Canada: Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (August 14-18)

Last Updated: August 24 2017
Article by John Polyzogopoulos

Good afternoon,

This might have been the quietest week at the Ontario Court of Appeal since we started this blog a few years ago. There was only one substantive decision, E.S v. Joannou, 2017 ONCA 655, an administrative law decision. The court determined in that case that the Consent and Capacity Board, which reviews the involuntary admission of patients to mental health facilities or administering of treatment, does not have the jurisdiction to declare any portions of its governing legislation, the Health Care Consent Act or the Mental Health Act, unconstitutional, nor does it have the power to grant a section 24 Charter remedy for breach of any Charter rights. While some administrative tribunals are "courts of competent jurisdiction" for the purposes of applying the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Charter, in this case, the legislature had specifically excluded constitutional jurisdiction in the Board's enabling statute. The patient's remedy for the breach of constitutional rights in such cases is by way of application to the Superior Court rather than to the Board.

Have a great weekend.

John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
jpolyzogopoulos@blaney.com
Tel: 416 593 2953
http://www.blaney.com/lawyers/john-polyzogopoulos

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

E.S v. Joannou, 2017 ONCA 655

Keywords: Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Mental Health Law, Jurisdiction, Consent and Capacity Board, Mootness, Substitute Decisions Act, Mental Health Act, Health Care Consent Act, Notice of Constitutional Question, Courts of Justice Act, s. 109, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7, Charter Remedies, s. 24(1), Constitution Act, 1982, s.52(1) (Supremacy of Constitution), R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22, R. v. Smith, 2004 SCC 14, Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342

For Criminal Decisions, click here.

Civil Decisions

E.S v. Joannou, 2017 ONCA 655

[Rouleau, Pepall and Roberts JJ.A.]

Counsel:

K Bryan, for the appellant
H Schwartz and P Ryan, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario
P-E Veel and D Glatt, for the respondent Dr. Jason Joannou
K R Spector, for the intervener ARCH Disability Law Centre

Keywords: Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Mental Health Law, Jurisdiction, Consent and Capacity Board, Mootness, Substitute Decisions Act, Mental Health Act, Health Care Consent Act, Notice of Constitutional Question, Courts of Justice Act, s. 109, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7, Charter Remedies, s. 24(1), Constitution Act, 1982, s.52(1) (Supremacy of Constitution), R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22, R. v. Smith, 2004 SCC 14, Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342

Facts:

The appellant was admitted to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health ('CAMH') out of concern for the deterioration of her physical health and mental state. The next day, a Form 3 certificate of involuntary admission, under which a patient is detained for up to two weeks, was issued by a CAMH psychiatrist on the ground that the appellant was refusing to eat due to paranoid thoughts about food.

Two days later, the appellant applied to the Board to review the finding of incapacity. On that same day the respondent physician, Dr. Joannou, assumed care of the appellant and proposed treatment with further anti-psychotic medication. The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as the appellant's substitute decision-maker, gave its consent to treatment, but when Dr. Joannou sought to administer the medication the appellant refused. Following the refusal, she was placed in four-point restraints and forcibly injected with paliperidone, a long-acting anti-psychotic medication. The following day, the appellant applied to the Board for a review of her involuntary status, and as part of that review claimed that the paliperidone injection was unlawful.

The appellant gave notice that she was raising Charter issues, including the question of the Board's Charter jurisdiction, and she served a notice of constitutional question pursuant to s. 109 of the Courts of Justice Act. The appellant asked the Board to consider: whether it had jurisdiction to determine that the injection was unlawful and a violation of her s. 7 Charter rights; and if it was, whether the Board had jurisdiction to grant a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

In response to the appellant's notice of constitutional question, the Board concluded that it did not have the power to decide questions of law, and, even if it did, the jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions had clearly been withdrawn. The appellant appealed the Board's decision to the Superior Court.

By the time her appeal was heard in the Superior Court, the appellant had been discharged. As a result, she changed her requested remedy. She asked the court to issue a declaration that the injection had violated her s. 7 Charter rights. She also sought rescission of the certificate of involuntary admission. The Superior court dismissed the request for a declaration on the basis that it was not sought before the Board nor mentioned in the notice of appeal. Further, the judge declined to rescind the certificate, finding that the issue was moot, as the certificate had already expired. The appeal judge ordered the appellant to pay partial indemnity costs to Dr. Joannou on the basis that it was fundamentally unfair to have sought a remedy personally against the physician for the first time on appeal.

Issues:

(1) Is the appeal moot, and, if so, should the court hear the appeal nonetheless?

(2) Does the Consent and Capacity Board have the jurisdiction to grant remedies under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

(3) Did the July 10, 2014 injection violate the appellant's s. 7 Charter rights?

Holding:

Appeal dismissed.

Reasoning:

(1) Yes, the appeal is moot, but the court should hear it nonetheless. The appeal is moot because the appellant has been discharged and therefore it would have no practical effect on the rights of the parties. The court held that it should hear the appeal nonetheless, as it presents special features which make it in "in the interests of justice" to decide the appeal (see R. v. Smith, 2004 SCC 14). The court's exercise of discretion is guided by assessing the extent to which the case engages any of the main rationales underlying the doctrine of mootness, namely (a) the need for an adversarial context; (b) the concern for judicial economy; and (c) sensitivity to the court's adjudicative role (Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342). Applying these rationales to the case at bar, the court held that (a) that the adversarial context that prevailed below continues to exist on appeal; (b) that 'judicial economy' favours resolving this issue, as it raises an issue of public, social and constitutional importance; and (c) with respect to the court's adjudicative role, there is an ample record before the court to decide the appeal in this case; and, the reasons for deciding whether the Board has s. 24(1) jurisdiction is compelling.

(2)No. Pursuant to the test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22, tribunals that can decide questions of law are presumed to be courts of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of s.24(1) of the Charter. This presumption can be rebutted where it is clearly demonstrated that the legislature intended to exclude Charter remedies from the tribunal's decision.

A tribunal only has the powers that are explicitly or implicitly conferred on it by statute. In accordance with Conway, when a remedy is sought from an administrative tribunal under s. 24(1) of the Charter, a three-step process is to be adopted in order to determine whether the tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant s. 24(1) remedies:

(i) Determine whether the tribunal can decide questions of law.

(ii) Consider whether the power to grant Charter remedies generally has, explicitly or by clear implication, been excluded by statute.

(iii) Determine whether the tribunal has the power to grant the specific remedy requested.

Applying the Conway test to the present case is not straightforward because the legislature has precluded the Board (via s. 70.1(1) of the Health Care Consent Act) from finding a law unconstitutional pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Prior to Conway, the tests for determining whether an administrative tribunal had jurisdiction to apply s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, and whether it had s.24(1) jurisdiction, were distinct. In Conway, the Supreme Court of Canada decided to merge these two separate lines of authority, as the court reasoned that if there is s. 52(1) jurisdiction, then s. 24(1) jurisdiction should logically follow unless withdrawn, explicitly or by clear implication. In the present case, because s. 52(1) jurisdiction is precluded by statute, the logical flow has been broken.

This then begs the question: What approach is to be taken when the legislature has excluded (by statute) the Board's power to find legislation invalid under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982? In the courts view, it signals that the Board's power to decide questions of law is deemed to be diminished.

The appellant and intervener argued that by specifically excluding s. 52(1) jurisdiction, and remaining silent with respect to s. 24(1) jurisdiction, the legislature must logically have intended that the Board have s. 24(1) authority. The court disagreed. In the court's view, by excluding s. 52(1) jurisdiction, the legislature expressed an intention that the Board be bound by its statute; this suggests that similar limits were intended with respect to the remedies or dispositions that the Board is empowered to grant. On balance, the court views the legislature's removal of s. 52(1) jurisdiction as indicative but not determinative of a legislative intention to also remove s. 24(1) jurisdiction.

The court concluded that the legislature clearly intended that s.24(1) jurisdiction be removed from the Board. This conclusion was reached in light of the fact that s. 52(1) jurisdiction was removed, but also for several other reasons, including: the strict timelines under which the board operates; the limited dispositions available to the Board; the composition and expertise of the Board; the provisions for the appeal of the Board's decisions; and the fact that, in making its decisions, the Board can and does take Charter rights into account.

For these reasons the court concluded that the Board is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s.24(1) of the Charter. But this does not mean that a person, such as the appellant, who considers herself aggrieved, has no remedy. If appropriate, relief can be sought by way of a Charter application in Superior Court or through other less cumbersome processes for addressing any concerns, such as complaints to the professional or regulatory bodies that oversee the relevant parties.

(3) In light of the conclusion that the Board does not have Charter jurisdiction, the court did not deal with this issue.

Criminal Decisions:

R v. M.B. (Publication Ban), 2017 ONCA 653

[Juriansz, Pepall and Trotter JJ.A.]

Counsel:

C S Martell, for the appellant
C L Tier, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Evidence, Eyewitness Identification, R v. Berhe, 2012 ONCA 716, R v. Brown, 215 C.C.C. (3d) 330 (Ont. C.A.)

R v. C.C. (Publication Ban), 2017 ONCA 656

[Doherty, Blair and Rouleau JJ.A.]

Counsel:

E Perchenok, for the appellant
K Rawluk, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Evidence, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

R v. Lee, 2017 ONCA 654

[Weiler, Hourigan and Pardu JJ.A.]

Counsel:

A S Boni, for the appellant
B Puddington, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Investigative Detention, Warrantless Search, Criminal Code, s. 117.02(1), Exclusion of Evidence at Trial, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8 and 24(2), R v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, R v. Waterfield, [1964] 1 Q.B. 164, R v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, R v. Peterkin, 2015 ONCA 8

R v. McLean, 2017 ONCA 657

[Doherty, LaForme and Rouleau JJ.A.]

Counsel:

M Halfyard, for the appellant
J McKee, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition, Reasonableness of Verdict

R v. Pammett, 2017 ONCA 658

[Doherty, LaForme and Rouleau JJ.A.]

Counsel:

B H Greenspan and P R Hamm, for the appellant
N Dennison, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Perjury

R v. Asmann, 2017 ONCA 659

[Doherty, LaForme and Rouleau JJ.A.]

Counsel:

R Litkowski, for the appellant
A Baiasu, for the respondent

Keywords: Endorsement, Criminal Law, Robbery, Imitation Firearm, Criminal Code, s. 2

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
John Polyzogopoulos
Events from this Firm
8 Nov 2018, Conference, Toronto, Canada

This year’s program is entitled “An Analysis of Fidelity Claims for the Modern World.” The program will address important substantive and practical issues germane to today’s fidelity claims handling.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions