The Health Care Consent Act (HCCA) was passed in Ontario in 1996 and is legislation that deals with the capacity to consent to medical treatment.
The HCCA makes it clear that a person has the right to consent to or refuse treatment if they have mental capacity. That means that the patient must be able to understand and appreciate the consequences of their treatment decision. That means informed consent.
In order to demonstrate informed consent, the patient must be capable of understanding the proposed or recommended treatment and the associated risks and benefits. That requires that the patient is able to understand the information that is relevant to making a decision about the treatment and be able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their decision.
The HCCA is different from Ontario’s Mental Health Act (MHA). The MHA deals with detention and treatment within a psychiatric facility while the HCCA governs the ability to treat a patient within a hospital.
Where a patient lacks the capacity to consent or understand (lack of capacity for personal care) they will require a substitute decision-maker (SDM). That process is governed by the Substitute Decisions Act (SDA) to make decisions on their behalf relating to treatment and medication.
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) dealt with the HCCA in its decision in Starson v. Swayze (2003) dealt with the right of a mentally ill person to refuse treatment, even when it is in their best interests to be treated. In the case, the respondent had been in and out of mental health facilities across North America and had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He had been admitted to a hospital after being found not criminally responsible for uttering death threats. His physicians recommended treatment involving multiple types of medication, and the patient refused to consent. His treating physician found that he was incapable of making this decision. The respondent applied to the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board for a review of the doctor's decision but was unsuccessful.
However, he sought judicial review of the decision by the Superior Court of Justice, which overturned the doctor's determination. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which found:
The Health Care Consent Act, 1996, presumes a person is capable to decide to accept or reject medical treatment; therefore, patients with mental disorders are presumptively entitled to make their own treatment decisions. The presumption of capacity can be displaced only by evidence that a patient lacks the requisite elements of capacity provided by the Act. Capacity involves two criteria: first, a person must be able to understand the information that is relevant to making a treatment decision and second, a person must be able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the decision or lack of one.
The SCC found that the Board had failed to properly apply the capacity criteria, and therefore failed to establish that the patient lacked capacity to understand the effects and risks of the proposed treatment. Clearly, where the presumption is that of capacity, the test to demonstrate that capacity is lacking must be carefully applied and assessed, which in this case did not occur.
When a question around capacity arises with respect to a patient who is refusing medical treatment, physicians and hospitals need to keep in mind the presumption of capacity. If it is suspected that a patient does not properly understand the consequences of their decisions, all proper channels need to be explored and the patient's capacity must be fully assessed under the legislative standard. Overriding an individual's wishes when it comes to medical treatment is a serious step to take, and so all providers involved need to proceed cautiously.
At Wise Health Law, we are passionate about helping health professionals and healthcare organizations understand and protect their legal rights. We monitor trends and developments in the health sector so that we can provide consistently forward-thinking legal advice and risk management guidance to all of our clients. Our lawyers have significant trial and appellate experience and will skillfully represent clients whenever litigation is required. Contact us online, or at 416-915-4234 for a consultation.
Earlier this year, Wise Health Law succeeded on a motion for summary judgment in a dental malpractice case on the basis that the limitation period had expired before the Statement of Claim was issued. The (unreported) decision was delivered orally on the day of the motion.
In part, the plaintiff argued that she did not discover her claim until the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (the “RCDSO” or “College”) rendered its decision, as she did not know if the defendant was negligent when she complained to the RCDSO, but merely had a “suspicion”.
In the midst of COVID-19, the proceedings of many health colleges, and consequently of the health professionals they regulate, have been in limbo while everyone finds a way forward.
On March 25, 2020, the Ontario government enacted the Hearings in Tribunal Proceedings (Temporary Measures) Act, 2020 (the “Act”) to help the process along.
The Act empowers statutory tribunals with more discretion over how proceedings before them are held.
Effective 11:59 p.m. on March 24, 2020, the Ontario government ordered the closure of “non-essential” workplaces. The list of “essential” workplaces included “health care professionals providing emergency care including dentists, optometrists and physiotherapists”.
The College of Chiropractors of Ontario (“CCO”) interprets this list as including chiropractors, and we agree.
So the question becomes – what is “emergency care”?