Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia

Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia [2020 BCSC 1310] is a high-profile, multi-year Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC) case brought by Brian Day, an advocate for private healthcare, against the province of British Columbia. Day, who runs the Vancouver-based private clinic Cambie Surgery Centre, challenged the sections of the province's Medicare Protection Act (MPA) that prevent private practitioners from charging patients who are enrolled in Canada's universal healthcare system for services available in that system. The lawsuit stated that the MPA was unconstitutional because it violated sections 7 ("right to life") and 15 ("equal protection") of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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]
Citation(s)2020 BCSC 1310
Transcript(s)Judgement[1]
Case opinions
Decision byJustice John J. Steeves[1]

Supporters of the lawsuit decried what they saw as a dangerous mandate that contributed to a problem of long waits for public care without consideration for urgency. The defendants' advocates argued that the lawsuit did not rise to the level of a constitutional question and that a ruling in plaintiffs' favor would do long-lasting damage to Canada's public healthcare system that would far outweigh the problems it purported to solve. Both sides stated publicly that the outcome of the case would have an enduring effect on the country's healthcare. 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 the plaintiffs' claims.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

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][9]

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.[10] 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.[11] Immediately after Steeves handed down his ruling, Brian Day pledged to appeal it.[12]

See also

References
  1. "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. "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. Macleod, Andrew (17 April 2014). "For-Profit Clinic Lawsuit May Transform Health Care". TheTyee.ca. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
  9. "The Legal Attack on Public Health Care | BC Health Coalition". Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  10. "B.C. Supreme Court rules against legalizing private healthcare in landmark case". Global News. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  11. 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.
  12. https://globalnews.ca/news/7326893/bc-supreme-court-ruling-private-public-healthcare/
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.