Cases

Question 1

R. v. Colas

Answer 1

high school teacher convicted of sexual exploitation for having sexual relationship with a student

Question 2

Rehtaeh Parsons

Answer 2

17 year old Nova Scotian girl, raped at a party, had pictures of her circulated, and attempted suicide (eventually died)

Question 3

R. v. J.(S.)

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Carter v. Canada

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Lamb v. Canada

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Toews v. Weisner

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Jacobi v. Griffiths

Answer 7

individual hired to work in home care environment, which allowed the employee to conduct abuse

Question 8

Hughes Estate v. Hughes

Answer 8

Jehovah’s Witness daughter didn’t want chemotherapy and blood transfusions, father disagreed
Courts upheld her decision because she was competent

Question 9

Battrum v. British Columbia

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Neto v. Klukach

Answer 10

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)

Question 11

Reid v. Maloney

Answer 11

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)

Question 12

Re C. (adult refusal of medical treatment)

Answer 12

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

Question 13

What were the 3 indicators used for the Starson v. Swayze capacity ruling?
What other case used these rulings?

Answer 13

• 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

Question 14

Park v. Park

Answer 14

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

Question 15

C. v. Wren

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Re Dueck

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Barbulov v. Cirone

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Janzen v. Janzen

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Scardoni v. Hawryluck

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Penny v. Bolen

Answer 20

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

Question 21

De Zorji Estate v. Read

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Reviczky v. Meleknia

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Re A. (Children) Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation

Answer 23

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)

Question 24

Hamilton Health Sciences Corp. v. D.H.

Answer 24

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)

Question 25

C.M.G. v. D.W.S.

Answer 25

parents had joint custody agreement saying she wouldn’t be vaccinated until 12, mom had final decision making authority

• mom wanted to take daughter to Europe, Dad wanted her to be vaccinated to go and so called for sole authority in all med decisions

–> Courts said that vaccination was in best interests and gave dad sole authority to make medical decisions

Question 26

Norberg v. Wynrib

Answer 26

doctor offered narcotics to addict if she accepted his sexual advances, she agreed after finding drugs nowhere else

• -> sued in battery
• -> majority Supreme Court agreed consent negated because he exploited his relationship of trust (public policy factor)

Question 27

R. v. Mabior

Answer 27

had sex with women without telling them his HIV diagnosis

• Court of Appeal: using condom or having low viral load is enough to reduce risk of serious bodily harm
• Supreme Court Canada: if there’s realistic possibility of transmission must disclose, so using condom AND low viral load required
• charged with sexual assault in the cases he didn’t have condom because their consent was negated (deceit factor)

Question 28

Winnipeg Child and Family Services (NW area) v. G(DF)

Answer 28

pregnant women sniffing glue during pregnancy
wanted to detain her to treat her to prevent harm to baby
–> Court ruled with her because she’s competent and can understand her consequences; her rights trumps the babies

Question 29

Malette v. Shulman

Answer 29

physician gave blood to woman with Jehovah’s Witness with no blood card
–> liable in battery because patients have right to refuse/withdraw from life-prolonging treatment

Question 30

Re B. (adult: refusal of medical treatment)

Answer 30

patient being kept alive by a ventilator, wanted court order for stuff to shut it off
–> she was competent, so allowed

Question 31

Rotaru v. Vancouver General Hospital ICU

Answer 31

wanted an order requiring doctors to resume treatment of terminally-ill mother

• -> Courts said that it would be abuse of its power to require doctors to act contrary to the duty of “do no harm” + no evidence that their judgement was unsound
• -> said to make medical records available so they can find another doctor

Question 32

IHV Estate (Re)

Answer 32

mother with terminal cancer, wanted an injunction to require ventilator to not be withdrawn
–> Couts refused injunction, but made daughter SDM and gave her right to records so she could get a second opinion

Question 33

JM (Re)

Answer 33

1 year old suffering from disease with no prospect of recovery, doctors wanted to remove tube and place DNR order

• parents refused
• -> CCB said that parent’s refusal of consent wasn’t in JM’s best interests

Question 34

JM (Re)

Answer 34

1 year old suffering from disease with no prospect of recovery, doctors wanted to remove tube and place DNR order

• parents refused
• -> CCB said that parent’s refusal of consent wasn’t in JM’s best interests

Question 35

Rodriguez v. British Columbia

Answer 35

1993 case where they said section 241 isn’t against Charter

Question 36

R. v. Latimer

Answer 36

euthanized daughter that was suffering
- he admitted to it, and was found guilt with 2nd degree murder but said that applying the mandatory minimum sentence is cruel punishment for the act

• Court of Appeal rejected his appeal, and said that as her SDM he had a duty to protect her
• Supreme Court of Canada upheld decision

Question 37

R. v. Latimer

Answer 37

euthanized daughter that was suffering
- he admitted to it, and was found guilt with 2nd degree murder but said that applying the mandatory minimum sentence is cruel punishment for the act

• Court of Appeal rejected his appeal, and said that as her SDM he had a duty to protect her
• Supreme Court of Canada upheld decision

Question 38

R. v. Chaulk

Answer 38

teenagers killing old man because paranoid psychosis

–> Supreme Court knew conduct was illegal but because of mental disorder, unable to appreciate conduct is morally wrong and so found not guilty

Question 39

R. v. Dobson

Answer 39

stabbed 2 women to death, attempted suicide as a satanic suicide pact

• argued that schizophrenia prevented him from understanding nature and consequences of act
• argued that he didn’t know they were morally wrong

–> but because his actions were deliberate and well-planned and he took steps to conceal it shows that he did understand the nature and even knew it was morally wrong

Question 40

Re NO

Answer 40

likely to cause serious bodily harm if released due to violent behaviour, not taking meds –> issued certification of involuntary admission

Question 41

Haugan v. Whelan

Answer 41

if he stopped medication, symptoms take 2 months to reappear
- Dr. gave a CTO

• -> CCB concluded that CTO could be ordered in patient was on a slipper slope towards meeting the critiera
• -> Ontario Superior Court said no, patients must meet all of the criteria for a CTO at the time of issue

Question 42

Starson v. Swayze

Answer 42

super smart leading physicist with severe mental health disorders

• created 3 indicators used for Neto v. Klukach (where she refused to take meds)