Peter F. Haber

The appellant appealed an order regarding his capacity with respect to treatment, arguing that the Consent and Capacity Board member misunderstood the law and that his case should be heard de novo by a three-person panel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board member properly understood the jurisprudence despite an unfortunate use of terminology, and that the assignment of a single member was reasonable.

The court also declined to award costs to the appellant for the lower court proceedings.

The matter was referred back to the Board.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order that struck her constructive trust claims on the basis of res judicata stemming from a consent order in Ireland.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the scope of the Irish consent order and the respondent's domicile must be resolved at trial.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the respondent's argument that Ontario was forum non conveniens, noting that Ontario was the acknowledged appropriate forum for the appellant's support claims.