CHAOULLI V. QUEBEC (AG),
2005
CASE SUMMARY
+
WAIT TIMES
QUEBEC’S HEALTH INSURANCE ACT (s.15)
QUEBEC’S HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT (s.11)
VIOLATION OF QUEBEC’S CHARTER OF HUMAN
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
LIFE
SECURITY
INVIOLABILITY
3 OPINIONS
 DESCHAMPS
 REFERRED ONLY TO THE QUEBEC CHARTER AND NOT THE
CANADIAN CHARTER.
 VIOLATES s1 OF THE QUEBEC CHARTER (LIFE & SECURITY)
 s9.1 (JUSITICIFACTION FOR PROHIBITION)
 DEMOCRATIC VALUES, PUBLIC ORDER, & GENERAL WELLBEING OF THE CITIZENS OF QUEBEC
 OAKES TEST
 QUEBEC AG FAILED TO PROVE THAT SUCH RESTRICTION WAS MINIMALLY
IMPAIRING
3 OPINIONS
 CHIEF JUSTICE & MAJOR
 VIOLATES s7 OF THE CANADIAN CHARTER
 PRINCIPLES OF FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE:
 LAWS SHALL NOT BE ARBITRARY
 ARBITRARY = NO RELATION TO OR INCONSISTENT WITH ITS
OBJECTIVE
 INTL. EVIDENCE SHOWS PROHIBITION OF PRIVATE INSURANCE
IS ARBITRARY AND THEREFORE BREACHES s7
BUT
CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED UNDER s1 - AS A REASONBLE LIMIT
DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFIED IN A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC
SOCIETY?
 OAKES TEST
 FAILED TO PROVE A RATIONAL CONNECTION FOR THE SAME
REASON THAT IT BREACHED s7
3 OPINIONS
 BINNIE & LEBEL
 “WHAT , THEN, ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED
SERVICES?”
 NOT AN ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BUT ONE
OF SOCIAL POLICY
 “proper regard for democratic values, public order and the general wellbeing of the citizens of Québec.”
Vs
 Principles of fundamental justice
 LEGAL PRINCIPLE
 SOCIETAL CONSENSUS
 IDENTIFIED WITH PRECISION/PREDICTABLE RESULTS
Charter-Based Judicial Review
 INTERPRETATION
 OAKES TEST
 MINIMAL IMPAIRMENT
 ROLL BACK LEGISLATURE
QUESTIONS
- WHY DO YOU THINK THIS CHARTER CHALLENGE HAS BEEN ALL
“BARK AND NO BITE”?
- THE EXISTENCE OF METHODOLOGIES, SUCH AS THE “MINIMAL
IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE” ALLOW LEGISLATURES TO RETAIN POWER
OVER POLICY MAKING. TO WHAT EXTENT, GIVEN THE BROAD
SCOPE FOR INTERPRETATION OF KEY PRINCIPLES, SUCH AS
THOSE OF FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE, SHOULD COURTS INTERVENE
IN SOCIAL POLICY? OR SHOULD THEY BE INVOLVED AT ALL?
REFERENCES
 Monahan, P. (2006). Constitutional Law: 3rd Ed. Toronto:
Irwin Law, 2006
 Peter H. Russell, Rainer Knopff, Thomas M.J. Bateman,
Janet L. Hiebert,.(2008) The Court and the Constitution:
Leading Cases Toronto: Emond Montgomery.
 Cohn, D. (2010). Chaoulli Five Years On: All Bark and No
Bite? A Paper Presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the
Canadian Political Science Association. Concordia
University.