User:Alicat13/sandbox

Willick v Willick is a Supreme Court of Canada decision where the prohibition of assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by several parties, including the family of Kay Carter, a woman suffering from degenerative spinal stenosis, and Gloria Taylor, a woman suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). In a unanimous decision, the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code of Canada, giving Canadian adults who are mentally competent and suffering intolerably and enduringly the right to a doctor’s help in dying. The court suspended its ruling for 12 months, with the decision taking effect in 2016, giving the government enough time to amend its laws.

Background
In 1972, the Canadian government repealed the Criminal Code provision prohibiting suicide. However, 241(b) of the Criminal Code provided that everyone who aids or abets a person in committing suicide commits an indictable offence, and s. 14 stated that no person may consent to death being inflicted on them. The Supreme Court denied a right to assisted suicide in their 1993 ruling Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG), upholding the constitutionality of the prohibitions based upon a thin evidentiary record. In April 2011, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed a lawsuit challenging both s. 14 and section 241(b) of Criminal Code (law that prohibits aiding a person to commit suicide), claiming they violated sections 7 (the right to "life, liberty, and security of the person) and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (equality).

The case was heard at the Supreme Court of British Columbia, who ruled in favour of the BCCLA in June 2012. The federal government appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, who overturned the ruling in a two-to-one decision in October 2013. The BCCLA then filed a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Reasons of the Court
The Court framed the issue at bar thus: [1] It is a crime in Canada to assist another person in ending her own life. As a result, people who are grievously and irremediably ill cannot seek a physician’s assistance in dying and may be condemned to a life of severe and intolerable suffering. A person facing this prospect has two options: she can take her own life prematurely, often by violent or dangerous means, or she can suffer until she dies from natural causes. The choice is cruel.

The Court found that section 241(b) and section 14 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringe section 7 of the Charter, and that this violation is not saved under section 1.

Stare decisis
The Court found that the trial judge was not bound by the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG), instead holding that stare decisis is "not a straitjacket that condemns the law to stasis". The Court expanded on their discussion of the issue in Canada (AG) v Bedford by ruling that trial judges may reconsider the decisions of higher courts if there is a new legal issue at bar, and if circumstances or evidence have "fundamentally shift[ed] the parameters of the debate". The Court found that the section 7 legal issues raised in the case at bar differed from those in Rodriguez, noting in particular the development of the overbreadth and gross disproportionality principles since 1993. The court also determined that the trial judge was entitled to consider the different "matrix of legislative and social facts" that had arisen since Rodriguez.

Division of powers
The Court affirmed that section 241(b) of the Criminal Code fell within the federal government's section 91(27) criminal law power. Echoing their decision in Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society, the Court dismissed the appellants' argument that s 241(b) lay within the core of the provincial section 92 powers. Interjurisdictional immunity could not prevent the federal government from enacting the legislation, since the proposed core of the provincial health powers was overly vague. The Court reaffirmed that health is an area of concurrent jurisdiction, allowing both the federal and provincial legislatures to legislate in the area.

Public reaction
The decision was well received by many, but characterized as judicial activism by others. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, appellants at the Supreme Court, were "overjoyed" by the ruling, holding that "physician-assisted dying will now be recognized for what it is—a medical service". The day of the decision, Andrew Coyne wrote in his National Post column that the Court was being eerily complacent about ramifications of its decision. He also argued that the decision signaled the death of judicial restraint in Canada. Former politician Stockwell Day was particularly critical of the Court, saying "[I]f you want to write laws, you should run for office". In an op-ed published on CBC's website, he called for a nationwide debate concerning assisted-suicide legislation. In response to Carter, Conrad Black argued that politicians should invoke the notwithstanding clause to send a message to the court that Parliament is supreme.