Federal right to dispute facts in case upheld

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected a bid by a severely ill woman and a civil liberties group to accelerate their lawsuit that argues the right to assisted dying is unfairly limited by federal government law.

Julia Lamb and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association are spearheading a challenge of the law that allows assisted dying only for individuals whose natural death is “reasonably foreseeable.”

The plaintiffs asked a lower court to prevent Canada from relitigating facts already decided in the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 case that overturned a ban on assisted dying.

They argued that granting the request would mean a quicker trial for their lawsuit and potentially bring relief sooner to suffering Canadians.

The B.C. Supreme Court ruled the government should be given a second chance to argue the findings of fact. The B.C. Court of Appeal declined to overturn the decision.

The country’s top court on Thursday declined to hear an appeal.

“With great respect to the Supreme Court, we are disappointed,” said Josh Paterson, executive director of the civil liberties group, which also led the original court challenge.

“What the federal government is trying to do in this assisted-dying case is essentially have a re-do of a lot of the evidence and the factual findings that went against them in the original assisted dying challenge that we successfully brought.”

The B.C. Supreme Court trial is expected to take place next November. Paterson added his group will still be able to make the argument at trial that the government is improperly relitigating facts.

“The problem is that once we get to trial, we’ve spent the money, and the time, and the effort to re-prove everything we proved the last time,” he said.

“Ultimately it just means that people who are trapped in suffering by the new law will be in that condition for longer.”

The federal government has asserted that new arguments are required because the latest case involves different plaintiffs, a different legal regime and a different set of issues compared with 2015.