Eve, Re

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
• Citation: (1986), 61 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 273 (SCC),61 Nfld & PEIR 273,71 NR 1,[1986] ACS no 60,2 ACWS (3d) 42,185 APR 273,8 CHRR 3773,31 DLR (4th) 1,[1986] 2 SCR 388,13 CPC (2d) 6,58 OR (2d) 535,JE 86-1051,1986 CanLII 36 (SCC),[1986] SCJ No 60 (QL),1986 CanLII 4039 (SCC)
• Date: 23 October 1986
• Subject Matter: COURTS,CIVIL RIGHTS

Eve, Re (1986), 61 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 273 (SCC);

    185 A.P.R. 273

MLB headnote and full text

"Eve", by her Guardian Ad Litem, Milton B. Fitzpatrick, Official Trustee v. Mrs. "E" and Canadian Mental Health Association, Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded, Public Trustee of Manitoba and Attorney General of Canada

(16654)

Indexed As: Eve, Re

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.

October 23, 1986.

Summary:

The widowed mother of a 24 year-old mentally handicapped woman applied in 1980 for authorization to consent to the sterilization of her daughter by tubal ligation. The woman was moderately mentally retarded with severe expressive aphasia. She was incapable of understanding the nature of the sexual and childbearing process and of raising an infant child. She was very attracted to the male sex and was very capable of being attractive to males. As a result, her freedom was restricted, because she had to be closely watched to prevent sexual contact with males. C.R. McQuaid, J., of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, in an unreported judgment, dismissed the application and held that the court had no jurisdiction to order sterilization of a mentally handicapped person for merely contraceptive purposes. The mother appealed.

The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 27 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 97; 74 A.P.R. 97 (addendum 28 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 359; 79 A.P.R. 359); 115 D.L.R.(3d) 283, allowed the appeal and authorized sterilization of the woman. The Court of Appeal held that the court had the power under its parens patriae jurisdiction to authorize the sterilization of a mentally handicapped person for not only therapeutic, but also contraceptive purposes. The woman appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that the court under its parens patriae jurisdiction could not order sterilization of a mentally handicapped woman for social or non-therapeutic reasons.

Civil Rights - Topic 5655

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Medical treatment of mentally handicapped person - Sterilization - The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15 guaranteed equality before the law - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 15 did not impose a duty on the court to choose for a mentally handicapped person between the right to procreate and the right not to procreate - See paragraphs 97 to 99.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7, guaranteed life, liberty and security of the person - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 7 of the Charter was inapplicable to a consideration of whether sterilization of a mentally handicapped woman could be ordered - The court stated that s. 7 merely protects individuals from laws which deprive them of liberty - See paragraph 96.

Courts - Topic 103

Stare decisis - English and American authorities - American decisions - In considering whether sterlization of a mentally handicapped woman for nontherapeutic purposes could be authorized under the parens patriae jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the American experience, including case law - See paragraphs 55 to 71.

Courts - Topic 1781

Powers - Guardianship - General - The Supreme Court of Canada considered the origin and development of the parens patriae jurisdiction of the court and the relationship of the parens patriae jurisdiction to wardship, which is now merely the device by which the court exercises its parens patriae jurisdiction over children - The court held that the parens patriae jurisdiction is founded on necessity: the need to act for the protection of those who cannot care for themselves, whether children or mentally handicapped persons - It is exercised in the best interests of the protected person for his benefit or welfare; it is not for the benefit or convenience of others - Its categories are never closed and there has been a move toward a broader discretion - Hence, it may be used to authorize medical treatment, including surgery, necessary for the mental or physical health of a mentally handicapped person, including sterilization for treatment, but not social or non-therapeutic, purposes.

Courts - Topic 1822

Powers - Guardianship - Mentally handicapped persons - Right of mentally handicapped person to representation - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in an application for authorization to perform surgery, including sterilization, on a mentally handicapped person it is essential that the mentally handicapped person have independent representation - See paragraph 100.

Courts - Topic 1824

Powers - Guardianship - Mentally handicapped persons - Medical treatment - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a court under its parens patriae jurisdiction could authorize medical treatment, including surgery, necessary for the mental or physical health of a mentally handicapped person - Hence, sterilization for therapeutic reasons, but not for social or non-therapeutic reasons, could be authorized - See paragraph 76.

Courts - Topic 1825

Powers - Guardianship - Mentally handicapped persons - Sterilization - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the court under its parens patriae jurisdiction could not order the sterilization of a mentally handicapped woman for social or non-therapeutic reasons - The court held further that non-therapeutic sterilization was not authorized by either the Prince Edward Island Mental Health Act or Hospital Act - The court considered the origins and development of the parens patriae jurisdiction in Anglo-Canadian law (see paragraphs 30 to 54) and considered the American experience, including the best interests test and the substituted judgment test (see paragraphs 55 to 71, 94).

Cases Noticed:

Cary v. Bertie (1696), 2 Vern. 333; 23 E.R. 814, refd to. [para. 35].

Morgan v. Dillon (Ireland)(1724), 9 Mod. R. 135; 88 E.R. 361, refd to. [para. 35].

Beall v. Smith (1873), L.R. 9 Ch. 85, refd to. [para. 37].

Beverley's Case (1603), 4 Co. Rep. 123b; 76 E.R. 1118, consd. [para. 40].

Wellesley v. Duke of Beaufort (1827), 2 Russ. 1; 38 E.R. 236, affd. 2 Bli. N.S. 124; 4 E.R. 1078, consd. [para. 41].

Wellesley v. Wellesley (1828), 2 Bli. N.S. 124; 4 E.R. 1078, consd. [para. 42].

Beson v. Director of Child Welfare (Nfld.), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 716; 39 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 246; 111 A.P.R. 246, consd. [para. 42].

Re X (a minor), [1975] 1 All E.R. 697, consd. [para. 44].

Re S. v. McC; W. v. W., [1972] A.C. 24, consd. [para. 47].

Re D. (a minor), [1976] 1 All E.R. 326, folld. [paras. 48, 92].

In re P. (a minor) (1981), 80 L.G.R. 301, consd. [para. 52].

Re B. (a minor) (1982), 3 F.L.R. 117, consd. [para. 53].

Re K. (1985), 19 D.L.R.(4th) 255, consd. [para. 54].

Guardianship of Tully (1978), 146 Cal. Rptr. 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Hudson v. Hudson (1979), 373 So. 2d 310 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [paras. 60, 62].

Matter of Guardianship of Eberhardy (1980), 294 N.W. 2d 540, refd to. [paras. 60, 62].

Stump v. Sparkman (1978), 435 U.S. 349, consd. [para. 61].

Matter of Guardianship of Eberhardy (1981), 307 N.W. 2d 881 (Wis. S.C.), consd. [paras. 62, 65, 89].

In re Grady (1981), 426 A. 2d 467 (N.J. S.C.), consd. [paras. 62, 65].

Matter of C.D.M. (1981), 627 P. 2d 607 (Alaska S.C.), consd. [paras. 62, 65].

Matter of A.W. (1981), 637 P. 2d 366 (Colo. S.C.), consd. [paras. 62, 65].

Matter of Terwilliger (1982), 450 A. 2d 1376 (Penn. S.C.), consd. [paras. 62, 65].

Wentzel v. Montgomery General Hospital (1982), 447 A. 2d 1244 (Md. C. A.), consd. [paras. 62, 65].

Matter of Moe (1982), 432 N.E. 2d 712 (Mass. S.C.), consd. [paras. 62, 65].

P.S. by Harbin v. W.S. (1983), 452 N. E. 2d 969 (Ind. S.C.), consd. [paras. 62, 65].

Matter of Sallmaier (1976), 378 N.Y. S. 2d 989 (Sup.Ct.), consd. [para. 63].

Application of A.D. (1977), 394 N.Y. S. 2d 139, consd. [para. 63].

In re Penny N. (1980), 414 A. 2d 541 (New Hampshire), consd. [para. 65].

Matter of Guardianship of Hayes (1980), 608 P. 2d 635, consd. [paras. 65, 66].

Matter of Quinlan (1976), 355 A. 2d 647 (N.J.S.C.), consd. [para. 69].

Strunk v. Strunk, 445 S.W. 2d 145, consd. [para. 76].

Statutes Noticed:

Act for the Relief of the Suitors of the High Court of Chancery, 15 & 16 Vict., c. 87, sect. 15 (U.K.) [para. 38].

Act to authorize the appointment of a Master of the Rolls to the Court of Chancery, and an Assistant Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature in this Island, 11 Vict., c. 6 (P.E.I.) [para. 38].

Act to provide for the care and maintenance of idiots, lunatics and persons of unsound mind, 15 Vict., c. 36 (P.E.I.) [para. 38].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 7, sect. 15(1) [para. 38].

Chancery Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1951, c. 21, sect. 3 [para. 39].

Chancery Jurisdiction Transfer Act, S.P.E.I. 1974, c. 65, sect. 2 [para. 39].

De Prerogative Regis [para. 32].

Hospitals Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. H11, sect. 16 [para. 28].

Hospitals Act, "Hospital Management Regulations", R.R.P.E.I., c. H-11, sect. 48 [para. 28].

Mental Health Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. M-9, as amended by S.P.E.I. 1974, c. 65, sect. 2(n), sect. 30A(1), sect. 30A(2), sect. 30B, sect. 30L [para. 22].

Sexual Sterilization Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 341, rep. S.A. 1972, c. 87 [para. 78].

Sexual Sterilization Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 353, rep. S.B.C. 1973, sect. 5(1) c. 79 [para. 78].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Burgdorf and Burgdorf, The Wicked Witch is Almost Dead: Buck v. Bell and the Sterilization of Handicapped Persons (1977), 50 Temp. L.Q. 995, p. 1007 [para. 58].

Chambers on Infancy (1842), p. 20 [para. 44].

Fitzherbert, Natura Brevium [para. 40].

Lachance, In re Grady: The Mentally Retarded Individual's Right to Choose Sterilization (1981), 6 Am. L.J. & Med. 559, pp. 569-570 [para. 58].

Law Reform Commission of Canada, Sterilization, Working Paper 24 (1979), p. 3 [para. 80]; 33 [para. 84]; 34 [para. 85]; 44 [para. 84]; 49-52 [para. 80]; 63-64 [para. 84].

McGyver, Equitable Jurisdiction to Order Sterilizations (1982), 57 Wash. L. Rev. 373, p. 375 [para. 58].

McLaughlin, P., Guardianship of the Person (1979), p. 35 [para. 40].

Norris, Recent Developments - Sterilization of Mental Incompetents (1977), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. 879 [para. 60].

Ross, Sterilization of the Developmentally Disabled: Shedding Some Myth-Conceptions (1981), 9 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 599 [para. 59].

Sherlock and Sherlock, Sterilization of the Retarded: Constitutional, Statutory and Policy Alternatives (1982), 60 N.C.L. Rev. 943, p. 944 [para. 56].

Theobald, Henry, The Law Relating to Lunacy (1924), pp. 1 [para. 32]; 78, 362 [para. 40].

Counsel:

Eugene P. Rossiter, for the appellant;

Walter McEwen, for the respondent;

B.A. Crane, Q.C., for the Canadian Mental Health Association;

David H. Vickers, Harvey Savage and S.D. McCallum, for the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded;

M. Anne Bolton, for the Public Trustee of Manitoba;

E.A. Bowie, Q.C., and B. Starkman, for the Attorney General of Canada.

This case was heard on June 4 and 5, 1985, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 23, 1986, La Forest, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: