F. I. v. Veltman, 2012 ONSC 3940

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: 12-34441
DATE: 2012-07-03

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board,

pursuant to the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.2, Schedule A as amended

and pursuant to the Mental Health Act , R.S.O. 1990 c.M.7 as amended

AND IN THE MATTER OF F. I., a resident of Hamilton, Ontario

B E T W E E N:

F. I.

Appellant

Appellant

• and -

Dr. Albina Veltman

Janice Blackburn, Counsel for the Respondent

Respondent

HEARD: June 29, 2012

Reasons for Judgment

Parayeski, J.

1F. I. appeals the decision of the Consent and Capacity Board released on April 23 rd , 2012. Those reasons for decision addressed a ruling made by that Board on April 17 th , 2012. That ruling confirmed a Community Treatment Order in respect of F. I.

2Although the appellant’s materials referred to errors of fact and law as the basis of his appeal, the same were not specified in any way. At the opening of argument, I requested F. I. to speak in specific terms about the factual and legal points concerning which, he says, the Board erred. He did not do so. Rather, his argument raised complaints about: 1) the dosage of his medication; 2) the hygiene of the people who deliver his medication to his home; and 3) his dissatisfaction with the person at the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee who serves as his substitute decision maker.

3Beyond that, he spoke in very general terms about his rights having been violated. It is apparent that he does not believe that he requires medication for his diagnosed mental issues. F. I.’s complaint about when Dr. Veltman examined him relative to entering into the Community Treatment Plan , was based upon his mistaken interpretation of the relevant portion of the Mental Health Act , and was fully explained. The complaints referred to above do not form the basis of an appeal to this court. They are matters that are to be taken up elsewhere. The legislation which creates the right of appeal under which F. I. is acting does not give this Court jurisdiction to address those issues.

4There is no reason whatsoever to question the reasonableness of the Board’s decision. Its reasons show meticulous compliance with the statutory requirements to be considered when reviewing a Community Treatment Order. A transcript of the hearing before the board makes it clear that it was conducted with sensitivity and respect.

5The appeal is dismissed and the Board’s decision is fully confirmed.

6The respondent did not request costs against F. I., and so none are ordered.

The Honourable Mr. Justice Parayeski