Week 11 – March 18, 2014
the case concerning a girl aged 14 years old who suffers from chromes disease. She suffered a bad reaction and went to the hospital. She was a
jehovahs witness and don’t believe in blood transfusions. The Doctors told her she will die unless she has a blood transfusion and she believed that she
wont go to heaven if she does this.
This position conflicted with the hypocratic oath that doctors take because they are supposed to do everything they can do help a life.
the doctors made her do an evaluation to determine her capablitiy and mentality in deciding not to do a blood transfusion.
the doctors filed an application with the ward to take her under the governments wing and be able to do the blood transfusion and take her away from
the judge said that 16 is the cut off age for consent and being under 16 she cant make her own decisions and she is now a ward of the state and he
ordered the transfusion.
this was appealed to the SCC.
this case parellels the N.S case of intersectionaltiy of conflict between charter rights in this case s.2, 7 and 15 rights.
this decision is the courts way of reconciling this conflict.
abella wrote that examination of the capacity of judges and the trial judge ignored her capacity looked at the law and determined she is not capable of
making decisions. she said that he should not do this and pulled applications from other countries. There are cases like in Britain that girls are sexually
active and wanted contraseptives and got them without parental permission. Certain children have a level of maturity and capacity to make health
decisions without parental consent.
abella claims her a mature minor and imports it into Canadian law and said the trial judge failed to look at the capacity of AC and based on the concept
of a mature minor not recognizing the tests that can be applied doesn’t let them determine AC capacity.
this parallels NS because the trial judge mistake in this case did not properly examine the sincerity of her beliefs.
Its not up to the court to determine the validiy of a religious belief and that is why there is not a lot of discussion about s.2 in this AC case because the
court believed her belief was sincere.
by importing the notion of mature minor into Canadian law it stipulates certain tests