freedomination
Account Closed
I am NOT a lawyer but I have learned how to research law because I once represented myself (no lawyer) in court and won against the Federal Crown. So what I will show you is your Right of Autonomy and your Rights to accept or refuse medical treatment, all from cases in the Supreme Court of Canada. In the end it is your choice.
Your Rights under Common Law on medical treatment.
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519
"That there is a right to choose how one's body will be dealt with, even in the context of beneficial medical treatment, has long been recognized by the common law. To impose medical treatment on one who refuses it constitutes battery, and our common law has recognized the right to demand that medical treatment which would extend life be withheld or withdrawn."
Starson v. Swayze, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722, 2003 SCC 32
7 Ordinarily at law, the value of autonomy prevails over the value of effective medical treatment. No matter how ill a person, no matter how likely deterioration or death, it is for that person and that person alone to decide whether to accept a proposed medical treatment.
75 The right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is fundamental to a person's dignity and autonomy. This right is equally important in the context of treatment for mental illness: see Fleming v. Reid (1991), 4 O.R. (3d) 74 (C.A.), per RobinsJ.A., at p. 88:
"Few medical procedures can be more intrusive than the forcible injection of powerful mind-altering drugs which are often accompanied by severe and sometimes irreversible adverse side effects. Unwarranted findings of incapacity severely infringe upon a person's right to self-determination."
If you are under appeal because you were refused ODSP by the DAU, make a personal affidavit stating the above rights and that you will determine what medications or therapy you are willing to try. They will make a claim to the SBT that you are not attempting to take medication for treatment of your conditions. This cannot be used against you even though they try to intimidate you. Once they see you know what you are talking about and that you potentially may take this to court, they will back off. Your affidavit must be in legal format and signed by a Commisioner of Oaths, lawyer or judge.
If your Doctor or Psych recommends a drug to you that you are not comfortable trying due to it's potentially addictive properties or bad side effects, refuse it and tell them this in your affidavit. I, myself read many forums about medications and long term effects with peoples horror stories about addiction and withdraw from many of these psychotic drugs that are prescribed and I chose to go the Natural Path. I tried some medical marihjuana for my anxiety and was instantly releaved by it. I told the DAU and SBT in Affidavit that this is my main choice of treatment and that I need help to access it. The DAU's reply was that marijuana was an option. I replied that all medications and treatments are optional, as it is MY choice alone to determine what medications I will take or try. If I am refused ODSP at my SBT hearing, I will be filing for an Judicial Review.
A Person with a Disability
The ODSP has it's definition of a person with a disability under section 4 (1) of the Act. But the Federal government has it's definition of a person with disabilities under the Employment Equity Act. In this Act it states:
Persons with disabilities
A person with a disability has a long term or recurring physical, mental, sensory, psychiatric or learning impairment and:
•considers himself/herself to be disadvantaged in employment by reason of that impairment;
•believes that an employer or potential employer is likely to consider him/her to be disadvantaged in employment by reason of that impairment.
This definition also includes persons whose functional limitations owing to their impairment have been accommodated in their current job or workplace.
Disabilities include: co-ordination or dexterity (difficulty using hands or arms, for example, grasping or handling a stapler or using a keyboard), mobility (difficulty moving around, for example, from one office to another or up and down stairs), blind or visual impairment (unable to see or difficulty seeing), deaf or hard of hearing (unable to hear or difficulty in hearing), speech impairment (unable to speak or difficulty speaking and being understood), other disability (including learning disabilities, developmental disabilities and all other types of disabilities).
If your disability puts you at a disadvantage for employment, then you are a person with a disability.
Test of Total Disability
According to the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1983 case Paul Revere vs. Sucharov adopted the following interpretation which has been followed by courts across Canada :
“The test of total disability is satisfied when the circumstances are such that a reasonable man would recognize that he should not engage in certain activity even though he literally is not physically unable to do so. In other words, total disability does not mean absolute physical inability to transact any kind of business pertaining to one’s occupation, but rather that there is a total disability if the insured’s injuries are such that common care and prudence require him to desist from his business or occupation in order to effectuate a cure; hence, if the condition of the insured is such that in order to effect a cure or prolongation of life, common care and prudence will require that he cease all work, he is totally disabled within the meaning of health or accident insurance policies.”
This case was an insurance company vs. an employee of a company. ODSP is not Insurance such as Employment Insurance (EI) but in my opinion the reasoning will apply to any person who has or developes a disability. The common law would apply as your autonomy/self determination tells you that you are a reasonable person and you recognize that you should not engage in certain activity even though you literally are not physically unable to do so. It is your choice in the end.
If anyone has any questions feel free to post or message. Again I am not a lawyer, this is just my own interpretation of the case law. If you have or need a lawyer get one and show them this information. I do believe the ODSP Act has many constitutional flaws within it!
Ken
Your Rights under Common Law on medical treatment.
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519
"That there is a right to choose how one's body will be dealt with, even in the context of beneficial medical treatment, has long been recognized by the common law. To impose medical treatment on one who refuses it constitutes battery, and our common law has recognized the right to demand that medical treatment which would extend life be withheld or withdrawn."
Starson v. Swayze, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722, 2003 SCC 32
7 Ordinarily at law, the value of autonomy prevails over the value of effective medical treatment. No matter how ill a person, no matter how likely deterioration or death, it is for that person and that person alone to decide whether to accept a proposed medical treatment.
75 The right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is fundamental to a person's dignity and autonomy. This right is equally important in the context of treatment for mental illness: see Fleming v. Reid (1991), 4 O.R. (3d) 74 (C.A.), per RobinsJ.A., at p. 88:
"Few medical procedures can be more intrusive than the forcible injection of powerful mind-altering drugs which are often accompanied by severe and sometimes irreversible adverse side effects. Unwarranted findings of incapacity severely infringe upon a person's right to self-determination."
If you are under appeal because you were refused ODSP by the DAU, make a personal affidavit stating the above rights and that you will determine what medications or therapy you are willing to try. They will make a claim to the SBT that you are not attempting to take medication for treatment of your conditions. This cannot be used against you even though they try to intimidate you. Once they see you know what you are talking about and that you potentially may take this to court, they will back off. Your affidavit must be in legal format and signed by a Commisioner of Oaths, lawyer or judge.
If your Doctor or Psych recommends a drug to you that you are not comfortable trying due to it's potentially addictive properties or bad side effects, refuse it and tell them this in your affidavit. I, myself read many forums about medications and long term effects with peoples horror stories about addiction and withdraw from many of these psychotic drugs that are prescribed and I chose to go the Natural Path. I tried some medical marihjuana for my anxiety and was instantly releaved by it. I told the DAU and SBT in Affidavit that this is my main choice of treatment and that I need help to access it. The DAU's reply was that marijuana was an option. I replied that all medications and treatments are optional, as it is MY choice alone to determine what medications I will take or try. If I am refused ODSP at my SBT hearing, I will be filing for an Judicial Review.
A Person with a Disability
The ODSP has it's definition of a person with a disability under section 4 (1) of the Act. But the Federal government has it's definition of a person with disabilities under the Employment Equity Act. In this Act it states:
Persons with disabilities
A person with a disability has a long term or recurring physical, mental, sensory, psychiatric or learning impairment and:
•considers himself/herself to be disadvantaged in employment by reason of that impairment;
•believes that an employer or potential employer is likely to consider him/her to be disadvantaged in employment by reason of that impairment.
This definition also includes persons whose functional limitations owing to their impairment have been accommodated in their current job or workplace.
Disabilities include: co-ordination or dexterity (difficulty using hands or arms, for example, grasping or handling a stapler or using a keyboard), mobility (difficulty moving around, for example, from one office to another or up and down stairs), blind or visual impairment (unable to see or difficulty seeing), deaf or hard of hearing (unable to hear or difficulty in hearing), speech impairment (unable to speak or difficulty speaking and being understood), other disability (including learning disabilities, developmental disabilities and all other types of disabilities).
If your disability puts you at a disadvantage for employment, then you are a person with a disability.
Test of Total Disability
According to the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1983 case Paul Revere vs. Sucharov adopted the following interpretation which has been followed by courts across Canada :
“The test of total disability is satisfied when the circumstances are such that a reasonable man would recognize that he should not engage in certain activity even though he literally is not physically unable to do so. In other words, total disability does not mean absolute physical inability to transact any kind of business pertaining to one’s occupation, but rather that there is a total disability if the insured’s injuries are such that common care and prudence require him to desist from his business or occupation in order to effectuate a cure; hence, if the condition of the insured is such that in order to effect a cure or prolongation of life, common care and prudence will require that he cease all work, he is totally disabled within the meaning of health or accident insurance policies.”
This case was an insurance company vs. an employee of a company. ODSP is not Insurance such as Employment Insurance (EI) but in my opinion the reasoning will apply to any person who has or developes a disability. The common law would apply as your autonomy/self determination tells you that you are a reasonable person and you recognize that you should not engage in certain activity even though you literally are not physically unable to do so. It is your choice in the end.
If anyone has any questions feel free to post or message. Again I am not a lawyer, this is just my own interpretation of the case law. If you have or need a lawyer get one and show them this information. I do believe the ODSP Act has many constitutional flaws within it!
Ken
