EPC victory. Court denies Brosseau euthanasia for mental illness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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. Brosseau lives in Toronto Ontario.

(Link to the court decision).

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).

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.

Dr Marcus Powlowski MP

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. 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your support.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) exists to build a well-informed, broadly-based network of groups and individuals supporting measures that will create an effective social barrier to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Canada created the term (MAiD) - medical assistance in dying, to make us feel better about killing, but the reality is that Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016 and expanded the law in 2021 by removing the requirement that a person be terminally ill to be killed.

In January EPC released the Life Worth Living film that explains what has happened in Canada while featuring important personal stories related to euthanasia. This is a powerful award winning film. You can watch the trailer or purchase the film at: https://lifeworthlivingfilm.com/

Canada is currently scheduled to extend euthanasia to people with a mental illness alone in March 2027.

On May 5, 2026, we spoke to the Parliamentary Committee that was examining the extension of euthanasia to mental illness alone. The position of EPC is to demand that Canada fully review it's euthanasia law rather than further expand the law. On June 17, the parliamentary committee advised the federal government to not extend euthanasia to people with mental illness alone. We await the government's response.

EPC is intervening in a court case concerning euthanasia for mental illness alone. Claire Brosseau and the euthanasia lobby launched an emergency court case that would approve Brosseau for death by euthanasia based on mental illness alone. In essence, the euthanasia lobby want the court to legislate from the bench by approving death for Brosseau as the Canadian government continues to debate this issue.

The cost of intervening in the Brosseau case is excessive. We need your financial support to cover the legal costs. (EPC Donation Link).

EPC supports Bill C-218 which is a private members bill that will prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges Canadians to sign our petition in support of Bill C-218. (Petition Link).

For more information you can read our newsletters (newsletters link) or you can read more of our blog articles (EPC Blog Link). The EPC blog has more than 6300 articles and has had more than 17 million pageviews.

EPC has many more activities. We need your support to continue our work. Donations can be made at: (credit card online Link) or (Paypal donation Link) or send an E-transfer to info@epcc.ca or call EPC at: 1-877-439-3348.

EPC intervention in euthanasia for mental illness court case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) needs your financial support (Read).

The legal counsel for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), Hugh Scher, was in a Toronto court on July 21 / 22, 2026 representing EPC in the case concerning Claire Brosseau and Dying with Dignity. 

The Brosseau case is asking the court to legislate from the bench to permit euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada.

Scher reported that:

Leave to intervene was granted to EPC by order of the court. We prepared a 10 page written legal argument, reviewed the file documents and prepared for oral arguments for July 21 / 22.

The judge hearing the motion was Justice Carissima Mathen. Curiously, she used to be head of litigation for LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. Her background is in constitutional litigation particularly with respect to women's rights.

... At the hearing, she seemed much more interested in taking charge of the application than limiting the scope of her review to the motion for a stay which was the matter properly before her.

Hugh Scher

Scher summarized the EPC position before the court:

In our oral submissions, we focussed on the core requirement of irremediability which was a core principle laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision as a criteria to access an assisted death. ...We relied on the significant evidence that suggests that it is impossible to determine if a person with a mental illness only is irremediable.

It is also hard to determine prognosis given the significant changes that occur with mental illness that are often quite fluid. EPC urged the court against finding on the minimal record before it that a stay is appropriate.

We also suggested that the intention of this application was to avoid the change in direction of Parliament, effectively pitting the court against Parliament. ...Parliament has recently, through its parliamentary committee (AMAD) on euthanasia report indicated a desire to be cautious and to defer any further action on euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Scher completed his report by stating:

It remains to be determined what the court will do, particularly given the background of the judge and her possible desire to establish some kind of precendent. That said, the law is currently against granting a stay to grant Brosseau death based on mental illness alone.

EPC has intervened in this case in an attempt to prevent the court from expanding euthanasia by legislating from the bench to allow euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Previous articles about the Brosseau case:

• (EPC) filed to intervene in Euthanasia for mental illness court case (Read). 
• Canadian actress seeking euthanasia for mental illness (Read)

Important insight into decision to reject euthanasia for mental illness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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 was released on June 17, 2026, which is also the 10th Anniversary of the legalization of euthanasia in Canada.

The AMAD Committee decided that Canada should not implement euthanasia for mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition on March 17, 2027. The report concluded:

That the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to indefinitely exclude persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness from eligibility for medical assistance in dying.

It is great news that the AMAD Committee decided that Canada should not implement euthanasia for mental illness, but the battle is not over.

Possibly the most interesting parts of the AMAD Committee report were the supplemental reports from the members of the Committee. 

Dr Marcus Powlowski MP

The supplemental report (starting at page 63 of the report) from AMAD Committee Chair, Marcus Powlowski, (Liberal MP from Thunder Bay - Rainy River) and a physician is most interesting. Powlowski's arguements may influence Canada's future euthanasia debates.

Powlowski first examined Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) with regard to not permitting euthanasia for mental illness alone. he writes:

Unfortunately, the discourse about whether to allow MAiD for mental illness seems to have been largely reduced to the somewhat simplistic question of whether not allowing it is a violation of the Charter. The argument being if we allow MAiD for physical illness, but do not allow it for those with mental illness, we discriminate against those with mental illness (under s.15) and inappropriately restrict their liberty or threaten their security (s.7)...

Powlowski explains his position on Canada's Charter:

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.

The Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision did not obligate the government to permit euthanasia for mental illness alone, but even when interpreted in that manner, I agree with Powlowski that not permitting euthanasia for mental illness is a reasonable limitation.

Powlowski then deals with the question of "readiness" to expand euthanasia to people with a mental illness alone.

In addition, although some, perhaps a majority, of MAiD providers assured us of their readiness to provide MAiD for mental illness, and the adequacy of existing safeguards, we also heard disturbing stories of questionable conduct by some MAiD providers. Given what we heard it is hard not to conclude that some providers take an exceedingly expansive interpretation of what constitutes "serious and incurable illness, disease or disability", what constitutes an "advanced state of irreversible decline in capability"; and what constitutes "enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable". Furthermore, we heard stories of doctors with a seemingly cavalier attitude towards ending a life. 

Although we were assured that mechanisms, such as Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, would provide adequate safeguards, we were presented with scant, if any, evidence to indicate that such bodies have, as of yet, seriously pursued allegations of misconduct by MAiD providers. This does not mean that colleges have not received complaints or looked into them. As the president of the Nova Scotia College of Physicians and Surgeons pointed out- colleges only publish the reports of hearings when there has been a finding of wrong doing. That being said the paucity of any prosecutions of providers, combined with the suggestion by a number of witnesses that in fact there seems to be a lacunae of law enforcement when it came to MAiD ought to give rise to concern. Several witnesses suggested the criminal system, the medical colleges, and at times government Ministry's responsible for MAiD provision (BC), all allegedly treat enforcement as someone else's responsibility. Given the lack of evidence to the contrary it is frankly difficult to believe that the system is ready to expand.

This may be the most important comment by Powlowski. As the chair of the committee he recognizes that Canada's euthanasia law lacks effective oversight and is saying that expansion to people with mental illness alone would not be safe.

Further to that, his comments are important to the argument by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) that Parliament needs to completely review the law. The evidence suggests that the law lacks oversight, but further to that, the original law required a complete review and that has not happened.

Powlowski then argues that since Canada's law requires a person to have an irremediable medical condition, 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.

Jocelyne Downie

Powlowski suggests that based on irremediability that many euthanasia deaths for physical illness also do not qualify within the law. He writes:

We did, I would acknowledge, hear the argument that perhaps with some physical illness irremediability is not certain either (the argument was most forcibly made by Professor Downie- a law professor not a medical clinician). To the extent that there are such cases I would suggest it would be more appropriate to question whether MAiD is appropriate in any such case where there is uncertainty over the medical prognosis - rather than to accept the conclusion of those practitioners who suggested they were "comfortable" with making a decision about irremediability even if there was inherently some inability to come to that conclusion with reasonable certainty. 

Powlowski then answers the question about the role of parliament and the role of the courts. He writes:

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.

This is important since Claire Brosseau and the euthanasia lobby are seeking an emergency court decision that would approve Brosseau for death by lethal poison based on mental illness alone. The euthanasia lobby want the court to legislate from the bench by approving that Brosseau be killed. 

EPC is intervening in the Brosseau court case concerning euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Powlowski made many more important comments but his closing argument is important:

In recommending that we not extend MAiD to those with mental illness we are not suggesting embarking on a new path of prohibiting suicide, or further trying to limit people's autonomy. We are suggesting the state decline to provide assistance to people with mental illness ending their lives and decline to allow medical professionals to actively do it for them.

EPC opposes killing people but we are not limiting a persons autonomy but rather we oppose the state giving doctors and nurse practitioners the right in law to kill people. When a doctor or a nurse pracitioner kills you, it is not about autonomy, it is about someone else killing you.

The EPC presentation to the AMAD Committee on May 5 urged Parliament to do a complete review of the euthanasia law, which was actually part of the original euthanasia law that was implemented in June 2016. I stated:

...Parliament needs to examine how the current law has led to outcomes like the death of Kiano Vafaeian (26) died by MAiD in Vancouver on December 30, 2025. Parliament needs to completely review the euthanasia law.

More broadly, Canada’s assisted dying law is vague. While Health Canada provides guidance, the legal framework allows for wide interpretation and it lacks effective oversight.

Because of time constraints, I will highlight one key issue.

Sections 241 (3) and 241 (3.1) of Canada's Criminal Code states that medical practitioners or nurse practitioners are required only to be “of the opinion” that the eligibility criteria are met. That, in practice, makes accountability extremely difficult, even impossible to prosecute a medical or nurse practitioner in Canada, even when the MAiD death is clearly wrong or deeply disturbing.

The MDRC reports and cases that have already been submitted to you speak to that reality.

Canada should not be considering the expansion of the euthanasia law to include people with mental illness alone but rather Parliament needs to fully review the law.

In April 2026, Canada surpassed 100,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization. Many of these deaths have been controversial and were outside the intent of the law.

EPC urges the government to consider the many stories associated with our euthanasia law that have been publicized world-wide and recognize that the law needs to be reviewed.

We look forward to presenting to the AMAD Committee when they provide a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition filed to intervene in Euthanasia for Mental Illness court case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has filed in court, an application to intervene in the Brosseau case launched by Dying with Dignity, Canada's leading pro-euthanasia lobby group. The Brosseau case is asking an Ontario court to legislate from the bench by approving medical homicide for Claire Brosseau who is living with mental illness alone.

Court interventions are very expensive. We need your support.

Last week I wrote that EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher, submitted a court intervention application outlining our litigation experience that included interventions at every level in Carter, the case that legalized medical homicide in Canada. Today, EPC filed a formal application to intervene in the Brosseau case.

Due to the nature of the legal proceedings, I will not, at this time, share our legal documents, but our intervention provide important information for the court. For instance, we stated that:

EPC frequently receives stories about people with mental illness only who at one time sought access to suicide and/or to MAiD, but who later expressed gratitude about their inability to end their own lives either by suicide or by MAiD and about how their continuing lives have been fulfilling despite past and ongoing difficulties. This is particularly so for those who were able to access mental health resources and supports that addressed their mental health disabilities and that increased their social integration and inclusion. These people acknowledge that if they had access to MAiD for mental illness only they would have acted on it during times of profound depression, hopelessness and desperation.

In our application, EPC provided significant information about how Canada's law is currently operating. EPC is not only concerned with medical homicide being extended to people who's sole criteria is a mental illness, but we also want Canada's law to be fully reviewed.

Whether or not our intervention application is accepted, court interventions are important and very expensive. 

 

We need your financial support. 

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition court intervention (online donation) (paypal donation) donate by e-transfer to info@epcc.ca or call our office at: 1-877-439-3348.

The deeper meaning of an absurd demand

By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Gordon Friesen

On May 5, 2026, Helen Long, CEO of the oddly named Canadian death-lobby flagship ‘Dying with Dignity’, expressed her desire that the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (which is presently reconsidering the 2027 implementation of medical homicide for patients with psychiatric conditions alone) might usefully hear testimony from those persons who are most immediately impacted. In making this observation, she quoted Claire Brosseau, who used the iconic disabled-rights slogan, "Nothing about us without us", which vigorously affirms the principle that no decisions, affecting disabled persons, should be taken without disabled input.

Article: Should EPC apologize to Helen Long from Dying With Dignity? (Read).

On May 7, Ms. Long's wish was eloquently granted when the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition published a commentary by Amy Hasbrouck, past President of the Coalition, Founding Director of Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet, and a pillar of Canadian Disability activism for many years. This I believe, is precisely the sort of personal, informed, and directly affected testimony that Ms Long's call for disabled voices might most beneficially have elicited.

Unfortunately for the thesis of Ms. Long, however, Ms Habrouck's conclusion is unambiguously (and unapologetically) opposed to any medical homicide at all, much less that for persons afflicted with mental illness. Indeed, Amy made her argument by generously referencing both collective and personal experience, to examine the ways in which this now scheduled extension of medical homicide would negatively impact persons such as herself. In doing so, she rather colorfully condemned Ms. Long's use of the phrase "Nothing about us without us", observing that it is (in her opinion) grossly inappropriate to parrot words so clearly associated with those individuals, and organizations, which are most vehemently opposed to the objectives of death-lobby operatives such as Ms. Long.

As it turns out, Ms. Long has not seen proper to respond --herself-- to the comments of Amy Hasbrouck, and that, I believe, most wisely (although I would dearly love see her try). However, persons closely associated with Ms. Long have indeed flown to her defense, actually demanding apologies from both Amy Hasbrouck and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

It is perhaps best to ignore the ridiculous basis of such a request, but I do believe it is useful to examine the assumptions of entitlement which seem to have made it possible, since those same entitled assumptions are more widely (and most perniciously) weaponized throughout the underlying debate regarding medical homicide.

Briefly stated: it is widely assumed that the suffering of those people seeking recourse to medical homicide cannot be questioned. And from that first assumption spring several others. First, we tend to accept that such people may make any extreme statements that they like (including the most egregious attacks on other individuals); and second, that any criticism (whatsoever) of such individuals, of their behavior, or of their statements, is simply unacceptable.

However, that which might provide a reasonable standard in private conversation cannot be transported to the realm of discourse surrounding public policy. Unfortunately, in the present case, to accept that individuals seeking medical homicide might benefit from a special "sufferers" privilege --which places their beliefs beyond the reach of any rational criticism-- is also to concede the main point in contention (that acceptance of medical homicide is indeed justified as public policy). And that, in all conscience, we cannot do. For we must also remember the people whose defense we are espousing in opposing such a policy (which paradoxically includes Claire Brosseau, who we hope will achieve recovery from her condition).

It thus becomes necessary for us to confront the uncomfortable fact that what may be spontaneous, in individual communication, becomes strategic at the political level; that without reference to any individual, the exploitation of compassionate sentiment becomes a political tool, or as Polonius so shrewdly remarks in Shakespeare's Hamlet (Act 2, Scene 2) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't".

Without the slightest nuance, when those associated with the death-lobby tell us that we "do not understand", they are crassly attempting to impose upon the best sentiments of good people who do not, indeed, have such experience. But in so doing, they are also ignoring --and attempting to suppress-- the experience and desires of the lion's share of those people who actually do.

When we read Claire Brosseau's passionate diatribe in support of Helen Long (while savagely attacking Amy Hasbrouck, M.P. Andrew Lawton, and by extension so many others) we must remember that Ms. Brosseau's "suffering" cannot reasonably trump that of Ms. Hasbrouck.

More generally, it is simply not true that those who would seek medical homicide are suffering any more than their surviving counterparts. For there is, in fact, no correlation in this regard. Quite to the contrary: the number of people persisting in their struggle to survive (in objectively similar medical circumstances) is vastly greater than those who seek assisted death. For there is no medical circumstance, whatsoever, in which consent to medical homicide might be represented as normal.

When we are told, therefore, that we do not “understand” the suffering of that small minority who would allegedly benefit from assisted death, we must reply that this is false. For we (or at least a great many of us) do indeed understand.

However, unlike the death-lobby we also understand the suffering of the overwhelming majority, whose access to real medical assistance in their own wilful quest to survive, will be significantly degraded by the institutional acceptance of that practice.

Given the need to protect the vital interests of this majority, it is my firm opinion that the suicidal (and their ideological supporters) should be fully satisfied with the simple decriminalization of suicide. It is enough, I believe (and indeed more than enough) that society might view their choice in a morally neutral fashion. It is not desirable that the conceptual ramifications of that choice should be permitted --through official validation-- to pollute the social and medical landscape for the non-suicidal majority.

And indeed, this principle is even more evident when we remember that the dead are truly gone, and that our validation of them has no meaning to themselves.

But those who are struggling --with the consequences of socially validated suicidal acts-- remain among us now, and must continue to live in the world which this ill-advised cult of suicidal adulation has poisoned.

Gordon Friesen,

No medical homicide for mental illness. Support Bill C-218.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) seeks intervention standing in euthanasia for mental illness case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is seeking to intervene in the "emergency relief" court case that was launched by Dying with Dignity, Canada's leading pro-euthanasia lobby group, to have an Ontario court approve death by medical homicide for Claire Brosseau who is living with mental illness alone.

The May 4, 2026 Dying with Dignity press release stated that:

Ms. Brosseau, Dr. Patricia Smith, and Dying With Dignity Canada, filed a court challenge with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice arguing that the exclusion of individuals living with grievous and irremediable mental illness from MAID eligibility is discriminatory. It violates the rights to equality and liberty and security of the person protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher, submitted the court intervention application outlining our litigation experience that began in 2004 and includes interventions at every level in Carter, the case that legalized medical homicide in Canada. Scher stated:

EPC will tailor its intervention, if granted, so as to not duplicate submissions made by other parties to the litigation and will focus on the scope of its intervention on the public policy implications including people with mental health disabilities on the application of an exemption to the MAiD provisions of the Criminal Code that would allow for the application of MAiD to a person with a mental illness only.

When Canada passed Bill C-7 in March 2021, that expansion of the medical homicide law included extending killing to people with only a mental illness. At that time parliament declared a two-year moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone to provide time for parliament to establish guidelines. Parliament later extended the moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone until March 17, 2027.

Recently parliament reconvened the AMAD committee (Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying) to examine whether or not Canada was "ready" to permit medical homicide for mental illness alone. The committee will submit a report later this year.

At the same time, Tamara Jansen (MP - Cloverdale - Langley City) introduced private members Bill C-218 in the House of Commons to prevent euthanasia for mental illness by excluding mental illness from being defined as a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" for the purposes of MAiD. Bill C-218 will prevent MAID for mental illness alone.

Dying With Dignity, Ms. Brosseau, and Dr. Patricia Smith launched the current emergency relief court case in an attempt to get an Ontario court to legislate from the bench by giving Ms. Brosseau an exemption to be killed, even though parliament has a moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone.

We will not know immediately whether or not our intervention application is accepted but we will need your financial support. 

Please donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition court intervention (online donation) (paypal donation) donate by e-transfer to info@epcc.ca or call our office at: 1-877-439-3348.

Should the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition apologize to Helen Long from Dying with Dignity?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On May 5, I had the opportunity to present to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD). The AMAD committee is examining whether Canada was "ready" to begin euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness alone, which is currently scheduled to begin on March 17, 2027.

My presentation time was shared with Helen Long, the CEO of Dying with Dignity, Canada's leading euthanasia lobby group and Alicia Duncan, the daughter of Donna Duncan, who died by euthanasia after experiencing a head injury from a car accident.

My presentation focused on Canada needing to conduct a complete review of it's euthanasia law which was required in the original legislation but has never been done. All of the reviews of Canada's euthanasia law were limited to examining further expansions of the law.

On May 4, the day before the AMAD committee hearing, Dying With Dignity filed an emergency relief in an Ontario court, urging the court to legislate from the bench and order the killing of Claire Elyse Brosseau who is living with mental illness as her sole underlying condition. The Dying with Dignity press release, explains that Brosseau, Dying With Dignity and Dr Patricia Smith filed the case.

During the question and answer session at the AMAD committee Helen Long claimed to represent the people who were demanding euthanasia for the sole underlying condition of mental illness. She then read a letter from Claire Brosseau whereby Brosseau complains that the AMAD committee did not bring witnesses from people who are seeking euthanasia, based on mental illness alone.

In concluding the Brosseau's letter, Long read: 

“We so often hear the expression ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ and yet they have refused to hear from any people who are harmed from the exclusion…”

Amy Hasbrouck

Amy Hasbrouck, the director of Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet and a past-President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition responded to the use of the axiom "Nothing about us without us" with an article that essentially tells the euthanasia lobby to: Get our words out of your mouth.

Hasbrouck challenges Long and the euthanasia lobby based on the fact that people with disabilities experience the ultimate discrimination through euthanasia laws, that being death. Hasbrouck explains the long-standing opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide by the disability community and completes her article by stating:

When people’s livelihood and self-image depends on not understanding something, they probably won’t understand it. Apparently, Ms. Long’s personal, pecuniary and political interests depend on her not knowing that it is very uncool to appropriate a disability rights principle in advocating a position the disability rights movement strongly opposes.

Since then the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Amy Hasbrouck have been lobbied by euthanasia lobbyists, Claire Brosseau and her family to apologize to Helen Long.

John Brosseau sent the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Amy Hasbrouck this message:

I find myself compelled to respond to the words you published about Helen Long. 

Helen Long has sustained my daughter through circumstances of profound and unrelenting difficulty. She has offered her support with a constancy and grace that few possess. There is no ambiguity about her character or her commitment to Claire. You were cognizant of the fact that Helen spoke on my daughter’s behalf. You possessed this knowledge. You chose to publish your critique nonetheless, directing it at a woman whose sole purpose has been to advocate for my daughter’s dignity and her right to self-determination.

Claire Brosseau sent us a message, urging us to apologize to Helen Long.

So what did Amy Hasbrouck write that requires an apology? 

Hasbrouck, who practised law in Massachusetts, stated that she is a survivor of childhood trauma, she has lived with mental illness and she has been a long-time disability rights activist. Among other things, Hasbrouck wrote:

If she (Helen Long) knew the first thing about ableism, Ms. Long would know that MAiD discriminates against disabled people by definition; disability is among the eligibility criteria enumerated in the definition of a grievous and irremediable medical condition. She would also know that MAiD was provided to many non-terminal disabled people even before the 2019 Truchon decision and the 2021 adoption of Bill C-7, which created “track 2” eligibility for people whose deaths were not “reasonably foreseeable.” Even if Ms. Long didn’t have the advantage of the lived experience of disability discrimination to guide her in evaluating Bill C-14, and its early implementation, anyone who claimed the solidarity of “nothing about us, without us” should have noticed what’s happened in the ten years since legalization; the failure to improve access to palliative care, the reports of same-day euthanasia and MAiD requests linked to “external pressure” (poverty, inadequate and inaccessible housing, and treatment denials) the 100,000 euthanasia deaths and the transformation of an “exceptional” measure to an “expected” response.

Hasbrouck was angry about the use of the disability axiom, "Nothing about us without us" to promote euthanasia, especially since euthanasia was legalized in Canada without considering the concerns of the disability community. Considering her experience and Canada's reality I consider Hasbrouck's anger to be in it's proper place.

As for Brosseau, she is being used by the euthanasia lobby for the purpose of expanding euthanasia to people with mental illness. If she wants to be used by the euthanasia lobby, then that's her decision, but if she is granted death by the court, based on mental illness as the sole criteria, many more people will also be killed based on that precedent. Killing results in many more people being killed.

I oppose killing people and I support the best possible care being provided. But death is never a solution even when it becomes the final solution.

But if I am wrong and if the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition should apologize to Helen Long for publishing Amy's article, then let the readers tell us. Otherwise I will continue to support Amy Hasbrouck and the disability community.