Content area
Full text
Normative arguments in favour of interpreting the Charter as containing positive rights to programs like health care, housing, and welfare run into significant questions concerning institutional roles and competence, as well as judicial overreach in the absence of formal constitutional amendment. However, a number of cases pose a challenge for the conceptual distinction between positive and negative rights, particularly when they are situated in a negative rights frame but have obvious implications for a right of access to particular services. In cases implicating access to abortion, assisted dying, and supervised drug injection, federalism plays a key structuring role, as provinces - which have jurisdiction over health care - do not subsequently act on obligations to provide services following decisions involving federal criminal laws. This article examines how s. 15's equality rights offers a path forward for dealing with this dilemma. A substantive conception of equality, something articulated by the Supreme Court from its first s. 15 decision onward, may require recognition of positive constitutional obligations on government. Recognizing circumscribed positive rights under s. 15 does not require a radical departure from past cases or a break from s. 15's central focus on discrimination, nor does it present the same institutional or amendment-related concerns that would arise in the context of judicial recognition of positive rights under s. 7's right to life, liberty and security of the person.
Les arguments de nature normative faisant valoir que la Charte devrait etre interprétée comme garantissant des droits positifs a l'egard de programmes comme les soins de sante, le logement et le bien-etre soulevent des questions importantes concernant les roles institutionnels et les competences, ainsi que l'exces judiciaire en l'absence d'amendement constitutionnel formel. Cependant, un certain nombre de cas posent un defi a la distinction conceptuelle entre droits positifs et negatifs, en particulier lorsqu'ils se situent dans un cadre de droits negatifs, mais ont des implications evidentes pour un droit d'acces a des services specifiques. Dans les cas concernant l'acces a l'avortement, a l'aide medicale a mourir et a l'injection supervisee, le federalisme joue un role structurant cle, car les provinces, qui ont competence en matiere de soins de sante, n'assurent pas de suivi relativement aux obligations de fournir des services lorsque des decisions impliquant des lois criminelles...