University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Author: Lorian Hardcastle Page 2 of 5

J.D. (Dalhousie), LL.M. and S.J.D. (Toronto). Assistant Professor. Please click here for more information.

Private Health Care and the Law Part 2: Lessons for Alberta

By: Lorian Hardcastle

PDF Version: Private Health Care and the Law Part 2: Lessons for Alberta

Case Commented On: Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia (Attorney General)2020 BCSC 1310 (CanLII)

On September 10, Justice Steeves of the BC Supreme Court released his decision in Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia (Attorney General). The driving force behind this case was Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon who founded a private surgical clinic in Vancouver that engaged in illegal billing practices. When the BC government cracked down on those practices, Day responded by arguing that the combination of long wait times and laws limiting private funding for insured services violated the Charter.

It is important to note that this case only considered private funding for medically necessary hospital and physician services (i.e. those addressed in the Canada Health Act, RSC 1985, c C-6) and not the plethora of other health services for which there is a patchwork of public and private funding, such as drugs and dental care. In a previous post, I examined Justice Steeves’ constitutional analysis. Here, I summarize the international evidence on private health care and the implications of this decision for Alberta in light of recent moves to increase private surgical clinics and a vote at the United Conservative Party’s (UCP) Annual General Meeting supporting privately financed health care.

Private Health Care and the Law Part 1: Litigation Challenging Limits to Private Care

By: Lorian Hardcastle

PDF Version: Private Health Care and the Law Part 1: Litigation Challenging Limits to Private Care

Case Commented On: Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCSC 1310 (CanLII)

On September 10, Justice Steeves released his decision in Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia (Attorney General), which addresses the constitutionality of BC’s limits on private health care. The plaintiffs argued that if the government could not provide timely care, it could not prevent patients from accessing private care (at para 27), while the government argued that limits on privatization are necessary to protect the public system and ensure equitable access. This blog post summarizes the 880-page ruling, with a focus on section 7 of the Charter. It omits other issues, including a brief analysis of section 15 of the Charter (at paras 2804-2874) and a discussion of the impartiality and independence of expert witnesses (at paras 1064-1152). For readers who are unfamiliar with constitutional law, this document briefly outlines the approach courts take in adjudicating Charter claims. A second blog post will discuss the relevance of this case in Alberta.

A Balancing Act: Re-Opening Provincial Economies while Prioritizing Health Risks to Vulnerable Groups

By: Lorian Hardcastle and Naomi Lightman

PDF Version: A Balancing Act: Re-Opening Provincial Economies while Prioritizing Health Risks to Vulnerable Groups

Matter commented on: COVID-19 in Alberta and Canada

Despite calls that we are “in it together”, many of Canada’s most vulnerable communities are bearing the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes individuals living and working in long-term care facilities, factory workers, homeless and incarcerated populations, and some on-reserve Indigenous communities. In implementing public health measures, policymakers largely failed to prioritize these groups. Rather, many of the strategies for social distancing presumed individual family homes, nuclear family arrangements, access to private cars, workplaces that could transition to online formats, and living conditions where outdoor space was available. As a result, many groups outside this presumed norm were either left behind or inadequately protected during the spread of the virus. In this post, we argue that as provincial governments begin the process of re-opening their economies, policymakers must balance the interests of the broader public with those who live and work in conditions that put them at risk. 

The Tragic Effects of COVID-19 in the Long-Term Care Sector

By: Lorian Hardcastle

PDF Version: The Tragic Effects of COVID-19 in the Long-Term Care Sector

Matters Commented On: Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Orders 09-2020 and 10-2020

Close to half of Canada’s 1300 COVID-19 deaths have occurred in long-term care facilities, with the number of fatalities expected to grow in the coming weeks. News reports reveal shocking conditions in Canadian long-term care homes, including residents in critical condition abandoned by staff, workers without protective equipment, residents begging to die, and conditions so bad that criminal charges may be laid. The situation in Quebec is so dire that the government has implored doctors and other health professionals to help and has requested that the federal government provide military assistance. This blog post addresses the vulnerabilities that COVID-19 has exposed in the long-term care sector, the steps governments have taken to slow the pandemic, and improvements that must be made to better protect residents in the future.

The Effects of COVID-19 on the Health System: Legal and Ethical Tensions Part II

By: Lorian Hardcastle

PDF Version: The Effects of COVID-19 on the Health System: Legal and Ethical Tensions Part II

Matter Commented On: COVID-19 in Alberta and Canada

Since it appeared in Canada at the end of January, the number of cases of COVID-19 has steadily increased. Despite considerable efforts to contain the spread of the disease, Canada has seen over 1000 new cases per day since late March, with this number reaching 1600 new cases in a single day on April 5. On April 7, 58 people succumbed to the disease in one day. The ongoing COVID-19 outbreak raises numerous pressing legal and ethical tensions. In a previous ABlawg post, I examined the trade-offs that governments have made between individual liberties and protecting the public good. In this post, I consider two additional legal and ethical tensions: health care priority setting in the face of scarce resources and the disproportionate effects of public health measures on vulnerable people.

Page 2 of 5

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén