Cases Flashcards
R. v. Colas
high school teacher convicted of sexual exploitation for having sexual relationship with a student
Rehtaeh Parsons
17 year old Nova Scotian girl, raped at a party, had pictures of her circulated, and attempted suicide (eventually died)
R. v. J.(S.)
Indian boy admitted to hospital for seizure –> was malnourished, had scurvy, open wounds, scarring
couple convicted with “failing to provide necessities for life in necessitous circumstances” because didn’t get needed medical treatment he needed in the 3 weeks after his arrival in Canada
Carter v. Canada
Carter said that physician-assisted suicide should be allowed since she should have right to decide to end life
- Supreme Court Canada agreed that sections 241 and 14 violated rights
- Federal government created Bill C-14
Lamb v. Canada
Lamb ad spinal muscular atrophy, wasn’t clear when she’s going to have eminent death, so wasn’t eligible for Bill C-14 death
- wanted to be able to choose her death in advance though and consent to it now
Toews v. Weisner
Weisner = public nurse that gave vaccination to Toews under mistaken belief that her parents had consented
(even though form not signed and Toews told her her parents didn’t consent)
–> no harm, in good faith
–> liable for battery
Jacobi v. Griffiths
individual hired to work in home care environment, which allowed the employee to conduct abuse
Hughes Estate v. Hughes
Jehovah’s Witness daughter didn’t want chemotherapy and blood transfusions, father disagreed
Courts upheld her decision because she was competent
Battrum v. British Columbia
patient fell off hose, called 911
she sued defendant in battery saying that he had no consent to touch her
–> she sought first aid and paramedic’s actions were within the scope of the treatment that she had sought and implicitly consented to
Neto v. Klukach
Neto diagnosed in teens with bipolar affective disorder, on Lithium for many years
- she objected to anti-psychotics she was prescribed
- doctors found her to be incapable of making treatment decision (because refused to acknowledge that she had bipolar)
- used 3 indicators of Starson v. Swayze: she was able to identify she was different, able to assess how the options would affect QoL, and decision wasn’t based substantially on delusional thinking
- example of a patient expressly limiting their consent (went to psych, but refused meds)
Reid v. Maloney
Court found that chiropractor failed to inform patient about a risky aspect of the treatment, consent form didn’t talk about alternate options
–> negligence for failing to get informed consent (didn’t explain risks and alternates)
Re C. (adult refusal of medical treatment)
man suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, had gangrene in foot, didn’t want to get amputation (even though law chance of survival without it)
–> general capacity make decision impaired by schizophrenia, but he understood the relevant treatment information and arrived at clear choice, therefore court stood by him
What were the 3 indicators used for the Starson v. Swayze capacity ruling?
What other case used these rulings?
- must be able to acknowledge by manifestations of what others call mental illness
- able to assess how proposed treatment/alternatives could affect QoL
- decision not substantially based on delusional thinking
Neto v. Klukach also used these indicators
Park v. Park
Mrs. Park appointed husband as PoA for personal care, daughter for PoA for property
- wanted to sell her house
- Mr. Park wanted a court order saying wife was mentally incapable and appoint himself as PoA for both
- Mrs. Park was pissed
–> she had health problems that limited capacity, but no present evidence of this, she had clear understanding of financial decisions, so agreed with her
C. v. Wren
pregnant 16 year old ran away, got an abbortion
- parents were against it, wanted to challenge her capacity to consent
- -> she understood procedure and the risks, so parental rights to make treatment decisions terminated after child is capable
Re Dueck
TD (13 year old boy diagnosed with cancer), doctors recommended chemo + leg amputation, TD’s parents refused
- went to court to get him protection, Minister of Social Services granted decision making authority
- TD didn’t want to get any further chemo or surgery, believed father about an alternative Mexican treatment
–> he was not mature, father was dominating authority figure, misguided faith in non-existent cure (aka not a mature minor, not competent) = incapable
Barbulov v. Cirone
patient had limited English, signed POA without reading to it, patient’s son read the document to him in English and they discussed general nature but not specifics of treatment decisions
–> Courts said CCB was wrong on relying on the POA because patient hadn’t understood its legal meaning
Janzen v. Janzen
EJ falls into persistent vegetative state, Dr recommended removal of life support
- wife wanted to follow Dr, EJ’s sister wanted to temporarily delay decision and applied to be temporary guardian of personal care
- Courts said wife’s guardianship plan more likely to achieve best interests because “wellbeing” includes QoL
Scardoni v. Hawryluck
old Alzheimer’s patient that can’t verbally communicate planned on ventilator
- Dr though burden>benefits and recommended stopping
- doctors refused
- daughters said as Roman Catholic, she believed in prolonging life
CCB: patient’s views on prolonging life not precise to be considered binding wish and general religious beliefs aren’t relevant because Church had no position on prolonging life in terminal cases–> ordered daughters to consent
Daughters appealed to Courts
Courts: CCB should have considered general religious beliefs regardless of whether they matched the Church’s, should have considered values of prolonging life as a general expressed wish even though not binding expressed wish, and thought CCB misapprehended medical evidence
–> agreed with daughters
Penny v. Bolen
Bolen’s kids arranged capacity assessment for her, before it was conducted Bolen made new will that kicked her kids out as POA
–> Courts said that Bolen was mentally competent and able to to comprehend the effects of her will
De Zorji Estate v. Read
Ms. Guerin had POA and was the estate trustee
- beneficiaries of the will wanted disclosure of the financial records
–> Courts agreed, ordered Ms. Guerin to give the bank records from the date POA was assigned until the grantor’s death
Reviczky v. Meleknia
defendant forged POA, fraudulently sold house and kept the $$
- -> Courts said that bank giving mortgage should have suspected the fraudulent activity if they were doing their job and so house belongs to the plaintiff and true owner
- -> banks have duty to investigate fraudulent activity
Re A. (Children) Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation
Conjoined twins would die if not separated, but if separated one would certainly die and the other would likely survive
- parents refused consent on religious grounds
–> Courts said that most important is welfare of the children not parent’s wishes, and killing one is the lesser of two evils (defence of necessity)
Hamilton Health Sciences Corp. v. D.H.
SDM mother of 11 year old withdrew her from chemo to pursue alternative treatment in Florida
- applied for protection order under CFSA because refusing consent to needed medical treatment
- -> Courts refused because she was a caring/loving parent, acting within culture and beliefs as FN (which is protected under Constitution)
- but alternative treatment wasn’t Aboriginal, and before SSC said that treatment decisions had to be exclusively for patient’s best interests, being a good parent doesn’t matter
–> Child’s best interests were paramount, aboriginal right to use traditional medicine is one of the factors that must be considered
(mother chose combination treatment method so protector order not needed)
