Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia

Last updated

Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia (Attorney General)
Court Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC)
StartedSeptember 6, 2016 [1]
DecidedSeptember 10, 2020 (2020-09-10) [1]
Citation(s)2020 BCSC 1310
Transcript(s)Judgement [1]
Case opinions
Decision byJustice John J. Steeves [1]

Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia [2020 BCSC 1310] was a high-profile, multi-year Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC) case brought by Brian Day, an advocate for private healthcare, against the province of British Columbia. Day, who runs the Vancouver-based private clinic Cambie Surgery Centre, challenged the sections of the province's Medicare Protection Act (MPA) that prevent private practitioners from charging patients who are enrolled in Canada's universal healthcare system for services available in that system. The lawsuit stated that the MPA was unconstitutional because it violated sections 7 ("right to life") and 15 ("equal protection") of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Contents

Supporters of the lawsuit decried what they saw as a dangerous mandate that contributed to a problem of long waits for public care without consideration for urgency. The defendants' advocates argued that the lawsuit did not rise to the level of a constitutional question and that a ruling in plaintiffs' favour would do long-lasting damage to Canada's public healthcare system that would far outweigh the problems it purported to solve. Both sides stated publicly that the outcome of the case would have an enduring effect on the country's healthcare. The trial started in 2016 and was finally decided on September 10, 2020. In an 880-page decision, Justice John J. Steeves of the BCSC dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and in July 2022, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld Justice Steeves' decision. [9] The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal from the judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Plaintiffs

Brian Day, A "private health-care advocate", [2] who founded and serves as the medical director of the private clinic Cambie Surgery Centre and Specialist Referral Clinic [10] in Vancouver, British Columbia, was the spokesman for the high-profile case, sometimes called 'The Day Case'. [11] [12]

The plaintiffs argued that British Columbia's Medicare Protection Act (MPA) violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it forbids private providers from directly charging patients enrolled in the public system for any service that can be accessed in that system and does not permit exceptions for urgency. They emphasized section 7, which protects the "right to life, liberty and security of the person" and section 15, which guarantees "equality rights". [1] [2] The lawsuit claimed that this rule can cause people to "suffer prolonged pain and disability, serious psychological harm or deterioration and irreparable harm" that could have been prevented. [1] [13]

Defendants and intervenors

The lawsuit named as defendants the Attorney General of British Columbia, the Attorney General of Canada, and two groups of intervenors who opposed the plaintiffs' claim. These groups, named by Steeves as "Patient Intervenors" and "Coalition Intervenors," were, respectively, a four-person group of non-expert citizens who said they "experienced harm while being treated by physicians engaging in dual practice and extra billing" and a four-person group made up of two low-income citizens whose medical needs are covered by the public system and two physicians who represented two advocacy groups that promote the preservation of universal healthcare in Canada. [1]

Trial and decision

The trial is known for its unusual length and complexity; it lasted just over four years and had participation from more than one hundred witnesses. [14] It ended on September 10, 2020 when presiding justice John J. Steeves, a judge on the Supreme Court of British Columbia, issued an 880-page ruling in favour of the defendants. Steeves found that the plaintiffs' complaints did not show violations of sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter and that the amount of suffering the plaintiffs claimed to endure did not outweigh the deleterious effects a ruling in their favour would have on the country's universal healthcare system. [2]

Day and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in early 2021 and on July 15, 2022, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld B.C. Supreme Court Justice John Steeves' decision that despite long waits in the public health system, there is no constitutional right to access to private health. [9]

Appeal

A week before he issued his decision, Steeves predicted that no matter the outcome, inevitable appeals would mean the Supreme Court of Canada would make the case's final ruling. [15] Immediately after Steeves handed down his ruling, Brian Day pledged to appeal it. [16]

On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the three-judge panel ruled that the appeal be dismissed without costs but there were two opinions with different rationales. Chief Justice Bauman and Justice Harris found that the impugned provisions of the Medicare Protection Act deprive some patients of the right to life and right to security of the person, but in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Therefore (according to the majority of the panel), the impugned provisions do not infringe section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The third member of the panel, Justice Fenlon, held that the impugned legislative provisions deprive some patients of the right to life and security of the person, and are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Therefore, according to Justice Fenlon, the provisions infringe section 7 of the Charter. However, Justice Fenlon went on to find the provisions are saved by section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore are not unconstitutional. [17]

The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case, dismissing the application for leave to appeal made by Cambie Surgeries Corporation. [18] [19]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False Claims Act</span>

The False Claims Act (FCA), also called the "Lincoln Law", is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies who defraud governmental programs. It is the federal government's primary litigation tool in combating fraud against the government. The law includes a qui tam provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government, called "relators" under the law, to file actions on behalf of the government. This is informally called "whistleblowing", especially when the relator is employed by the organization accused in the suit. Persons filing actions under the Act stand to receive a portion of any recovered damages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medicare (Canada)</span> Canadas publicly funded, single-payer health care system

Medicare is an unofficial designation used to refer to the publicly funded single-payer healthcare system of Canada. Canada's health care system consists of 13 provincial and territorial health insurance plans, which provide universal healthcare coverage to Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and depending on the province or territory, certain temporary residents. The systems are individually administered on a provincial or territorial basis, within guidelines set by the federal government. The formal terminology for the insurance system is provided by the Canada Health Act and the health insurance legislation of the individual provinces and territories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Healthcare in Canada</span> Overview of healthcare

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through the provincial and territorial systems of publicly funded health care, informally called Medicare. It is guided by the provisions of the Canada Health Act of 1984, and is universal. The 2002 Royal Commission, known as the Romanow Report, revealed that Canadians consider universal access to publicly funded health services as a "fundamental value that ensures national health care insurance for everyone wherever they live in the country."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Two-tier healthcare</span> Unequal access to higher quality healthcare

Two-tier healthcare is a situation in which a basic government-provided healthcare system provides basic care, and a secondary tier of care exists for those who can pay for additional, better quality or faster access. Most countries have both publicly and privately funded healthcare, but the degree to which it creates a quality differential depends on the way the two systems are managed, funded, and regulated.

Medical malpractice is professional negligence by act or omission by a health care provider in which the treatment provided falls below the accepted standard of practice in the medical community and causes injury or death to the patient, with most cases involving medical error. Claims of medical malpractice, when pursued in US courts, are processed as civil torts. Sometimes an act of medical malpractice will also constitute a criminal act, as in the case of the death of Michael Jackson.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emmett Matthew Hall</span> Canadian lawyer and Supreme Court Judge

Emmett Matthew Hall was a Canadian lawyer, civil liberties advocate, Supreme Court of Canada judge and public policy advocate. He is considered one of the fathers of the Canadian system of Medicare, along with his fellow Saskatchewanian, Tommy Douglas.

<i>Chaoulli v Quebec (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Chaoulli v Quebec (AG) [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, 2005 SCC 35, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada of which the Court ruled that the Quebec Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Insurance Act prohibiting private medical insurance in the face of long wait times, up to 9 months, violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. In a 4 to 3 decision, the Court found the Acts violated Quebecers' right to life and security of person under the Quebec Charter. The ruling is binding only in Quebec. Three of the seven judges also found that the laws violated section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One judge did not rule on the Canadian Charter. The result was a 3–3 tie on the question of the Canadian Charter, so Chaoulli decision does not apply to any other province.

Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court limited the scope of the Texas Healthcare Liability Act (THCLA). The effective result of this decision was that the THCLA, which held Case Management and Utilization Review decisions by Managed Care entities like CIGNA and Aetna to a legal duty of care according to the laws of The State of Texas could not be enforced in the case of Health Benefit plans provided through private employers, because the Texas statute allowed compensatory or punitive damages to redress losses or deter future transgressions, which were not available under ERISA § 1132. The ruling still allows the State of Texas to enforce the THCLA in the case of Government-sponsored (Medicare, Medicaid, Federal, State, Municipal Employee, etc., Church-sponsored, or Individual Health Plan Policies, which are saved from preemption by ERISA. The history that allows these Private and Self-Pay Insurance to be saved dates to the "Interstate Commerce" power that was given the federal Government by the Supreme Court. ERISA, enacted in 1974, relied on the "Interstate Commerce" rule to allow federal jurisdiction over private employers, based on the need of private employers to follow a single set of paperwork and rules for pensions and other employee benefit plans where employers had employees in multiple states. Except for private employer plans, insurance can be regulated by the individual states, and Managed Care entities making medical decisions can be held accountable for those decisions if negligence is involved, as allowed by the Texas Healthcare Liability Act.

In the United States, Medicare fraud is the claiming of Medicare health care reimbursement to which the claimant is not entitled. There are many different types of Medicare fraud, all of which have the same goal: to collect money from the Medicare program illegitimately.

Prime Healthcare Services is a United States privately held healthcare company. It was established in 2001, by chairman and CEO Prem Reddy, MD, and operates 45 hospitals in 14 states. It is affiliated with the nonprofit Prime Healthcare Foundation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brian Day</span> English-Canadian surgeon

Brian Day, is an orthopedic surgeon and health researcher in Canada, a past president of the Canadian Medical Association, and a prominent sometimes controversial advocate for privatization of Canada's health system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joseph Arvay</span> Canadian lawyer (1949–2020)

Joseph James Arvay, was a Canadian lawyer who argued numerous landmark cases involving civil liberties and constitutional rights.

Balance billing, sometimes called surprise billing, is a medical bill from a healthcare provider billing a patient for the difference between the total cost of services being charged and the amount the insurance pays. It is a pervasive problem in the United States with providers who are out of network, and therefore not subject to the rates or terms of providers who are in-network. Balance billing has a variable prevalence by market and specialty.

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. They include challenges by states against the ACA, reactions from legal experts with respect to its constitutionality, several federal court rulings on the ACA's constitutionality, the final ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and notable subsequent lawsuits challenging the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld ACA for a third time in a June 2021 decision.

Gloria Taylor was a Canadian who was an advocate of medically-assisted dying and suffered from Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. Taylor began to experience the early symptoms of ALS in 2003. A neurologist diagnosed her disease in 2009.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms</span> Canadian legal advocacy organization

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) is a Canadian legal advocacy organization specializing in a social conservative approach to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The libertarian organisation has partnered with several right-wing backers in the United States and pursues legal cases of a social conservative nature.

King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.

<i>Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya</i> Canadian legal decision

Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, 2020 SCC 5 is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of Canada held, in a 5–4 decision, that a private corporation may be liable under Canadian law for breaches of customary international law committed in other countries.

Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport, 1 C.C.L.T. 233 (1976) was a Canadian personal injury case involving negligence, standard of care, causation, and hindsight.

American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to administrative law. The case centered on a rule from the Department of Health and Human Services, which reduced reimbursement rates for certain hospitals. Several hospital associations and hospitals affected by the rule sued HHS, alleging that it exceeded its statutory authority. The court was tasked with deciding if the rule was a reasonable interpretation of the law, and if the statute blocked judicial review of the rule in the first place.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "The Honourable Mr. Justice Steeves Reasons for Judgment". 2020 BCSC 1310 Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia (Attorney General). 2020-09-10. Retrieved 2020-09-11.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Private Vancouver clinic loses constitutional challenge of public health-care rules". CBC News. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  3. ↑ "Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia – BC Injury Law" . Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  4. ↑ "Private health care battle draws to a close after a decade in B.C." British Columbia. 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  5. ↑ Weisgarber, Maria (2020-09-10). "B.C. Supreme Court rules against legalizing private health care following decade-long battle". British Columbia. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  6. ↑ "B.C. Supreme Court rules against legalizing private health care following decade-long battle | CTV News". 10 September 2020. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  7. ↑ "Cambie Case (ongoing)" . Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  8. ↑ Macleod, Andrew (17 April 2014). "For-Profit Clinic Lawsuit May Transform Health Care". TheTyee.ca. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
  9. 1 2 Woo, Andrea (July 15, 2022). "B.C. Court of Appeal rules against doctor in private health care case". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved July 15, 2022.
  10. ↑ "Editorial Board". BC Medical Journal. Retrieved 2016-09-02.
  11. ↑ Peden, Alex. "Backgrounder: Court challenges to one-tier medicare". EvidenceNetwork.ca. University of Manitoba. Retrieved 2016-09-02.
  12. ↑ Fayerman, Pamela (2016-09-01). "B.C. trial over private health care could reshape Canadian medicare". The Vancouver Sun .
  13. ↑ "The Legal Attack on Public Health Care | BC Health Coalition" . Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  14. ↑ "B.C. Supreme Court rules against legalizing private healthcare in landmark case". Global News. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  15. ↑ Feb 28, Camille Bains · The Canadian Press (2020-02-29). "Health care battle in judge's hands but expected to land in Canada's top court | CBC News". CBC. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  16. ↑ "B.C. Supreme Court rules against private healthcare in landmark case | Globalnews.ca".
  17. ↑ "Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCCA 245". Court of Appeal for British Columbia.
  18. ↑ "Judgments in Leave Applications" (Press release). Supreme Court of Canada. 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2023-04-06.
  19. ↑ "Decision ends Dr. Brian Day's 14-year legal battle to allow patients to go private if wait times are too long". CBC News. 6 April 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Canada's highest court will not hear an appeal from a Vancouver-based physician ... over the right to access private care.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.