Carter v Canada (AG)

Last updated
Carter v Canada (Attorney General)
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: October 15, 2014
Judgment: February 6, 2015
Citations 2015 SCC 5
Docket No. S112688
Prior historyOn appeal from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
RulingAppeal allowed
Holding
Criminal prohibition of assisted suicide violates the Charter.
Court membership
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices Louis LeBel, Rosalie Abella, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Richard Wagner, Clément Gascon.
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by The Court
Laws applied
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 7
Criminal Code, ss 14, 241(b)

Carter v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 5 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the prohibition of assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") by several parties, including the family of Kay Carter, a woman suffering from degenerative spinal stenosis, and Gloria Taylor, a woman suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ("ALS"). [1] In a unanimous decision on February 6, 2015, the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code , thereby giving Canadian adults who are mentally competent and suffering intolerably and enduringly the right to a doctor's assistance in dying. [2] This ruling overturned the Supreme Court's 1993 ruling in Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG), which had denied a right to assisted suicide.

Contents

The court suspended its ruling for 12 months, with the decision taking effect in 2016, to give the federal government enough time to amend its laws. [3] In January 2016, the court granted an additional four-month extension to its ruling suspension to allow time for the newly elected federal Liberal government to consult with Canadians on drafting a law to comply with the ruling. As an interim measure, it also ruled that provincial courts could approve applications for euthanasia until the new law passed. [4]

Background

In 1972, the Canadian government repealed the Criminal Code provision prohibiting suicide. However, 241(b) of the Criminal Code provided that everyone who aids or abets a person in committing suicide commits an indictable offence, and section 14 stated that no person may consent to death being inflicted on them. The Supreme Court denied a right to assisted suicide in their 1993 ruling Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG) , [5] upholding the constitutionality of the prohibitions based upon a thin evidentiary record.

In April 2011, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association ("BCCLA") filed a lawsuit challenging both section 14 and section 241(b) of Criminal Code (law that prohibits aiding a person to commit suicide), claiming they violated sections 7 (the right to "life, liberty, and security of the person) and 15(1) of the Charter (equality). [1]

The case was heard at the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which ruled in favour of the BCCLA in June 2012. The federal government appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, which overturned the ruling in a 2–1 decision in October 2013. The BCCLA then filed a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. [1]

Reasons of the Court

The Court framed the issue at bar thus:

[1] It is a crime in Canada to assist another person in ending her own life. As a result, people who are grievously and irremediably ill cannot seek a physician's assistance in dying and may be condemned to a life of severe and intolerable suffering. A person facing this prospect has two options: she can take her own life prematurely, often by violent or dangerous means, or she can suffer until she dies from natural causes. The choice is cruel.

The Court found that section 241(b) and section 14 of the Criminal Code had a permissible object, identified as "not, broadly, to preserve life whatever the circumstances, but more specifically to protect vulnerable persons from being induced to commit suicide at a time of weakness." According to the Court, however, the relevant sections were overbroad in catching cases that fell outside of the object. Thus, the sections unjustifiably infringed section 7 of the Charter; furthermore, this violation was not saved by operation of section 1. [6]

Stare decisis

The Court found that the trial judge was not bound by the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG) , instead holding that stare decisis is "not a straitjacket that condemns the law to stasis". [7] The Court expanded on their discussion of the issue in Canada (AG) v Bedford by ruling trial judges may reconsider the decisions of higher courts if there is a new legal issue at bar, and if circumstances or evidence have "fundamentally shift[ed] the parameters of the debate". [7] The Court found that the section 7 legal issues raised in the case at bar differed from those in Rodriguez, noting in particular the development of the overbreadth and gross disproportionality principles since 1993. The court also determined that the trial judge was entitled to consider the different "matrix of legislative and social facts" [8] that had arisen since Rodriguez.

Division of powers

The Court affirmed that section 241(b) of the Criminal Code fell within the federal government's section 91(27) criminal law power. Echoing their decision in Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society , [9] the Court dismissed the appellants' argument that section 241(b) lay within the core of the provincial section 92 powers. Interjurisdictional immunity could not prevent the federal government from enacting the legislation, since the proposed core of the provincial health powers was overly vague. The Court reaffirmed that health is an area of concurrent jurisdiction, allowing both the federal and provincial legislatures to legislate in the area. [10]

Public reaction and planned implementation

The decision was well received by many, [11] but characterized as judicial activism by others. The BCCLA, appellants at the Supreme Court, were "overjoyed" by the ruling, holding that "physician-assisted dying will now be recognized for what it is—a medical service". [12] The day of the decision, Andrew Coyne wrote in his National Post column that the Court was being eerily complacent about ramifications of its decision. [13] He also argued that the decision signaled the death of judicial restraint in Canada. [14] Former politician Stockwell Day was particularly critical of the Court, saying, "[I]f you want to write laws, you should run for office." [15] In an op-ed published on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's website, he called for a nationwide debate concerning assisted-suicide legislation. [16] In response to Carter, Conrad Black argued politicians should invoke the notwithstanding clause to send a message to the court that Parliament is supreme. [17]

The February 2015 Supreme Court decision [18] in Carter v Canada (AG) limits physician-assisted suicides to "a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of life and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition, including an illness, disease or disability, that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition". The ruling was suspended for 12 months to allow the Canadian parliament to draft a new, constitutional law to replace the existing one. [19]

The Canadian Medical Association ("CMA") reported that not all doctors were willing to help a patient die. However, the belief in late 2015 was that no physician would be forced to do so but the CMA was offering educational sessions to members as to the process that would be used. [20]

Specifically the Supreme Court held that the current legislation was overbroad in that it prohibits "physician‑assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition."

The government subsequently requested a six-month extension for implementation; the arguments for this request were scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court in January 2016. [20]

The court decision includes a requirement that there must be stringent limits that are "scrupulously monitored." This will require the death certificate to be completed by an independent medical examiner, not the treating physician, to ensure the accuracy of reporting the cause of death. [21]

Subsequent legislative history

After a lengthy delay, the House of Commons passed a Bill (C-14) in mid-June 2016 that would allow for doctor-assisted suicide in the case of a terminal illness. The bill was then debated in the Senate. Initially, the Senate amended the bill, expanding the right to die. However, when it became apparent that the elected House of Commons would not accept the amendment, a final vote was held on 17 June 2016. At that time, a majority agreed with the restrictive wording provided by the House of Commons indicating that "only patients suffering from incurable illness whose natural death is 'reasonably foreseeable' are eligible for a medically assisted death," as summarized by the Toronto Star . Critics of the Bill indicate that the Carter decision was broader, including desperately ill individuals and not only those who are terminally ill or near death. The House of Commons did accept a few Senate amendments, such as requiring that patients be counselled about alternatives, including palliative care and barring beneficiaries from acting in the euthanasia. [22] The bill was given Royal assent the same day.

Senators such as Serge Joyal who disagree with the restrictive wording believe that one of the provinces should refer the issue to its Court of Appeal for an opinion; this tactic would help to move the process along and would preclude the need for individuals to proceed with a very expensive appeal process. [23]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assisted suicide</span> Suicide undertaken with aid from another person

Assisted suicide is suicide undertaken with the aid of another person. The term usually refers to physician-assisted suicide (PAS), which is suicide that is assisted by a physician or another healthcare provider. Once it is determined that the person's situation qualifies under the physician-assisted suicide laws for that location, the physician's assistance is usually limited to writing a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs.

The right to die is a concept based on the opinion that human beings are entitled to end their life or undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of this right is often understood that a person with a terminal illness, incurable pain, or without the will to continue living, should be allowed to end their own life, use assisted suicide, or to decline life-prolonging treatment. The question of who, if anyone, may be empowered to make this decision is often the subject of debate.

Sue Rodriguez was a Canadian right-to-die activist. In August 1991, she was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and was given two to five years to live. She ultimately made the decision to end her life and she sought the assistance of a doctor to that end, leading to a legal battle. She lost her case in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, but took her own life with the help of an anonymous doctor on February 12, 1994. She is cited as an important figure in the eventual legalization of medical assistance in dying in Canada.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

Voluntary euthanasia is the ending of a person's life at their request in order to relieve them of suffering. Voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have been the focus of intense debate in recent years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Suicide legislation</span>

Suicide is a crime in some parts of the world. However, while suicide has been decriminalized in many western countries, the act is stigmatized and discouraged. In other contexts, suicide could be utilized as an extreme expression of liberty, as is exemplified by its usage as an expression of devout dissent towards perceived tyranny or injustice which occurred occasionally in cultures such as ancient Rome, medieval Japan, or today's Chinese Tibet.

<i>Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG), [1993] 3 SCR 519 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the prohibition of assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") by a terminally ill woman, Sue Rodriguez. In a 5–4 decision, the Court upheld the provision in the Criminal Code.

Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the right to die. It ruled 9-0 that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great pain, was a legitimate state interest that was well within the authority of the state to regulate. In brief, this decision established that, as a matter of law, there was no constitutional guarantee of a "right to die."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legality of euthanasia</span> Legal overview of the situation by country

The legality of euthanasia varies depending on the country. Efforts to change government policies on euthanasia of humans in the 20th and 21st centuries have met limited success in Western countries. Human euthanasia policies have also been developed by a variety of NGOs, most notably medical associations and advocacy organizations. As of 2023, euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain and all six states of Australia. Euthanasia was briefly legal in the Northern Territory between 1996 and 1997, but was overturned by a federal law. In 2021, a Peruvian court allowed euthanasia for a single person, Ana Estrada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Euthanasia in Australia</span> Legal history of euthanasia in Australia

Laws regarding euthanasia or assisted suicide in Australia are matters for state and territory governments. As of May 2022 all states have passed legislation creating an assisted suicide scheme for eligible individuals. These laws typically refer to assisted suicide as "voluntary assisted dying".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assisted suicide in the United States</span> Medically-induced suicide with help from another person

Assisted suicide is suicide with the aid of another person. In the United States, the term "assisted suicide" is typically used to describe what proponents refer to as medical aid in dying, in which terminally ill adults are prescribed and self-administer barbiturates if they feel that they are suffering significantly. The term is often used interchangeably with physician-assisted suicide (PAS), "physician-assisted dying", "physician-assisted death", "assisted death" and "medical aid in dying" (MAiD).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Euthanasia in Canada</span>

Euthanasia in Canada in its legal voluntary form is called medical assistance in dying (MAiD) and it first became legal along with assisted suicide in June 2016 to allow terminally ill adults to control their deaths. In March 2021, the law was further amended by Bill C-7 which permits assisted euthanasia in additional situations, including for people with disabilities and chronic diseases. In 2021, more than 10,000 people died by euthanasia in Canada. The intensity and breadth of Canada's MAiD program has led to condemnation of its program by UN human rights experts and all disability rights groups in Canada.

Since March 2018, passive euthanasia is legal in India under strict guidelines. Patients must consent through a living will, and must be either terminally ill or in a vegetative state.

<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.

My Death, My Decision (MDMD) is an organisation that campaigns for the legalisation of assisted dying in England and Wales. The group was founded in 2009, in order to campaign for a change in the law and advocate on behalf of adults of sound mind, who are either terminally ill or incurably suffering.

<i>R v Tse</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Tse, 2012 SCC 16 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the constitutionality of warrant-less wiretaps in emergency situations. The Court found that the emergency wiretap provisions found in section 184.4 of the Criminal Code infringe the search and seizure rights in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and cannot be justified as a reasonable limitation under section 1 of the Charter due to the lack of accountability measures.

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">Lance Finch</span> Canadian judge (1938–2020)

Lance Sydney George Finch, was a Canadian lawyer and jurist. He was President of the Vancouver Bar Association and a bencher of the Law Society of British Columbia. He was appointed as a judge in 1983 and went on to serve as the Chief Justice of the British Columbia Court of Appeal from 2001 until his retirement on June 16, 2013.

<i>Seales v Attorney-General</i>

Seales v Attorney-General[2015] NZHC 1239 was a 2015 court case concerned with whether a doctor could assist a terminally ill patient in ending her own life. Wellington lawyer Lecretia Seales, terminally ill from a brain tumour, sought High Court declarations to the effect that her doctor would not be committing murder, manslaughter or assisting a suicide if he assisted in her euthanasia. Seales also sought, as an alternative, that the court make declarations that the Crimes Act was not consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Court declined to make any of the declarations sought by Seales. Seales died of her illness the day after the judgment was delivered.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sheilah Martin</span> Canadian judge

Sheilah L. Martin is a puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, having served in that role since December 18, 2017. She was nominated to the court by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on November 29, 2017. Before her appointment to Canada's highest court, Martin had served on the Court of Appeal of Alberta, the Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories, and the Court of Appeal of Nunavut since 2016, and the Court of King's Bench of Alberta from 2005 to 2016. Martin is considered an expert in judicial ethics.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Carter v. Canada: The Death with Dignity Case, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
  2. ↑ "Supreme Court Judgments". Supreme Court of Canada. SCC/CSC. February 6, 2015. Retrieved January 2, 2016.
  3. ↑ Chappell, Bill. "Canadians Have A Right To Assisted Suicide, High Court Says". NPR. Retrieved 9 February 2015.
  4. ↑ "Supreme court gives Parliament 4-month extension on doctor-assisted dying law". January 15, 2016. Retrieved 28 February 2016.
  5. ↑ Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) Archived 2013-06-28 at archive.today , [1993] 3 SCR 519.
  6. ↑ Carter v Canada (AG) , 2015 SCC 5
  7. 1 2 SCC, par. 44
  8. ↑ SCC, par. 47
  9. ↑ 2011 SCC 44 at para 51.
  10. ↑ SCC, para 50–53
  11. ↑ CTV News (6 February 2015). "Reactions to the SCC's historic ruling on doctor-assisted suicide". CTV News .
  12. ↑ Pastine, Grace (6 February 2015). "What you need to know about Carter v. Canada: the death with dignity decision in 900 words". BCCLA . Retrieved 25 February 2015.
  13. ↑ Coyne, Andrew (6 February 2015). "Crossing the Rubicon, Supreme Court seems eerily complacent about ramifications of assisted suicide ruling". National Post .
  14. ↑ Coyne, Andrew (13 February 2015). "Supreme Court euthanasia ruling marks the death of judicial restraint". National Post .
  15. ↑ Gerson, Jen (8 February 2015). "Assisted-suicide ruling part of 'activist' Supreme Court's stance against social conservative values". National Post .
  16. ↑ Day, Stockwell (14 February 2015). "Assisted-suicide ruling response requires nationwide debate". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation .
  17. ↑ Black, Conrad (14 February 2015). "Supreme Court on the loose". National Post .
  18. ↑ "Supreme Court Judgments". Supreme Court of Canada. SCC/CSC. February 6, 2015. Retrieved January 2, 2016.
  19. ↑ Fine, Sean (February 6, 2015). "Supreme Court rules Canadians have right to doctor-assisted suicide". The Globe and Mail.
  20. 1 2 "Canadian doctors express mixed opinions on assisted dying". CTV News. Bell Media. The Canadian Press. December 27, 2015. Retrieved January 2, 2016.
  21. ↑ Guichon, Alakija; Doig, Mitchell & Thibeault (December 28, 2015). "Assisted dying: Four problems, one simple solution". Glove and Mail. Toronto, Canada. Retrieved January 2, 2016.
  22. ↑ McCharles, Tonda (June 17, 2016). "Assisted dying to become law after Senate backs Liberals' bill". Toronto Star. Toronto, Canada. Retrieved June 18, 2016.
  23. ↑ The Canadian Press (June 18, 2016). "Serge Joyal urges provinces to test constitutionality of assisted dying law". Macleans. Retrieved June 18, 2016. Senator wants to test whether it's constitutional to exclude Canadians suffering intolerably from non-terminal medical conditions
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.