From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Willick v Willick
Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: March 16, 1994
Judgment: October 27, 1994
Citations3 SCR 670
Docket No.23141 [1]
Prior historyOn appeal from the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
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
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.7
Criminal Code of Canada, ss.14, 241(b)

Willick v Willick is a Supreme Court of Canada decision where the prohibition of assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 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). [2] In a unanimous decision, the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code of Canada, giving Canadian adults who are mentally competent and suffering intolerably and enduringly the right to a doctor’s help in dying. The court suspended its ruling for 12 months, with the decision taking effect in 2016, giving the government enough time to amend its laws. [3]

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In 1972, the Canadian government repealed the Criminal Code provision prohibiting suicide.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 s. 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), [4] 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 s. 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 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (equality). [2]

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

Reasons of the Court

The Court framed the issue at bar thus:

The Court found that section 241(b) and section 14 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringe section 7 of the Charter, and that this violation is not saved under section 1. [5]

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". [6] The Court expanded on their discussion of the issue in Canada (AG) v Bedford by ruling that 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 s 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

The decision was well received by many, [11] but characterized as judicial activism by others. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, 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 CBC's website, he called for a nationwide debate concerning assisted-suicide legislation. [16] In response to Carter, Conrad Black argued that politicians should invoke the notwithstanding clause to send a message to the court that Parliament is supreme. [17]

See also

References

  1. ^ SCC Case Information - Docket 23141 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. ^ a b c Carter v. Canada: The Death with Dignity Case, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
  3. ^ Chappell, Bill. "Canadians Have A Right To Assisted Suicide, High Court Says". NPR. Retrieved 9 February 2015.
  4. ^ Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 SCR 519, online at: http://canlii.ca/t/1frz0
  5. ^ Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, online at: http://canlii.ca/t/gg5z4
  6. ^ SCC, par. 44
  7. ^ SCC, par. 44
  8. ^ SCC, par. 47
  9. ^ SCC, par. 51
  10. ^ SCC, par. 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.

External links


Category:Section Seven Charter case law Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases Category:2015 in Canadian case law Category:Assisted suicide Category:Euthanasia law

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Alicat13/sandbox&oldid=694096665"