Eldridge v British Columbia (AG)

Last updated
Eldridge v British Columbia (AG)
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: April 24, 1997
Judgment: October 9, 1997
Full case nameRobin Susan Eldridge, John Henry Warren and Linda Jane Warren v The Attorney General of British Columbia and the Medical Services Commission
Citations [1997] 3 SCR 624
Docket No. 24896
RulingEldridge appeal allowed
Court membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons byLa Forest J

Eldridge v British Columbia (AG), [1997] 3 SCR 624, is a leading decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that expanded the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 32 of the Charter.

Each of the appellants in this case was born deaf; their preferred means of communication was ASL, a local sign language. They contended that the absence of interpreters impaired their ability to communicate with their doctors and other health care providers, and thus increased the risk of misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "sign language" interpreters must be provided in the delivery of medical services where doing so is necessary to ensure effective communication. this occured in the country of canada

See also


Related Research Articles

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by federal or provincial legislation.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, often simply referred to as the Charter in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, along with the rest of the Act.

<i>Ford v Quebec (AG)</i>

Ford v Quebec (AG), [1988] 2 SCR 712 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Court struck down part of the Charter of the French Language, commonly known as "Bill 101". This law had restricted the use of commercial signs written in languages other than French. The court ruled that Bill 101 violated the freedom of expression as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto</i>

Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto February 20, 1995- July 20, 1995. 2 S.C.R. 1130 was a libel case against the Church of Scientology, in which the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted Ontario's libel law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter of the French Language, also known in English as Bill 101 or Law 101, is a law in the province of Quebec in Canada defining French, the language of the majority of the population, as the official language of the provincial government. It is the central legislative piece in Quebec's language policy.

Interpreting is a translational activity in which one produces a first and final translation on the basis of a one-time exposure to an expression in a source language.

The court system of Canada forms the judicial branch of government, formally known as "The Queen on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

The legal dispute over Quebec's language policy began soon after the enactment of Bill 101, establishing the Charter of the French Language, by the National Assembly of Quebec in 1977.

<i>Vriend v Alberta</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Vriend v Alberta [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 is an important Supreme Court of Canada case that determined that a legislative omission can be the subject of a Charter violation. The case involved a dismissal of a teacher because of his sexual orientation and was an issue of great controversy during that period.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Section 17 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the provisions of the Charter that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. While the section 17 right to use either language within the Parliament of Canada repeats a right already anchored in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 17 also guarantees the right to use both languages in the legislature of New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province under section 16 of the Charter.

<i>Westendorp v R</i>

Westendorp v R, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 43 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the scope of the federal Parliament's criminal law power under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. A unanimous Court found that a municipal by-law that prohibited standing in the street for the purpose of prostitution was in the nature of a criminal law prohibition and therefore ultra vires of the provincial constitutional authority. The decision surprised many legal scholars who considered it to be inconsistent with previous Supreme Court cases where provincial laws of a moral nature were upheld under the provincial power. This was also the first case where the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was cited in argument to the Supreme Court, although the Charter argument was ultimately abandoned during the hearing.

<i>Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents</i>

Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on minority language rights under section 19(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The majority of the Court held that in civil cases in the New Brunswick courts, the parties have the right to use either French or English in all submissions and pleadings. However, they do not have a right to have the matter heard by a judge who understands them in the language they choose to speak. It is sufficient if there is simultaneous translation. In addition to the majority decision, two other justices of the Court held that the parties did have the right to be heard and understood by the judge in the language of their choice, but on the facts of the case, that standard was met.

<i>Devine v Quebec (AG)</i>

Devine v Quebec (AG), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional protection of minority language rights.

Reference re ss. 193 & 195.1(1)(c) of Criminal Code (Canada),, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on prostitution in Canada. Nova Scotia's Appeal Court had ruled the legislation violated the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by constraining communication in relation to legal activity. The case was referred to the Supreme court.

<i>Gosselin (Tutor of) v Quebec (AG)</i>

Gosselin v Quebec (AG), 2005 SCC 15, [2005] 1 SCR 238 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutional protection of minority language rights under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case was part of a trilogy of minority language rights cases including Solski v Quebec (AG), 2005 SCC 14 and Okwuobi v Lester B Pearson School Board; Casimir v Quebec (AG); Zorrilla v Quebec (AG), 2005 SCC 16.

Section 18 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the provisions of the Constitution that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. Like section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 18 requires that all statutes and other records made by the Parliament of Canada must be available in both official languages. Section 133 places a similar obligation on the legislature of Quebec, and this is reaffirmed by section 21 of the Charter. Section 18 of the Charter places a similar obligation on the legislature of New Brunswick. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province under section 16 of the Charter.

Section 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the last section under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter. It provides anyone in a court the right to an interpreter if the person does not speak the language being used or is deaf.

<i>R v Beaulac</i>

R v Beaulac [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on language rights. Notably, the majority adopted a liberal and purposive interpretation of language rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, overturning conservative case law such as Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents (1986). As the majority wrote, "To the extent that Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick... stands for a restrictive interpretation of language rights, it is to be rejected."

A few days after the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its ruling in the 1988 case of Ford v. Quebec, a decision which approved multilingual commercial expression, the Parti libéral du Québec (PLQ) government of premier Robert Bourassa amended Bill 101 with Bill 178. This latter Act maintained French as the only language on outdoor "public signs, posters and commercial advertising" and within shopping centres and the public transit system. The only exceptions were "foreign-language" signs indoors, subject to approval by the Office de la langue française, and advertisements carried in non-French media, such as the Montreal Gazette.