I believe there was a statement of claim issued by Roger Foley. I would have to go back and check where that litigation currently stands.
At this point, this issue hasn't been explicitly addressed by the courts in a written decision, but we do feel there are charter issues engaged here. Just to play that out, you can look at some of what the Supreme Court of Canada has said about the right to life. In Chaoulli, the court said the right to life is engaged where evidence shows that the “lack of timely health care can result in death”. In that case, the court also said, “delays in obtaining medical treatment which affect patients physically and psychologically trigger the protection of s. 7”, which is for security of the person. In Carter, the court said, “The right to life is engaged where the law or state action imposes...an increased risk of death on a person, either directly or indirectly.”
If we have a regime where certain basic health care supports are needed by a patient but are not available, where death is effectively being offered as the only accessible solution and where the government has not acted as it should in securing adequate supports that would otherwise lead a person not to seek death, then I think section 7 is engaged.