logo
Advocacy groups won't appeal Ontario court's dismissal of Charter challenge to long-term care law

Advocacy groups won't appeal Ontario court's dismissal of Charter challenge to long-term care law

CBC13-03-2025
Advocacy organizations won't appeal an Ontario court's decision to dismiss their Charter challenge of the province's long-term care (LTC) law, which allows hospitals to move people into homes they didn't choose or be charged $400 a day to remain in hospital.
The case, launched by the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly (ACE) and the Ontario Health Coalition (OHC), was heard in the Superior Court of Justice in September.
The two parties argued Bill 7, the More Beds, Better Care Act, — which was passed in 2022 — violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so the law should be overturned. The provincial government, however, maintains the law is necessary to free up much-needed hospital beds.
In mid-January, the court sided with the province and decided to dismiss the case.
In an interview with CBC News on Wednesday, Ontario Health Coalition executive director Natalie Mehra said OHC can't afford the legal costs to appeal.
The OHC is paying the majority of legal fees in this case, of "close to $200,000," according to Mehra. She said they're still fundraising to pay it off.
She also said an appeal is always challenging to win.
"It's very disappointing and really heartbreaking," Mehra said.
"We know that patients really are suffering as a result of the coercion, trying to find somewhere to move from hospital into a long-term care home that is a decent home, that provides the care that they need, that is close to loved ones."
In the published decision from January, Justice Robert Centa said the law doesn't contravene the Charter. The bill "does not interfere with an ALC [alternate level of care] patient's 'right' to choose where they live," and the $400 daily charge for a continued hospital stay is "not coercive," Centa wrote.
Instead, Bill 7 has a "sufficiently important objective," the justice added.
"I found that the purpose of Bill 7 is to reduce the number of ALC patients in hospital who are eligible for admission to a long-term care home in order to maximize hospital resources for patients who need hospital-level care."
Mehra said ACE and the OHC were "shocked" by the ruling, especially the idea that a $400 daily charge isn't coercive.
"These are elderly patients, they're on fixed incomes, $400 a day is $12,000 a month — that is beyond the means of the vast majority of people in Ontario. It really means that they don't have a choice in our view."
An Ontario patient charged $26K under legislation
Since the law was implemented in 2022, CBC News has spoken with people who were impacted, including Michele Campeau, whose elderly mom was charged $26,000 under the legislation last year. Campeau had refused to move her mom out of a Windsor hospital and into a long-term care home the family didn't want.
CBC News reached out this week to Campeau for comment, but hasn't heard back. When she last spoke to CBC News in January, Campeau said she wasn't planning to pay the fee and didn't agree with the court ruling.
Patients, their caregivers and seniors advocates have said the law is unfair and doesn't give elderly people, who might be in their final stage of life, the right to choose where they want to live.
But health-care leaders who provided expert evidence during the court case have said the law helps free up hospital beds for people who need them.
A spokesperson for Ontario's minister of health previously told CBC News the law "ensures people across the province receive the care they need, in a setting that is right for them."
"It frees up hospital beds so that people waiting for surgeries can get them sooner. It eases pressures on crowded emergency departments by admitting patients sooner and it connects more people to the care they need when they need it."
'Ramp up our fight'
Despite the OHC's decision, Mehra said they're not giving up.
She said they will continue to advocate for patients and "ramp up our fight" to get the province to prioritize the rights of elderly patients.
Beyond overturning the law, she said, they'll advocate for the government to improve home care, increase capacity in hospitals and LTC homes, and move forward with building new and modern homes that people want to live in.
"The fact that the solution has been to target patients rather than to deal with the capacity issues in our health system ... it's wrong, it's morally wrong, to treat people at the end of their lives in that way," she said.
"We have to fight with everything we have to force political change."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

London hospital ending controversial research studies on dogs following outcry
London hospital ending controversial research studies on dogs following outcry

CBC

time12-08-2025

  • CBC

London hospital ending controversial research studies on dogs following outcry

Days after it emerged that heart studies had been performed on dogs for years at a London hospital, St. Joseph's Health Care London said Monday that it would "immediately cease" research studies involving the animal. In a brief statement, the organization said the decision came "following consultations with the province." "We acknowledge that this will have a significant impact on the ground-breaking research that has resulted in major strides in cardiac care and treatment, and on the dedicated teams involved in this work," the statement said, which was also sent to staff and volunteers. CBC News had contacted the province for comment. Officials with St. Joseph's refused an interview request on Monday. "The animal research conducted at Lawson Research Institute, St. Joseph's Health Care London (St. Joseph's) adheres to the highest standards of, and is in compliance with, all scientific and ethics protocols," the statement issued Monday read. "The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) and the Western Animal Care Committee provide valued third-party oversight and ensure our commitment to ethical research at every stage of the discovery and innovation process." An article published last week by the Investigative Journalism Bureau at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health revealed that dogs had been used for years in a heart study at St. Joseph's Hospital. According to the article, published in partnership with Postmedia, researchers from Lawson Research Institute were secretly inducing three-hour heart attacks in dogs and puppies before euthanizing them and removing their hearts for further study. The research had been kept under wraps, with the animals wheeled into the hospital in blanket-covered crates, as loud music played to drown out their barking, according to the report. In a post on social media on Monday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said he was "deeply disturbed" by "reports of inhumane medical research taking place on dogs," at the hospital, and reached out to raise his concerns. "I'm pleased that St. Joseph's has agreed to immediately stop this research. Our government will always act to ensure that any medical research is carried out in an ethical and humane manner," Ford wrote. In a statement to CBC News last week, St. Joseph's said the report contained "several inaccuracies of fact," but would not say what the inaccuracies were. A spokesperson added that the research was conducted to "learn more about how to accurately image post-heart attack injury and healing that we cannot yet decipher using other models." "Other effective models don't yet exist for this specific line of inquiry that connects the metabolic and cellular mechanisms that can lead to, or prevent, a heart attack or heart failure with non-invasive imaging techniques." They also confirmed that dogs, rodents, fruit flies and other large mammals were used in research, but did not return a subsequent inquiry seeking more clarity on what "other large mammals" meant. Monday's announcement specifically referred to the immediate cessation of "research studies involving dogs." A vigil was held outside of St. Joseph's Hospital on Saturday for the dogs who died as part of the study.

B.C. doctor loses challenge of dismissal for COVID vaccine refusal
B.C. doctor loses challenge of dismissal for COVID vaccine refusal

The Province

time11-08-2025

  • The Province

B.C. doctor loses challenge of dismissal for COVID vaccine refusal

Dr. Theresa Szezepaniak said her Charter rights were violated when she had her hospital privileges revoked for refusing to get vaccinated A B.C. doctor argued her Charter rights were violated when she was dismissed as a hospitalist for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine during a provincial health order. Photo by Getty Images A B.C. judge has rejected a Charter challenge brought by a Kamloops doctor who said her rights were violated when her hospital privileges were revoked for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Dr. Theresa Szezepaniak brought the action in B.C. Supreme Court in Kelowna against the Interior Health Authority and the Hospital Appeal Board, which upheld the health agency's decision. Judge Steven Wilson said the revocation was an administrative decision, not a matter of Charter rights, and ruled in favour of health officials. Szezepaniak worked as a hospitalist at Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops during the pandemic. On Oct. 14, 2021, provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry issued an order that all doctors and nurses must be vaccinated. Those who refused were told they must resign their privileges or run the risk of being disciplined. The doctor refused either to get the vaccine or resign, instead launching an appeal with the Hospital Appeal Board, which largely upheld the decision of Interior Health, although it 'concluded that the sanction of termination was too harsh.' Essential reading for hockey fans who eat, sleep, Canucks, repeat. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The appeal board said Szezepaniak should be suspended instead, effectively ending her contract while the health order was in place. Szezepaniak 'argues that her decision not to be vaccinated was one she was entitled to make, and because the provincial health order precluded her from working at the hospital, she ought not to have been disciplined at all.' The doctor argued the discipline meant she has a 'black mark' on her record that will have to be disclosed whenever she applies for new positions. She argued that violates Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it 'includes the right to earn an income to support oneself and family.' The judge noted neither the validity of the health order nor the question of the efficacy of the COVID vaccine were at issue in the case. The judge also said it was not a test of the 'procedural fairness' of the appeal board hearing or of Interior Health's procedures and rules for employees. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Szezepaniak has been practising medicine for 23 years and was a clinical instructor at UBC for 15 years. The primary earner in her family, she moved to 100 Mile House and took a position there after the Royal Inland dismissal. Hospital privileges in all B.C. health authorities are reviewed annually by the regional board of directors, and when a medical worker fails to abide by the Hospital Act or any of its bylaws, a disciplinary process is started. Interior Health's board cancelled Szezepaniak's hospital privileges in a resolution dated Aug. 18, 2022. She appealed to the Hospital Appeal Board, which upheld the dismissal and rejected the Charter argument. The appeal board 'acknowledged that the petitioner was free to make the decision to remain unvaccinated, but concluded that discipline was nonetheless the consequence of that decision.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. As for the Charter argument, the appeal board said the health authority was only making a 'routine or regular' application of existing government policy. 'While made in response to the effects of the (provincial health) order, it did not constitute application or implementation of government policy.' The judge also agreed the operational decision to suspend Szezepaniak's hospital privileges was not 'patently unreasonable' in the circumstances, a condition that could trigger a Charter challenge. 'I do not accept that a hospital board's ability to exclude a practitioner from the hospital for failing to comply with the bylaws is a decision that is governmental in nature,' said the judge in the ruling posted online late last week. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. While the vaccination mandate was a provincial health order, 'the decision regarding how to discipline the hospital medical staff for their breach of the PHO (order) was not subject to governmental control under the Hospital Act, as the responsibility for adopting disciplinary measures for governmental policies rests with the Interior Health Authority board. 'It follows that I conclude that the Charter does not apply to the circumstances in this case.' Though acknowledging that Szezepaniak encountered 'stress and hardship' in making her decision to reject the vaccine, the judge said that 'does not make the orders a state interference with their physical or psychological integrity.' The judge referred to an earlier ruling that said 'the right to security of the person does not protect the individual from the ordinary stresses and anxieties that a person of reasonable sensibility would suffer as a result of government action. 'If the right were interpreted with such broad sweep, countless government initiatives could be challenged on the ground that they infringe the right to security of the person, massively expanding the scope of judicial review, and, in the process, trivializing what it means for a right to be constitutionally protected.' jruttle@ Read More Local News University News Real Estate News

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store