Application by public interest advocacy groups for leave to intervene as amicus curiae in an appeal from decision dismissing involuntarily detained patient’s habeas corpus application

22. July 2014 0
Administrative law – Hearings – Parties – Judicial review – Application for intervenor status – Adult in need of protection – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Remedies – Habeas corpus P.S. v. Ontario, [2014] O.J. No. 2853, 2014 ONCA 160, Ontario Court of Appeal, February 28, 2014, J.I. Laskin J.A. The appellant was involuntarily detained at ...

The Applicant, Mental Inpatient Services, applied successfully for an order to involuntarily detain the respondent, P.D., and for committal for treatment at a psychiatric rehabilitation facility for a period not exceeding one year. The respondent was diagnosed to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia including exhibiting psychotic and delusional behaviors.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Mental Health Inpatient Services – Judicial review – Mental health – Substitute decision maker – Adult in need of protection Regina Qu’Appelle Health Region (Mental Health Inpatient Services, Director) v. P.D., [2012] S.J. No. 235, 2012 SKQB 136, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, April 2, 2012, T.C. ...

The Consent and Capacity Board acting pursuant to the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, in conducting a hearing to determine whether a substitute decision maker is acting in the best interests of the patient, does not have an obligation to call witnesses which could have been called by the substitute decision maker represented by counsel at the hearing. Short reasons of the Board dealing with the prior capable wish of the patient will be considered sufficient by the Court on an appeal where the Court is not prevented from a meaningful review of the correctness of the Board’s decision. An oversight on the part of the Board in failing to make a decision as to incapacity of the patient where the incapacity was largely conceded by the substitute decision maker, is unlikely to succeed as a ground of appeal of the Board’s decision that the substitute decision maker was not acting in the best interests of the patient.

26. May 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Failure to provide reasons – Adult in need of protection – Capacity – Best interest of incompetent adult – Substitute decision maker – Treatment plans – Compliance with legislation – Hearings – Witnesses – failure to call Grover v. Grover, [2009] O.J. ...

A psychiatric patient (“SMT”) was unsuccessful in having the Court overturn a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board where the Court found that it was not unreasonable for the Board to find that SMT was incapable with respect to treatment based on the evidence before it

27. May 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Mental health – Substitute decision maker – Adult in need of protection – Capacity – Compliance with legislation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Charter of Rights and Freedoms S.M.T. v. Abouelnasr, [2008] O.J. No. 1298, Ontario Superior ...

A man who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity for a first-degree murder he committed in his teens (“Leyshon-Hughes”) applied to quash decisions of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) adjourning his annual Review Board hearing and mandating provision of further medical evidence as to his risk of reoffending, and for an order requiring the ORB to establish a new Review Board panel to proceed forthwith with his annual Review Board hearing

24. July 2007 0
Administrative law – Criminal charges – Inmates Not Criminally Responsible for their crimes – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Adult in need of protection – Danger to public – Mental health – Substitute decision maker – Judicial review – Application for intervenor status – Adjournment of hearing – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural ...

The Court allowed an appeal by an accused from a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering that he continue to be detained at a maximum security psychiatric institution. The Court held that the Board had erred in law in failing to recognize its inquisitorial role and to consider making further inquiries.

26. December 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Mental health – Detention – Adult in need of protection – Investigations – Evidence – Criminal Code – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter R. v. LePage, [2006] O.J. No. 4486, Ontario Court of Appeal, November 9, 2006, M.J. Moldaver, ...

The Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Marsden, applied for judicial review of the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board (the “Board”) decision. The Board held that Dr. Taylor, the Respondent, was allowed to administer anti-hypertension medication generally to the Applicants’ incapacitated mother. The Court held that the proper standard of review of the Board’s decision was simple reasonableness. It allowed the Applicants’ appeal in part.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Adult in need of protection – Mental health – Substitute decision maker – Consent to treatment – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Parties – Death of a party – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Marsden v. Taylor, [2006] O.J. ...

The Appellant successfully appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding that he was not capable of making decisions concerning admission to a care facility within the meaning of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, (the “HCCA”). The test is not whether the Appellant failed to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of the decision to return home but whether or not he was unable to do so. There was no analysis or finding by the Board as to whether the Appellant had the cognitive ability to understand the relevant information as well as to appreciate the consequence of making (or not making) the decision to enter the care facility. Therefore there was no basis upon which the Board could reasonably find that the presumption of the Appellant’s capacity had been displaced and, as such, the Board’s decision ought to be set aside. The Appellant was further awarded costs in the amount of $24,914. Although the proceedings were not adversarial in the usual sense and the evaluators were acting in good faith and in what they believed were the Appellant’s best interests, the hospital and health practitioners had a great deal of power in the assessment process and the appeal was the Appellant’s only remedy to challenge the incapacity finding. Therefore, there was no reason the Appellant should not have his costs.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Adult in need of protection – Capacity – Substitute decision maker – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Costs Saunders v. Bridgeport Hospital, [2005] O.J. No. 5531, Ontario Court of Justice, December 14, 2005, N.J. Spies J. ...

The Court dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which had confirmed a finding of incapacity in respect of specified psychiatric treatment of the Applicant. The Court found the Board’s decision was entirely reasonable on the facts before it

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Capacity – Best interest of incompetent adult – Adult in need of protection – Mental health – Consent to treatment – Substitute decision maker – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Thompson v. Grant, [2005] O.J. No. 36, Ontario Superior Court ...

On appeal by two daughters of a decision of the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board directing them to consent to withholding medical treatment for their mother, the Court found that the Board had erred in law in its determination as to whether the daughters had complied with the principles for substitute decision making by withholding their consent. The Board also erred in law by ignoring the legislative purpose of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996. Finally, the Board assumed, in the absence of evidence, that the mother’s death would be prompt if there were no further recourse to intensive care.

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Capacity – Adult in need of protection – Withholding medical treatment – Substitute decision maker – Power of attorney – Scope of authority – Compliance with legislation – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness Scardoni v. Hawryluck, [2004] O.J. No. ...