Cuthbertson v. Rasouli

Cuthbertson v. Rasouli
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2013-10-18
Neutral citation
2013 SCC 53
Report
[2013] 3 SCR 341
Case number
34362
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; LeBel, Louis; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Rothstein, Marshall; Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Karakatsanis, Andromache
On appeal from
Ontario
Subjects
Statutes
Notes
SCC Case Information: 34362
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, 2013 SCC 53, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 341
Date: 20131018
Docket: 34362
Between:
Brian Cuthbertson and Gordon Rubenfeld
Appellants
and
Hassan Rasouli, by his Litigation Guardian and
Substitute Decision‑Maker, Parichehr Salasel
Respondent
- and -
Consent and Capacity Board, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition,
Canadian Critical Care Society, Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses,
Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, ARCH Disability Law Centre,
Mental Health Legal Committee, HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario and
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
Interveners
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell and Karakatsanis JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 122)
Dissenting Reasons:
(paras. 123 to 206)
McLachlin C.J. (LeBel, Fish, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. concurring)
Karakatsanis J. (Abella J. concurring)
Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, 2013 SCC 53, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 341
Brian Cuthbertson and
Gordon Rubenfeld Appellants
v.
Hassan Rasouli, by his Litigation Guardian and
Substitute Decision‑Maker, Parichehr Salasel Respondent
and
Consent and Capacity Board,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition,
Canadian Critical Care Society,
Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses,
Advocacy Centre for the Elderly,
ARCH Disability Law Centre,
Mental Health Legal Committee,
HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario and
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Interveners
Indexed as: Cuthbertson v. Rasouli
2013 SCC 53
File No.: 34362.
2012: December 10; 2013: October 18.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell and Karakatsanis JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Health law — Consent to withdrawal of treatment — Health practitioners — Physicians seeking to remove life support and provide palliative care to unconscious patient on basis that all appropriate treatments exhausted and continuation of life support of no medical benefit — Patient’s substitute decision‑maker disagreeing and refusing to provide consent — Whether withdrawal of treatment constitutes “treatment” under Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, Sch. A — Whether consent regime under Act governs withdrawal of life support and therefore consent required — Whether substitute decision‑maker’s refusal to provide consent must be challenged before Consent and Capacity Board pursuant to the Act rather than in the courts under the common law — Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, Sch. A, ss. 2(1), 10(1)(b), 20, 21, 37.
R is unconscious and has been on life support since October 2010. The physicians responsible for R’s care believed that he was in a persistent vegetative state, that all appropriate treatments for his condition had been exhausted, and that there was no realistic hope for his medical recovery. In their opinion, continuing life support would not provide any medical benefit to R and may cause harm. They sought to remove his life support and to provide palliative care until his expected death. S, R’s wife and substitute decision‑maker (“SDM”), refused to provide her consent and applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for an order restraining the physicians from withdrawing R from life support without her consent as required by the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, Sch. A (“HCCA”), and directing that any challenge to her refusal of consent be made to the Consent and Capacity Board (“Board”). The physicians cross‑applied for a declaration that consent is not required to withdraw life support where such treatment is futile, and that the Board has no jurisdiction to decide these issues.
The Superior Court of Justice granted S’s application. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the order, finding that withdrawal of life support and administration of end‑of‑life palliative care were integrally linked and should be viewed as a “treatment package” requiring consent under the HCCA.
Held (Abella and Karakatsanis JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.
Per McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.: The consent regime imposed by the HCCA applies in this case. This legal framework, which aims at protecting patients’ autonomy and medical interests, has been used to resolve end‑of‑life disputes in Ontario for 17 years. Access to this established regime should not be closed off, casting these matters back into the courts. While the common law of consent to medical treatment works well for patients who have the capacity to decide on consent to treatment, that approach is problematic when a patient is incapable of appreciating the nature, purpose, and consequences of the proposed treatment. The HCCA sets out clear rules requiring consent before treatment can occur, identifying who can consent for an incapable patient, stating the criteria on which consent must be granted or refused, and creating a specialized body to settle disputes, including those between SDMs and physicians over consent regarding life support. Board decisions are subject to judicial review ensuring that the Board acts within its mandate and in accordance with the Constitution.
The appellant physicians argue that: (1) life support that is not “medically indicated” is not “treatment” under s. 2(1) of the HCCA; (2) in any event, the withdrawal of treatment does not itself constitute “treatment” and therefore does not require consent; and (3) requiring consent for withdrawal of life support will place them in an untenable ethical position. Reading the words of the statute in their ordinary sense and in their context, and having regard to the objects and scheme of the Act, those arguments cannot succeed. First, “treatment” and “health‑related purpose” are not confined to procedures that are of medical benefit in the view of the patient’s medical caregivers. Rather, “treatment” is broadly defined as “anything that is done” for one of the enumerated purposes (therapeutic, preventive, palliative, diagnostic and cosmetic) or “other health‑related purpose”. What the attending physician considers to be of “medical benefit” to the patient is a clinical term having legal implications for the physician’s standard of care. In contrast, “health‑related purpose” is a legal term used in the HCCA to set limits on when actions taken by health practitioners will require consent. Additionally, in keeping the patient alive and forestalling death, life support arguably falls within “therapeutic” and “preventive” purposes listed in the definition of “treatment”. Inclusion of life support in that definition is also generally supported by the objects of the HCCA, by providing consistency with respect to consent, by protecting autonomy through the requirement of consent, and by providing a meaningful role in the consent process for the SDM — often a close family member. An interpretation of “treatment” that is confined to what the medical caregiver considers to be of medical benefit to the patient would give these statutory purposes short shrift.
As to the physicians’ second argument, “treatment” in the HCCA is broadly defined and therefore should be understood as extending to withdrawal of life support in the situation at issue here and as that process is described in these proceedings. Withdrawal of life support aims at the health‑related purpose of preventing suffering and indignity at the end of life, often entails physical interference with the patient’s body, and is closely associated with the provision of palliative care. By removing medical services that are keeping a patient alive, withdrawal of life support impacts patient autonomy in the most fundamental way and goes to the heart of the purposes of the HCCA. Those purposes would be ill‑served by an interpretation that holds withdrawal of life support cannot constitute “treatment” under the Act. Moreover, the Board regularly exercises its jurisdiction in cases where physicians propose to withdraw life support, consistent with the view that withdrawal of life support constitutes “treatment” under the HCCA.
Third, while a physician may feel that the legal obligation not to withdraw life support is in tension with their professional or personal ethics, such tensions are inherent to medical practice. A physician cannot be legally faulted for following the direction of the Board any more than he or she could be faulted for abiding by a judge’s direction at common law not to withdraw life support. Implicit in the physicians’ request that a judge resolve the present dispute is acceptance that if a judge orders that life support cannot be withdrawn, they must comply. Their legal position under the HCCA is no different. The HCCA’s scheme for dispute resolution offers several avenues through which a clash with a physician’s ethical compunctions may be averted; the physician’s submissions on the patient’s condition, the nature of the proposal to withdraw life support, and what will medically benefit the patient will be highly relevant to the Board’s analysis. While the end‑of‑life context poses difficult ethical dilemmas for physicians, this does not alter the conclusion that withdrawal of life support constitutes treatment requiring consent under the HCCA.
Having determined that R should be removed from life support, the appellant physicians, applying the HCCA in this case, were obliged to seek S’s consent to the withdrawal: ss. 10(1)(b) and 20. Since R had not expressed a prior applicable wish within the meaning of s. 21(1), S was required to determine whether removal of life support was in R’s best interests, having regard to a series of mandatory factors relating to his medical condition, well‑being, values and wishes: s. 21(2). If the appellant physicians do not agree that maintaining life support for R is in his best interests, their recourse is to apply to the Board for a determination of whether S’s refusal to provide consent to the withdrawal complied with s. 21: s. 37(1). It will then be for the Board to determine whether S’s refusal to provide consent to the withdrawal of life support was in R’s best interests, within the meaning of s. 21(2). If the Board is of the opinion it was not, it may substitute its decision for that of S, and clear the way for removal of R’s life support.
Per Abella and Karakatsanis JJ. (dissenting): The common law, and not the HCCA, governs when doctors and substitute decision‑makers disagree regarding the proposed withdrawal of an incapable patient’s life support. Thus, the court, and not the Board, is the appropriate forum for resolving any disputes between the doctors and the incapable patient’s substitute decision‑maker.
The HCCA was not intended to cover the withdrawal of treatment or to provide a comprehensive scheme. It specifically provides that it does not affect the law relating to giving or refusing consent to anything not within the definition of “treatment” (s. 8(2)). The definition of “treatment” does not include the withdrawal or the withholding of treatment. Further, the withdrawal of treatment and the provision of palliative care are separate issues. The reasonable conclusion is that the HCCA does not alter the common law of consent by creating an entitlement to treatment.
The HCCA codifies and builds upon the common law of consent in Ontario. It is designed to give effect to the principle of patient autonomy — a principle with deep roots in our common law — that permits a patient to refuse medical treatment, no matter the consequences. The scheme of the Act ensures that when treatment is proposed, doctors, substitute decision‑makers and the Board are all bound by the patient’s known wishes, if clear and applicable. This is true for all treatments; there are no special provisions for end‑of‑life scenarios.
However, the HCCA does not permit a patient to dictate treatment. Neither the words nor the scheme of the Act contemplate a patient’s right to stop a doctor from withdrawing treatment that is no longer medically effective or is even harmful. Such an extension of patient autonomy to permit a patient to insist on the continuation of treatment that is medically futile would have a detrimental impact on the standard of care and legal, ethical, and professional duties in the practice of medicine. The role of patient autonomy must be balanced with the physician’s role, expertise, and advice. As well, there are a myriad of important interests, such as the integrity of our health care system, at stake.
As with the HCCA, the common law does not entitle a patient to insist upon continuation of treatment; it does not require a patient’s consent to the withholding or withdrawal of treatment. Even in those cases in which the court has intervened to prevent doctors from unilaterally withdrawing or withholding treatment, the courts did not conclude that consent was required. Rather, in those cases, the courts ordered an injunction pending trial. Other courts have explicitly concluded that consent is not required for the withdrawal of treatment and that it is not appropriate for a court to interfere with medical doctors acting unilaterally and professionally in the best interests of a patient.
The common law protects the interests of Canadians in the medical realm by requiring physicians to act (1) in accordance with the conduct of a prudent practitioner of the same experience and standing in the field, including a duty to obtain informed consent, and (2) in the best interests of their patients.
In many typical doctor‑patient relationships, the fiduciary obligation and the standard of care will likely overlap or resemble one another. However, in the end‑of‑life scenario where ongoing life support is futile, the foundation and ambit of a doctor’s fiduciary duty would be a useful and appropriate conceptual paradigm to supplement the standard of care and address the broader best interests of the patient. These obligations should require doctors to undertake a certain process for resolving important questions in the end‑of‑life setting by including a role for the family or substitute decision‑maker; providing notice and a thorough and accommodating process for determining the condition and best interests of the patient; and, where they are of the opinion that life support for a patient should be withdrawn, exploring alternative institutions willing to continue the treatment. Ultimately, if a doctor is satisfied that treatment is futile, he or she may discontinue treatment notwithstanding the wishes of the patient or family, provided they have followed these consultative processes and considered the patient’s best interests.
Where, as here, a family member or a substitute decision‑maker disagrees with the medical practitioner’s decision to withdraw life support, that person may apply to the court to challenge the physician’s decision. In reviewing whether a physician is acting within the professional standard of care, the court should determine whether the life support has any chance of being medically effective and whether withdrawal of the treatment is in the best interests of the patient. This necessarily includes consideration of the patient’s wishes, values and beliefs, in addition to the broad mental and physical implications for the patient’s condition and well‑being. However, in making that determination, the continuation of life is not an absolute value. The ultimate decision whether to withdraw life‑sustaining treatment must respect the medical or physical consequences of withdrawal or continuation of life support, and also the personal autonomy, bodily integrity, and human dignity of the patient. A doctor cannot be required to act outside of the standard of care and contrary to his or her professional duties.
In this case, the application judge made no factual findings about the patient’s condition and effectiveness of any treatment, and the patient’s diagnosis has been subject to change. The matter should therefore be remitted to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, so that it may make the necessary findings of fact, and to determine whether the withdrawal of life support is in accordance with the standard of care and the best interests of the patient.
Cases Cited
By McLachlin C.J.
Referred to: Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; Hopp v. Lepp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192; Fleming v. Reid (1991), 4 O.R. (3d) 74; Malette v. Shulman (1990), 72 O.R. (2d) 417; E. (Mrs.) v. Eve, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388; B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; Re S.D., [1983] 3 W.W.R. 618; Starson v. Swayze, 2003 SCC 32, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722; Golubchuk v. Salvation Army Grace General Hospital, 2008 MBQB 49, 227 Man. R. (2d) 274; Sweiss v. Alberta Health Services, 2009 ABQB 691, 483 A.R. 340; Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa‑Carleton v. C. (M.) (2008), 301 D.L.R. (4th) 194; E.J.G. (Re), 2007 CanLII 44704; G. (Re), 2009 CanLII 25289; A.K. (Re), 2011 CanLII 82907; Scardoni v. Hawryluck (2004), 69 O.R. (3d) 700; R. (Burke) v. General Medical Council, [2005] EWCA Civ 1003, [2005] 3 W.L.R. 1132; Conway v. Jacques (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 737; K.M.S. (Re), 2007 CanLII 29956; D.D. (Re), 2013 CanLII 18799; P. (D.), Re, 2010 CarswellOnt 7848; E.B. (Re), 2006 CanLII 46624; E. (Re), 2009 CanLII 28625; H.J. (Re), 2003 CanLII 49837; M. (A.) v. Benes (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 271; D.W. (Re), 2011 CanLII 18217; S.S. (Re), 2011 CanLII 5000; N., Re, 2009 CarswellOnt 4748; Crits v. Sylvester (1956), 1 D.L.R (2d) 502, aff’d [1956] S.C.R. 991; McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226.
By Karakatsanis J. (dissenting)
Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; Hopp v. Lepp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192; McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; Airedale N.H.S. Trust v. Bland, [1993] A.C. 789; Sweiss v. Alberta Health Services, 2009 ABQB 691, 483 A.R. 340; I.H.V., Re, 2008 ABQB 250, 449 A.R. 211; Sawatzky v. Riverview Health Centre Inc. (1998), 132 Man. R. (2d) 222; Golubchuk v. Salvation Army Grace General Hospital, 2008 MBQB 49, 227 Man. R. (2d) 274; Jin v. Calgary Health Region, 2007 ABQB 593, 428 A.R. 161; Child and Family Services of Central Manitoba v. R.L. (1997), 123 Man. R. (2d) 135; Rotaru v. Vancouver General Hospital Intensive Care Unit, 2008 BCSC 318 (CanLII); Re J (a minor) (wardship: medical treatment), [1992] 4 All E.R. 614; Re R (a minor) (wardship: medical treatment), [1991] 4 All E.R. 177; In Re: The Conservatorship of Helga M. Wanglie, No. PX‑91‑283 (1991), reported in (1991), 7 Issues L. & Med. 369; In the Matter of Baby “K”, 16 F.3d 590 (1994); ter Neuzen v. Korn, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674; Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226; Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Care Consent Act, S.Y. 2003, c. 21, Sch. B.
Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, arts. 11 to 25.
Consent to Treatment and Health Care Directives Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. C‑17.2.
Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, Sch. A, ss. 1, 2(1) “plan of treatment”, “treatment”, 8(2), 10(1), (2), 13, 20, 21, 29(1), (2), (3), 35, 36, 37, 85(1)(f).
Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 181.
Health Care Decisions Act, Va. Code Ann. § 54.1‑2990 (2013).
Health Care Directives Act, C.C.S.M. c. H27.
Legislation Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sch. F, s. 64(1).
Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 166.052 (Vernon 2012).
Uniform Health‑Care Decisions Act § 7, 9 U.L.A. 83 (2011).
Authors Cited
Canada. Law Reform Commission. “Euthanasia, Aiding Suicide and Cessation of Treatment”, Working Paper 28. Ottawa: The Commission, 1982.
Canada. Senate. Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Of Life and Death: Report of the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Ottawa: The Committee, 1995.
Canadian Healthcare Association, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Nurses Association and Catholic Health Association of Canada. “Joint Statement on Preventing and Resolving Ethical Conflicts Involving Health Care Providers and Persons Receiving Care”, 1999 (online: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/PolicyPDF/PD99-03.pdf).
Canadian Healthcare Association, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Nurses Association and Catholic Health Association of Canada. “Joint Statement on Resuscitative Interventions (Update 1995)”, 1995 (online: http://www.cma.ca/index.php/ci_id/33236/la_id/1.htm).
College of Physicians & Surgeons of Manitoba. Statement No. 1602: “Withholding and Withdrawing Life‑Sustaining Treatment”, September 2007 (online: http://cpsm.mb.ca/cjj39alckF30a/wp-content/uploads/st1602.pdf).
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Policy Statement #1‑06: “Decision‑making for the End of Life”, July 2006 (online: http://www.cpso.on.ca/policies/policies/default.aspx?ID=1582).
Côté, Pierre‑André, in collaboration with Stéphane Beaulac and Mathieu Devinat. The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada, 4th ed. Toronto: Carswell, 2011.
Hoffman, Brian F. The Law of Consent to Treatment in Ontario, 2nd ed. Toronto: Butterworths, 1997.
Manitoba. Law Reform Commission. “Withholding or Withdrawing Life Sustaining Medical Treatment”, Report #109, December 2003 (online: http://www.manitobalawreform.ca/pubs/pdf/archives/109-full_report.pdf).
New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, “preventive”, “therapeutic”.
Picard, Ellen I., and Gerald B. Robertson. Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada, 4th ed. Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2007.
Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 28th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006, “extubation”.
Sullivan, Ruth. Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 5th ed. Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis, 2008.
Young, Hilary. “Why Withdrawing Life‑Sustaining Treatment Should Not Require ‘Rasouli Consent’” (2012), 6:2 M.J.L.H. 54.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Doherty, Moldaver and Simmons JJ.A.), 2011 ONCA 482, 107 O.R. (3d) 9, 281 O.A.C. 183, 89 C.C.L.T. (3d) 175, [2011] O.J. No. 2984 (QL), 2011 CarswellOnt 14871, affirming a decision of Himel J., 2011 ONSC 1500, 105 O.R. (3d) 761, 231 C.R.R. (2d) 26, [2011] O.J. No. 1100 (QL), 2011 CarswellOnt 1650 (sub nom. Rasouli (Litigation Guardian of) v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre). Appeal dismissed, Abella and Karakatsanis JJ. dissenting.
Harry Underwood, Andrew McCutcheon and Erica J. Baron, for the appellants.
J. Gardner Hodder, Guillermo Schible and Stefan A. De Smit, for the respondent.
No one appeared for the intervener the Consent and Capacity Board.
Hugh R. Scher, for the intervener the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
Andrew S. Faith and Alexi N. Wood, for the intervener the Canadian Critical Care Society.
Rahool P. Agarwal, Nahla Khouri and Nicholas Saint‑Martin, for the intervener the Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses.
Dianne Wintermute, Graham Webb and C. Tess Sheldon, for the interveners the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and the ARCH Disability Law Centre.
Marshall Swadron, Ryan Peck and Amy Wah, for the interveners the Mental Health Legal Committee and the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario.
Albertos Polizogopoulos and Don Hutchinson, for the intervener the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. was delivered by
The Chief Justice —
I. Introduction
A. Overview
[1] This case presents us with a tragic yet increasingly common conflict. A patient is unconscious. He is on life support — support that may keep him alive for a very long time, given the resources of modern medicine. His physicians, who see no prospect of recovery and only a long progression of complications as his body deteriorates, wish to withdraw life support. His wife, believing that he would wish to be kept alive, opposes withdrawal of life support. How should the impasse be resolved?
[2] In the past, disputes between next of kin and physicians over consent regarding life support and other forms of medical treatment for incapable patients were resolved through the courts, under the common law. However, in Ontario, the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, Sch. A (“HCCA”), provides a statutory scheme for resolving such disputes. Under the HCCA, a designated substitute decision-maker — often a close family member — has the right to determine whether life support can be withdrawn in the first instance. In making that decision, she must act in accordance with the provisions of the HCCA, which aim at protecting patients’ autonomy and medical interests. In the event of disagreement, it is open to the attending physician to challenge the substitute decision-maker’s decision on the ground that it is not in accordance with the HCCA, by applying to the Consent and Capacity Board (“Board”). The HCCA empowers the Board to make the final decision on the issue of consent for incapable patients.
[3] The appellant physicians in this case take the position that the HCCA does not apply because consent is not required for withdrawal of life support that does not provide any medical benefit to the patient. The courts below rejected that contention, as would I. It follows that the appeal should be dismissed. Where a substitute decision-maker does not consent to the withdrawal of life support, the physicians’ remedy is an application to the Board.
[4] This case turns on statutory interpretation — what the HCCA provides. It is not a case about who, in the absence of a statute, should have the ultimate say in whether to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Nor does the case require us to resolve the philosophical debate over whether a next-of-kin’s decision should trump the physicians’ interest in not being forced to provide non-beneficial treatment and the public interest in not funding treatment deemed of little or no value. The Ontario legislature has addressed the conflicting interests and arguments that arise in cases such as this in the HCCA. The Court’s task is simply to determine what the statute requires. I note that the parties did not address resource implications or Charter issues in this appeal.
B. The Events
[5] In October 2010, Mr. Hassan Rasouli underwent surgery at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (the “Hospital”) to remove a benign brain tumour. Following the procedure, Mr. Rasouli developed an infection that caused severe and diffuse brain damage. As a result, Mr. Rasouli has been unconscious since October 16, 2010, and is being kept alive by mechanical ventilation, connected to a tube surgically inserted into his trachea, and artificial nutrition and hydration, delivered through a tube inserted into his stomach. Without these life-sustaining measures, it is expected that Mr. Rasouli would pass away.
[6] The physicians responsible for Mr. Rasouli’s care, including the appellants, Dr. Cuthbertson and Dr. Rubenfeld, formed the opinion that Mr. Rasouli was in a persistent vegetative state, that all appropriate treatments for his condition had been exhausted, and that there was no realistic hope for his medical recovery. In the opinion of the physicians, continuing to provide life support would not provide any medical benefit to Mr. Rasouli and may cause harm. They seek to remove his life support and to provide palliative care until his expected death.
[7] The physicians informed Mr. Rasouli’s wife, Ms. Parichehr Salasel, who is also his litigation guardian and substitute decision-maker under the HCCA, of Mr. Rasouli’s diagnosis and their proposed course of action. She would not agree. Ms. Salasel and her family wish to keep Mr. Rasouli alive. Ms. Salasel does not accept that Mr. Rasouli is in a state of permanent and irreversible unconsciousness and believes that, as a devout Shia Muslim, he would wish to be kept alive. She contends that new evidence on Mr. Rasouli’s neurological function indicates an increased level of consciousness.
[8] In the face of Ms. Salasel’s disagreement, the Hospital arranged for a second opinion from a neurologist who had not been involved in Mr. Rasouli’s care. The neurologist concurred with the original diagnosis and assessment. The Hospital also contacted another facility to see whether Mr. Rasouli could be treated elsewhere, but that facility was not prepared to admit Mr. Rasouli. In addition, the physicians offered Ms. Salasel the opportunity to independently obtain an opinion from another neurologist, which she chose not to do.
[9] Faced with an impasse, the physicians agreed to postpone their plans to withdraw life support until Ms. Salasel could apply to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for an order restraining the physicians from withdrawing Mr. Rasouli from life support, and directing that any challenge to her refusal of consent be made to the Board. The physicians cross-applied for a declaration that Mr. Rasouli is in a permanent vegetative state, that consent is not required to withdraw life support where such treatment is futile, and that the Board has no jurisdiction to decide these issues.
C. Court Decisions
[10] The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, per Himel J., granted Ms. Salasel’s application for an order that life support could not be removed without her consent, and that any challenge to her refusal to consent must be brought before the Board: 2011 ONSC 1500, 105 O.R. (3d) 761.
[11] The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld this order. It held that withdrawal of life support and administration of end-of-life palliative care were integrally linked and should be viewed as a “treatment package”: 2011 ONCA 482, 107 O.R. (3d) 9, at para. 52. Since consent to the administration of palliative care was clearly required under the HCCA, it should also be required for the “treatment package” of withdrawal of life support and administration of palliative care.
[12] In January 2012, before the hearing of the appeal in this Court, assessments by two neurologists resulted in a change to Mr. Rasouli’s diagnosis from permanent vegetative state to minimally conscious state. As a result, the appellant physicians took the view that further investigations were required to determine whether Mr. Rasouli may be capable of any communication, which could bear on their assessment of whether life support should be continued. Ms. Salasel, on the other hand, brought a motion to quash the appeal given the change in diagnosis. The motion was dismissed by this Court in May 2012.
[13] In November 2012, both parties brought motions to adduce new evidence on Mr. Rasouli’s neurological function. These motions were referred to the panel hearing the appeal to be determined at the hearing. In light of my conclusion that the substance of the dispute must be determined by the Board, I would dismiss the motions to adduce fresh evidence, without prejudice to the Board receiving any evidence it deems relevant.
D. Issues
[14] This appeal raises two questions.
[15] The first is whether the HCCA governs the issue of withdrawal of life support with the consequence that Ms. Salasel’s consent to withdrawal of life support is required, and that her refusal can be challenged only before the Board.
[16] Only if we conclude that the HCCA does not apply, do we reach the second question — whether at common law this Court should order that Mr. Rasouli’s life support can be removed without Ms. Salasel’s consent.
II. Discussion
[17] In enacting the HCCA, the Ontario legislature both codified and in important ways modified the common law of consent to medical treatment. It is therefore useful to begin by situating the statute within the common law legal landscape.
A. The Common Law Backdrop
[18] At common law, medical caregivers must obtain a patient’s consent to the administration of medical treatment: Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; Hopp v. Lepp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192. The physician cannot override the patient’s wishes to be free from treatment, even if he believes that treatment is in the vital interests of the patient. The patient’s consent must be given voluntarily and must be informed, which requires physicians to ensure the patient understands the nature of the procedure, its risks and benefits, and the availability of alternative treatments before making a decision about a course of treatment. The requirement for informed consent is rooted in the concepts of an individual’s right to bodily integrity and respect for patient autonomy: see Fleming v. Reid (1991), 4 O.R. (3d) 74 (C.A.).
[19] The common law of consent to medical treatment works well for patients who have the capacity to decide on consent to treatment, in the sense of being able to understand the nature, purpose, and consequences of the proposed treatment. The patient’s autonomy interest — the right to decide what happens to one’s body and one’s life — has historically been viewed as trumping all other interests, including what physicians may think is in the patient’s best interests.
[20] However, the traditional common law approach to medical treatment is more problematic when a patient is incapable of appreciating the nature, purpose, and consequences of the proposed treatment. As explained in Malette v. Shulman (1990), 72 O.R. (2d) 417 (C.A.), at pp. 423-24, the common law doctrine of informed consent “presupposes the patient’s capacity to make a subjective treatment decision based on her understanding of the necessary medical facts provided by the doctor and on her assessment of her own personal circumstances”. When such capacity is lacking, the patient is not in a position to exercise his autonomy by consenting to or refusing medical treatment.
[21] If a patient is incapable, disputes over consent to treatment at common law are resolved in the courts. The focus shifts from the patient’s autonomy interest, which is compromised or extinguished, to whether receiving treatment is in the best interests of the patient. In emergency situations, where treatment is necessary to save the life or preserve the health of an incapable patient, treatment may be provided without consent: Malette, at p. 424. In non-emergency situations, treatment may be authorized by a court, acting under its parens patriae jurisdiction, or in the case of an incapable minor, by the child’s parents or legal guardian. See, e.g., E. (Mrs.) v. Eve, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388; B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315, at para. 83; Re S.D., [1983] 3 W.W.R. 618 (B.C.S.C.), at p. 629.
B. The Statutory Scheme
[22] Many provinces found the common law regime for the treatment of incapable patients unsatisfactory and devised new approaches through legislation. In 1996, the Ontario legislature passed the HCCA, which provides a statutory framework governing consent to treatment for capable and incapable patients. Similar legislation has been adopted in other provinces. See The Health Care Directives Act, C.C.S.M. c. H27; Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 181; Care Consent Act, S.Y. 2003, c. 21, Sch. B; Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, arts. 11 to 25; Consent to Treatment and Health Care Directives Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. C-17.2.
[23] Each of these statutes provides a framework for resolving the difficult issues surrounding treatment of patients who lack capacity to decide for themselves: Starson v. Swayze, 2003 SCC 32, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722. Generally speaking, the statutes give effect to the patient’s autonomy interest insofar as possible. If the patient’s autonomy is compromised by lack of capacity, they seek to balance it against considerations related to the best interests of the patient. Finally, some statutes provide for resolution of disputes by specialized tribunals instead of the courts. The HCCA does all these things.
[24] The purposes of the Act are:
1. . . .
(a) to provide rules with respect to consent to treatment that apply consistently in all settings;
(b) to facilitate treatment, admission to care facilities, and personal assistance services, for persons lacking the capacity to make decisions about such matters;
(c) to enhance the autonomy of persons for whom treatment is proposed, persons for whom admission to a care facility is proposed and persons who are to receive personal assistance services by,
(i) allowing those who have been found to be incapable to apply to a tribunal for a review of the finding,
(ii) allowing incapable persons to request that a representative of their choice be appointed by the tribunal for the purpose of making decisions on their behalf concerning treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services, and
(iii) requiring that wishes with respect to treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services, expressed by persons while capable and after attaining 16 years of age, be adhered to;
(d) to promote communication and understanding between health practitioners and their patients or clients;
(e) to ensure a significant role for supportive family members when a person lacks the capacity to make a decision about a treatment, admission to a care facility or a personal assistance service; and
(f) to permit intervention by the Public Guardian and Trustee only as a last resort in decisions on behalf of incapable persons concerning treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services.
[25] The HCCA starts from the general premise that medical treatment cannot be administered without consent: s. 10(1). Building on this premise, the HCCA goes on to provide a detailed scheme governing consent to treatment for incapable patients. It provides that a substitute decision-maker must consent to treatment of an incapable patient: ss. 10(1)(b) and 20. The statute sets out a clear hierarchy designating who will serve as substitute decision-maker: s. 20(1). This will often be a close family member of the patient, furthering the statutory objective of ensuring “a significant role for supportive family members when a person lacks the capacity to make a decision about a treatment”: s. 1(e).
[26] The substitute decision-maker does not have a free hand to grant or refuse consent at will. She must respect prior applicable wishes of the patient expressed while the patient was capable: s. 21(1). If there are no such wishes, the substitute decision-maker must decide based on the best interests of the patient, taking into consideration a series of mandatory factors relating to the medical condition, well-being, values, and wishes of the patient: s. 21(2).
[27] The HCCA does not neglect the role of health practitioners in the treatment of incapable patients. First, where there is a prior wish by the patient, the attending physician may ask the Board to find that the wish is not applicable to the patient’s current circumstances (s. 35), or to permit a departure from the wish because the likely result of treatment has significantly improved since the wish was made: s. 36. Second, if the physician feels that a substitute decision-maker has not complied with the HCCA’s rules for giving or refusing consent to treatment, he may challenge the consent decision by application to the Board: s. 37. Such a challenge will generally focus on medical considerations within the s. 21(2) best interests analysis. The physician’s views of what will medically benefit the patient are obviously critical to the Board’s determination of the patient’s best interests. However, the HCCA gives the Board final responsibility to decide disputes over consent to treatment for incapable patients, based on an objective assessment of whether the substitute decision-maker complied with the requirements of the HCCA.
[28