S.S. v. Kantor

S.S. v. Kantor

The appellate court held that s.33.1(4)'s 72-hour requirement applies to the issuing physician's examination and signature only; the Consent and Capacity Board's interpretation was correct and reasonable, so the appeal judge erred in setting aside the CTO.

Citation
2017 ONCA 828
Parties
Applicant (respondent): S.S.; Respondent (appellant): Dr. David Kantor; Intervener: Ontario’s Specialty Mental Health Hospitals
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Superior Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; the Consent and Capacity Board's decision upheld and the CTO validated; fresh evidence application dismissed; costs: each party to bear its own costs.
Legal Topics
Community Treatment Order, Capacity, Statutory Interpretation, Standard of Review, Consent, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Mental Health Law Administrative Law Health Law Civil Procedure Community Treatment Order Capacity Statutory Interpretation Standard of Review +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.S.

Applicant (respondent)

Dr. David Kantor

Respondent (appellant)

Ontario’s Specialty Mental Health Hospitals

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Superior Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 72-hour signing requirement in s.33.1(4) of the MHA requires all participants in a Community Treatment Plan to sign within 72 hours of the physician's examination
  2. 2 What standard of review applies to the Consent and Capacity Board's interpretation of the MHA and how it applies to this case
  3. 3 Whether the Board's findings on incapacity and other s.33.1(4) criteria were unreasonable or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court held that s.33.1(4)'s 72-hour requirement applies to the issuing physician's examination and signature only; the Consent and Capacity Board's interpretation was correct and reasonable, so the appeal judge erred in setting aside the CTO.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; the Consent and Capacity Board's decision upheld and the CTO validated; fresh evidence application dismissed; costs: each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal
  • Dismiss the fresh evidence application