Some thoughts on this article, which suggests that the ruling in the BC private health care case is inconsistent with SCC jurisprudence and thus vulnerable to appeal: nationalpost.com/news/canada/b-…
While one of the parts of BC's law was similar to that challenged in Chaoulli (ban on private insurance), the BC case addressed other rules like limits on extra billing.
There are significant differences in Quebec's 2005 health system and BC's 2020 system. For example, while judges in Chaoulli disagreed on how to assess unreasonable waits, the judge in BC relied on benchmarks that didn't exist in Quebec in 2005.
The constitutional jurisprudence has evolved in the last 15 years. Many were very critical of the SCC's approach in Chaoulli. The majority appeared to substitute their own policy choices for those of the government, rather than applying the proper legal test.
The quality of the evidence in the BC case was much better and the judge's analysis of it was methodical. He didn't fall into the Chaoulli trap of failing to appreciate that health policies from one political/legal/social climate cannot be easily imported to Canada.
The $ backers of Brian Day claim that subsequent Supreme Court cases "stand for the same principle: that the government cannot undermine measures that help protect people". This is a preposterous oversimplification of the cases that she cites.
I read the whole 880 pages yesterday and will be posting a blog post on Monday that summarizes the case.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
