remained throughout the course of the hearing and he was available to assist R.C. as R.C. might choose. While it is always arguable that more advice could have been given about the process and
the procedure, there was no denial of R.C.’s right to cross-examine, to introduce evidence, to testify and to argue his case.
While much of R.C.’s evidence and submissions were immaterial
and irrelevant to the issues the Board had to decide, R.C. was told
what were the material issues, and it was his choice to ignore
those directions and to speak about other matters, and he said
what he wanted to say. He knew the case he was required to
meet, he was told what issues he should address, he was given an
opportunity to address those issues, and there was no denial of
F. Standard of Appellate Review
 Pursuant to s. 48(1) of the Mental Health Act, a party to
a proceeding before the Consent and Capacity Board may appeal
the Board’s decision or order to the Superior Court of Justice on
a question of law or fact or both.
 Pursuant to s. 48(3) of the Mental Health Act, s. 80 of the
Health Care Consent Act, 1996 applies to the appeal. Section
80(10) of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 provides as follows:
80(10) On the appeal, the court may,
(a) exercise all the powers of the Board;
(b) substitute its opinion for that of a health practitioner, an evaluator,
a substitute decision-maker or the Board;
(c) refer the matter back to the Board, with directions, for rehearing in
whole or in part.
 The case law establishes that on an appeal to the Superior
Court, the decision of the Board applying the law to the evidence
is subject to review on a standard of reasonableness;8 however,
the Board’s interpretation of the law is reviewable on a standard
8 Giecewicz v. Hastings,  O.J. No. 4969, 2007 ONCA 890, leave to
appeal to S.C.C. refused  S.C.C.A. No. 97; M. (M.) v. De Souza, 
O.J. No. 960, 2016 ONCA 155.
9 Dunsmuir v New Brunswick,  1 S.C.R. 190,  S.C.J. No. 9,
at paras. 45- 49; Duarte v. Kingston Psychiatric Hospital,  O.J.
No. 3238 (S.C.J.), at paras. 10-11; T. (I.) v. L. (L.) (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 284,
 O.J. No. 4237 (C.A.), at pp. 290-92 O.R.; Hajgato v. London Health
Assn. (1982), 36 O.R. (2d) 669,  O.J. No. 2564 (H.C.J.), affd (1983),
44 O.R. (2d) 264,  O.J. No. 2911 (C.A.).