Jump to content

Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Media response: This should go into the lead, which unbelievably contains no plain-language explanation of this article's subject
Removing cite templates that are no longer needed
Line 31: Line 31:
|italic title =
|italic title =
}}
}}
'''Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia''' [2020 BCSC 1310] is a high-profile, multi-year [[Supreme Court of British Columbia]] (BCSC) case against the province of British Columbia, launched in 2009 by [[Brian Day]], an advocate for private health care. Day, who runs the [[Vancouver]]-based private clinic Cambie Surgery Centre, challenged the constitutionality of four provisions of British Columbia's Medicare Protection Act under sections 7 and 15 of the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]. The trial started in 2016 and was finally decided on September 10, 2020. In an 880-age decision, Justice John J. Steeves of the BCSC dismissed both charter claims.<ref name="CBC_20200910"/><ref name="BMJ Ed Board"/><ref name="CBC_20200910"/><ref name="bc-injury-law">{{Cite web| title = Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia – BC Injury Law| accessdate = 2020-09-10| url = https://bc-injury-law.com/tag/cambie-surgeries-corporation-v-british-columbia/}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title = Private health care battle draws to a close after a decade in B.C.| work = British Columbia| accessdate = 2020-09-10| date = 2020-02-28| url = https://bc.ctvnews.ca/private-health-care-battle-draws-to-a-close-after-a-decade-in-b-c-1.4831855}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| last = Weisgarber| first = Maria| title = B.C. Supreme Court rules against legalizing private health care following decade-long battle| work = British Columbia| accessdate = 2020-09-10| date = 2020-09-10| url = https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-supreme-court-rules-against-legalizing-private-health-care-following-decade-long-battle-1.5099737}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title = B.C. Supreme Court rules against legalizing private health care following decade-long battle {{!}} CTV News| accessdate = 2020-09-10| url = https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-supreme-court-rules-against-legalizing-private-health-care-following-decade-long-battle-1.5099737}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title = Cambie Case (ongoing)| accessdate = 2020-09-10| url = https://www.healthcoalition.ca/tools-and-resources/legal-challenges-to-health-care/cambie-case/}}</ref>
'''Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia''' [2020 BCSC 1310] is a high-profile, multi-year [[Supreme Court of British Columbia]] (BCSC) case against the province of British Columbia, launched in 2009 by [[Brian Day]], an advocate for private health care. Day, who runs the [[Vancouver]]-based private clinic Cambie Surgery Centre, challenged the constitutionality of four provisions of British Columbia's Medicare Protection Act under sections 7 and 15 of the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]. The trial started in 2016 and was finally decided on September 10, 2020. In an 880-age decision, Justice John J. Steeves of the BCSC dismissed both charter claims.<ref name="CBC_20200910"/><ref name="bc-injury-law">{{Cite web| title = Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia – BC Injury Law| accessdate = 2020-09-10| url = https://bc-injury-law.com/tag/cambie-surgeries-corporation-v-british-columbia/}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title = Private health care battle draws to a close after a decade in B.C.| work = British Columbia| accessdate = 2020-09-10| date = 2020-02-28| url = https://bc.ctvnews.ca/private-health-care-battle-draws-to-a-close-after-a-decade-in-b-c-1.4831855}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| last = Weisgarber| first = Maria| title = B.C. Supreme Court rules against legalizing private health care following decade-long battle| work = British Columbia| accessdate = 2020-09-10| date = 2020-09-10| url = https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-supreme-court-rules-against-legalizing-private-health-care-following-decade-long-battle-1.5099737}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title = B.C. Supreme Court rules against legalizing private health care following decade-long battle {{!}} CTV News| accessdate = 2020-09-10| url = https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-supreme-court-rules-against-legalizing-private-health-care-following-decade-long-battle-1.5099737}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title = Cambie Case (ongoing)| accessdate = 2020-09-10| url = https://www.healthcoalition.ca/tools-and-resources/legal-challenges-to-health-care/cambie-case/}}</ref>


==Plaintiffs==
==Plaintiffs==
The plaintiffs argued that British Columbia's Medicare Protection Act (MPA), 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, violated the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]. They emphasized [[Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 7]], which protects the "right to life, liberty and security of the person" and [[Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 15]], which guarantees "equality rights".<ref name="BCSC_1310_Cambie_2020"/><ref name="CBC_20200910"/> 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.<ref name="BCSC_1310_Cambie_2020">{{Cite web| series = 2020 BCSC 1310 Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia (Attorney General)|title=The Honourable Mr. Justice Steeves Reasons for Judgment |date=2020-09-10| accessdate = 2020-09-11| url = https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/20/13/2020BCSC1310.htm#SCJTITLEBookMark3957}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title = The Legal Attack on Public Health Care {{!}} BC Health Coalition| accessdate = 2020-09-10| url = https://www.bchealthcoalition.ca/what-we-do/protect-medicare/case-backgound}}</ref><ref name="thetyee_Macleod_20140417"/><ref name="thetyee_Macleod_20140417"/>
The plaintiffs argued that British Columbia's Medicare Protection Act (MPA), 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, violated the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]. They emphasized [[Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 7]], which protects the "right to life, liberty and security of the person" and [[Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 15]], which guarantees "equality rights".<ref name="BCSC_1310_Cambie_2020"/><ref name="CBC_20200910"/> 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.<ref name="BCSC_1310_Cambie_2020">{{Cite web| series = 2020 BCSC 1310 Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia (Attorney General)|title=The Honourable Mr. Justice Steeves Reasons for Judgment |date=2020-09-10| accessdate = 2020-09-11| url = https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/20/13/2020BCSC1310.htm#SCJTITLEBookMark3957}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title = The Legal Attack on Public Health Care {{!}} BC Health Coalition| accessdate = 2020-09-10| url = https://www.bchealthcoalition.ca/what-we-do/protect-medicare/case-backgound}}</ref>


==Defendants and intervenors==
==Defendants and intervenors==
Line 44: Line 44:


==Aftermath==
==Aftermath==
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.<ref>{{Cite web| last1 = Feb 28| first1 = Camille Bains · The Canadian Press| title = Health care battle in judge's hands but expected to land in Canada's top court {{!}} CBC News| work = CBC| accessdate = 2020-09-10| date = 2020-02-29| url = https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/private-health-care-court-1.5480975}}</ref><ref name="thetyee_Macleod_20140417"/> Immediately after Steeves handed down his ruling, Brian Day pledged to appeal it.<ref>https://globalnews.ca/news/7326893/bc-supreme-court-ruling-private-public-healthcare/</ref>
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.<ref>{{Cite web| last1 = Feb 28| first1 = Camille Bains · The Canadian Press| title = Health care battle in judge's hands but expected to land in Canada's top court {{!}} CBC News| work = CBC| accessdate = 2020-09-10| date = 2020-02-29| url = https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/private-health-care-court-1.5480975}}</ref> Immediately after Steeves handed down his ruling, Brian Day pledged to appeal it.<ref>https://globalnews.ca/news/7326893/bc-supreme-court-ruling-private-public-healthcare/</ref>


==Media response==
==Media response==

Revision as of 01:31, 19 January 2021

Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia (Attorney General)
CourtSupreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC)
StartedSeptember 6, 2016[1]
DecidedSeptember 10, 2020 (2020-09-10)[1]
Citation2020 BCSC 1310
TranscriptJudgement[1]
Case opinions
Decision byJustice John J. Steeves[1]

Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia [2020 BCSC 1310] is a high-profile, multi-year Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC) case against the province of British Columbia, launched in 2009 by Brian Day, an advocate for private health care. Day, who runs the Vancouver-based private clinic Cambie Surgery Centre, challenged the constitutionality of four provisions of British Columbia's Medicare Protection Act under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The trial started in 2016 and was finally decided on September 10, 2020. In an 880-age decision, Justice John J. Steeves of the BCSC dismissed both charter claims.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

Plaintiffs

The plaintiffs argued that British Columbia's Medicare Protection Act (MPA), 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, violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 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][8]

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 "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.[9] 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 favor 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 favor would have on the country's universal healthcare system.[2]

Aftermath

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.[10] Immediately after Steeves handed down his ruling, Brian Day pledged to appeal it.[11]

Media response

Business Wire called the ruling a "victory for public health care in Canada".[12]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g "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. ^ a b c "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". Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  7. ^ "Cambie Case (ongoing)". Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  8. ^ "The Legal Attack on Public Health Care | BC Health Coalition". Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  9. ^ "B.C. Supreme Court rules against legalizing private healthcare in landmark case". Global News. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  10. ^ 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.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ https://globalnews.ca/news/7326893/bc-supreme-court-ruling-private-public-healthcare/
  12. ^ "Cambie Ruling a Victory for Public Health Care in Canada". 2020-09-10. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cambie_Surgeries_Corporation_v_British_Columbia&oldid=1001288676"