J.A. v. Benassi

J.A. v. Benassi Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-06-27 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 474 Docket numbers COA-25-CV-0263 Judges Roberts, Lois B.; Miller, Bradley; Zarnett, Benjamin Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: J.A. v. Benassi, 2025 ONCA 474 DATE: 20250627 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-0263 Roberts, Miller and Zarnett JJ.A. BETWEEN J.A. Appellant (Appellant) and Dr. Paul Benassi Respondent (Respondent) Ikenna Aniekwe and Ifeyinwa Okoye, for the appellant Sarah Rosales Zelaya and Holly Pellatt, for the respondent Heard and released orally: June 23, 2025 On appeal from the order of Justice Lisa Brownstone of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 30, 2025. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant was found by the Consent and Capacity Board to be incapable to consent to treatment with respect to antipsychotic medication. His appeal of the Board’s decision was dismissed by Justice Brownstone of the Superior Court. He appeals Justice Brownstone’s decision. We see no reversible error in Justice Brownstone’s decision. [2] First, Justice Brownstone made no error in the exercise of her discretion to dismiss the appellant’s adjournment request. In coming to this conclusion, it is unnecessary for us to consider the respondent’s fresh evidence. Justice Brownstone properly took into account the appellant’s delay in seeking counsel, the importance of the matter proceeding in a timely way, and the appointment of amicus who, as she noted, “provided comprehensive and helpful written argument” and would “cogently and squarely [present]” the appellant’s arguments to the court. The appellant did not suffer any procedural unfairness. [3] Second, we see no error in Justice Brownstone’s articulation and application of the relevant principles in her review of the Board’s findings. In particular, we agree with her conclusion at para. 44 of her reasons: In the case of [the appellant], there was ample evidence before the Board that [he] was in almost total denial of his condition. [The appellant] not only rejected the opinion or label of the respondent, which he was entitled to do, he denied having the reported manifestations. The Board properly focused on whether [the appellant] was able to appreciate the possibility that his conduct was the manifestation of his condition rather than on whether [the appellant] accepted the diagnosis. [4] Finally, we are not persuaded that Justice Brownstone erred in her rejection of the appellant’s argument that his alleged failure to appreciate the consequences of the proposed treatment with antipsychotic medication stemmed from the respondent’s failure to provide relevant information to address the appellant’s concerns about side effects. It was open to her to conclude that the evidence revealed, first, that the respondent attempted but was unable to engage the appellant in a discussion about how side effects could be managed because the appellant did not want to discuss the possibility of medications and second, that the appellant was provided with written information. [5] We see no basis to intervene. The appeal is therefore dismissed. “L.B. Roberts J.A.” “B.W. Miller J.A.” “B. Zarnett J.A.”