1892 Canada's first
Criminal Code includes a prohibition
against procuring a miscarriage.
May
14, 1969 Pierre Trudeau's omnibus
Bill C-150 passes, allowing abortion
if a hospital panel states that the
mother's life or health are threatened
- a criterion that is not defined. The
homicide definition is also amended
so that homicide only takes place if
a child dies "after becoming a human
being". Becoming a human being is defined
as having the umbilical cord severed,
having independent circulation, or having
had breathed.
January 1988 Criminal
restrictions on performing abortions
are effectively removed with the Supreme
Court of Canada's ruling in R. v. Morgentaler.
The abortion law is struck down on the
basis of section 7 of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms which is the right
to "life, liberty, and security of the
person". The court states that the Trudeau's
abortion law had created a situation
in which access to abortion was not
equal across the country: women in some
areas could more easily receive an abortion
than could those in other areas.
1989 The Daigle case
removes another barrier to abortion.
All nine Supreme Court of Canada judges
rule in favour of Chantal Daigle who
wants to abort her child while the child's
father is opposed. The result is that
a father has no legal say in whether
a woman aborts his child.
1989-1991 Bill C-43
is debated in the House of Commons and
the Senate. The bill would have made
abortion illegal unless a physician
determines a women's physical or psychological
health is threatened. While the bill
passes in the House of Commons, it is
defeated in the Senate by a tie vote.
1996 R. v. Drummond,
Ontario Provincial Court
Brenda Drummond is acquitted of murder
after shooting a pellet gun into her
birth canal two days before her full-term
son is born. The charge of attempted
murder is dismissed by the court on
the basis that the child is not legally
a person and therefore not included
in the Criminal Code. The Attorney General
of Ontario decides not to appeal this
decision.
1997 Winnipeg
Child and Family Services (Northwest
Area) v. G. (D.F.) 3 S.C.R.
A woman identified as 'G' is five months
pregnant with her fourth child and is
addicted to glue sniffing. Two of G's
other children were born disabled due
to her addiction. Child and Family Services
is permitted by the Manitoba Superior
Court to detain G in a health care centre
for treatment until her child's birth.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal overturns
this ruling, saying that child protection
laws cannot be extended to unborn children.
The Supreme Court of Canada agrees with
this ruling saying that G's child is
not a legal person possessing rights.
"Any right or interest the fetus may
have remains inchoate and incomplete
until the child's birth."
1999 Dobson
(Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson 2
S.C.R.
Cynthia Dobson is in a vehicle accident
while pregnant with her son Ryan. The
accident leads to Ryan having mental
and physical disabilities. Ryan's grandfather
sues Ryan's mother on Ryan's behalf,
saying that the accident was due to
her negligence. While the lower courts
rule that it is possible to sue for
damage caused while in utero, the Supreme
Court of Canada overturns this decision
saying that courts should not impose
a legal obligation on pregnant mothers
to provide certain conditions for her
child. The court states, "First and
foremost, for reasons of public policy,
the Court should not impose a duty of
care upon a pregnant woman towards her
foetus or subsequently born child. To
do so would result in very extensive
and unacceptable intrusions into the
bodily integrity, privacy and autonomy
rights of women."
2003 Zhang and Fung v. Kan,
BCSC 5
A disturbing area of civil law has been
that of 'wrongful birth'. Lydia Zhang
was in her mid-30s when she gave birth
to a girl with Down's Syndrome. During
her pregnancy, Zhang and her doctor
discussed amnioscentesis (a test which
shows whether a child has Down's Syndrome),
and Zhang claims the doctor told her
the test was not necessary. In the case,
Zhang states that if she had known the
child was disabled, she would have aborted
her. The doctor is found to be negligent
for not encouraging the test, and is
made to pay more than $300,000 in damages.
October 2003
|