Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-00688733-0000 DATE: 20230601 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

IN THE MATTER OF an application pursuant to section 32(1) of the Health Care Consent Act, S.O. 1996, c.2, Sch A, AND IN THE MATTER OF NODEBE AGBAPU

RE: Nodebe Agbapu,

AND:

Dr. Tariq Munshi,

BEFORE: Regional Senior Justice Firestone

COUNSEL: Nodebe Agbapu, Self-Represented Jennifer Arduini, for the Respondent

HEARD: In Writing

Endorsement

[1] This matter arises from an appeal by Nodebe Agbapu (the “Appellant”) of the decision of the Consent and Capacity Board (“CCB”) dated September 29, 2022, confirming a finding of incapacity with respect to treatment with anti-psychotic medication. The Appellant has appealed that decision. Pursuant to section 18(3) of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2 Schedule A (“HCCA”), Dr. Tariq Munshi (the “Respondent”) is not permitted to treat the Appellant with the proposed treatment pending the disposition of the Appeal.

[2] In my endorsement dated April 3, 2023, I directed that the Respondent’s request to have amicus curiae appointed to assist the court was to be made by a motion in writing before me in accordance with the provisions of Rule 37.12.1(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”). Rule 37.12.1(4)(c) sets-out the process to have an opposed motion heard in writing.

[3] In accordance with my direction on May 11, 2023, the Respondent’s motion record, factum and book of authorities was served on the Appellant in accordance with the procedure set forth in Rule 37.12.1(4). No responding materials have been delivered and no request for an oral hearing has been made within the timeframe provided in Rule 37.12.1(5).

[4] I have reviewed and considered the evidentiary record before me.

[5] The Appellant initiated the within appeal on September 30, 2022, after the CCB upheld a finding that he is incapable with respect to consenting to, or refusing, treatment with anti-psychotic medication. Given the significant deterioration in the Appellant’s mental health to date and the serious risk of further deterioration, the Respondent intends to bring a motion pursuant to s. 19 of the HCCA to initiate treatment with anti-psychotic medication pending the disposition of the appeal.

[6] To date, the Appellant, who is self-represented, has not taken any steps to perfect the appeal or move this matter forward.

[7] In accordance with Rule 13.2 of the Rules and the inherent jurisdiction of the Superior Court I am satisfied that the appointment of amicus curiae as a friend of the court is appropriate, necessary and in the interest of justice. The amicus curiae can provide the necessary assistance so that all remaining steps as they relate to this appeal and the intended motion can be completed. The requested order is necessary to ensure that the integrity of the judicial process is maintained: Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association, 2013 SCC 43, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 3.

[8] As requested, I appoint Jennifer Danch as amicus curiae. Order to issue in accordance with the original order signed by me today.

Firestone RSJ Date: June 1, 2023