Purchase This Domain

Health — Mental health law — Capacity to consent to treatment — Mootness — Appeal from finding of incapacity to consent to antipsychotic treatment dismissed as moot — Whether the court should decide moot issues of capacity — Capacity to consent is time and treatment specific — Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, s. 4(2), s. 15 — Kozoubenko v. Gosk, 2023 ONCA 802 — Presumption of capacity applies unless new incapacity is establishedSocial welfare — Community treatment orders — Mootness — Whether the court should exercise discretion to hear a moot appeal — Community treatment orders raise significant issues of statutory interpretation — Importance of resolving inconsistent Board jurisprudence on s. 15(1.1) of the Mental Health Act — Community treatment orders are time-limited and elusive of review — Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342 — Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, s. 33.1Statutory interpretation — Mental Health Act — Community treatment orders — Interpretation of “Box B” criteria under s. 15(1.1) — Whether clinical improvement must occur during a prior hospitalization to justify a community treatment order — Plain language of s. 15(1.1) requires prior successful treatment — Purpose of community treatment orders to address “revolving door” problem — Thompson v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2016 ONCA 676 — Correctness standard of review applied

International law — Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments — Belgian judgment obtained by respondent against appellant for unpaid invoices — Whether Belgian court had jurisdiction, judgment was final, and for a definite sum of money — Should the Belgian judgment be recognized and enforced in Ontario? — Test for recognition of foreign judgments satisfied — No grounds established to refuse recognition, including natural justice exceptionCivil procedure — Fresh evidence on appeal — Appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence regarding service of Writ of Summons and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel — Whether fresh evidence should be admitted — Test from R. v. Palmer applied — Evidence could have been presented to application judge — Fresh evidence not admittedCivil procedure — Ineffective assistance of counsel — Allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel in civil case — Whether ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes a valid ground of appeal — Ineffective assistance not a basis for de novo hearing absent exceptional circumstances — Public interest exception inapplicable — Sabaratnam v. Yohanathan and OZ Merchandising Inc. v. Canadian Professional Soccer League Inc. applied

Criminal procedure — Appeals — Sufficiency of reasons — Credibility findings — Defence theory of fabrication — Appellant convicted of sexual assault and choking to render the complainant incapable of resistance — Did the trial judge provide sufficient reasons for the convictions, particularly in addressing credibility findings and the defence theory of fabrication? — Reasons, when read contextually, adequately explained the basis for the convictionsEvidence — Credibility — Application of R. v. W.(D). — Credibility contest — Trial judge rejected defence witness’s evidence as inconsistent and unreliable — Complainant’s evidence accepted as consistent and credible — Did the trial judge err in applying the principles from R. v. W.(D)., including improperly staging a credibility contest? — Trial judge properly applied W.(D). and made distinct credibility findings