Chaoulli v. Quebec
Supreme Court of Canada
[2005] 1 S.C.R. 791
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Quebec (defendant) had a public system that provided universal healthcare. To try to preserve the quality and integrity of this public system, Quebec had a law prohibiting people from buying private health insurance for any service offered under the public system. This law essentially eliminated all private health insurance and meant that private-sector services were available only to people who could pay cash for them. However, the public system had notoriously long wait times for many treatments, including life-saving treatments like heart surgery and time-sensitive treatments like ligament repairs. Although private-sector treatments were available much faster, without private health insurance, most Quebec residents were forced to accept the long wait times for public care. George Zeliotis (plaintiff) was a Quebec resident who sought treatment from the Quebec public-healthcare system for multiple health issues but who had difficulty due to the long wait times. Dr. Jacques Chaoulli (plaintiff) was a Quebec doctor who encountered repeated legal obstacles in his attempts to provide medical services in the private sector. Zeliotis and Chaoulli sued to have the private-health-insurance ban overturned. The superior court dismissed Zeliotis and Chaoulli’s motion for a declaratory judgment. The court of appeal affirmed. The case ended up in front of the Canadian Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Deschamps, J.)
Concurrence (McLachlin, C.J.)
Dissent (Binnie, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.