Skip to main content

Demostrators protest against federal cuts to refugee health services on Parliament Hill on June 17, 2013.

FRED CHARTRAND/THE CANADIAN PRESS

The Conservative government's latitude to choose its own policies was curtailed yet again on Friday when a judge called health-care cuts for failed refugee claimants, and those from countries deemed by Ottawa to be safe, a form of "cruel and unusual treatment" and ruled them unconstitutional.

The ruling by Justice Anne Mactavish of the Federal Court in Ottawa was the latest sign that the executive branch of government and the judiciary are in open conflict.

So rare is the use of Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment" – that neither the government nor the refugees' representatives were able to identify a single successful claim outside of criminal cases.

Story continues below advertisement

"It's huge – it opens up a whole new claim that we can make when we want to challenge government conduct," Lorne Waldman, who represented the Canadian Association of Refugee Doctors in the case, said in an interview.

Justice Mactavish said the government's two-year-old policy of denying health care to certain classes of failed refugee claimants amounted to cruel and unusual treatment because it intentionally targeted vulnerable children and adults. She said it put at risk "the very lives of these innocent and vulnerable children in a manner that shocks the conscience and outrages our standards of decency." She gave the government four months to restore the health-care funding.

In widely different areas, the courts have barred the Conservative government from doing what it wished to do – close a Vancouver medical clinic at which drug users inject heroin under a nurse's supervision; turn the Senate into an elected body without provincial consent; appoint a Federal Court justice to one of three Quebec seats on the Supreme Court; limit prisoners' right to sue over the conditions of their detention; extend sentences for thousands of prisoners without being explicit about it; and change a parole law retroactively.

In this case, the government argued that it had the right to try to deter bogus claimants from coming to Canada, or overstaying, by denying them medical care, except where they had diseases that could spread to others. It said the cuts would save $80-million over four years, and those denied care could turn to charity, emergency rooms or private insurance.

Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said the government will appeal the ruling. "Failed claimants and those from safe countries like the U.S. or Europe should not be entitled to better health care than Canadians receive." (The government would need to seek a stay of Justice Mactavish's order if it wishes to continue with the cuts while an appeal is being heard.)

The refugee and medical advocacy groups that challenged the policy documented for Justice Mactavish 40 cases in which the denial of medical insurance created hardship. Hanif Ayubi, a rejected claimant from Afghanistan, was denied insulin and other medication for severe diabetes. As a dishwasher earning $10,000 a year, he could not afford private insurance. Daniel Rodriques, a failed claimant from Colombia, was denied an emergency operation after his retina detached. A doctor waived his fee and Mr. Rodriques had the operation shortly afterward.

Editor's note: An earlier version of this story said the cuts applied to failed refugee claimants. The cuts also apply to refugee claimants from countries the government deems safe.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter