BC government compromises assisted dying policy, court hears
listen to this article
estimated 4 minutes
The audio version of this article has been generated by AI-based technology. There may be incorrect pronunciations. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve results.
Evidence from a woman who says her mother suffered unnecessarily after being transferred from St. Paul’s Hospital to a facility right next door for medical attention at the last minute was accepted by the BC Supreme Court Tuesday.
The new evidence relates to the case of a woman who died from MAID on January 7, 2026, just five days before the court was scheduled to test the constitutionality of allowing faith-based facilities to ban MAID.
The affidavit from Alexi Rivera, who lives in Prince George, B.C., says the medically-assisted death of her mother, Anna Chamberlain, was delayed a day and a half due to scheduling and clinical difficulties in transferring her to Shoreline Space, an area near St. Paul in downtown Vancouver. It is administered by Vancouver Coastal Health exclusively for MAID provision.
A major defense argument is that such areas, known as “adjacent space”, make these transfers easier. That’s because Providence Health Care patients wishing to receive MAID no longer have to be transported by ambulance to another facility, as was the case for Sam O’Neill, whose mother, Gay, is a plaintiff.
There are three defendants in the case, which is being heard by BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Skolrod. They are the BC Government, Providence Health Care and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority.
The defense began calling witnesses on Monday, starting with the provincial government.
Current and former health ministry officials took positions this week to explain the origins of the medical aid in dying policy that is at the center of the case.
This policy allows publicly funded, faith-based health care providers to choose to avoid providing MAID in their facilities. They also need to work with health authorities to ensure efficient transfer of care in these cases and to facilitate requests for information about MAID.
Government witnesses testified about the difficulties officials faced when MAID became legal in 2016 with the new law breaking BC’s agreements with faith-based health-care providers to provide services.
In a March 2016 briefing note to an associate deputy minister of health, which was entered into evidence by the province, it was said that it was unlikely the ministry could force faith-based health-care providers like Providence to allow MAiD in their facilities.
Providence is a non-profit organization sponsored by the Catholic Church. It has an agreement with Vancouver Coastal Health to provide health care services in the community, which includes St. Paul and Mount St. Joseph hospitals, two hospices, and several long-term care facilities.
According to the agreed statement of facts, in 2024-25, 93 per cent of Providence’s funding was public.
Providence was initially unwilling to even allow MAID evaluation in its facilities, but the Ministry of Health was able to compromise on this, according to Derek Raines, who oversaw MAID policy at the ministry in 2016 and testified for the province on Monday.
Raines said the agreement included performing the MAID evaluation on site and arranging for the transfer of care for the procedure.
Government witnesses also described the importance of Providence Health Care in providing health services.
Tiffany Ma, an associate deputy minister of health who testified for the province on Tuesday, described Providence as an “integral part of the system.”
All heart transplants in BC – and some for patients from outside the province – are performed at St. Paul’s Hospital. The hospital also provides specialized heart and kidney care to patients throughout BC, and has contributed $850 million to the construction of the new St. Paul’s Hospital in False Creek Flats, which is expected to cost more than $2 billion, Ma said.
He testified that Providence’s withdrawal of service “would be enormously costly and disruptive”.
The lawsuit is ongoing.