Chaoulli v. Quebec

  [[File:|frameless|alt=]]

Court	Supreme Court of Canada
Full case name
Argued
Reargued
Submitted
Indictment
Started
Decided	June 9, 2005
Verdict
Defendant

Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that was rendered on June 9, 2005. The case addressed the constitutionality of Quebec's prohibition on private health insurance for services covered by the public health care system. The decision has significant implications for the Canadian health care system and the debate over public versus private health care.

Background

The case was initiated by Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, a physician, and his patient, George Zeliotis. They challenged the Quebec government's ban on private health insurance for services that are already covered by the public health care system. Zeliotis had experienced long wait times for hip replacement surgery and argued that the prohibition on private insurance violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Legal Issues

The primary legal issue in Chaoulli v. Quebec was whether the prohibition on private health insurance violated the rights to life, liberty, and security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Additionally, the case considered whether the prohibition violated the right to personal inviolability under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a split decision, ruled that the prohibition on private health insurance was unconstitutional under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The majority found that the prohibition violated the right to personal inviolability and security of the person, as it could lead to excessive wait times for medical treatment, thereby endangering patients' health.

The court did not reach a consensus on whether the prohibition violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the decision was based on the Quebec Charter.

Implications

The decision in Chaoulli v. Quebec has sparked significant debate about the future of health care in Canada. It raised questions about the sustainability of the public health care system and the role of private health care. Some argue that the decision could lead to a two-tiered health care system, while others believe it could drive improvements in the public system by introducing competition.

Criticism and Support

Critics of the decision argue that it undermines the principles of universal health care and could lead to increased inequality in access to health services. Supporters, however, contend that it provides patients with more choice and could reduce wait times by allowing private options.

Also see

• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
• Supreme Court of Canada
• Health care in Canada
• Two-tier health care