Thomas Whillier

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of consenting to antipsychotic and mood stabilizer treatment.

The board had granted an adjournment to allow the appellant to obtain counsel, but when the hearing resumed, the appellant appeared without counsel.

The majority held that the board did not breach procedural fairness because the appellant did not refuse legal representation but rather indicated he was prepared to represent himself.

The dissent argued the board failed to follow its own guidelines requiring a mini-inquiry to determine whether the appellant was making an informed decision to proceed without counsel, and that the board should have intervened when the appellant's condition deteriorated during the hearing.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that directed his detention at a mental health facility, revoking his prior conditional discharge.

The appellant had been returned to the facility after being charged with criminal harassment, which was resolved by a peace bond.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, given his diagnosis, lack of insight, and recent negative interactions.

The Court also upheld the detention order, noting the appellant's lack of stable housing and employment prospects, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, diagnosed with schizophrenia, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his treating psychiatrist's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

The appellant argued that his auditory hallucinations and paranoia were spiritual experiences, not manifestations of a mental disorder, and that medication was contrary to his religious beliefs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant was unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision regarding treatment was reasonable and supported by clear, cogent, and compelling evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medications and mood stabilizers.

The appellant argued there was insufficient evidence to uphold the finding and that his procedural fairness rights were infringed when he represented himself at the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's own testimony corroborated the treating physician's evidence that he did not believe he had a mental illness, rendering him incapable of consenting to treatment.

The Court also found that the Board properly followed its policy guidelines for unrepresented litigants and safeguarded the appellant's procedural fairness rights.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which confirmed his treating psychiatrist's opinion that he was incapable of consenting to or refusing antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board misconstrued the evidence.

The Ontario Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board properly applied the two-part capacity test under the Health Care Consent Act and reasonably distinguished the facts from Supreme Court of Canada precedent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving defendants brought a Rule 22 motion seeking determination of whether Ontario or Alberta law governed the plaintiff’s contractual and tort claims arising from a fire allegedly caused by a defective fryer and oven system supplied to an Alberta poultry processing plant.

The parties agreed that if Alberta law governed the tort claims, the claims would be statute‑barred under Alberta’s ultimate limitation period.

Applying the lex loci delicti rule from Tolofson v. Jensen, the court held that Alberta law governed the tort claims because the damage occurred in Alberta, and therefore those claims were dismissed as statute‑barred.

However, applying the “closest and most real connection” test for contractual choice of law, the court found the contract was most closely connected to Ontario, where the system was designed and supplied.

Ontario law therefore governed the contractual claims.

A food processing company sued a manufacturer of aseptic liner bags after over 1,200 containers of tomato sauce leaked and collapsed during warehouse storage, alleging defects in the bags’ side seams.

The defendant argued the failure resulted from the plaintiff’s use of oversized corrugated boxes, inadequate structural support, and multi-tier stacking during long-term storage.

Expert evidence conflicted on whether seam defects or packaging design and storage conditions caused the failures.

The court held the plaintiff had not proven on a balance of probabilities that the bags were defective and instead found the more likely explanation was the plaintiff’s choice of incompatible boxes and stacking methods.

The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.

The defendant’s counterclaim for unpaid invoices was stayed due to the plaintiff’s Notice of Intention to make a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the set down date for a complex product liability action and to place the proceeding and a related action into case management.

The defendants opposed the extension, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to comply with multiple court-ordered timetables and that the delay warranted dismissal due to prejudice, including the loss of documents and witnesses.

The court held that while the plaintiff’s prosecution of the action had been slow, its explanations for delay were plausible and it had taken ongoing steps to advance the litigation.

The court found that the evidence of prejudice was weak and largely speculative, and that the plaintiff had established a prima facie absence of actual prejudice to the defendants.

The set down date was extended, but the request to place the matter into case management was refused.