There’s been a case working its way through the British Columbia court system for donkey’s years. A group of doctors and patients have challenged the Medicare system, arguing that it infringes patient’s liberty rights by not allowing private medical care. The trial alone took four years, then the appeal to the BC Court of Appeal. Both courts dismissed the constitutional challenge, but everyone assumed it would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
Until Thursday, when the Court denied leave to appeal. That ends the litigation and the Court of Appeal decision stands : Medicare does not infringe liberty rights.
Does the denial of leave have to offer any rationale? Did it offer any rationale? Or is it simply “No thanks, we’re not interested.”
If the latter, ISTM there are two ways to view this. Either they see the plaintiff’s argument as essentially frivolous and this amounts to summary judgement against by proxy. In the alternative they see a political poisoned chalice. And having both the option to not drink from the cup, and the good sense to not do so, they have punted the problem. Which in effect gently invites Parliament to address this should they care to do so.
Sure would be nice if similar restraint had any part in recent US jurisprudence, and especially in the Texas part of US jurisprudence.
All it means is that the Supreme Court isn’t going to hear the case.
It doesn’t have any precedential value. They’ve not confirmed the BCCA decision. It continues to have precedential value as a Court of Appeal decision: binding on the courts in BC, persuasive value in the other provinces.
Technically someone could try a similar challenge in another province, but I doubt that given how expensive this trial must have been (4 years!)