OTTAWA – Today, in a case in which The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) intervened, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) ruled in
Carter v. Canada that only Parliament is constitutionally empowered to consider changes to Canada’s law prohibiting assisted suicide and euthanasia. In doing so, the BCCA overturned a 2012 trial judge’s ruling which had carved out exceptions to the existing
Criminal Code suicide provision. The EFC welcomes the decision.
“The Court of Appeal decided that the trial judge was bound by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in
Rodriguez v. British Columbia – a ruling that found the
Criminal Code prohibitions against assisted suicide and euthanasia are constitutional and legitimate in our free and democratic society,” explains EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel Don Hutchinson. “The Court found that the decision and the principles set out in
Rodriguez in 1993 are still valid.”
In her 2012 decision, the trial judge had picked through the 1993
Rodriguez decision and determined she could overturn it based on how the Supreme Court of Canada had decided
Rodriguez, rather than adhering to its decision that Canada’s law prohibiting assisted suicide is constitutional. As the BCCA stated in today’s judgment, “it is important not to lose sight of
what was actually decided, as opposed to
how it was decided.”
“The BCCA also ruled that concerns over the societal impact of decriminalizing assisted suicide cannot be simply dismissed,” says Hutchinson. “The Supreme Court in
Rodriguez found that ‘human life must be respected and we must be careful not to undermine the institutions that protect it’ and that ‘there is no halfway measure’ that would adequately protect the vulnerable.”
In the 2-1 majority decision, the BCCA has now come to a number of welcome conclusions.
“The BCCA ruled that Parliament had spoken to the issue in 1972 when it amended the suicide provision of the
Criminal Code but left the assisted suicide prohibition in place,” explains EFC Legal Counsel Faye Sonier. “Parliament has also revisited the discussion 3 more times in the last 10 years."
“The Court also affirmed that our legal understanding of the term ‘the right to life’ is the same today as it was 20 years ago, when the
Rodriguez decision was rendered,” she says. “The court held that those who have limited abilities have ‘no less a right to ‘life’, than persons who are able-bodied and fully competent.’ To understand the right to life as including a right to be killed would expand
Charterprotections ‘far beyond what the law can ‘guarantee.’”
Sonier recognizes these BCCA decisions as reflecting arguments the EFC advanced to it. “We’re pleased key components of the court’s decision reflect the submissions made in both our written and oral arguments concerning the charter values of the sanctity and dignity of human life,’” she says.
“This is a difficult topic to discuss and debate, and it cannot be done in a vacuum without consideration for the vulnerable people who will be affected by the decriminalization of assisted suicide,” states Sonier. “And we appreciate how the court, in both the majority and the minority decision, was sensitive to the difficult and personal circumstances not only of the respondents, but of the people this law impacts.”
-30-
For more information or an interview contact:
Rick Hiemstra, Director, Media Relations
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
(613) 233-9868 x332
MediaRelations@theEFC.ca