanced security and potential privileges at Waypoint.

The appeal was dismissed.