Cases 2

imissyou419's version from 2017-10-20 18:35


Question Answer
Carter v. CanadaSCC unanimously struck down s 14 in regard to physician-assisted dying in cases of competent adults with grievous and irremediable medical conditions that cause them enduring and intolerable suffering and s 241
Supreme court of Canada held that Criminal Code's total ban on physician assistance in dying violated a patient's rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom
In response to Carter, Parliament enacted Bill C-14 which repealed and replaced ss 14 and ss 241 of the Criminal Code and amended the culpable homicide provisions

Trial judge found that s 241 violated the plaintiff's right under s 7 and 15 of the Chaprter and could not be justified under s 1 because the need to protect the vulnerable could be met by including approperiate safeguards in s 241. The defendant appealed. The majority of the BC court of appeal overturned the trial judgement, ruling the Rodriguez was a binding precedent that the trial judge was required to follow. In turn, the Court of Appeal decision was appealed.
Supreme court of Canada unanimously held that ss 14 and 241 prohibit physician-assisted dying for competent adults with grevious and irremediable medical conditions that cause enduring and intolerable suffering violated s 7 of the Charter. The court stated that ss 14 and ss 241 violated: the right to life by forcing some individuals to take their life prematurely for fear that they may become unable to do so; the right to liberty by denying the individuals the right to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical treatment; the right to security of the person by leaving some patients to endure intolerable suffering.
Supreme Court also unanimously held that these violations of s 7 could not be justified under s 1 of the Charter. While the total ban on physician-assisted dying was prescribed by law and served a pressing and substantial objective, it was not proportionate to the objective and thus did not minimally impair the plaintiff's s 7 charter rights. The supreme court agreed with the trial judge that a permissive regime with approperiate safeguards was capable of protecting the vulnerable individuals and that the decision regarding vulnerability and capacity could be made on a case-by-case basis.
The Supreme court declared ss 14 and ss 241 to be invalid in regard to physician-assisted dying in the case of competent adults with grievous and irremediable medical conditions causing enduring and intolerable suffering.
The declaration of invalidity was suspended for 12 months to give Parliment an opportunity to amend the legislation;
Court stated nothing in the declaration would require physicians to provide assistance in dying
R v. LatimerLatimer's 12 year old daughter, Tracey, suffered from severe cerebral palsy, which left her a quadriplegic and bedridden.
She was in constant pain, mentally handicapped
When informed that Tracey would need major surgery w/ 1 year recovery period, Latimer decided to kill Tracy by poisoning her with CO
Charged with first-degree murder, Latimer was found guilty of second-degree murder Latimer admitted to killing his daughter and argued that applying the mandatory minimum sentence for second-degree murder was cruel b/c he was not a threat to society and his killing of Tracy was carried out in a gentle, painless, compassionate way
Majority of Court of Appeal rejected Latimer's sentence appeal. Court emphasized that Tracey was unable to make an informed and voluntary choice to refuse treatment and terminate her own life. As her SDM, Latimer had a duty to protect.
Court upheld Latimer's conviction for 2nd degree murder Supreme court of Canada upheld the Court of Appeal's majority judgement
R v. DobsonThe accused stabbed 2 women to death and attempted suicide as part of a well-planned and secret santanic suicide pact among them and was charged with first-degree murder
Accused admitted his involvement but argued he should not held criminally responsible b/c his schizophrenia prevented him from appreciating the nature and significance of his acts
Court accepted he suffered from schizophrenia, rejected his claim he should be held NCR b/c the murders were deliberate, intentional, well-planned indicated the accused appreciated the nature and significance of the act
Accused admitted to police that he knew they were legally wrong but not morally wrong
Court stated the accused's careful steps to conceal the plan indicated he also knew his acts were morally wrong
Accused was convicted of 2 counts of first-degree murder
Re WJKWJK 42 year old woman suffer from schizophrenia, had a history of violence and noncompliance with meds, charged with 2x assaut, entered into another person's house, tried to run over pedestrian, under delusion she had 3 kids taken away
WJK admitted as an involuntary patient and was physically aggressive and threatening in hospital
Her attending physician issued a certificate of renewal, which she challenged
CCB stated the attending physician had the burden of proving the criteria for certificate were met
Physician indicated if certificate was not issued, WJK would not remain as a voluntary patient and would likely stop taking her meds, concerned she might seriously injure a child or others while trying to find her children
CCB accepted the physician's evidence, except in likelihood of WJK seriously injuring another person b/c there was no evidence she had actually caused bodily harm before
When asked by CCB what she would do if she found 1 of her children, WJK said she would smile, contact her lawyer and take legal action to recover her child
CCB accepted there was a possibly that WJK might harm others while acting on her delusions but fell short of establishing it was LIKELY that she would cause serious bodily harm to another
CCB rescinded the certificate of renewal