Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., (1993) 158 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: September 30, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 158 N.R. 1 (SCC);[1993] 7 WWR 641;82 BCLR (2d) 273;[1993] CarswellBC 22;85 CCC (3d) 15;107 DLR (4th) 342;[1993] SCJ No 94 (QL);24 CR (4th) 281;[1993] 3 SCR 519;56 WAC 1;JE 93-1670;17 CRR (2d) 193;1993 CanLII 75 (SCC);34 BCAC 1;158 NR 1;EYB 1993-67109;20 WCB (2d) 589

Rodriguez v. B.C. (A.G.) (1993), 158 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Sue Rodriguez (appellant) v. The Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents) and The British Columbia Coalition of People with Disabilities, Dying with Dignity, the Right to Die Society of Canada, the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, the Pro-Life Society of British Columbia, the Pacific Physicians for Life Society, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and the People in Equal Participation Inc. (interveners)

(23476)

Indexed As: Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

September 30, 1993.

Summary:

A 42 year old woman terminally ill with Lou Gehrig's disease applied for a declar­ation that she was entitled to physician assisted suicide when her condition became unbearable. Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code made it an offence for anyone to assist in a suicide. Section 14 provided that the woman's consent to death would not be a defence. The woman claimed ss. 14 and 241(b) violated her rights under ss. 7, 12 and 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and were, therefore, of no force and effect under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the application. The woman appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, McEachern, C.J.B.C., dissenting, in a judg­ment reported 22 B.C.A.C. 266; 38 W.A.C. 266, dismissed the appeal. Hollinrake, J.A., stated that s. 241(b) denied the woman's right to security of the person, but did not offend s. 7 where the denial of her right was not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. Proudfoot, J.A., stated that there was no legal authority for granting a declaration which would in effect exempt an unnamed person from future criminal liability under s. 241(b). Mc­Eachern, C.J.B.C., stated that s. 241(b) violated the woman's right to security of the person under s. 7, was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice and not saved under s. 1 of the Charter. McEachern, C.J.B.C., would have granted the declaration sought subject to conditions, leaving s. 241(b) intact. The woman appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Lamer, C.J.C., McLachlin, L'Heureux-Dubé and Cory, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court held that s. 241(b) did not violate s. 7, because the absolute prohibition was not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, did not constitute cruel and unusual treatment under s. 12 and, assuming without deciding, that s. 241(b) violated s. 15, it was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 1398

Security of the person - Health care - Assisted suicides - A terminally ill woman applied for a declaration that she was entitled to physician assisted suicide when her condition became unbearable and she was unable to commit suicide herself - Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code made it an offence for anyone to assist in a suicide - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that s. 241(b) of the Criminal Code did not violate the woman's right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter, because the absolute prohibition was not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice - Section 241(b) did not constitute cruel and unusual treatment under s. 12 and assum­ing, without deciding, that her s. 15 equal­ity rights were violated, s. 241(b) was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 3808

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - Treatment defined - A terminally ill woman claimed entitlement to physician assisted suicide when her condition became unbearable and she was unable to commit suicide herself - Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code made it an offence for anyone to assist in a suicide - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 241(b) did not constitute cruel and unusual "treatment" under s. 12 of the Charter - The court stated that "I am prepared to assume that 'treatment' within the meaning of s. 12 may include that imposed by the state in contexts other than that of a penal or quasi-penal nature. ... a mere prohib­ition by the state on certain action, without more, cannot constitute 'treatment' under s. 12. ... There must be some more active state process in operation, involving an exercise of state control over the individ­ual, in order for the state action in ques­tion, whether it be positive action, inaction or prohibition, to constitute 'treatment' under s. 12" - See paragraphs 57 to 64.

Civil Rights - Topic 5661.1

Equality and protection of the law - Assisted suicides - Prohibition against - A terminally ill woman claimed entitlement to physician assisted suicide when her condition became unbearable and she was unable to commit suicide herself - Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code made it an offence for anyone to assist in a suicide - The minority of the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that disabled persons who were unable to commit suicide with­out assistance were discriminated against contrary to s. 15 in that they were deprived of a benefit or subjected to a burden by s. 241(b) - The majority of the court pre­ferred not to decide the s. 15 Charter issue - The majority stated that even assuming s. 241(b) violated s. 15, s. 241(b) was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 65 to 71.

Civil Rights - Topic 8344

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Principles of fundamental justice - Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to assist a person to commit suicide - A terminally ill woman claimed s. 241(b) violated her s. 7 Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person, because it prevented her from a physician assisted suicide when life became unbearable and she was unable to do it herself - She claimed a right to die with dignity - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 241(b) impinged on her right to security, but was not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice - Section 241(b) pro­tected the vulnerable who might be induced in moments of weakness to com­mit suicide - The state had an interest in protecting the sanctity of life, subject to qualifications reflective of personal auton­omy and dignity (right to refuse treatment) - The court stated that "given the concerns about abuse ... and the great difficulty in creating appropriate safeguards to prevent these, it cannot be said that the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide is arbitrary or unfair, or that it is not reflective of fundamental values at play in our society" - The court stated that this decision accorded with the position taken in all other Western democracies - See para­graphs 3 to 56.

Civil Rights - Topic 8344

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Principles of fundamental justice - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "where the depriva­tion of the [Charter] right in question does little or nothing to enhance the state's interest (whatever it may be), it seems to me that a breach of fundamental justice will be made out, as the individual's rights will have been deprived for no valid pur­pose" - See paragraph 28.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5661.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of right - Remedies - Statute deemed inapplicable - Constitutional exemption - Lamer, C.J.C., of the Supreme Court of Canada, discussed the availability of granting a constitutional exemption where a Criminal Code provi­sion violated the Charter, but the court suspended the declaration of invalidity rather than immediately striking down the provision - See paragraphs 209 to 222.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Principles of fundamen­tal justice - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 8344 ].

Words and Phrases

Treatment - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the scope of the word "treatment", as found in s. 12 of the Cana­dian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 - See paragraphs 57 to 64.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, appld. [para. 9].

Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 77 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 9].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Swain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 23].

Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; 129 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 25].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 27].

Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 27].

Ciarlariello et al. v. Schacter et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 119; 151 N.R. 133; 62 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 37].

Nancy B. v. Hôtel-Dieu de Québec (1992), 86 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

Malette v. Shulman (1990), 37 O.A.C. 281; 72 O.R.(2d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Health De­partment (1990), 111 L. Ed.2d 224, refd to. [para. 37].

Airedale National Health Service Trust v. Bland, [1993] 2 W.L.R. 316; 149 N.R. 321 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. United Kingdom (1983), 33 D.R. 270; 6 E.H.R.R. 140, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 59].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 60].

Soenen v. Director of Edmonton Remand Centre (1983), 48 A.R. 31; 6 C.R.R. 368 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Blakeman (1988), 48 C.R.R. 222 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 F.C. 369; 11 F.T.R. 279 (T.D.), revsd. on other grounds [1989] 1 F.C. 18; 86 N.R. 168 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Howlett v. Karunaratne (1988), 64 O.R.(2d) 418 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].

McTavish and Director, Child Welfare Act, Re (1986), 32 D.L.R.(4th) 394 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 62].

Carlston v. New Brunswick (Solicitor General) et al. (1989), 99 N.B.R.(2d) 41; 250 A.P.R. 41; 43 C.R.R. 105 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 63].

Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 358, refd to. [para. 70].

Burke v. Prince Edward Island (1991), 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 356; 292 A.P.R. 356 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 118].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 130].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Col­umbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 36 C.R.R. 193; 25 C.C.E.L. 255, refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,203; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 8; 69 C.R.(3d) 97; 39 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 148].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpsons Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 9 C.C.E.L. 185; 17 Admin. L.R. 89; 86 C.L.L.C. 17,002, refd to. [para. 152].

Canadian Odeon Theatres Ltd. v. Human Rights Commission (Sask.) and Huck, [1985] 3 W.W.R. 717; 39 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 159].

Daigle v. Tremblay, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; 102 N.R. 81; 27 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 167].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada (1993), 153 N.R. 161 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 175].

Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; 95 N.R. 81; 58 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 175].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 179].

R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714; 128 N.R. 321; 49 O.A.C. 83; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 454 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 185].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gé­néral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 1 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 2 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 196].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 209].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 214].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) v. Rocket and Price, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232; 111 N.R. 161; 40 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 215].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 216].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme (1987), 20 O.A.C. 345; 35 C.R.R. 300, refd to. [para. 217].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 218].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 113]; sect. 7 [paras. 4, 80, 113]; sect. 12 [paras. 57, 113]; sect. 15(1) [para. 113].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [para. 111].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 241 [paras. 75, 112].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1892, c. 29, sect. 237 [para. 35].

Criminal Law Amendment Act, S.C. 1972, c. 13, sect. 16 [para. 36].

United Nations Convention for the Protec­tion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 8, art. 10 [para. 45].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769), p. 189 [para. 32].

Burbidge, George Wheelock, A Digest of the Criminal Law of Canada (1890), p. 224 [para. 35].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report No. 20, Euthanasia, Aiding Suicide and Cessation of Treatment (1983), pp. 35 [para. 40]; 53, 54 [para. 41].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report No. 28, Euthanasia, Aiding Suicide and Cessation of Treatment (1982), pp. 36 [para. 30]; 46 [para. 198]; 53 [paras. 93, 202]; 54 [para. 202].

Colvin, Eric, Section Seven of the Cana­dian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1989), 68 Can. Bar Rev. 560, generally [paras. 28, 83].

Depaule, Léon, Le droit à la mort: rapport juridique (1974), 7 Human Rights Jour­nal 464, pp. 465 [para. 34]; 467 [para. 33].

Dworkin, Ronald, Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom (1993), p. 217 [para. 184].

Guillon, Claude, and Yves Le Bonniec, Suicide, mode d'emploi: histoire, tech­nique, actualité (1982), generally [para. 46].

Keyserlingk, Edward W., Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life in the Context of Ethics, Medicine and Law (1979), gen­erally [para. 51].

Otlowski, Margaret, Mercy Killing Cases in the Australian Criminal Justice System (1993), 17 Crim. L.J. 10, generally [para. 45].

Penrose, Mary Margaret, Assisted Suicide: A Tough Pill to Swallow (1993), 20 Pepp. L. Rev. 689, pp. 700, 701 [para. 47].

Physician-Assisted Suicide and the Right to Die with Assistance (1992), 105 Harv. L. Rev. 2021, pp. 2030, 2031 [para. 50].

Shaffer, Catherine D., Criminal Liability for Assisting Suicide (1986), 86 Colum. L. Rev. 348, pp. 351 to 353 [para. 47].

Somerville, M.A., Pain and Suffering at Interfaces of Medicine and Law (1986), 36 U.T.L.J. 286, pp. 299 to 301 [para. 185].

Tribe, Laurence, American Constitutional Law (2nd Ed. 1988), pp. 1370, 1371 [para. 19].

Velasquez, Manuel G., Defining Suicide (1987), 3 Issues in Law & Medicine 37, p. 40 [para. 32].

Williams, Glanville, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law (1957), p. 259 [para. 34].

Counsel:

Christopher M. Considine and Philip N. Williams, for the appellant;

James D. Bissell, Q.C., and Johannes A. Van Iperen, Q.C., for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada;

George H. Copley, for the respondent, Attorney General of British Columbia;

James F. Sayre and James W. Pozer, for the intervener, British Columbia Coalition of People with Disabilities;

Martin H. Campbell and Nancy E. Mills, for the intervener, Dying with Dignity;

Robyn M. Bell, for the intervener, Right to Die Society of Canada;

Anne M. Molloy and Janet L. Budgell, for the intervener, COPOH;

A.G. Henderson, Q.C., and Neil Milton, for the interveners, Pro-Life Society of British Columbia and Pacific Physicians for Life Society;

Robert M. Nelson and Todd J. Burke, for the interveners, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada;

G. Patrick S. Riley and John A. Myers, for the intervener, People in Equal Partici­pation Inc.

Solicitors of Record:

Considine & Lawler, Victoria, British Columbia, for the appellant;

John C. Tait, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, British Columbia, for the Attorney Gen­eral of British Columbia;

Community Legal Assistance Society, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, British Columbia Coalition of People with Disabilities;

Beard, Winter, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Dying with Dignity;

Davies, Ward & Beck, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Right to Die Society of Canada;

Anne M. Molloy and Janet L. Budgell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, COPOH;

Davis & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the interveners, Pro-Life Society of British Columbia and Pacific Physicians for Life Society;

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the interveners, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada;

Taylor McCaffrey, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the interveners, People in Equal Participation Inc.

This appeal was heard on May 20, 1993, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On September 30, 1993, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Sopinka, J. (La Forest, Gonthier, Iaco­bucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 74;

McLachlin, J., (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring), dissenting  - see paragraphs 75 to 108;

Lamer, C.J.C., dissenting - see para­graphs 109 to 228;

Cory, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 229 to 235.