Skip to main content

Home/ CUPE Health Care/ Group items tagged charter

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
healthcare88

BC refutes Charter challenge of medicare - 0 views

www.cmaj.ca/...E369

day privatization bc

shared by healthcare88 on 18 Oct 16 - No Cached
  • CMAJ October 18, 2016 vol. 188 no. 15 First published September 19, 2016, doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5327
  • Steve Mertl
  • It was the British Columbia government’s turn Sept. 12 to rebut a Charter challenge barring doctors from operating both inside and outside the public health care system. However, anyone who came to the BC Supreme Court expecting an impassioned defence of medicare was disappointed. Instead, lawyer Jonathan Penner attacked the legal underpinnings of the case filed by Cambie Surgeries Corp., which operates a Vancouver private clinic, and its co-plaintiffs.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • Penner’s argument addressed core questions in the closely watched case: Does the law infringe doctors’ freedom to provide and patients’ right to receive timely medical care and, if it does, are those restrictions reasonable under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
  • The strains on the public system, such as waiting lists to see specialists and for surgeries, are “indisputable facts,” Penner told Justice John Steeves. But the remedy proposed by the plaintiffs — a hybrid system where doctors can deliver private and medicare services and patients can buy insurance for services already covered by medicare — will not solve the problem. In fact, said Penner, it could make things worse by disrupting the public system and diverting resources from it.
  • Penner warned that if the Cambie plaintiffs win their challenge, the implications will extend outside British Columbia. Other provinces have similar restrictions on physician practice and private insurance that, like BC, are tied to federal transfer payments under the Canada Health Act. The trial opened Sept. 6 when Peter Gall, acting for Cambie, an affiliated clinic and several patients, argued BC’s Medicare Protection Act handcuffed both doctors and those seeking timely care.
  • The law prevents physicians from operating both inside and outside of the provincial Medical Services Plan. The restriction on so-called dual or blended practices violates Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteeing “right to life, liberty and security of the person,” Gall said.
  • Orthopedic surgeon Dr. Brian Day of Cambie Surgery Centre says provincial laws limiting private care have resulted in rationing and long waiting lists.
  • The law also keeps residents from using private insurance to pay for treatment for things covered by the public system, despite the fact that some groups, such as those covered under WorkSafe BC injury claims, get expedited private care. That violates the Charter’s equality provisions under Section 15, argued Gall. The arguments echoed long-held positions of orthopedic surgeon Dr. Brian Day, Cambie’s co-founder and the visible face of the case. He contends provincial laws limiting private care have resulted in rationing and long waiting lists.
  • The alleged Charter violations are far from clear cut, said Penner, as he reviewed previous Charter decisions. A key test, for instance, is whether legislation violates the principles of fundamental justice under Section 7. Past rulings have specifically warned against applying it to social policies, he pointed out. Gall noted that the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2005 decision in the Dr. Jacques Chaoulli challenge affirmed Quebecers’ right to use private medical insurance to pay for publicly insured services when the public system was inadequate.
  • But Penner said the wording of the Canadian and Quebec charters differ on fundamental freedoms and only three of nine Supreme Court justices found the Quebec law violated the Canadian Charter in Chaoulli. The evidence in the Cambie case is not the same, he added. “It will tell a very different story.” Even if evidence points to Charter violations, he said, such violations are legal under Section 1 of the Charter, which allows “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
  • The justification here is government’s ability to ensure universal access based on need, not ability to pay, said Penner, adding courts have deferred to legislatures on social policies such as those covering housing. Granting the plaintiffs’ application would reverse that by putting patients with money or insurance ahead of those without, said Penner.
  • Penner was expected to take two days to present the government’s defence, with intervenors on both sides of the case presenting separate arguments later in the week. The trial is scheduled to last six months and hear from dozens of witnesses, including experts, historians and patients. Steeves’ decision is expected to end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
healthcare88

Intervenors decry Charter challenge of medicare - 0 views

www.cmaj.ca/...E371

day privatization bc

shared by healthcare88 on 18 Oct 16 - No Cached
  • CMAJ October 18, 2016 vol. 188 no. 15 First published September 19, 2016, doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5330
  • News Intervenors decry Charter challenge of medicare Steve Mertl + Author Affiliations Vancouver, BC Sanctioning doctors to practise in both public and private health care, and bill above the medicare fee schedule would lead to an inequitable, profit-driven system, warns a promedicare coalition opposing a Charter challenge of British Columbia laws.
  • Cambie Surgeries Corp., which operates private clinics, and co-plaintiffs, launched the case against the BC government and its Medicare Protection Act. “(T)he Coalition Intervenors are here to advocate for all of those British Columbians who rely on the public system, and whose right to equitable access to health care without regard to financial means or ability to pay — the very object of the legislation being attacked — would be undermined if the plaintiffs were to succeed,” lawyer Alison Latimer said in her written opening submitted Sept. 14 to the BC Supreme Court.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • The intervenor coalition includes Canadian Doctors for Medicare, Friends of BC Medicare, Glyn Townson, who has AIDS, Thomas McGregor, who has muscular dystrophy, and family physicians Dr. Duncan Etches and Dr. Robert Woollard, both professors at the University of British Columbia. A second intervenor group representing four patients also warned that the Charter challenge would lead to an inequitable health system across Canada. “This case is indeed about the future of the public health care system, in its ideal and actual forms,” said the group’s lawyer Marjorie Brown, according to a report in The Globe and Mail. Cambie and its co-plaintiffs, who made their opening argument last week, say the BC law barring extra billing, so-called dual or blended practices and the use of private insurance for publicly covered services violates Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • A successful Charter challenge in BC would mean an inequitable health system, where those who can pay get priority service, states an intervenor coalition.
  • Moreover, they claim the prohibitions exacerbate the under-funded public system’s problems, especially waiting lists for various treatments and surgeries. Allowing a “hybrid” system would relieve the strain. The coalition brief, echoing the BC government’s lengthy opening argument, said there’s no evidence that creating a two-tier system would reduce wait times. But there is a risk of hollowing out the public system as resources migrate to the more lucrative private alternative. Those who couldn’t afford private insurance could still find themselves waiting for treatment, thus undermining the principles of universality and equity spelled out in the Canada Health Act, Latimer said in her submission. Latimer also questioned whether the legislation falls within the scope of the Charter, more often invoked to overturn criminal laws, not those with socio-economic objectives.
  • “This legislation is intended to protect the right to life and security of the person of all British Columbians, including the vulnerable and silent rights-holders whose equal access to quality health care depends upon the challenged protections,” Latimer stated. There’s also a risk of sapping the public system of not only doctors but nurses, lab technicians, administrators and others drawn to the more lucrative private market, the brief said. Dual practices could also foster “cream-skimming,” where private clinics handle simpler but profitable procedures, leaving complex cases to the public system. The British Columbia Anesthesiologists’ Society, intervening to support the challenge, will be making arguments later in the trial, which is due to last at least until February 2017. The federal government is expected to begin making arguments in several months.
Irene Jansen

Larry Hubich's Blog: Federation of Labour files legal argument in massive law suit agai... - 0 views

larryhubich.blogspot.com/...ion-of-labour-files-legal.html

bargaining charter sk

shared by Irene Jansen on 23 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • Over the summer months, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and 25 additional plaintiffs (SFL et al) filed their legal argument in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench related to the Charter Challenge by the SFL et al against the Sask. Party government's unconstitutional anti-worker and anti-union legislation.  Legislation which the Wall government introduced and passed in late 2007 and early 2008.
  • In support of the SFL et al's case, three additional intervenor unions filed thousands more pages of argument and evidence.  The arguments of the intervenor unions re-inforced that the ill-conceived Bill 5 and Bill 6 violate workers constitutional rights as outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
  • The intervenor unions are:  Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE); Service Employees International Union - West (SEIU-West); and the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses (SUN)
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • This historic Charter Challenge case will be heard in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench from November 14 - 25th, 2011.
Govind Rao

Health care, and justice, denied - Infomart - 0 views

www.fpinfomart.ca/doc/doc_display.php?key=pr|242663|ntnp|20150914|229220530

from heather court Alberta privatization private clinics

shared by Govind Rao on 14 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • National Post Mon Sep 14 2015
  • Letters
  • A dentist in Okotoks, Alberta, Dr. Allen was forced out of his profession while waiting for years for surgery to address his severe and debilitating back pain. What began in 2007 as a seemingly minor hockey injury gradually turned his life into a nightmare of around-the-clock pain. Normal tasks, like shovelling snow or tying shoelaces, became impossible. On one occasion, Dr. Allen watched helplessly as his one-yearold daughter, while crawling on a bed, lost her balance and fell off, and he could not move to catch her. Dr. Allen finally received a referral for surgery in early 2009, but no surgery could be performed
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • Patients suffering in pain on wait lists for surgery have once again been denied their Charter right to access health care outside of the government's cruel, inefficient, and unaccountable monopoly. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada famously declared in Chaoulli vs. Quebec that "access to a waiting list is not access to health care." But last week, the Alberta Court of Appeal refused to apply and follow the Chaoulli precedent, citing a lack of evidence in the case of Darcy Allen vs. Alberta.
  • Dr. Allen's experience with medical wait times is, unfortunately, not unique. While patients in France, Germany, Japan and dozens of other developed democracies count their medical wait times in days and weeks, the government health monopolies in Canadian provinces subject patients to wait times that are counted in months and years. The international evidence demonstrates that there is simply no need for government to impose a monopoly over health care in order to ensure that health services are available to all members of the public. In Chaoulli, the Supreme Court held that while government has every right to create health-care programs, it does not have the right to create a monopoly that prevents patients from accessing health care outside of that government monopoly.
  • until September 2010 - a date later pushed back to June 2011. No longer able to work to support himself and his family, unable to perform ordinary day-to-day tasks, and experiencing pain so severe that not even the strongest drugs were effective, he spent $77,000 of his own money on surgery in Montana. Dr. Allen's surgery immediately and significantly reduced his pain, and started his slow journey back to better health. Apart from paying out of pocket, Dr. Allen's only other option was to suffer two years of extreme pain, waiting for the Alberta government's monopoly system to provide necessary surgery.
  • Last week's Court of Appeal decision, as well as the trial decision under appeal, declared that Dr. Allen had not brought forward enough evidence to support his claim. Curiously, neither decision refers to the extensive evidence put before the court about Alberta's long wait lists, and how wait times hurt patients, even killing them in some cases. While refusing to consider - or even mention - this abundant evidence, the court declared that Darcy Allen should have introduced expert reports and expert witnesses to testify about the fact that wait lists exist, and the fact that wait lists inflict suffering - and sometimes death - on patients. The Alberta government has not disputed either of these two facts. They are the same facts on which the Supreme Court relied in Chaoulli.
  • Following the court's logic, Darcy Allen should have spent $77,000 out-of-pocket on his medically necessary surgery, and then an additional $200,000 to $400,000 to assert his Charter rights, by paying a panoply of experts to "prove" basic facts that have already been admitted by the Alberta government. So much for access to justice.
  • To respect Charter rights, governments have only two options: ensure that a monopoly system provides real access to health care (not just access to a waiting list), or allow Canadians the freedom to access health care outside of the government's system. A law that creates a government monopoly over health care, by banning private health insurance, complies with the Charter only if that monopoly does not inflict pain and suffering - and a real risk of death - on waiting patients.
  • Ignoring the evidence before them about Alberta's long and painful waiting lists, Alberta's courts have refused to deal with the violation of Darcy Allen's Charter rights. Hopefully the Supreme Court of Canada will not refuse to do so. National Post Calgary lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (Jccf.ca) and acts for Darcy Allen.
Govind Rao

Once again, the courts will be the arbiters - Infomart - 0 views

www.fpinfomart.ca/doc/doc_display.php?key=pr|246199|ntgm|20150304|215673450

from heather bc private clinics privatization court

shared by Govind Rao on 04 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • The Globe and Mail Wed Mar 4 2015
  • Here we go again. Courts are being asked: Should citizens be allowed to buy private insurance for essential medical services? Or should citizens be restricted by what public health care provides, and when? This central question at the heart of single-tier public medicine was supposed to be before the B.C. Supreme Court this week. Instead, the provincial government discovered overlooked documents about wait times and asked for extra time. The delay matters little. Sooner or later, the issue of private health insurance for essential services will be before the B.C. court and then, almost certainly, before the Supreme Court of Canada again.
  • Dr. Brian Day is a long-time advocate of private medicine and the owner of the Cambie Surgery Centre in Vancouver, which offers surgeries for patients who wish to pay. Dr. Day advertises his clinic outside the province, too, for those from elsewhere wishing to avail themselves of faster treatment than the public system can provide. Dr. Day has brought this case to court on behalf of patients whose health, he argues, has been imperilled by long wait times. As Dr. Day told The Globe and Mail, "This is a case about patients being able to provide for their own health when the government won't provide it." Dr. Day is wrong when he asserts that the government "won't provide" service. The issue is rather more about when.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • How timely will the service be? Do wait times threaten the health of those waiting? Wait times are obviously a form of rationing within the system, but at what point does a person's "right to life," a phrase from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, become threatened by this rationing? These questions were central to the Supreme Court's Chaoulli decision in 2005. If, as is almost certain, the B.C. case winds up back in Ottawa, will the court stand by its earlier decision? The 4-3 Chaoulli judgment found that the ban on private insurance violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
  • Three judges said it also violated the Canadian Charter; three judges disagreed and one expressed no opinion. In other words, the court was conflicted 10 years ago. Its membership has changed hugely in a decade. Who knows what all the new judges appointed since 2005 might decide? And, as we have just seen in its recent assisted suicide ruling, the court is not above reversing itself by overturning previous decisions.
  • These B.C. and Quebec healthcare cases illustrate the legalization of politics that has become such a feature of Canadian public life under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No issue has been more debated in Canada, and no public program has absorbed more public money (and attention) than health care. Judges might be unhappy with the results of the debates and decisions, but no one can deny that the issue has been central in Canada's politics. And yet in the Chaoulli case, a majority dismissed the decisions of elected officials and barged into the health-care field, despite an obvious lack of expertise.
  • Health care - its provision, organization and financing - is an essentially political issue in the broadest sense of the term, but in the age of the Charter, judges can make just about anything into a legal issue. So they did in Chaoulli, and might again when confronted with the B.C. case. Madame Justice Marie Deschamps, writing for the majority in Chaoulli, declared about the situation in Quebec: "For many years, the government has failed to act; the situation continues to deteriorate." Much has been done since those words were written. More than $40-billion in extra funds has been spent on health care, courtesy of a federalprovincial agreement. The share of the national economy taken by health care has risen since 2005 (although it has dropped in the last two years).
  • Wait times in some provinces have come down. But have they come down enough to satisfy the Supreme Court, which set itself up as the arbiter of such answers in the Chaoulli case? Many more hip and knee replacements have been done, but wait times have not come down, owing to increased demand. How long is reasonable? Should a person in distress have the right to spend his or her money to relieve pain, or must they be triaged by the state? It shouldn't be this way, but the courts will decide.
Heather Farrow

Hurry up and wait - Infomart - 0 views

www.fpinfomart.ca/doc/doc_display.php?key=pr|242663|tidp|20160824|254534355

day privatization private clinics court

shared by Heather Farrow on 24 Aug 16 - No Cached
  • The Timmins Daily Press Wed Aug 24 2016
  • How did it ever come to this? How did supposedly intelligent men and women, given the responsibility for running our health-care system, allow things to deteriorate so badly? More importantly, how did we-the public-allow ourselves to be duped all these years by spineless, self-serving politicians?
  • Earlier this year, an Ontario teenager, Laura Hillier, died while waiting for a stem-cell transplant. She was only 18 years old, and had her whole life ahead of her. Unfortunately for Laura, she made the mistake of getting sick in Ontario, a province where-like most of the rest of Canada- we've had our heads buried in the sand for far too long when it comes to how we fund our health-care system. This young girl died, not because they couldn't find a donor-there actually was one-but because those in charge couldn't find a way to fund the procedure that would have saved her life.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • Then there's little Meghan Arnott, age 12, who's waiting for surgery in British Columbia to correct a complication brought on by Crohn's disease. Unfortunately for Meghan, she's been told her surgery may have to be postponed eight or nine months due to a severe shortage of nurses in B.C., caused by-you guessed it-chronic underfunding of our health-care system by the government. Meanwhile, this young girl waits in excruciating pain and discomfort, yet another invisible victim of Medicare.
  • Or how about 16-year-old Walid Khalfallah, who hails from Kelowna, British Columbia? Walid is now a paraplegic thanks to his encounter with our health-care system. All because those running the show felt it was a reasonable risk for a young boy of 13 to wait 27 months-that's right, folks, I said 27 months-for surgery on his spine. By the time Walid had the surgery in 2012, at Shriners Hospital in Spokane, Washington, it was too late.
  • Still think we have the best health-care system in the world? Not by a long shot. Despite statements by elected officials to the contrary, Canada's health-care system is no longer something we Canadians can-or should-be proud of. Stories like those of Laura, Meghan and Walid, while admittedly anecdotal, point to inadequacies in how Medicare is funded and how decisions are made when it comes to deciding on what programs receive funding and which don't.
  • It's sort of like winning the lottery. If you belong to a demographic that is older and more inclined to vote-baby boomers, for example, in need of cataract surgery or hip replacements-then you might very well be in luck. If you happen to be a child, however, or suffering from some less-than-"sexy" disease, then good luck, you're on your own.
  • No one's life should have to depend on the roll of the dice. That's crazy. Fortunately, after years of delays and legal maneuvering by the B.C. Government, Dr. Brian Day's charter challenge is finally about to get under way this coming September in Vancouver. The case, which will be argued before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, will include six other plaintiffs, including Walid Khalfallah, in addition to Dr. Day. Sadly, two of the six plaintiffs have died as a result of delayed access to care. The irony of that should be lost on no one.
  • In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that those living in the province of Quebec should have the right to purchase private health-care insurance under the Quebec Charter. This was known as the Chaoulli case. Dr. Jacques Chaoulli successfully convinced all seven judges hearing the case that patients were suffering and, in some cases, dying while waiting to access care. Dr. Day and his fellow plaintiffs will be arguing that those living outside Quebec should have similar protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • Not surprisingly, the B.C. Government and Government of Canada will be arguing the opposite, as will a number of special interest groups, including representatives of the B.C. Health Coalition and Canadian Doctors for Medicare, who have applied for and been granted intervener status. While I have no doubt that Dr. Day will ultimately win his charter challenge-after all, Dr. Day and those representing the more than two million Canadians currently suffering on waiting lists, including Walid and the other five plaintiffs, are on the side of the angels. As for all those bureaucrats, lawyers and elected officials-armed with an endless supply of "lies, damn lies, and statistics," desperately trying to justify maintaining the status quo-I'm not really sure whose side they're on.
  • Certainly not yours or mine. Because if they were, they'd come clean and admit the truth. Canada's health-care system is not sustainable and on the verge of complete and total collapse. Spending millions of dollars to defend the indefensible is not only wrong, it's obscene. Just ask Laura, Meghan, Walid and the friends and relatives of the two plaintiffs who died after waiting for both care and justice. Access to a waiting list is not access to care, as the judges in the Chaoulli case so rightly pointed out 11 years ago. Hopefully, when the decision is handed down, once all the arguments have been heard this fall in British Columbia, we'll finally be able to have that "adult" conversation we've been avoiding for the past 20 years and actually do something to fix the mess we find ourselves in. One can only hope. Stephen Skyvington
Heather Farrow

Health care advocates welcome federal government intervention in Cambie case | National... - 0 views

nupge.ca/...nment-intervention-cambie-case

day private clinics privatization court BC federal union

shared by Heather Farrow on 18 Apr 16 - No Cached
  • Vancouver (14 April 2016) — Dr. Brian Day’s campaign to dismantle Canadian public health care was dealt a significant blow as counsel for the Attorney General of Canada presented their intention to intervene in Cambie Surgical Centre et al. v. Medical Services Commission et al (Cambie Case) in BC Supreme Court, says a release from the BC Health Coalition (BCHC) and Canadian Doctors for Medicare (CDM).
  • Federal government to appear on the constitutional question of the Cambie Charter challenge The Cambie Case (link is external) is a Charter challenge being led by Dr. Brian Day, a Vancouver-based for-profit clinic owner, asking the Court to rule that four sections of .B.C’s Medicare Protection Act violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to their submission in court, the Attorney General of Canada intends to intervene as a party in the case, so they can appear and participate on constitutional questions raised by the Plaintiffs.
Govind Rao

Ottawa trans man files Charter challenge - Infomart - 0 views

www.fpinfomart.ca/doc/doc_display.php?key=pr|246199|ntgm|20150509|220128665

from heather equity gender court

shared by Govind Rao on 11 May 15 - No Cached
  • The Globe and Mail Sat May 9 2015
  • An Ottawa trans man who paid out of pocket for a double mastectomy has launched a Charter challenge against the Ontario government, arguing that a law that forces trans people to obtain approvals for sex-reassignment surgery from one overburdened Toronto clinic is a violation of his rights. A notice of application filed in the Ontario Superior Court on Friday asks the court to strike down a Health Insurance Act regulation that says trans people can obtain public funding for their sex reassignment surgeries only if they first get the goahead from the Adult Gender Identity Clinic at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).
  • As of last month, there were 680 people waiting for appointments at the clinic, the vast majority of them seeking consent for publicly insured sex-change operations. Wait times are now approaching two years and the demand for the procedure is growing. "I think that by forcing people to travel halfway across the [province] to do an interview process to allow them access to health care that everyone should have automatically, it's an unfair process," said Chrystofer Maillet, the 35-year-old federal government employee who is hoping to strike down the regulation. "It just seems like we're making it a whole lot harder for anyone to just be themselves."
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Mr. Maillet's lawyer, Tim Gleason, plans to argue that the regulation violates his client's right to life, liberty and security of the person, and his equality rights, both of which are guarded by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "This regulation, in my view, is a relic," Mr. Gleason said. "It's a relic of a past that's rooted in ignorance and bigotry. This regulation treats transgender people differently than other people, exclusively on the basis of their gender or their sex ... it can't be justified." The Globe and Mail reported last month on the case of Mr. Maillet, who decided to extend his line of credit to cover the $7,401.50 cost of a double mastectomy he underwent on March 3, 2013.
  • The alternative - waiting months or possibly years just to be seen at CAMH - was not something he felt he could endure. "The applicant's wait for [sexreassignment surgery] during his transition caused serious suffering and hardship," the court application reads. "During this period, the applicant was isolated and suffered extreme depression." Nine months after his surgery, Mr. Maillet secured an appointment at CAMH and a retroactive approval from the clinic. But the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, and a quasi-judicial panel that reviews OHIP rejections, refused Mr. Maillet's claim because the regulation clearly states patients must obtain approval before, not after, their procedures. Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins said last month that his ministry is already looking into the possibility of expanding the number of sites that can approve sex-reassignment surgeries. He said he hoped to be able to move on the issue in the "near future." In the meantime, Mr. Maillet is hoping that his court case will eventually make accessing health services easier for other trans people in the future.
Govind Rao

Trudeau and two-tier health-care system - Infomart - 0 views

www.fpinfomart.ca/doc/doc_display.php?key=pr|242663|otct|20150926|230091181

from heather federal election private clinics privatization

shared by Govind Rao on 28 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • Ottawa Citizen Sat Sep 26 2015
  • Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau wasted no time to brandish the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in support of a covering one's face during a citizenship ceremony. Is he as keen to put an end to a two-tier health-care system?
  • During his recent visit to Ottawa, Trudeau answered without hesitation "Absolutely not" to my question, "Should public funds be used to subsidized two-tier health-care services and benefits?" In his view, this would contravene the Charter, which guarantees equal treatment for all Canadians. However, he refused to answer the second part of my question, no doubt for fear of alienating some of his supporters.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • It is a fact that public sector employees, MPPs, MPs and senators can access health-care services and benefits above and beyond what is available through their provincial health plans. In his words, a form of two-tier health care plan. Premiums to these complementary health plans are subsidized in part by government, in other words by public funds. My question to the Liberal leader is simple: "If you form the next government, will you maintain the present two-tier health-care system for public sector employees including MPs and senators, or will you direct Treasury Board to stop the partial payment of the premiums and direct participants to absorb the full cost of the plan, or will you subsidize access to such plans for all Canadians?"
  • A reminder for Trudeau, the Charter is not a buffet where one chooses the articles that suit his or her agenda. Canadians, public sector employees and non public sector employees, deserve equal treatment. In his own words, it is a question of rights. Pierre Drouin Ottawa
Govind Rao

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal: No Charter Right to Strike Until SCC Says So | Doorey's L... - 0 views

lawofwork.ca/?p=6551

from heather court Saskatchewan strike

shared by Govind Rao on 20 May 14 - No Cached
  • Saskatchewan Court of Appeal: No Charter Right to Strike Until SCC Says So
  • The much awaited decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has arrived.  I reviewed the background to this case here. The Court of Appeal went cautious, and ruled essentially that whether or not the Charter protects a right to strike is a matter that should be left to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide.
Govind Rao

May 15, 2014 - Saskatchewan Working People Have Their Day at the Supreme Court of Canada - 0 views

www.sfl.sk.ca/...at-the-supreme-court-of-canada

from heather Saskatchewan union court strike

shared by Govind Rao on 15 May 14 - No Cached
  • May 15, 2014 - Saskatchewan Working People Have Their Day at the Supreme Court of Canada
  • Tomorrow morning, as the culmination of a legal process that began in 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCOC) will hear the Charter challenge of provincial Bills 5 & 6. The SFL et al will argue, as they did at both the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal, that so-called “essential services” legislation and the changes made to the former Trade Union Act are not consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The SCOC will also hear arguments for why the right to strike should be enshrined as a Charter-protected right.
Govind Rao

Liberal health law doesn't violate workers' charter rights: arbitrator | The Chronicle ... - 0 views

thechronicleherald.ca/...0%99-charter-rights-arbitrator

from heather NS legislation court bargaining cupe

shared by Govind Rao on 19 Jan 15 - No Cached
  • January 19, 2015
  • The McNeil government’s Health Authorities Act does not violate the charter rights of health-care employees, an arbitrator has concluded.
  • Dorsey said the proposed four bargaining units will remain in place, but further hearings next month will determine who goes which one. For the health-care and support bargaining units, Dorsey is recommending the affected unions come together to form single, merged unions to represent both of those two units.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Among his suggestions, Dorsey proposed allowing licenced practical nurses to vote on whether to join the nurses bargaining unit or the health-care bargaining unit. Another option would be allowing all nurses to vote on whether to be represented by the NSGEU or NSNU.
Govind Rao

New files could raise the stakes in long-awaited health-care wait-list fight - Infomart - 0 views

www.fpinfomart.ca/doc/doc_display.php?key=pr|246199|ntgm|20150302|215531681

from heather bc privatization private clinics court

shared by Govind Rao on 04 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • The Globe and Mail Mon Mar 2 2015
  • Six days before the B.C. Supreme Court was set to begin a long-awaited trial that could alter the public health-care system in B.C. - in fact, in Canada - the provincial government uncovered new documents in its own files that forced another delay. These are not just a few errant scraps of paper that were somehow overlooked in the past six years of pretrial wrangling, but thousands of pages of Ministry of Health documents that have just made their way to the surface. They relate to surgical waiting lists and physicians' extra billing - the core of the case about the place of private health care in B.C.
  • ince 2008, the province has sought to tackle illegal billing practices at two private health clinics run by Dr. Brian Day. All the while, the province has been paying annual penalties to Health Canada for violations of the Canada Health Act related to the practices it has not managed to stop. Dr. Day has made no attempt to hide the fact that, for years, the Cambie Surgery Centre and Specialist Referral Clinic have been breaking the law by charging patients for medically necessary treatment. What is now before the courts is his Charter challenge that argues British Columbians should be allowed to use their own resources to jump to the front of the queue for medical treatment because waiting lists in the public health-care system are unacceptably long.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • The trial was set to begin on Monday but now has been postponed as both sides examine the newly found ministry files. NDP health critic Judy Darcy says she hopes the government will throw everything it can at Dr. Day, because if he wins, she believes, British Columbia will be opening the door to a new twotiered health-care system for the country. She isn't convinced the B.C. Liberals wanted to fight this battle. "I think the government is under tremendous pressure to defend the Canada Health Act," she said in an interview. But at least at the outset, the province needed some prodding to engage.
  • The B.C. Nurses' Union led the charge in 2003, challenging the provincial government to enforce the law and stop private clinics from treading on publichealth turf. It was 2008 when the province finally sought an audit of the books of Dr. Day's two clinics. The two sides then spent four years arguing about the scope of the audit. Finally, in 2012, the Medical Services Commission concluded the clinics were extra billing patients and threatened an injunction, which is still up in the air. The audit was limited to a small sampling of a few hundred cases. "The only thing we saw was a one spot-check audit and it showed $150,000 worth of extra billing in a single month," Ms. Darcy said.
  • "So we are talking about millions of dollars over the years, and nothing has been done about that." The B.C. Health Coalition is an intervenor in the case. While the province may have been slow to get started, Steven Shrybman, a member of the group's legal team, says he is impressed with B.C.'s case as it stands now. "The province has demonstrated a very serious commitment to this case," he said. "I can't fault them for the job they have done in defending the validity of our medicare model under the Charter." Dr. Day has been angling for this day in court for many years, and all the while he says his case has grown stronger as the province's surgical waiting lists have grown.
  • "This is a case about patients being able to care for their own health when the government won't provide it," he said. The B.C. Supreme Court will hear, possibly later this spring, his argument that Canadians have a right, under the Charter, to access necessary and appropriate health care within a reasonable time - something he says does not exist in B.C. "The only way the government can win, in my view, is if they can show that wait lists are not a problem." Health Minister Terry Lake told reporters last week that the reason some waiting lists are growing is because the healthcare system is doing more surgeries. "But I have asked our provincial surgical advisory committee to look at the situation, because I think we can do better ... One of my real desires is to reduce those wait times."
  • That's why those freshly discovered Health Ministry files may be revealing, and if nothing else, Dr. Day's battle may drive the provincial government to find not just the desire, but the means, to take aim at surgical waiting lists.
Govind Rao

Dr. Day's Charter challenge - Infomart - 0 views

www.fpinfomart.ca/doc/doc_display.php?key=pr|242663|ntnp|20150312|216224688

from heather Day private clinics privatization bc court

shared by Govind Rao on 13 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • National Post Thu Mar 12 2015
  • Re: Wait-List Limbo, Marni Soupcoff, March 3. You've got to hand it to Marni Soupcoff and the Canadian Constitution Foundation on their attempts to sell Canadians on two-tier health care. One might wonder where their passionate fervour to spread the word on Dr. Brian Day's Charter of Rights and Freedoms' challenge comes from. Are they so committed to improving health care or is it more likely they are trying to drown out the real reasons for this trial?
  • When the British Columbia government audited Dr. Day's clinic, it found $491,654 in extra-billing over one 30-day period alone. When told to stop, Dr. Day responded with his Charter challenge. The only thing more disconcerting than him not facing penalties for extra-billing is the idea he might open up Canadian health care to privatization to avoid doing so.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • To understand Dr. Day's proposal, imagine a highway with three lanes going in one direction, all with moderately heavy traffic. His solution to improving congestion is to make one of the lanes a priority lane, which people can access for a fee. But the fee is high, so not many people leave the other two lanes. As a result, the highway becomes speedy for the few in the private lane, while congestion gets worse in the other two.
  • The problems facing our health-care system can't be solved with systems that create longer waits for most and higher costs for all. Monika Dutt Canadian Doctors for Medicare Toronto
Cheryl Stadnichuk

Allen v Alberta: The Sound and Fury of Section 7 and Health Care - TheCourt.ca - 0 views

www.thecourt.ca/...und-fury-section-7-health-care

alberta privatization health insurance

shared by Cheryl Stadnichuk on 15 Mar 16 - No Cached
  • The pain became so disabling that Dr. Allen was forced to sell his dentistry practice in July 2009. In desperation, Dr. Allen underwent surgery at his own expense in December 2009. The surgery was successful, relieving his pain and signalling a return to health. The cost of the surgery was $77,000.
  • Dr. Allen argued that section 26(2) of the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act, RSA 2000, c A-20 prevented him from obtaining private health care insurance and covering the cost of his surgery. The section in question prohibits insurers from issuing private health care insurance for basic health care already covered under the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan. It gives the public Plan a monopoly on health care insurance for basic health care services. Dr. Allen argued that this was unconstitutional, infringing his section 7 Charter rights
  • The chambers judge held that the unconstitutionality of section 26(2) was dependent on whether Dr. Allen could demonstrate that this particular restriction on private health insurance in this specific context offended section 7. In his view, the connection between state-caused effect and the harm suffered by Dr. Allen had not been satisfied. This was because there was no evidence indicating either that the prohibition caused Dr. Allen’s wait time in the Albertan health care system, or that private health care insurance would have been available for this type of surgery anyway.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Justice Slatter clearly had issues with the majority judgment in Chaoulli. He highlighted that section 7 is a notoriously unsettled and controversial Charter provision, and the “drafters of the Charter never intended it to be applied to the review of social and economic policies” (para 33).
Heather Farrow

Speaking out for dissent and democracy | - 0 views

www.hilltimes.com/...63258

campaign legislation

shared by Heather Farrow on 11 May 16 - No Cached
  • May 11, 2016
  • Citizens around the world are mobilizing this Saturday to assert their right to speak out, organize, and take action. As part of a Global Day for Citizen Action, people will be asked whether they are free to raise their voice and call for change.
  • Applying lessons learned from the harsh realities of the past and taking full advantage of the window of opportunity presented by the new government, the Voices alliance is putting forward an agenda for action to create enabling conditions for full, free civic engagement by Canadians from every background and belief.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • An alliance of Canadians from coast to coast to coast is taking up that question, launching a homegrown initiative that day to promote a healthy environment for debate, dissent, diversity, and democracy in Canada.
  • If you were from an indigenous community or a Muslim or a climate activist, you were all the more vulnerable to drive-by smears—or worse.
  • Given this bleak backdrop, some might suggest we have little to complain about in Canada. But the past dismal decade is a sober reminder there’s no cause for complacency. On the contrary, citizens and organizations critical of the government were dismissed, dismantled, defamed, and defunded. Officers of Parliament were silenced as were scientists and public servants. Access to evidence was severely constrained and dissent increasingly criminalized.
  • In Zimbabwe, Honduras, China, and too many other countries the risks for those who speak out are huge. Freedom of expression and freedom of association are under attack. Human rights defenders are targeted.
  • Transformative change is required to our laws, institutions, priorities, and political culture. Respect for human rights—both charter rights and Canada’s international obligations—must serve as the bedrock upon which all policies and programs are founded. And the vital role of civil society organizations in informing public opinion, shaping public policy, and generating political will must be respected and promoted.
  • This is particularly true for groups that represent marginalized constituencies including women, racialized peoples and others who have borne the brunt of cuts, attacks, and discrimination. Critically, the Canadian government must build a new relationship with indigenous peoples based on rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.
  • Parliamentary accountability must be strengthened, ending omnibus bills and improving oversight and independent review. Citizens must have ready access to information, including all publicly funded research. And public servants must be encouraged to provide independent advice based on evidence and respect for the constitution and human rights. The agenda for action is ambitious but vital if we are to have a healthy enabling environment for a flourishing Canadian democracy.
  • It’s also a living document. The public, parliamentarians, pundits, and public interest groups are all encouraged to contribute their ideas and to join in securing the essential reforms we so urgently need. In its first six months, we’ve seen encouraging signals the government is following through on commitments to increase transparency and accountability. Renewed funding for the Court Challenges program, for example, is a welcome show of good faith.
  • But we’ve also seen troubling lapses where human rights have taken a back seat and alternative views have been censured, in particular in relation to the Middle East. And there are major files that remain open, including replacing Bill C-51 with legislation that respects rights and complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • The signal we send and the example we set for advocates of freedom of expression and association around the world are critical if the phrase “Canada’s back” is to have any substance and sunny ways are to prevail—let alone if we are to reinforce these rights so they are stronger here than ever before. There is no better time for bold action to bolster respect for rights and civic engagement than now. Robert Fox is a founding member of the Voices Coalition and a long-time social justice activist.
Heather Farrow

CUPE joins court challenge over violation of Charter rights by the Province of New Brun... - 0 views

cupe.ca/-rights-province-new-brunswick

cupe nb pensions campaign

shared by Heather Farrow on 21 Jun 16 - No Cached
  • Jun 10, 2016
  • Fredericton, NB – The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) has served the province of New Brunswick with a Notice of Motion to intervene in a lawsuit launched by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) against the unilateral conversion of the province’s Public Service Pension Plan into a Shared Risk Pension Plan.
Govind Rao

Alberta health care can be better, but not through lawsuits and a two-tier sy... - 0 views

medicinehatnews.com/...lawsuits-and-a-two-tier-system

from heather Alberta two tier privatization

shared by Govind Rao on 14 Apr 14 - No Cached
  • By Medicine Hat News Opinon on April 11, 2014.
  • On April 2, Justice P. R. Jeffrey of Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench rejected the claim put forward by lawyer John Carpay on behalf of Darcy Allen that prohibition on private health insurance in Alberta infringes on Mr. Allen’s Charter Rights. Mr. Carpay based his court argument on the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the Chaouilli case that a ban on private health insurance under Quebec law infringed Mr. Chaoulli’s Charter right to security of the person. This claim was not a rejection of access to health care but rather recognition that allowing private insurance to determine Albertans’ access to health care is not a solution to the problems in our public health care system. The Alberta Court found Chaoulli didn’t apply. That’s no surprise. The Supreme Court clearly stated Chaoulli applied only to the specifics of the Quebec case. This Alberta case was simply political grandstanding. We can’t build the health system we want through the courts. A small, angry minority of Albertans wants a two-tier health system where a few people get whatever they want while everyone else waits. The great majority of us want good health care based on need, not ability to pay. The minority just can’t seem to live with losing this argument. Or do Mr. Carpay et al believe in democracy and the rule of law only when they win?
Doug Allan

Medicare defender sounds alarm over B.C. high court case - Infomart - 0 views

www.fpinfomart.ca/...194583330

privatization

shared by Doug Allan on 25 Apr 14 - No Cached
  • The Toronto doctor who recently grabbed headlines across North America for defending Canada's health system before an ornery U.S. Senate wants Ontarians to take notice of a legal showdown on the other side of this country that she warns could affect the future of Medicare nationwide.
  • "In my view (it's) the biggest threat to medicare in this generation, and we need to do everything we can to protect our health system from the damage that its outcome could set in motion," she plans to tell an audience on Friday in a speech, an advance copy of which was given exclusively to the Star.
  • The case in question involves former Canadian Medical Association president Dr. Brian Day, who has launched a constitutional challenge of B.C.'s ban on private health care. It will be heard by the Supreme Court of British Columbia beginning in September. Canadian Doctors for Medicare has intervener status.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • "This is not just a British Columbia issue," Martin plans to say in her speech. "The ramifications will be felt across our entire country. If the case goes to the Supreme Court (of Canada), there's the threat of having the Canada Health Act itself under threat."
  • Depending on the outcome of a vote, Unifor may donate $25,000 to Canadian Doctors for Medicare and the B.C. Health Coalition to help cover the costs of the legal battle.
  • Doug Allan on 25 Apr 14
     
    Dr. Danielle Martin on Day Charter challenge to medicare: the biggest threat of this generation
1 - 20 of 76 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page