Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

CITATION: Saini v. Labelle, 2017 ONSC 6632

COURT FILE NO.: 17-71619

DATE: 2017/11/06

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board, pursuant to the Mental Health Act R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.7 as amended

AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board Pursuant to the Health Care Consent Act S.O. 1996, chapter 2, schedule A, As amended

AND IN THE MATTER OF ADITYA SAINI A patient at the ROYAL OTTAWA MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE OTTAWA, ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

ADITYA SAINI, Appellant

AND

DR. ALAIN LABELLE, Respondent

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Stanley Kershman

COUNSEL: M. Davies, for the Appellant M-P. Pilon, for the Respondent

HEARD at Ottawa: August 17, 2017

ENDORSEMENT

Introduction

[1] The Appellant, Mr. Aditya Saini, an inpatient at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“Royal”) schizophrenia unit appeals the decision of the Consent and Capacity Board (“CCB”) dated January 26, 2017, in which the CCB found Mr. Saini incapable with respect to treatment of anti-psychotic medication under the Health Care Consent Act (“HCCA”) and with respect to personal property under the Substitute Decisions Act (“SDA”).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Psychiatric History

[2] Mr. Saini is a 31-year-old man who was diagnosed with schizophrenia at age 17. He has been followed and treated by Dr. Ripley at the Royal since 2003. His last visit with Dr. Ripley was in July 2016.

[3] Mr. Saini was admitted to the Ottawa Hospital on August 29, 2016, immediately after an incident involving his mother. Mr. Saini had become agitated and had blocked the doorway of his apartment so that his mother could not leave. In order to prevent her departure, Mr. Saini placed his hands around his mother’s neck and began to squeeze in an attempt to scare her. In the hopes of escaping, she proceeded to lay down and pretend to pass out. After removing herself from the situation, Mr. Saini’s mother called a family member who then called the police. Prior to this incident, Mr. Saini had previously been admitted to the Ottawa Hospital in 2003 and 2004 following separate run-ins with the police.

[4] Mr. Saini was re-admitted to the Ottawa Hospital on September 7, 2016. At that time, Mr. Saini denied having physically assaulted his mother or experiencing any paranoia at the time of the incident. He instead reported that his mother was the source of all his problems and that this was causing him significant stress. On September 20, 2016, Mr. Saini was transferred to the Royal, where he was placed on the schizophrenia unit under the care of Dr. Alain Labelle.

[5] Dr. Labelle reported that Mr. Saini was difficult to manage as a patient of the unit. It was reported that he was guarded, intrusive, argumentative, and refused to take medication at times. He incessantly repeated requests at the nursing station to have his medications changed, to have his blood pressure taken, to talk to someone, or to have someone sit with him overnight. He would also make requests to discuss his refusal to apply to the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) and at times indicated that he wished to apply to CCB and then cancel his application. Mr. Saini often made impulsive statements that he would stop medication and refuse to cooperate with ward procedures if he did not get responses to his demands.

[6] On January 12, 2017, Dr. Labelle reported that it was impossible to walk on the floor without being accosted by Mr. Saini, who had been expressing delusional thoughts related to his mother wanting to take his money, staff being against him, and other co-patients laughing at him. When his mother visited him, Mr. Saini would display intimidating behaviour by yelling at her and touching her assertively to interrupt her. In December 2016, Mr. Saini’s father revealed in an interview that he has avoided confrontation with Mr. Saini for several years as he feels threatened by him.

[7] While on the unit, Mr. Saini has demonstrated some disorganization and has endorsed persecutory delusions, feeling the need to ask staff why they are moving their tongues in a certain way. These paranoid symptoms seem to have recently been exacerbated by his application to the CCB.

Financial Incapacity

[8] Mr. Saini was declared financially incapable by the CCB in its decision dated January 26, 2017.

[9] Dr. Labelle reported that Mr. Saini has a limited understanding of his personal finances. Mr. Saini reported having attained a number of different types of secondary and post-secondary education, including a bookkeeping certificate, a business accounting diploma at Algonquin College, and some training in India. Mr. Saini does not have gainful employment.

[10] Mr. Saini expressed that his main goal after treatment would be to move out on his own and that he would like to be able to pay for this independently by obtaining gainful employment. Until he is able to do so, Mr. Saini has been willing to apply for temporary assistance from Ontario Works, with some reluctance.

[11] Mr. Saini has also made several attempts to obtain support from ODSP, but has canceled all of his previous applications. He has expressed the delusion that others know about his application and would not like him if he were to receive ODSP support.

[12] On January 13, 2017, Dr. Labelle reported that Mr. Saini had no understanding of his need for financial support through ODSP. Mr. Saini seemed unable to understand that without this financial support, he would not have sufficient means to pay for accommodation, clothing, food, etc. In addition to his fears that others were aware of his applications, Mr. Saini also communicated that he believed that this application would constitute an acknowledgement of his psychiatric condition, something he denied. Throughout his admission, Mr. Saini has used his application to ODSP as a bargaining tool to discuss and negotiate his level of privileges and passes. He makes various requests to review passes, discuss his applications, and has stated that if he does not get responses to his demands he will stop his medication or will not cooperate with ward procedures.

Issues on the Appeal

[13] There are two issues on this appeal:

1. whether the CCB erred in upholding the finding of Mr. Saini’s incapacity with respect to treatment medication; and

2. whether the CCB erred in upholding the finding of Mr. Saini’s incapacity with regard to personal property.

What is the Standard of Review?

Appellant’s Position

[14] The Appellant argues that the standard of review on questions of law is one of correctness: Starson v. Swayze, 2003 SCC 32, paragraphs 5, 83-92 and 110. The Appellant also argues that the standard of review on questions of mixed fact and law such as the CCB’s determination of capacity is one of reasonableness and that an unreasonable decision is one that “is not supported by any reasons that can stand up to a somewhat probing examination” (Starson at paragraph 88).

[15] The Appellant argues that on this appeal the Court may:

a. exercise all the powers of the CCB;

b. substitute its opinion for that of a health practitioner, an evaluator, a substitute decision maker or the CCB; or,

c. refer the matter back to the CCB with directions, for rehearing in whole or in part.

Respondent’s Position

[16] The Respondent agrees that the standard of review for administrative tribunals is correctness on a question of law and reasonableness on a mixed question of fact and law.

[17] The Respondent argues that where a question of mixed fact and law is plead, the CCB’s decision must be evaluated on a reasonable standard.

[18] In addition to the test set out in the Starson case, the Appellant relies on the case of Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, in which the Supreme Court of Canada reassessed the standard of review of decisions of administrative tribunals and defined the revised reasonableness standard as set out in paragraphs 46 to 49 of the case.

[19] The Respondent argues that even if the reasons, in fact, do not seem wholly adequate to support the decision, the Court must supplement them before it seeks to subvert them.

[20] Accordingly, it argues that the Court would only interfere with the CCB’s decision regarding Mr. Saini’s capacity and finds that the CCB’s conclusion was unreasonable.

Analysis

[21] The Court agrees that the standard of review on a question of law is one of correctness as set out in paragraphs 5, 83-92 and 110 of Starson.

[22] The Court also agrees that the standard of review on a question of mixed fact and law is one of reasonableness as set out in paragraph 88 of the case of Starson.

[23] In Dunsmuir at para. 47, which was decided five years after the Starson case, the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the reasonableness standard and said:

Reasonableness is a deferential standard animated by the principle that underlies the development of the two previous standards of reasonableness: certain questions that come before administrative tribunals do not lend themselves to one specific, particular result. Instead, they may give rise to a number of possible, reasonable conclusions. Tribunals have a margin of appreciation within the range of acceptable and rational solutions. A court conducting a review for reasonableness inquiries into the qualities that make a decision reasonable, referring both to the process of articulating the reasons and to outcomes. In judicial review, reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.

[24] The Court follows the reasoning set out in Dunsmuir at paras. 48 to 49 as to the reasonableness standard:

The move towards a single reasonableness standard does not pave the way for a more intrusive review by courts and does not represent a return to pre-Southam formalism. In this respect, the concept of deference, so central to judicial review in administrative law, has perhaps been insufficiently explored in the case law. What does deference mean in this context? Deference is both an attitude of the court and a requirement of the law of judicial review. It does not mean that courts are subservient to the determinations of decision makers, or that courts must show blind reverence to their interpretations, or that they may be content to pay lip service to the concept of reasonableness review while in fact imposing their own view. Rather, deference imports respect for the decision-making process of adjudicative bodies with regard to both the facts and the law. The notion of deference “is rooted in part in a respect for governmental decisions to create administrative bodies with delegated powers” (Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, 1993 CanLII 164 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554, at p. 596, per L’Heureux-Dubé J., dissenting). We agree with David Dyzenhaus where he states that the concept of “deference as respect” requires of the courts “not submission but a respectful attention to the reasons offered or which could be offered in support of a decision”: “The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy”, in M. Taggart, ed., The Province of Administrative Law (1997), 279, at p. 286 (quoted with approval in Baker, at para. 65, per L’Heureux-Dubé J.; Ryan, at para. 49).

Deference in the context of the reasonableness standard therefore implies that courts will give due consideration to the determinations of decision makers. As Mullan explains, a policy of deference “recognizes the reality that, in many instances, those working day to day in the implementation of frequently complex administrative schemes have or will develop a considerable degree of expertise or field sensitivity to the imperatives and nuances of the legislative regime”: D. J. Mullan, “Establishing the Standard of Review: The Struggle for Complexity?” (2004), 17 C.J.A.L.P. 59, at p. 93. In short, deference requires respect for the legislative choices to leave some matters in the hands of administrative decision makers, for the processes and determinations that draw on particular expertise and experiences, and for the different roles of the courts and administrative bodies within the Canadian constitutional system.

[25] The Court confirms that as long as the questions before the CCB in this case lend themselves to a number of possible reasonable conclusions and provided that the conclusions arrived at by the CCB are reasonable, the Court will not interfere with those decisions.

Issue #1: Did the CCB Err in Upholding the Findings of Mr. Saini’s Incapacity with Respect to Treatment of Anti-Psychotic Medication?

Appellant’s Position

[26] The Appellant argues that the CCB’s conclusion with respect to treatment capacity cannot stand. Firstly, the Appellant argues that the CCB misapprehended or failed to consider the Appellant’s evidence. Secondly, the Appellant argues that the Board’s determination of incapacity was unreasonable.

[27] The Appellant argues that he testified clearly and eloquently as to the symptoms of his illness, describing the benefits and drawbacks of taking medication and also describing the likely outcome of failure to take the medication. He argues that his evidence demonstrates the ability to reasonably foresee the consequences of decisions in respect of his treatment.

[28] The Appellant argues that the CCB’s conclusion is that, “Consistently A.S. has denied the illness of schizophrenia or any mental illness for that matter.” The Appellant argues that this conclusion is directly contradicted by the Appellant’s testimony, indicating that the CCB either misapprehended his evidence or failed to consider it at all.

Respondent’s Position

[29] The Respondent argues that there is a two-part test set out in s. 4(1) of the HCCA, which provides:

4 (1) A person is capable with respect to a treatment, admission to a care facility or a personal assistance service if the person is able to understand the information that is relevant to making a decision about the treatment, admission or personal assistance service, as the case may be, and able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision.

[30] The Respondent argues that the onus is on the physician to prove incapacity on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities.

[31] The Respondent argues that he is relying on the second part of the test to successfully declare the patient incapable with respect to treatment.

[32] The Respondent argues that while the first part of the test may have been met by the Appellant, he has not met the second part of the test because:

1. Mr. Saini initially denied cheeking his medication and subsequently conceded that he did on at least one occasion cheek his medication due to the belief that Dr. Labelle and the staff had been giving him the wrong medication.

2. Mr. Saini admitted refusing to take his medication in order to compel nurses to speak to him and expressed the delusional belief that the staff was biased against him.

3. When Mr. Saini refused his medication, he then began to experience a return of positive symptoms of schizophrenia, including hallucinatory behaviour, paranoia and persecutory delusions leading to involvement with police.

4. Mr. Saini on cross-examination claimed that he had never experienced any hallucinations.

5. Dr. Labelle stated that without treatment, Mr. Saini would represent an increased risk to his family and others, which could lead to a repeat of the August 29, 2016, choking incident with his mother.

Analysis

[33] The Court finds that s. 4(1) of the HCCA involves a two-part test and that both parts of the test must be complied with.

[34] If the Court finds that the patient has failed one part of the test, that will lead to a declaration that the patient is incapable with respect to treatment. In the case of D’Almeida v. Barron, 2008 CanLII 37208 (ON SC), 169 A.C.W.S. (3d) 196, [2008] O.J. No. 2945 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) at para. 13, the Court said:

Both parties accept the Supreme Court’s decision in Starson v. Swayze as the definitive binding authority in this case, and that it sets out the test for determining incapacity. It is clear that both criteria in section 4(1), as elucidated by the Supreme Court, must be present in order to confirm capacity. Put another way, if either criterion has not been met, this is sufficient to support a finding of incapacity

[35] In the case of Isber v. Zebrowski, 2009 CanLII 58980, [2009] O.J. No. 4514 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) at para. 61, the Court said:

If the attending physician is able to prove that the patient does not meet either part of the definition under s. 4(1), the patient is incapable within the meaning of the HCCA. In other words, as both parts must be satisfied to confirm capacity, the fact that one is not satisfied is sufficient to support a finding of incapacity: see D’Almeida v. Barron, 2008 CanLII 37208 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 2945 (S.C.J.) at para. 13.

[36] The Court finds that the Applicant did testify clearly and eloquently and did describe the benefits and drawbacks of taking the medication and the outcome of his failure to take medication.

[37] At the same time, Dr. Labelle testified that Mr. Saini had expressed the belief that he did not suffer from schizophrenia and that he did not require any treatment in the form of anti-psychotic medication. (Transcript pages 18-20 & 26).

[38] The evidence before the CCB was that Mr. Saini had cheeked his medication in the past. While initially denying it, Mr. Saini subsequently confirmed that he had cheeked his medication on at least one occasion, believing that Dr. Labelle had given him the wrong medication. Mr. Saini also admitted to refusing to take his medication so that the nurses would speak to him and expressed the delusional belief that the staff was, in fact, biased against him (Transcript pages 104 & 105).

[39] Dr. Labelle was asked if Mr. Saini had any insight into his condition, to which Dr. Labelle replied that Mr. Saini did not. Dr. Labelle testified that Mr. Saini had frequent emotional outbursts, yelled and screamed at people, and made threats of violence.

[40] The evidence was that during cross-examination, Mr. Saini claimed that he never experienced any hallucinations. Dr. Labelle testified that most of the time Mr. Saini denies he has any problems (Transcript pages 45 & 119).

[41] Dr. Labelle also testified that if left untreated, Mr. Saini would become increasingly irritable and aggressive and would eventually return to his previous levels of preoccupation with his hallucinations (Transcript pages 25 & 26).

[42] Lastly, Dr. Labelle testified that without treatment, Mr. Saini would represent an increased risk to his family and others. Concerns were expressed that there could be a repeat of the August 29, 2016, incident where Mr. Saini choked his mother.

[43] In reaching its conclusion that Mr. Saini was unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequence of his treatments and thereby failed to meet the second element of the test, the CCB observed that Mr. Saini had:

consistently. . .denied the illness of Schizophrenia or any mental illness for that matter. . .This denial of the illness, in spite of a diagnosis from a number of psychiatrists and multiple hospitalizations was clear and cogent evidence that [Mr. Saini] was failing to realize the seriousness of his situation. (Page 20 of the Reasons for Decision)

[44] The Court finds that the CCB’s decision with respect to this issue was reasonable. The CCB’s records support the conclusion of incapacity with respect to the second part of the test under s. 4(1) of the HCCA.

[45] Because the Appellant is unable to accept that he has a mental illness/schizophrenia, the Court finds that he was unable to appreciate the anticipated benefits of the anti-psychotic medication.

[46] The Court finds that the CCB did not misapprehend or fail to consider the Appellant’s evidence.

[47] Therefore, the Court finds that the CCB’s decision is reasonable and supported by the evidence.

[48] For these reasons, this ground of appeal is rejected.

Issue #2: Did the CCB Err in Upholding the Finding of Mr. Saini’s Incapacity with Regard to Property?

Appellant’s Position

[49] The Appellant argues that the CCB erred in its analysis of the issue in that:

1. the CCB misapprehended the evidence; and

2. the CCB arrived at an unreasonable conclusion.

Misapprehension of the Evidence

[50] The Appellant argues that the CCB made the following findings of fact:

1. the Appellant did not acknowledge that family members were providing a high level of support, including money, food and housekeeping when he was living in his own apartment;

2. the Appellant did not have a source of income;

3. the Appellant had a credit card debt of $6,000; and

4. during the testimony, the Appellant was vague about charges to his credit card.

[51] The Appellant argues that there is no basis for these assertions because:

1. the Appellant acknowledged that his family provided both food and money;

2. the Appellant had a source of income, namely, Ontario Works;

3. the Appellant had no debt whatsoever; and

4. the Appellant was not vague about charges to his credit card because there was no evidence that he even had a credit card.

Unreasonable Conclusion

[52] The Appellant argues that he acknowledged that he was in receipt of Ontario Works and that he had applied for ODSP and understood that ODSP offered more money and more benefits than Ontario Works and that he appreciated that he would be able to live in a better place and would have more money under ODSP than under Ontario Works.

[53] He also testified that he was willing to stay in hospital voluntarily for several weeks and work with a social worker to arrange accommodation.

[54] Mr. Saini argues that he has no debts or assets.

[55] The Appellant argues that this evidence demonstrates that Mr. Saini had a full appreciation of his financial circumstances and had a full appreciation of the decisions he had to make and their consequences.

[56] The Appellant argues that in the face of his evidence and the social worker’s evidence, who supported his ability to appreciate the consequences of financial decisions, it is submitted that the CCB’s determination of incapacity was unreasonable and should be quashed.

Respondent’s Position

[57] The Respondent argues that the CCB in its decision noted that Mr. Saini had received formal education in financial matters and had earned a business accounting degree from Algonquin College. From that evidence, the CCB concluded that Mr. Saini possesses the ability to understand the information relevant to making a decision about the management of property (Reasons for Decision, page 21). However, Dr. Labelle testified that although Mr. Saini could perform basic calculations, his paranoid ideation and severe ambivalence prevented him from being capable of making decisions about the management of his property.

[58] In Dr. Labelle’s opinion, Mr. Saini was not capable “…not because he cannot count, but because he cannot emotionally make the decisions that are necessary for his financial support.” (Transcript pages 13, 15, 17 and 18).

[59] Dr. Labelle explained that on two occasions Mr. Saini had agreed to complete the required paperwork for ODSP and then changed his mind, cancelling the application due to the paranoid belief that others would find out and judge him. The evidence is that within 24 to 48 hours of completing his application, Mr. Saini would become:

[T]ormented by the thoughts of people out there that don’t quite know about him and they’re laughing about him and they would dislike him because he has applied for financial support.

So those – he would withdraw the application for financial support and without financial support he comes into a situation where he is dependent of his family…it led to him living with his mom for a week or two weeks before he came to hospital when he almost strangled his mother after a couple of weeks living with her.

Trancript, page 14.

[60] Mr. Saini’s social worker, Dr. Yvette Goodland, testified that applying for financial assistance elevated Mr. Saini’s stress levels to the point of where she would become apprehensive in meeting with him. Mr. Saini would become anxious and expressed a desire to cancel the ODSP application when she helped to complete it.

[61] At page 23 of its decision, the CCB stated that Mr. Saini’s severe ambivalence with regard to applying to ODSP stood out as a significant factor, highlighting his inability to understand the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his financial decisions.

Analysis

[62] The governing law on capacity to manage one’s own property is set out in the SDA under s. 2(1):

2. (1) A person who is eighteen years of age or more is presumed to be capable of entering into a contract.

[63] Section 6 of the SDA sets out the test for determining financial capacity and states that:

6. A person is incapable of managing property if the person is not able to understand information that is relevant to making a decision in the management of his or her property, or is not able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision.

[64] In the case of MM: File TO-06-0449 (Re), 2006 CanLII 5302, 2006 CarswellOnt 1051, the CCB laid out a number of factors to consider when determining a patient’s capacity with regard to personal property. The factors include the following:

1. Does the patient suffer from delusions or hallucinations, which will likely materially affect the patient’s understanding and management of finances?

2. Is the person’s memory sufficiently intact to allow the patient to keep track of financial matters and decisions?

3. Does the patient suffer specific thought process deficits that would arise to the conclusion that deficits and financial developments exist?

[65] The CCB noted that Mr. Saini had received formal education in financial matters, including a business accounting degree at Algonquin College, and it therefore concluded that Mr. Saini had the ability to understand information relevant to making a decision about the management of his property (Reasons for Decision, Page 21).

[66] With regards to his ability to appreciate reasonably foreseeable consequences of said decisions, the evidence is that while he could perform basic calculations, his paranoid ideation and severe ambivalence prevented him from managing his property.

[67] Dr. Labelle’s opinion was that Mr. Saini was incapable because he cannot emotionally make decisions that are necessary for his financial support.

[68] The evidence is that Mr. Saini had agreed to complete paperwork for ODSP, which would have provided him with a greater amount of income than Ontario Works, but that he changed his mind on at least two occasions.

[69] Furthermore, Mr. Saini’s behaviour when applying for financial assistance elevated his stress levels to the point where the social worker would be apprehensive in meeting with him.

[70] The CCB found at page 23 of the proceedings:

This is not simply a case of unrealistic planning…[t]his was a situation where (Mr. Saini) initially agreed to complete the necessary paperwork to apply for ODSP and then cancelled for reasons related to his illness. His stated goal was to leave the hospital once accommodation was in place, yet he was unable to make a decision necessary to achieve that goal. (Mr. Saini) was unable to appreciate the foreseeable consequence that he would remain in hospital unless he had made a decision to apply for ODSP. This inability was a result of paranoid delusional thinking and severe ambivalence related to his illness.

[71] The Court finds that the findings made by the CCB, who found that the patient suffered from delusions or hallucinations that would materially affect his understanding and management of his finances, particularly when refusing to apply for ODSP, is a finding that falls within the spectrum of possible reasonable conclusions as held by the Supreme Court in the Dunsmuir case at para. 47. The Court does not find that the conclusion made by the CCB was an unreasonable conclusion.

[72] The Court finds that the CCB did not misapprehend the evidence at the hearing, save and except with respect to the reference to a credit card. Furthermore, the Court finds that the CCB did not reach an unreasonable conclusion in this matter.

[73] As to the issue of the credit card debt, the Court acknowledges that there is nothing set out in the evidence or the reasons for decision relating to a credit card debt.

[74] The Court finds that there was a misapprehension of the evidence in relation to the credit card debt. At the same time, the Court finds that that there was no misapprehension of the evidence in relation to the rest of the findings made by the CCB, concerning Mr. Saini’s management of property.

[75] Therefore, the Court finds that the CCB did not misapprehend the evidence and did not reach an unreasonable conclusion.

Conclusion

[76] The Court finds that the conclusions reached by the CCB in relation to the issue of a) a finding of incapacity with respect to the treatment of anti-psychotic medication and b) a finding of incapacity with respect to personal property were reasonable. Therefore, the Court will not interfere with the decision reached by the CCB in relation to these issues.

Disposition

[77] The decision of the CCB dated February 3, 2017, that Mr. Saini is incapable with respect to his treatment in relation to anti-psychotic medication is confirmed.

[78] The decision of the CCB dated February 3, 2017, that Mr. Saini is incapable with respect to property is confirmed.

[79] No costs were sought by either party. As such, Mr. Saini’s appeal is dismissed without costs.

[80] Order accordingly.

Mr. Justice Stanley Kershman

Date: November 6, 2017

CITATION: Saini v. Labelle, 2017 ONSC 6632

COURT FILE NO.: 17-71619

DATE: 2017/11/06

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: ADITYA SAINI, Appellant AND DR. ALAIN LABELLE, Respondent

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Stanley Kershman

COUNSEL: M. Davies, for the Appellant

M-P. Pilon, for the Respondent

ENDORSEMENT

KERSHMAN J.

Released: November 6, 2017