The Court of Appeal set aside an order for treatment forthwith pursuant to s. 672.58 of the Criminal Code for the purposes of making a detained accused fit for trial. The Court held the order to be improper on the basis that the hospitals did not have the necessary facilities available and did not provide consent to the order pursuant to s. 672.62 of the Code. The consent requirement in the Code did not violate s. 7 of the Charter despite the fact that concerns regarding the patient’s liberty and security of the person were triggered when such an order was made. The Court held that even if an accused’s rights are deprived, the consent requirement ensures that the deprivation occurs in a manner that accords with the principles of fundamental justice.

24. July 2012 0
Administrative law – Mental health facility – Treatment plans –  Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Life, liberty or security of the person – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Judicial review –  Compliance with legislation –  Procedural requirements and fairness Centre for Addiction and Mental Health v. Ontario, ...

A man (“Conway”) who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of sexual assault with a weapon was unsuccessful in his attempt to have the Ontario Review Board grant him an absolute discharge as a s.24(1) Charter remedy

27. July 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Mental health facility – Treatment plans – Review Board authority –  Remedies – Charter relief – Availability – Boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies – Prisons – Inmates not criminally responsible for their crimes – Public safety – Statutory provisions – ...

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. ...