Carter v. Canada (2015): From Landmark Ruling to Today’s Medical practice
- Catie Whittier
- Nov 13
- 5 min read
By Catie Whittier
A decade has passed since Carter v. Canada (2015), where the Supreme Court of Canada made the decision to legalize the practice of physician assisted dying and strike down the law that criminalized it. The aim of this publication is to provide a comprehensive review of the case and examine how it has been applied in the real world, as well as well-known figures who have been approved for medical assistance in dying.
Carter v. Canada (2015) In 2011, Gloria Taylor was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a terminal illness that causes an exponential amount of muscle weakness and bodily pain that worsens over time (Chan & Somerville, 2016, 9). Taylor challenged the constitutionality of laws that criminalize physician-assisted suicide. Section 241(b) of the Canadian Criminal Code stated that “everyone who aids or abets a person in committing suicide, commits an indictable offence” (SCC, Carter v. Canada, 2015, 20). Additionally, section 14 held that “no person may consent to death being inflicted on them” (SCC, Carter v. Canada, 2015, 20).
Relevant Sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section 7 - Is the ban on assisted suicide contrary to section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice?
Section 15 - Is the ban on assisted suicide in section 241(b) of the Criminal Code contrary to section 15 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to equality? If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit under section 1?
Appellant arguments
The appellants of the case, including Gloria Taylor and the family of Kay Carter, argued that the prohibition on physician-assisted dying under the Criminal Code was unconstitutional. Their position was that this law violated fundamental Charter rights and caused unnecessary and unjust suffering to individuals with grievous and irremediable medical conditions. The basis for their reasoning resides in the question - How can the courts uphold the right to life, liberty, and security, while also enforcing a law that prohibits people from ending their suffering?
The appellants further argued that the prohibition infringed on protected interests under Section 7 of the Charter. The ban denied individuals the ability to make personal decisions about their own bodies, medical care, and the timing and manner of their death. The appellants pushed for the Court to strike down the prohibition and allow competent adults suffering from grievous and irremediable medical conditions to seek medical assistance in dying, provided appropriate safeguards were in place.
Respondent arguments
The Attorney General of Canada’s executive branch argued against the legalization of euthanasia. It is their position that a complete ban was necessary to fulfill two purposes: (1) protecting the “sanctity of life”, preserved under section 7; and (2) to protect vulnerable people who are susceptible to suicidal inclinations. The government emphasized the importance of safeguarding these individuals from coercion, abuse, and the risk of wrongful death, arguing that permitting euthanasia could create a slippery slope with dangerous social consequences. The government insisted that the blanket ban was a reasonable and necessary limit on individual rights to protect vulnerable persons and maintain societal respect for life, and thus was constitutional and justified under Section 7.
The court proceedings in Carter v. Canada (2015) captured the attention of numerous advisory groups, each with their own concerns regarding the legalization of medically assisted dying. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA), spoke on behalf of physicians across Canada, arguing that medically-induced suicide was fundamentally inconsistent with the ethical duties of physicians, particularly the principle of "do no harm" (Dumsday, 2021, 24). They argued that the legalization of euthanasia presented a distinct change in how we view the role of doctors (Dumsday, 2021, 25). The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) agreed with the Attorney general, in that legalizing assisted dying puts vulnerable individuals at risk of unnecessarily seeking to be euthanized (Dumsday, 2021, 30). The EPC also raised concerns about a slippery slope, where the legalization of euthanasia could lead to an expansion of the eligibility criteria, eventually normalizing the treatment. The Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians' Societies (CFCPS) is an organization that advocates for the moral and ethical principles of the Catholic faith to be applied in medical practice. This group argued against euthanasia, citing the Church’s teaching that life should be protected from conception to natural death.
The court's decision and policy implementations
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada made the unanimous decision to overturn the decision set in Rodriguez v. British Columbia (1993), which prohibited medically assisted dying for patients with terminal illnesses (Khan, 2021, 113). These provisions were struck down, on the grounds that they imposed an unjustifiable infringement of terminally ill people’s rights to life, liberty, and security of the person, under section 7 of the charter (Khan, 2021, 116).
To mitigate arbitrary use, legislators created Bill C-14, a new law that legalizes physician assisted suicide, bound by a clear set of mandatory criteria in order to receive the treatment (Khan, 2021, 113). The five criteria required to receive medical aid in dying mandate that the individual must: (1) be 18 years or older, (2) have a serious incurable illness, (3) voluntarily request the treatment, (4) have the mental capacity to make the decision, and (5) give final consent immediately before the procedure takes place. This operates to ensure the treatment is used as minimally as possible and in the most extreme cases. This way, the courts can grant the treatment to those in severe need, whilst protecting groups vulnerable to coercion.
A notable case of approved medical assistance in dying
The globally recognized children’s author, Robert Munsch, has recently been approved for medically assisted dying in Canada. Canada initially legalised euthanasia in cases of severe terminal illnesses (Chater, 2025). However, in 2021, the law was changed to include those with serious and chronic physical conditions, even in non-life threatening circumstances. After being diagnosed with dementia and Parkinson’s disease, Munsch was approved for physician assisted dying in September 2025 (Chater, 2025).
According to Canadian law, the person must be able to actively consent on the day of his death. Munsch said in an interview, "I have to pick the moment when I can still ask for it," (Chater, 2025).
Medically assisted dying accounted for 4.7% of deaths in Canada in 2023 - the most recent official government statistics (Chater, 2025).
After reviewing this case study, it is safe to say that the law has aged well, with the medical assistance in dying being carefully administered, with no signs of arbitrary use!
References:
Carter v. Canada [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331, 2015 SCC 5
Chan, B., & Somerville, M., (2016). CONVERTING THE ‘RIGHT TO LIFE’ TO THE ‘RIGHT TO PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA’: AN ANALYSIS OF CARTER V CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL), SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. Medical law review, 24 (2), 143–175.
Chater, J. (2025). Canadian writer Robert Munsch approved for Assisted Dying. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c931y04jg1vo
Dumsday, T. (2021). Assisted suicide in Canada: Moral, legal, and policy considerations. UBC Press, 11-45.
https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0Q88EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Dumsday,+T.+(2021).+As sisted+suicide+in+Canada:+Moral,+legal,+and+policy+considerations.+UBC+Press.+&ots=VAPpIkQKqj&sig=3G9 -lp13GyiCdhKdQIuwQqXhIKY#v=onepage&q=Dumsday%2C%20T.%20(2021).%20Assisted%20suicide%20in%2 0Canada%3A%20Moral%2C%20legal%2C%20and%20policy%20considerations.%20UBC%20Press.&f=false
Khan, I. (2021). Competing Arguments in Carter v. Canada (2015): How the Supreme Court of Canada’s Ruling Constitutionally Upholds Charter. RESPUBLICA, volume 5(2), 113-119. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/respublica/issue/view/2433/474
Comments