T. Nemetz

The appellant, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding his treating psychiatrist's finding that he was incapable of making treatment decisions regarding anti-psychotic medication.

The appellant argued the physician applied the wrong legal test, lacked corroborating evidence under the Evidence Act, and that the record did not support a finding of incapacity.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly concluded the physician applied the proper test, the evidence was sufficiently corroborated by other doctors and the appellant's own testimony, and the record supported the finding that the appellant's denial of any mental condition rendered him incapable of appreciating the consequences of treatment.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding her attending physician's finding that she was incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic and mood stabilizing medication.

The appellant argued that a breakdown in the therapeutic relationship, rather than mental illness, caused her failure to appreciate the consequences of treatment.

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding error in the Board's conclusion regarding anti-psychotic medication, as there was evidence she suffered from bipolar disorder and could not apply treatment information to herself.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding mood stabilizing medication, finding no evidentiary basis for the Board's conclusion on that specific class of medication.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support, interim spousal support, and an advance of funds to retain a forensic accountant and cover legal fees.

The dispute concerned the respondent’s true income from a financial planning business operated through a corporation, with allegations of co‑mingled personal and corporate finances and inadequate disclosure.

Applying Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules and authorities governing interim disbursements, the court held that expert assistance was necessary to assess the respondent’s income and level the playing field.

The respondent was ordered to contribute $10,000 toward the cost of a forensic accounting report and to pay interim child support based on an imputed income of $60,000.

No interim spousal support or advance for legal fees was ordered.