Law 3101A/B Midterm: Summary of all cases presented
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Law 3101 Midterm Case Studies
R v J(S)
Topic: aggravated assault and failing to provide necessaries of life for child brought to
Canada from India
Level of Court visited and each decision:
1. Trial judge
2. Court of appeal
3. Supreme Court
Summary:
-Dropped charges against parents for aggravated assault because evidence was not
conclusive regarding the timing of the injuries (and thus unsure who was responsible for
them)
-Fresh injuries, severe skin condition and malnourishment are an example of
“necessitous circumstances” and led to a conviction for failure to provide necessaries of
life as the couple did not seek necessary medical treatment for the child”
Battrum v. British Columbia
Topic: Principles of consent
-doctor touched patient when she was injured
-plaintiff said the doctor was “abrupt & unsympathetic”, sued for battery
-action dismissed b/c patient WANTED to be taken to the hospital, meaning that she
implicitly consented to treatment— aka doctor touching her.
Reid v. Maloney
Topic: Consent forms.
-patient signed a consent form, but the form doesn’t explain the treatment properly/
fully
-signed consent form is useless. And doctor is held in negligence.
Re C.
Topic: Capacity to consent under the HCCA
-a schizophrenic patient wants to refuse treatment of amputation (which was
supposed to increase his survival likelihood)
-his general capacity to make decisions might be affected by illness
-but his ability to understand treatment information was not.
-plaintiff’s right to not consent was granted by court
Neto v. Klukach
Topic: Capacity to consent
-Neto was bipolar, and objected to the psychotic drugs prescribed
-she refuses to acknowledge her bipolar disorder, and had delusional beliefs about her
meds —> doctor thinks she’s incapable.
-CCB agreed w/ the doctor.
1
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
-although Neto was able to understand information, she cannot understand the
consequences of not getting treatment.
-the ability to evaluate relevant information is key to determining capacity
-court adopted 3 indicators:
1. patient must acknowledge they are affected by manifestations. (not necessarily “ill”)
—> Neto acknowledged she was “different”
2. able to assess how the treatment could affect their life —> Neto had previous
negative reactions to the drug
3. decision cannot be based on delusional thinking —> Neto’s objections not due to
her delusional thoughts
-court concluded that Neto was capable.
Park v. Park
Topic: Capacity to manage property under SDA
-Mrs. Park decided to sell her property, and Mr. Park (her POA for personal care)
-Mr. Park claimed Mrs. Park was mentally ill, incapble, and he should become her
guardian for property.
-Court found no evidence of Mrs. Park’s incapacity to make financial decisions —> did
not grant Mr. Park’s appeal.
C. v. Wren
Topic: Minors & Capacity
-C is a 16 year old pregnant girl. Decided for an abortion.
-parent’s challenged C’s capcity.
-Court concluded that C. understood the treatment & consequences.
-Therefore, parents’ wishes were not relevant
-stated: Parental right terminates when child achieves sufficient understanding &
intelligence
Re Dueck
Topic: Minors & Capacity
-T.D’s parents refused treatment of chemotherapy.
-Court decided T.D is a child in need of protection & Minister of Social Services made
decisions for TD —> allowing chemotherapy
-after a while, TD stated he does not want chemotherapy anymore.
-Must determine if TD was competent to consent:
-TD had no impairment, but was less mature.
-Father made him believe in a non existence cure.
-court stated that TD’s incapable— given his dependence on parents, age, maturity,
complexity of treatment. He was unable to understand the relevant information &
consequences
-his father also misguided him into belieing a non-existent cure
-prevented him from understanding the nature of treatment (alternatives)
-prevented him from understanding consequences.
-Therefore, TD was not capable. and the Ministry continues to make decisions for him.
2
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Barbulov v. Cirone
Topic: POA for personal care
-patient signed a will with his lawyer without mentioning about his POA.
-signed the POA without reading it due to limited English.
-Specifics about treatment directions were never mentioned in the form, court
concluded the POA was ineffective.
-Because patient did not understand the legal meaning
Janzen v. Janzen
Topic: Best Interest
-EJ fell into a vegetative state after accident
-doctors recommend life support be removed, so he can die peacefully.
-EJ’s wife agreed, while Ej’s sister didn’t.
-so sister applied to court to become his guardian. EJ’s wife submitted a counter
application
-in interpreting “best interest”, “well being” means quality of life.
-Wife’s decision was more in accord with EJ’s previous expressed wish.
Scardoni v. Hawryluck
Topic: Best interest
-An alzheimer patient developed pneumonia, and is on ventilator.
-doctor believed removal of life-prolonging care is best.
-patient’s daughters— her SDM’s refused to consent.
-doctor applied to the CCB saying SDM’s are not acting in best interest
-daughters said Mom as a Roman Catholic valued prolonging life
-CCB: patient’s views were not precise enough to become a “binding wish”. And that
general religious beliefs do not apply under s. 21
-ordered the daughters to consent
-Court criticized CCB:
-should’ve considered patient’s general religious beliefs— whether it’s the official
teaching or not
-should’ve considered their values of prolonging life as a general expressed wish.
Even though it’s true that it was imprecise.
-CCB misunderstood medical evidence. The patient was suffering less than they
thought. (aka not to a point where death is best)
-the court set aside CCB’s decision
Penny v. Bolen
Topic: Litigation against guardians/ POA for property
-Bolen was determined as “incapable” by her children
-Bolen ordered her own assessment and was capable.
-was able to appoint her own POA, displacing her children’s rights.
Reviczky v. Meleknia
Topic: Litigation against guardians/ POA for property
3
Document Summary
Topic: aggravated assault and failing to provide necessaries of life for child brought to. Dropped charges against parents for aggravated assault because evidence was not conclusive regarding the timing of the injuries (and thus unsure who was responsible for them) Fresh injuries, severe skin condition and malnourishment are an example of. Necessitous circumstances and led to a conviction for failure to provide necessaries of life as the couple did not seek necessary medical treatment for the child . Doctor touched patient when she was injured. Plaintiff said the doctor was abrupt & unsympathetic , sued for battery. Action dismissed b/c patient wanted to be taken to the hospital, meaning that she implicitly consented to treatment aka doctor touching her. Patient signed a consent form, but the form doesn"t explain the treatment properly/ fully. A schizophrenic patient wants to refuse treatment of amputation (which was supposed to increase his survival likelihood)
