(4) whether, the court’s activism in deciding the issue is appropriate having regard to its role and the role of the other branches of
 In the immediate case, it is in the interests of justice to hear
the appeal. The issue in the immediate case is significant to operation of the Mental Health Act and to the exercise of the Board’s
jurisdiction. The matter of the role and responsibility of the Board
in providing due process to self-represented parties is a matter of
public interest and of importance worthy of appellate review. It is
a significant access to justice issue, and it is to be noted that both
patient applicants and medical practitioner respondents appear
self-represented before the Consent and Capacity Board.
 The issues were fully and very capability argued by
Dr. Klukach’s counsel and by amicus curiae. I, therefore, shall
hear the appeal notwithstanding its mootness.
E. Did the Board Make a Reviewable Error?: The Submissions of
 On this appeal, R.C. made no coherent or meaningful
argument about whether the Board erred in deciding that he did
not have the capacity to consent to treatment.
 Amicus curiae submitted that it was apparent that R.C.
could not represent himself in any meaningful way and by proceeding with the hearing, the Board failed to follow its own
practice and policy guidelines, failed to assist R.C. throughout the
hearing process, and it failed to consider the appointment of
amicus curiae. Amicus curiae submits that these failures
destroyed the hearings adjudicative and adversarial context and
resulted in a legal process that was procedurally unfair.
 Dr. Klukach’s counsel submitted that the Board made no
error, that R.C.’s right to represent himself was respected and that
the hearing on August 10, 2017 was a fair hearing that reached
a just result. In assessing whether R.C. was provided with due process, Dr. Klukach’s counsel submitted that the following factors
should be noted. While not appointed amicus curiae, Mr. Hirtz
7 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), supra; Mazzei v. British Columbia
(Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services),  1 S.C.R. 326, 
S.C.J. No. 7, 2006 SCC 7; Fraser v. Canada (Public Service Staff Relations
Board),  2 S.C.R. 455,  S.C.J. No. 71; H. (J.) v. Alberta Health
Services,  A.J. No. 785, 2017 ABQB 477; R. v. Jackson (2015), 128 O.R.
(3d) 161,  O.J. No. 6274, 2015 ONCA 832; Ontario (Provincial Police) v.
Thunder Bay (City) Police Service,  O.J. No. 5594, 2015 ONCA 722;
Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene v. Ontario,  O.J. No. 1044, 2010
ONCA 197; Tamil Co-operative Homes Inc. v. Arulappah, supra.