Thursday, June 09, 2005

Chaoulli v. Public Health Care

Procrastination truly reaches a type of art form when you find yourself reading legal cases with no bearing whatsoever on your upcoming legal exams, but so be it.

Just in the process of digesting the Canadian Supreme Court's health care verdict rendered today in Chaoulli. Detailed analysis possible later, but at first blush the dissent of Binnie and LeBel seems far more persuasive. Let it Bleed helpfully offers a brief dissection of the decision, particularly on the paradox at play between reasoning and ultimate result. Incidentally, I wouldn't consider myself a constitutional "originalist" (or whatever term pleases you) like another former Domusmate - no problems here with the extension of s.15 argument to the same-sex marriage case, for example. But given the complexity of the policy issues at work here, this one really does feel like a stretch for the court. The political reaction will be fascinating to watch.

For now I also share the sarcasm over at Occam's Carbuncle over this "tie" on the key issue to be debated now. Here's the case. I count 8 law firms and 5 Attorneys-General involved, so innumerable lawyers, process, etc... You think Justice Deschamps could have at least given us the privilege of her opinion on the Charter's impact.

Then again, this is a taboo debate that may just have been blown wide open and the final word is far from written. If this debate properly belongs in Parliament, at least credit the SCC for helping trigger a more thoughtful and reasoned one than we've had in Canada these past years.


Post a Comment

<< Home