it also needs to be established that b.c.’s recipe for regulating privately-financed care is the cause of unreasonable wait times in the province, which threaten patients’ “security of the person.” to answer this question, the courts have looked at evidence from other countries with universal health care systems, trying to discern the impact of allowing two-tier care.
these are exceptionally complex and sprawling questions for a court to adjudicate. indeed, many prominent constitutional scholars have said that courts — given their limited expertise and research capacity — should be very hesitant to tinker with the architecture of public medicare. the
chaoulli
decision ranks among the most controversial supreme court rulings to date, with many commentators decrying it as a clear case of judicial overreach.
as it happens, the
charter’s
s.7 right to “life, liberty and security of the person” contains its own internal limitations clause: interferences with these interests are allowed, provided they do not violate “principles of fundamental justice.” this is where the
cambie
claim ran into trouble.
in the ruling handed down last fall, the b.c. supreme court heard testimony from over 100 witnesses, including 37 expert witnesses — many expressing serious concerns about the harmful effects that liberalizing privately-financed care might have on the public system. weighing this evidence, the court was satisfied that the province’s restrictions on two-tier care have some rational basis and do not violate principles of fundamental justice.