Category: Ethical Issues
There’s a really good chance that if you live anywhere in the world that is not completely disconnected from the rest of society, you would have heard about COVID-19, and the fact that it has officially reached every single continent (except for Antarctica). The World Health Organization (WHO) has maintained that the containment of COVID-19 must be the top priority for all countries, given the impact it may have on public health, the economy and social and political issues.
Around 1 out of every 6 people who gets COVID-19 becomes seriously ill and develops difficulty breathing. Older people, and those with underlying medical problems like high blood pressure, heart problems or diabetes, are more likely to develop serious illness.
In a statement released on March 4, 2020, the WHO indicated “although COVID-19 presents an acute threat now, it is absolutely essential that countries do not lose this opportunity to strengthen their preparedness systems.”
The value of preparedness is being played out in a Seattle suburb, where COVID-19 has spread to a local nursing home, resulting in a quarantine of residents and staff. In the US, nursing homes are being criticized for being incubators of epidemics, with relaxed infection-control practices and low staffing rates, among other issues. Friends and family of residents in this Seattle facility are in an unenviable position, worrying about the health and safety of their loved ones and considering the gut-wrenching possibility that their loved ones might die alone. To read more about this issue, click here.
With the number of confirmed positive cases of COVID-19 on the rise in Ontario, I wonder how our long-term facilities are preparing to deal with an outbreak should one occur?
In the spirit of prevention, it is important to consider reducing the frequency of visits with our elderly loved ones, and spreading knowledge and information about hand-washing and other preventative measures.
For more information about COVID-19, click the links below:
Government of Ontario: https://www.ontario.ca/page/2019-novel-coronavirus
World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
Thanks for reading!
In many respects the law of Quebec differs from that of other provinces. In terms of medical assistance in dying (MAID), however, a September 2019 decision of the Quebec Superior Court of Justice has the potential to spark change in legislation throughout the country.
In Truchon c Procureur général du Canada, 2019 QCCS 3792, the Court considered the constitutional validity of the requirement that the natural death of individuals accessing MAID be reasonably foreseeable. The applicants had been declared ineligible for MAID on the basis that their deaths were not considered to be reasonably foreseeable. The first applicant suffered from cerebral palsy and his condition had deteriorated significantly in 2012, when he became totally paralyzed, preventing him engaging in activities that he had previously enjoyed. The second applicant suffered from paralysis and severe scoliosis, with a significant change in her health in 1992 when she was diagnosed with degenerative muscular post-polio syndrome. Both applicants lived in constant pain with a poor prognosis of continued suffering and deterioration, but had been denied access to MAID on the basis that their natural deaths were not reasonably foreseeable and decided to seek the Court’s assistance.
The Court first reviewed the issue of whether the reasonably foreseeable natural death requirement violated the rights to life, liberty, and security of the person under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the restriction was noted to have the potential effect of prolonging the lives of some individuals who would otherwise request MAID, it was also considered to have the risk of encouraging some patients “to end things prematurely, and often in a degrading or violent manner, before being in mortal agony, or having completely lost their dignity or being in the final stage of life.” Due to the exposure of some Canadians seeking MAID to (1) a higher risk of death and (2) physical and psychological pain, “depriv[ing] them of the opportunity to make a fundamental decision that respects their personal dignity and integrity”, the reasonably foreseeable death requirement was ruled to infringe the right to life, liberty, and security under Section 7 of the Charter.
Next, the Court considered whether the reasonably foreseeable natural death requirement violated the right to equality under Section 15 of the Charter. The Court found the applicants were prevented from accessing MAID on the basis of the nature of their disabilities, which notwithstanding being “serious and incurable” did not render death reasonably foreseeable, and that as a result the first applicant in particular was “deprived of the exercise of these choices essential to his dignity as a human being due to his personal characteristics that the challenged provision does not consider. He can neither commit suicide by a method of his own choosing nor legally request this assistance.”
The infringement of the applicants’ fundamental rights under Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter was not considered to be justified by Section 1 and the Court, accordingly, declared these provisions of Quebec and Canadian MAID laws unconstitutional. The declaration of constitutional invalidity of the reasonably foreseeable natural death requirement for accessing MAID was suspended for six months to provide an opportunity to address amendments to provincial and federal legislation.
Quebec has recently announced that it now intends to eliminate the parts of its MAID legislation that have been declared unconstitutional. Prime Minister Trudeau has advised that the government will be updating federal legislation to reflect the Truchon decision prior to March 11, 2020, when the judgment will take effect. Precisely how Canada and Ontario will amend the relevant provisions of MAID legislation has yet to be determined.
As yesterday’s blog mentioned, there has been recent scrutiny regarding the restrictive approach in respect of access to MAID and this decision out of Quebec and corresponding updates to the law may represent an important first step in the right direction in enhancing accessibility.
Thank you for reading,
Our blog has previously covered the developments in medical assistance in dying (MAID) since the prohibition against MAID ended in Canada in 2016.
Almost 230 thousand Canadians responded to a recent government survey on MAID, making it the largest public consultation in Canadian history. Although the complete survey results have yet to be released, respondents are reported to have shown great support for making it easier for Canadians to access MAID.
As MAID has gained recognition throughout the country, many have fought for increased accessibility and the expansion of eligibility criteria. Specifically, some believe that the criteria are too restrictive in excluding (1) individuals whose deaths are not imminent, and (2) those who cannot consent to receive MAID at the time at which it is administered. Because recipients of MAID are required to provide consent personally immediately prior to its administration (rather than in advance), health problems that may also impact mental capacity can render some of them ineligible.
In some parts of the country, MAID is already accessed at significant levels. In Vancouver Island, with the greatest access in Canada to MAID per capita, MAID accounted for over six percent of all deaths in 2019.
Given the clear engagement of Canadians regarding the issue of enhancing access to MAID, it will be interesting to see how legislation regarding MAID may be updated over time to address the potential introduction of advanced consent and/or the authority of substitute decision-makers to confirm consent.
Thank you for reading,
Other blog posts that may be of interest:
Acting as an estate trustee can be complicated. Complications are multiplied where the estate includes property that is or has been used in a manner contrary to the Cannabis Control Act.
Under the Cannabis Control Act, S.O. 2017, Chapter 26, as amended, various offences are created involving the production, sale or other distribution of cannabis. Vis-à-vis landlords, section 13 of the Act makes it an offence to “knowingly permit a premise of which he or she is a landlord to be used in relation to activity prohibited by section 6”. Section 6 provides that no person shall sell cannabis, other than an authorized cannabis retailer.
The Act provides for penalties for landlords of at least $10,000 and not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or both. Fines are subject to an additional 25% Victim Fine Surcharge.
Additionally, the court may, upon conviction, order that a premise be closed to any use for a period not exceeding two years. Prior to conviction, the police may cause the premises to be closed immediately. The premises are to be closed until the final disposition of the charge, subject to an order of the court lifting the closure.
A defense to a charge against a landlord under the Act is the fact that the landlord took reasonable measures to prevent the prohibited activity.
Additionally, forfeiture could be sought by the Crown under the Civil Remedies Act.
An estate trustee holding real property should take steps to ensure that he or she knows what is happening at the property, and to ensure that the property is not being used for illegal activity. In addition, the estate trustee should document the steps that are taken to prevent illegal activity. Leases should be reviewed in order to ensure that they prohibit illegal activity.
For further information, see “The Ontario Cannabis Control Act and Implications for Commercial Landlords” by David Reiter and Brian Chung.
For a blog on Cannabis and Estate Law, see my prior blog, here.
Have a great weekend.
One steady source of estate litigation is the uncertainty around estate trustee compensation. There is no statutory formula for determining the appropriate quantum. Instead, estate trustees come up with a percentage that is supposed to reflect their contributions, and the beneficiaries are left with the options of accepting, objecting, and everything in between. If matters proceed to court, judges apply an age-old customary analysis in order to find a number that suits the unique circumstances of the estate administration. One of the five factors the courts look at is the size of the estate. Whereas traditionally bigger estates have led to bigger compensation, we have seen a potential turning point out in New Brunswick in the case of Atlantic Jewish Foundation v. Leventhal Estate,  N.S.S.C. 297.
Section 61 of the Trustee Act directs that estate trustees be paid “fair and reasonable allowance[s]” for their “care, pains and trouble”. Over time, courts have set the “tariff guideline” or customary rate at “2.5% of each of the capital receipts, capital disbursements, revenue receipts, and revenue disbursements” (Freeman Estate, Re,  O.J. 3402 at para. 30). This rate must be cross-checked, however, against the five factors, which look at the actual work done, before a final quantum is reached.
Size and Complexity
Historically, estate trustees have earned more in administering bountiful estates, and vice versa. The administration of a small yet convoluted estate has typically been far less lucrative than the administration of a large estate comprised of a handful of simple assets. Courts have, however, been ready to reduce compensation when an estate, despite its net value, involves little complexity – for instance, when the assets are easy to liquefy and distribute (see Forrest Estate v. O’Donohue,  O.J. 1898 (Gen. Div.) at para. 14).
A Deviation in New Brunswick
What is unique with the compensation reduction in Atlantic Jewish Foundation is that the estate trustee’s duties were not particularly simple. He managed the deceased’s hotel, sold it at a good price, oversaw numerous agents, and generally displayed skill and sophistication. Yet the court slashed his proposed compensation in half – a pronounced reduction – and did so not on the basis that the estate was simple, but that he should not receive remuneration that was tantamount to a “windfall or a bequest”. Certainly his case was not helped by the fact that the objector, and residuary beneficiary, was a charity, and that he was seeking $900,000 for 77 hours of work …
In the wake of this case, it will be interesting to see if other courts lessen compensation because the figure is merely too high, rather than applying percentages that coincide with the work done.
Thanks for reading,
Suzana Popovic-Montag and Devin McMurtry
Building on this idea of judicial discretion is the recent case of Dobis v Dobis recently heard and decided by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, whereby the court ordered a passing of accounts by a party who was deemed to have misappropriated funds from an estate asset.
Elizabeth commenced an application in her role as the estate trustee of her late husband’s estate. She sought, among other things, certain orders that would allow her to gain and maintain possession and control over one of the estate assets, a four unit rental property. She also sought an order requiring her son, Mark, to pass his accounts in respect of funds she alleged were misappropriated from the rental property.
Mark resided in one of the units of the rental property with his spouse, and alleged that it was his father’s intention that he maintain a life interest in the property. During the lifetime of the deceased, Mark acted as a manager/superintendent of the rental property in exchange for reduced rent. He also collected rent from one of the tenants and deposited the funds into a bank account owned jointly by his parents. Following his father’s death, Mark began diverting rent from the rental property to himself rather than depositing it in the joint account.
Despite requests from Elizabeth, Mark failed to properly account for the rental income. The accounting that was provided to Elizabeth was not supported by vouchers, and contained no detail of the expenses incurred. Elizabeth submitted that Mark had no legal or beneficial interest in the property, that he was holding the property hostage while unlawfully benefiting personally from the funds generated by the property, and that he failed to account for those funds.
In arriving at its decision, the court relied on the 2016 Ontario Superior Court decision in Net Connect Installations Inc. v. Mobile Zone Inc., which held that a court has jurisdiction to order an accounting where a party is deemed to have misappropriated funds.
Ultimately, Mark was compelled to pass his accounts for all monies received by him in connection with his management of the property. All this to say, watch what you do, because you may be held accountable.
Thank you for reading!
In overturning a lower court decision, on May 31, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that neither contract law nor property law principles govern how to dispose of embryos, where neither party has a biological connection to the genetic material.
Instead, in S.H. v D.H, 2019 ONCA 454 the Court held that the governing legislation and regulations prevail: The Assisted Human Reproduction Act (“AHRA”) and the Assisted Human Reproductions (Section 8 Consent) Regulations (“Consent Regulations”).
In 2011, D.H. and S.H. purchased four embryos (created from anonymous donors) from a lab in the US. Two of the four embryos were viable, one of which resulted in the birth of the couple’s son. The second embryo is stored in an Ontario lab. The couple divorced shortly after the birth of their son, and a dispute arose around the fate of the second embryo.
At the time of purchasing the embryos, the couple entered into two contracts, one with the US based lab, and one with the Ontario based lab. The first contract set out that the frozen embryos would be donated, in the event that the parties are unable to make a decision as to their disposition in the future. The couple also acknowledged that in the event of a divorce, the legal ownership of any remaining stored embryos would be determined in a property settlement.
The Ontario based contract identified D.H. as the “patient” and the S.H. as the “partner”. It set out that in the event of divorce or legal separation, the lab would “respect the patient’s wishes”. When D.H. attempted to proceed with implanting the second embryo, S.H. withdrew his consent.
In the lower court decision, the court looked to the persuasive authority, M. (J.C.) v A. (A.N), 2012 BCSC 584, concluding that the embryos were to be treated as property, governed by the contracts, such that the “patients’ wishes” should be respected.
The Ontario Court of Appeal however, has concluded that Parliament has imposed a consent-based, rather than a contracts-based model through AHRA and the Consent Regulations. Under this legislative format, “donor” is defined to include a couple who are spouses at the time the in vitro embryo is created, even where neither person contributes reproductive material to the embryo. The Court also determined that separation or divorce does not change the donor status of the couple in instances where either both individuals are genetically connected to the embryo, or neither individual is genetically connected to it. Pursuant to s. 10(3) of the Consent Regulations, the donor status is only changed if there is only one genetically contributing former spouse – and it is that individual who will be deemed the sole donor.
The Court went on to consider that the principle of free and informed consent was a fundamental condition to the use of human reproductive technologies. The Consent Regulations reflects that consent is ongoing and is not frozen in time by specifically legislating that the consent of the donor may be withdrawn by either spouse. The Consent Regulations and AHRA criminalizes the use of genetic material without the written consent of the embryo’s donors.
In coming to its conclusion, the Court held that a consent-based model to reproductive technology is “fundamentally at odds with contract law”, and that an individual cannot simply contract out of criminal law, nor the protections that may be afforded to them under that law. Therefore, it was within S.H.’s right to withdraw his consent to the use of the embryo.
In the estate planning context, assisted human reproduction brings with it many considerations which should be taken by the drafting solicitor, such as whether or not the client, or their partner has any stored sperm or ova, whether there is consent to the use of the genetic material post-mortem, if there are any time limitations on its use, and whether or not there is an intention that children conceived with donated sperm/ova posthumously are to be included in the Will, among many others.
To learn more about the impact of assisted human reproduction within the estate planning context, and some practical tips for solicitors, see “Fertility Law Considerations for Estate Lawyers” by Suzana Popovic-Montag.
Thanks for reading!
The use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) is saturating all facets of life and death. While we might often think of AI as some future product of a technologically advanced society, it is already in common use. Think of Apple’s Siri and Google Translate; both require AI in order to function.
Earlier this year, my colleague, Garrett Horrocks, blogged on a study showing the promising use of AI in detecting Alzheimer’s. This month, a recent study out from the University of Nottingham explores the use of AI in predicting premature death of middle-aged persons. The study shows promising results.
AI and Bias
While many reports are optimistic in how such predictive models can improve preventative health care, others are more cautious. A recent article from Wired raises the issue of potential bias in such AI models. The article delves into the concerns of scholars that AI might adopt and even promote bias as a result of implicit biases that already exist. Take, for example, the Amazon AI recruitment tool which was designed to review resumes of job applicants and pick the top candidates. Amazon abandoned the project after experiencing several issues, including the program explicitly discriminating against women. The program did so by penalizing candidates who graduated from women’s colleges or had the word “women’s” in their resume (e.g. “women’s chess club”).
The Wired article also raises concerns about existing biases in health care services, such as how patients of different ethnics groups are treated differently for pain with studies in the US finding that racial and ethnic minorities tend to be undertreated for pain, compared to non-Hispanic white persons. While the Wired article raises concerns about the potential biases that can be adopted and/or promoted by AI, the article also notes the potential for AI to reduce bias by focusing on objective factors affecting a person’s health.
AI and the Law
Many say that the law and lawyers are resistant to change (who still relies on faxes?). Despite any such resistance, the legal system, like everyone else, is being dragged into the world of AI, whether ready or not. Just as AI is revolutionizing health care, legal products implementing AI are being developed, with some estimating that over 100,000 jobs in the legal sector will be automated by 2036.
More importantly, however, is the ongoing need for the law to adapt to the changing world of AI. The implementation of AI in our everyday life has significant ramifications from the products recommended to us while online shopping to whether or not we might receive proper preventative health care. With the potential for ethical abuses and unintended consequences (such as discrimination), it will be interesting to see how (or if) laws and regulations develop to address these new advances in AI.
Thanks for reading!
It’s taken decades, but we’re slowly coming to terms with a few of the “isms” in our culture – racism and sexism being two obvious ones. We can add discrimination based on disability and sexual preference as two others.
My question, thought, is does “ageism” belong in the same category? Ashton Applewhite, the author of This Chair Rocks: A Manifesto Against Ageism, believes it does. This website sets out her thesis – and the Globe and Mail provided an excerpt recently.
Applewhite is thorough – and has certainly done her research. She is also getting a lot of positive press. But not everyone is entirely convinced of everything she says.
How bad is it?
Applewhite defines ageism as follows:
Discrimination and stereotyping on the basis of a person’s age. We’re ageist when we feel or behave differently toward a person or a group on the basis of how old we think they are.
So, ageism affects both the young and the old. One interesting idea is her move to change words like “adolescents” and “seniors” to “youngers” and “olders.” I like the way this subtle shift in language (to my ear anyways) eliminates a lot of the baggage associated with either end of the age spectrum.
Age discrimination certainly exists – we can all get impatient by slow walkers or dismiss the ideas of olders too readily. And this is an area we should definitely continue to work on, to ensure that youngers and olders are respected as individuals at every stage. But much of Applewhite’s focus is on how we shouldn’t stereotype ourselves as we get older – the negative talk that we tell ourselves (like being too old to dance, too old to ski, and too old to attend a political rally). And that’s where some aren’t sure her arguments have merit.
Do we limit ourselves based on our own notion of age? Or do our individual conditions and state of mind do that for us?
Applewhite brings out the stats on how able and happy those over age 65 are, and encourages us to google the U-curve of happiness as evidence. Here it is, courtesy of the Washington Post:
As multiple studies have shown, we are happiest at the beginning and end stages of life. So this begs the question: if the curve clearly shows greater happiness as we move through our 60s, 70s, and 80s, how much of a negative impact is ageism really having? And how much self-ageist thinking is actually taking place?
We seem to be doing a pretty good job of aging happily. Personally, I’ve been relying on my own mind and body, not my age, when I make decisions to add or subtract things from my life. I think most people are doing the same.
Thanks for reading … Have a great day!
This week on our podcast Stuart Clark and I discussed the statutory Residents’ Bill of Rights that is within the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007.
The importance of this Act should not be overlooked by anyone who is has a loved one in a long-term care home. Section 3 of the Act gives rise to enforceable rights as between the resident and the care home as if they have entered into a contract where the home has agreed to fully respect and promote 27 enumerated residents’ rights.
As an example, the first 4 rights are:
- the right to be treated with courtesy and respect and in a way that fully recognizes the resident’s individuality and respects the resident’s dignity;
- the right to be protected from abuse;
- the right not to be neglected; and
- the right to be properly sheltered, fed, clothed, groomed and cared for in a manner consistent with his or her needs.
While it may be difficult to determine what the Residents’ Bill of Rights means in day-to-day reality, it is a meaningful starting point for any advocate.
An important resource is the government of Ontario’s Guide to the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007 and Regulation 79/10, which is available for download here.
Thanks for reading and listening!