Background
Z.W., acting in person, brought a motion under s. 7(5) of Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act to set aside a single appellate judge’s decision dismissing her motion for injunctive relief. The motion arose during an appeal from a decision dismissing a Consent and Capacity Board determination. That determination upheld Z.W.’s status as an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act and confirmed a finding that she was incapable of consenting to treatment.
The underlying injunction motion sought to prohibit Dr. David Robertson from continuing to withhold Z.W.’s antidepressant medication. It also sought to prevent him from continuing to act as her most responsible physician and from being involved in her medical care. The single judge dismissed that motion for lack of jurisdiction.
A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario heard and released its decision orally on November 2, 2026; the written endorsement is dated November 5, 2026. The panel reviewed the order of Justice Lene Madsen dated February 26, 2026. Blaire W. Smockum and Shannon Gaudet represented Dr. Robertson, while Kevin W. Gray and Conroy Gomes acted as amicus curiae.
The Court’s Holding
The panel dismissed Z.W.’s review motion. It accepted the single judge’s finding that the requested relief had not been raised before either the Consent and Capacity Board or the Superior Court of Justice. The court characterized that finding as one of fact to which it owed deference and stated that nothing in the record contradicted it.
The court also identified a separate, circumstance-specific problem concerning Dr. Robertson: the relief sought against him was moot because he was no longer treating Z.W. She had been discharged, and nothing prevented her from discussing possible antidepressant treatment with her current treatment team. The endorsement did not announce a general rule governing every request for medication-related relief after a patient’s discharge or a physician’s withdrawal from care.
Finally, the court held that the other relief Z.W. sought on the review motion was not properly the subject of that motion. The endorsement did not describe that additional relief or provide further reasoning about it. The court therefore dismissed the motion without disturbing the single judge’s disposition.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the s. 7(5) motion to set aside the single judge’s dismissal of Z.W.’s injunction motion.
- The finding that the requested relief had not been raised before the Board or the Superior Court was treated as a factual finding entitled to deference, with no contrary record identified.
- The requested relief concerning Dr. Robertson was moot on these facts because he no longer treated Z.W., she had been discharged, and she could raise antidepressant treatment with her current team.
- Other relief sought on review was held to be outside the proper subject matter of this review motion; the endorsement did not elaborate on that relief.
Why It Matters
The endorsement illustrates the Court of Appeal’s treatment of a narrow procedural review arising within a mental-health appeal. Its reasoning was tied to the record before it: deference to an uncontroverted factual finding, mootness based on the changed treatment relationship and discharge, and the limited scope of the review motion.
The decision should not be read as a broad determination of Z.W.’s capacity, involuntary-patient status, entitlement to antidepressants, or the merits of her underlying appeal. Those issues were not decided in this endorsement, which addressed only the request to set aside the single judge’s dismissal of the injunction motion.