The key is to look back at Carter and recognize that the declaration was that if you create a barrier to access for people who have a grievous and irremediable medical condition causing enduring and intolerable suffering, that is unconstitutional. They did not say that mental disorders are not a part of grievous and irremediable medical conditions. They did not exclude them. They could have. They would have, had they wanted to.
That's the analysis. Mental disorders are grievous and irremediable medical conditions. Therefore, it would be against the Carter declaration if you had a barrier to access for people with mental disorders.
The other thing is that it is worth looking at the decision. I knew this issue would come up today, because it always does. The EF decision is very clear. As it can be seen in Carter 2015, the issue of whether psychiatric conditions should be excluded from the declaration of invalidity was squarely before the court. Nevertheless, the court declined to make an express exclusion as part of its carefully crafted criteria. You had a circle, and it didn't carve it out.
The other thing I would add is that we also had the G decision, which is important for us to remember now, from the Supreme Court of Canada. It helps us here because it shows that you can't do a group-based exclusion. You must do a case-by-case assessment. There's nobody saying that there aren't some complex cases, but we have to do them case by case.