Today, the Chief Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court granted Christian Legal Fellowship leave to intervene in O’Neill v. British Columbia (Minister of Health). The Chief Justice found that CLF “whose membership comprises individuals who practise in the … legal profession … brings a unique and different perspective to the issues” and granted permission to file a 10-page factum, with length of oral argument to be determined at a later stage.
Facts of the case
The case involves a constitutional challenge to policies adopted by the B.C. Government that protect faith-based organizations from being forced to provide assisted suicide/euthanasia (also known as medical assistance in dying, or “MAID”) within their premises.
The claim has been brought by Dying With Dignity, as well as an individual physician, and a family member of a patient who was previously admitted to a hospital operated by Providence Health Care Society (“Providence”), which is affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.
That patient sought MAID, but because the hospital (St. Paul’s) does not provide it, she was transferred to another facility, where MAID was performed. The plaintiffs allege that this transfer caused considerable pain and distress, and claim that the policies permitting St. Paul’s to decline to provide MAID violate ss. 2(a) and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
CLF’s proposed submissions
One of the unique considerations in this case is that it engages rights and interests of multiple parties that the government has specifically sought to balance and protect. As such, an analysis which focuses on only the rights claims of those challenging the policy may not be sufficient to account for all of the issues engaged – including other potential Charter infringements that might result from the removal of the impugned policy.
As an intervenor, CLF will offer a nuanced analytical approach to assist the court as it considers competing rights claims. CLF will explain how, in Canada’s pluralistic society, decisionmakers must accommodate a multitude of rights and interests, some of which may come into conflict, as alleged in this case. Accommodation of competing interests cannot be reduced to a simple selection of picking one right over another. Decisionmakers must attempt to reconcile competing rights to give each the fullest effect possible. As the Supreme Court of Canada has said, “When two protected rights come into conflict, Charter principles require a balance to be achieved that fully respects the importance of both rights” (Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, at p. 877).
Charter claims therefore must not be assessed in isolation, or with an exclusive, singular focus on one party. Rather, the court must consider all legitimate rights claims that the government is attempting to reconcile. The appropriate inquiry asks (1) has the government adopted a carefully tailored reconciliation that gives fulsome effect to all impacted rights, and (2) are any resulting limitations demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society?
Moving forward
CLF’s submissions on constitutional doctrine and interpretation reflect our unique role as both a religious and a professional legal association. As an association of lawyers situated at the intersection of law and religion, CLF is grateful for the opportunity to assist the Court with a nuanced distillation of key constitutional principles.
The trial in this case is scheduled to be heard in early 2026. Please do remember this case and the work of CLF in your prayers. There is much that may be implicated by this case, including the rights of patients seeking life-affirming care, and the ability of religious communities to serve them in accordance with their faith commitments.