Jump to content

Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.73.104.136 (talk) at 00:17, 19 January 2021 (→‎Background: Still underway. Most text in this section just repeated things the reader already knows. The only new information is the nickname, which is trivia anyways). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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][2][4][5][6][7][8]

The plaintiffs' claim

The plaintiffs, which included Cambie Surgeries Corporation, Chris Chiavatti, Mandy Martens, Krystiana Corrado, Walid Khalfallah by his litigation guardian Debbie Waitkus, and Specialist Referral Clinic (Vancouver) Inc.,[1] claimed that sections 14, 17, 18 and 45 of the British Columbia's Medicare Protection Act (MPA) were in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the "right to life, liberty and security of the person" and Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, equality rights.[2]

Specifically, Day argued that the MPA prohibits patients from accessing private "diagnostic and surgical services" if public health services fail to provide service within a "timely fashion", and results in patients suffering "prolonged pain and disability, serious psychological harm or deterioration and irreparable harm."[1][9]

Day had argued that patients have a constitutional right under the Charter to access private surgery and diagnostic tests. Under B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act enrolled practitioners are prohibited from "charging patients directly for services that are insured through the public system" through "user fees or extra billing".[10] This is a protection to ensure unimpeded "reasonable access"—regardless of income—to "universal" medical services care.[10]

The plaintiffs referred to the 2005 Supreme Court of Canada case Chaoulli v Quebec (AG)—a similar case in the province of Québec.[1]

Defendants and Intervenors

Defendants included Attorney General of British Columbia, the Attorney General of Canada, and two groups of intervenors who opposed the plaintiffs' claim. The Patient Intervenors included four "ordinary British Columbians" who "claim to have experienced harm while being treated by physicians engaging in dual practice and extra billing." The Coalition Intervenors represent four individuals and two organizations, Canadian Doctors for Medicare and the British Columbia Friends of Medicare Society, also known as the BC Health Coalition. The Coalition Intervenors include medical doctors, Duncan Etches and Robert Woollard and two low income patients who use British Columbia's public health care system.[1]

Trial proceedings

The trial which took place over a four-year period, from 2016 to 2020, included over a hundred witnesses.[11]

Decision

In his 880-page decision, which he handed down on September 10, 2020, Justice John J. Steeves, of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC), who presided over the trial, found that the "impugned provisions do not deprive the right to life or liberty of the patient plaintiffs or similarly situated individuals." Justice Steeves also found that there was a "rational connection between the effects of the impugned provisions and the objectives of preserving...the universal health care system and ensuring access to necessary medical services is based on need and not the ability to pay."[2]

Appeals

It is expected that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.[12][10] Prior to which, it will first need to be appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Media response

According to a 2014 article in The Tyee, the case has been described as one of the most significant challenges in Canada's legal history.[10] Business Wire called the ruling a "victory for public health care in Canada".[13]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h "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 d "Private Vancouver clinic loses constitutional challenge of public health-care rules". CBC News. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference BMJ Ed Board was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia – BC Injury Law". Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  5. ^ "Private health care battle draws to a close after a decade in B.C." British Columbia. 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  6. ^ 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.
  7. ^ "B.C. Supreme Court rules against legalizing private health care following decade-long battle | CTV News". Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  8. ^ "Cambie Case (ongoing)". Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  9. ^ "The Legal Attack on Public Health Care | BC Health Coalition". Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  10. ^ a b c d Macleod, Andrew (17 April 2014). "For-Profit Clinic Lawsuit May Transform Health Care". TheTyee.ca. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
  11. ^ "B.C. Supreme Court rules against legalizing private healthcare in landmark case". Global News. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  12. ^ 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)
  13. ^ "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=1001275208"