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
On March 29, 2016, the Province of New Brunswick tabled proposed changes to the Industrial Relations Act and the Public Services Labour Relations Act. If passed, these changes would dramatically alter well-established principles of private sector collective bargaining.…
Read MoreBy Jennifer Taylor Why is this case a big deal? It started with two salmon. Now, after several years of litigation, the Nova Scotia Provincial Court in R v Martin, 2016 NSPC 14 has stayed proceedings against…
Read MoreTHE EDITORS’ CORNER Michelle Black and Sean Kelly One day, the line between mental and physical disabilities may not be so pronounced, but, for now, distinctions are still drawn between Employee A with, for example, diabetes and…
Read MoreBy Lisa Gallivan Employees can be your biggest asset, if you hire the right people. This can often be one of the biggest decisions that you make as a business owner or employer. The “right” employee…
Read MoreBy Burtley Francis and Kathleen Leighton Order Up: Apple, P.I. Recently, the public safety versus personal privacy debate has been brought to main headlines. Apple is facing a court order (available here) requiring the company to assist the FBI in the investigation of…
Read MoreIn preparing for the 2016 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 MoreBy Burtley Francis and Michael MacIsaac You remember Left Shark… The Super Bowl is a lot of things to a lot of people and is arguably the most anticipated event of the year that is not a holiday…
Read MoreBy Jennifer Taylor Summary The Canada Industrial Relations Board recently held that it had no jurisdiction as a federal board to certify a bargaining unit comprised of fisheries employees of the Waycobah First Nation. The decision…
Read MoreBy Peter McLellan, QC In the 1970s the issue for employers was long hair and sideburns. In the 1980’s it was earrings for men. Today the employer’s concerns are with tattoos and facial piercings. What are…
Read MoreBy Jennifer Taylor Introduction It sounds simple: Two disputing parties, hoping to resolve their disagreement without drawn-out court proceedings, will mutually agree to a settlement on clear terms; release each other from all claims; and move…
Read More