Doctors must provide ‘effective referrals’ for medical services they oppose on religious grounds: Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2019 ONCA 393
Health Group, Christopher Goodridge and Matthew Jacobs
The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed in a decision released on May 15, 2019 that doctors must provide an ‘effective referral’ where they are unwilling to provide care on moral or religious grounds. The appeal required the court to reconcile a patients’ access to medical services and a physicians’ freedom to refuse to participate in services which they have religious objections – conflicting individual liberties.
What is an effective referral?
An effective referral is defined as “a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible physician, other health-care professional, or agency.”¹
Ontario Superior Court Decision – January 31, 2018
The Ontario Superior Court upheld a College of Physician and Surgeon of Ontario’s policy on ‘effective referrals’. The policy required all physicians who object to providing medical treatment (such as assisted dying and abortion) to provide an effective referral, regardless of moral or religious beliefs. The policies did not require physicians to personally provide the services to which they object, except in an emergency where it is necessary to prevent imminent harm to a patient.
The appellants were individual physicians and organizations representing physicians in Ontario that challenged the policies on the ground that the effective referral requirements infringe their freedom of conscience and religion under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the requirements oblige them to be complicit in procedures that offend their religious beliefs. The appellants also claimed that the effective referral requirements discriminate against physicians based on their religions, thus infringing their s. 15(1) equality rights.
The Court found that while the policies infringe their freedom of religion, the infringement is justified under s. 1 of the Charter, because the policies are reasonable limits, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The Divisional Court did not consider whether freedom of conscience is engaged. It dismissed the s. 15(1) claim in its entirety.
Ontario Court of Appeal – May 15, 2019
Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Ontario Superior Court, affirming the constitutionality of the ‘effective referral’ requirements imposed on doctors by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. The ‘effective referral’ was found to be fundamental for the trust that must exist in the physician-patient relationship, physicians acting as navigators for health care services for their patients.
Strathy C.J., writing for the three judge panel, ruled unanimously that the s. 7 Charter protected right of patients in Ontario to equitable access to medical services outweighs a doctors’ freedom to refuse to participate in any way in services which conflict with their Charter protected religious view.
Key takeaways
- The ruling reaffirms that in a publicly funded healthcare system, physicians are required to place the interests of their patients care ahead of their moral or religious values in the event of a conflict.
- This decision does not address hospitals or health authorities’ obligations to provide effective referrals. That said, health-care providers should be mindful of the courts insights in drafting their health-care service policies.
- Finally, while the decision does not change the position that the Charter does not provide any positive rights to health care, where the government has a system in place to provide specific health care services, it must comply with the Charter.
¹ Policy Statement #4-16, entitled “Medical Assistance in Dying”, refers to “nurse practitioner” in place of “other health-care professional
This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Health team.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
Archive
In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…
Read MorePerlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3 the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…
Read MorePerlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…
Read MoreJonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…
Read MorePeter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…
Read MoreRick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…
Read MoreBrian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…
Read MoreJonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…
Read More