I have good news. Justice Carissima Mathen denied Claire Brosseau and Dying With Dignity an injunction to approve Brosseau to be killed by euthanasia (MAiD) based on mental illness as the sole criteria.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) intervened in the Brosseau case and participated in the hearings on July 21/22, 2026. (Read).
The cost to intervene in a court case is prohibitive. EPC continues to need at least $20,000 in donations to cover our current intervention costs. (Donation Link).
Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
Mathen wrote:
For the following reasons, I find that the balance of convenience does not favour granting the relief that Ms. Brosseau seeks.
The “relief” that Brosseau was seeking was death by euthanasia. Mathen writes:
The question at the heart of the balance of convenience inquiry is where the risk of error is best placed. That risk is for the judge hearing the plea for interlocutory relief; they must consider what happens if they apply the test incorrectly: Sharpe, at p. 26. In constitutional cases, determining that risk can be exceptionally difficult. In this case, Ms. Brosseau has presented compelling evidence of the harm she is and likely will continue to suffer. At the same time, the interests on the other side are considerable. They include Parliament’s role to make policy decisions on sensitive social issues, and the proper interpretation of the Charter rights in play. On a full record, an application judge will have the tools to fully consider those interests and questions. On the current record, the court does not have such tools. Therefore, it is not possible to find for Ms. Brosseau on the relief that she seeks.
In other words, Mathen did not “grant relief” (approving euthanasia for Brosseau) because the court lacked the information that would be needed in order to make such a decision, but the information would be obtained in a full hearing, rather than an injunction hearing that this hearing represented.
This was a victory, but there is also bad news as the case of euthanasia for mental illness will continue in the court since Justice Mathen essentially found that Brosseau’s case had merit.
Kristy Kirkup reported for the Globe and Mail on September 3:
In a written decision Thursday, Justice Carissima Mathen described how Ms. Brosseau presented compelling evidence of the harm she has suffered and will likely continue to endure.
Justice Mathen also noted the considerable interests on the other side including “Parliament’s role to make policy decisions on sensitive social issues and the proper interpretation of the Charter rights in play.”
I found it astounding that Justice Mathen mentions The report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD): Mental Disorder as the Sole Underlying Medical Condition: A Complex and Challenging Conversation Among Canadians that was released on June 17, 2026 but Mathen doesn’t respond to the concerns of the government committee. The AMAD Committee advised the government to indefinitely pause the inclusion of (MAiD) euthanasia for mental illness.
As part of the supplemental information in the report, committee chair Dr Marcus Powlowski, the Liberal MP from Thunder Bay – Rainy River explains his position on Canada’s Charter by stating (starting at page 63 of the report):
I think the courts ought to conclude, as did our committee, that not allowing MAiD for mental illness, until such time as some fundamental concerns are addressed, is a reasonable limitation under s.1. These fundamental concerns are the difficulty/perhaps even impossibility of determining irremediability of mental suffering (a core requirement under the law), and the lack of ability to distinguish suicidality from rational decision making in someone with a mental illness (I will return to this issue, and explain why it is so important, at the end of this submission). Numerous witnesses cited these concerns as reasons why we should decline to expand MAiD to this population.
Powlowski argued that since Canada’s law requires a person to have an irremediable medical condition, to be approved for euthanasia that the law would need to be amended to approve euthanasia for mental illness alone. He wrote:
But perhaps we will never be ready for MAiD for mental illness as the law is currently written. Numerous very experienced psychiatrists told us of seemingly irremediable cases where for some reason patients, after prolonged periods of seemingly irremediable suffering, the person eventually got better and started to enjoy life again. Furthermore, what evidence there is seems to suggest psychiatrists can not accurately predict who will not get better.
Perhaps the simplest solution to the legal question is to recognize the requirement of irremediability as being dispositive of the issue. The law as written requires irremediability. If there is really no way to accurately determine irremediability it would seem we would need to change the law if we want to allow for MAiD for mental illness.
Powlowski commented on the role of parliament and the role of the courts:
I would suggest the elected legislature is totally justified in drawing a line, in deciding that we are unwilling to support the state enabling physicians to taking the life of someone who, perhaps, would have gotten better. The decision of whether we do so is a moral decision and very much a reflection of what we value as a society. As such it is a decision more appropriately made by those of us who are elected by the members of society, and who are ultimately accountable to the people- at the poll box, rather than the unelected courts.
These comments were important and Justice Mathen should have considered them as part of her decision. The euthanasia lobby want the court to legislate from the bench by the court legislating euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria.
LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here.
