Liberals taking away constitutional rights

[crit13]

CTV.ca News Staff

A court ruling ordering the Ontario government to pay for a very expensive autism treatment for children over age six will be appealed, the province said Monday.

"Every time a court says we require that you spend money in this way, they don't tell us where we're supposed to get the money,'' Premier Dalton McGuinty told reporters on Monday.

McGuinty was reacting to an Ontario Superior Court ruling issued Friday, but it was Attorney General Michael Bryant who made the decision to appeal the ruling.

A judge ruled that denying the 35 children represented in the lawsuit a treatment known as applied behavioural analysis on the basis of age violated their constitutional rights.

Instead of helping these poor kids, the Liberals decide to appeal the verdict and put these poor families through even more suffering.

 

[no1important]

RE: Liberals taking away

Well I recall not to long ago The Supreme Court of Canada denied the same thing to a BC family. So I do not know how this even got to court, as Supreme Court of Canada decisions by law have to be accepted. I think that particular judge was making a political point.

They can not win unless the Ontario governments changes their policy to pay for the treatment. If the SCOC hears it (they won't) it will be tossed as they have already ruled on it. A superior court Judge can not over rule SCOC.

The part you state about Liberals taking away constitutional rights is utter BS.:violent3:

 

[Hard-Luck Henry]

I'm not sure about this, crit. I've no wish to argue that Lib/Con. thing; it's irrelevant to me. However, in the UK ABA is known as an intensive pre-school treatment; for best results a child must be identified before the age of 5 and have 35-40 hours of intensive therapy per week for 2-3 years. I hope these children get what they deserve. I also hope you're not being disingenuous here, trying to score political points through the misfortune of others.

 

[peapod]

dam you are one smart cookie henry :lol: :wink:

 

[crit13]

Wow, suffering children on the account of the government and we get complete apathy from a board full of left wing supporters. Who would have thought?

The part you state about Liberals taking away constitutional rights is utter BS

Don't take my word for it......

A judge ruled that denying the 35 children represented in the lawsuit a treatment known as applied behavioural analysis on the basis of age violated their constitutional rights.

I'll take an appointed judges view over yours anyday so you can keep your childish remarks to yourself.

 

[peapod]

Its not that critc...its just that you are so obvious, cut the crap for one night and try and have some fun around here for once.!

 

[no1important]

A judge ruled that denying the 35 children represented in the lawsuit a treatment known as applied behavioural analysis on the basis of age violated their constitutional rights.

I'll take an appointed judges view over yours anyday so you can keep your childish remarks to yourself.

The SCOC are appointed as well and they already said NO. Don't you understand? They are the highest court in the land. Their decisions by law has to be accepted and that will be the result when it gets over turned by the Ontario court of appeal.

Personally I think all governments should have to pay for treatment but the highest court ruled otherwise already, so I have to accept their decision and so do you under the law wether you or I agree with the decision or not.

here is a link to the official ruling of the case in BC where the medical services plan would not pay for Autism Treatment.

Click Here

I also notice the Attorney General of Ontario was an intervener.

 

[crit13]

Personally I think all governments should have to pay for treatment but the highest court ruled otherwise already, so I have to accept their decision and so do you under the law wether you or I agree with the decision or not.

and on this day the court decided that the Liberal Party of Ontario infringed on the constitutional rights of Canadians and ordered them to pay for the treatment of autistic children.

 

[no1important]

RE: Liberals taking away

Read this part of the ruling. I will paste it here for you conveinence:



1. Do the definitions of “benefits” and “health care practitioner” in s. 1 of the Medicare Protection Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 286, and ss. 17-29 of the Medical and Health Care Services Regulation, B.C. Reg. 426/97, infringe s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by failing to include services for autistic children based on applied behavioural analysis?



No.



2. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?



It is unnecessary to answer this question.



3. Do the definitions of “benefits” and “health care practitioner” in s. 1 of the Medicare Protection Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 286, and ss. 17-29 of the Medical and Health Care Services Regulation, B.C. Reg. 426/97, infringe s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by failing to include services for autistic children based on applied behavioural analysis?



No.



4. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?



It is unnecessary to answer this question.


All I am trying to say is that this issue has already been dealt with by the courts. The SCOC over turned two lower court rulings saying the government should pay.

It is sad but unless the government changes their minds, Autism treatment will not be covered under provincial plans.

 

[soupy]

no1 I must say that your oakes test is flawed. When autism treatments are stopped base on age it does infringe s. 15 of the CCRF, in my opionion at least. Not giving treatment on age sounds like unequivical age discrimination to me. Second a violation of the CCRF must enforce a government objective and the right limitation must be reasonable for this objective. So if I may inquire, what is the government objective??? I do remember one government objective, to provide free non discriminante medical service to all citizens of Canada.