When a binding precedent can be revisited

The competing arguments

When may a trial court revisit a constitutional question already answered by a higher court?

How the decisions connect

Editorial reading guide. Each connection links to the judgments and explains the kind of disagreement.

• Reversed

  Carter v. Canada — appeal → relates toCarter v. Canada — trial

  The appellate majority treated the earlier Supreme Court precedent as binding.

• Reversed

  Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) → relates toCarter v. Canada — appeal

  The Supreme Court accepted reconsideration in the materially changed legal and evidentiary circumstances.

The decision timeline

1. 2012-06-15 · Supreme Court of British Columbia

   Carter v. Canada — trial

   2012 BCSC 886 · Smith J.; single trial judge

   Could the assisted-dying prohibition be reconsidered despite Rodriguez?

   What the court decided

   The trial judge found constitutional violations and issued a suspended declaration, with a personal exemption for Gloria Taylor. The factual record and later legal developments were central.

   Where the disagreement sits

   Canada challenged both the constitutional analysis and the judge’s ability to depart from Rodriguez. The Supreme Court’s later reasons recount this procedural history.

   Historical treatment and limits

   Reversed by the BC Court of Appeal in 2013; the constitutional result was restored in substance by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2015. This entry is sourced to that later Court’s account.

   Read the source and pinpoint

   Judgment · 2012 BCSC 886

   2015 SCC 5, paras. 21–28 (account of the trial decision)

2. 2013-10-10 · Court of Appeal for British Columbia

   Carter v. Canada — appeal

   2013 BCCA 435 · 2–1

   Was the trial judge bound by the Supreme Court’s earlier Rodriguez ruling?

   What the court decided

   The majority reversed, treating Rodriguez as controlling. Finch C.J.B.C. dissented from that conclusion.

   Where the disagreement sits

   The disagreement concerned the force of vertical precedent and whether new legal and evidentiary circumstances justified reconsideration, alongside the merits of the prohibition.

   Historical treatment and limits

   Reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2015. This entry is sourced to the Supreme Court’s account of the appellate decision.

   Read the source and pinpoint

   Judgment · 2013 BCCA 435

   2015 SCC 5, paras. 29–32, 41–48 (account of the appeal)

3. 2015-02-06 · Supreme Court of Canada

   Carter v. Canada (Attorney General)

   2015 SCC 5 · Unanimous

   Did the blanket prohibition unjustifiably infringe Charter section 7, and could Rodriguez be revisited?

   What the court decided

   The Court invalidated the prohibition within defined circumstances involving consenting competent adults with grievous, irremediable conditions causing intolerable enduring suffering. New legal issues and a fundamentally changed record justified reconsideration.

   Where the disagreement sits

   The Court accepted that safeguarding vulnerable people was a valid objective, but found the blanket prohibition overbroad. It suspended the declaration for 12 months and did not require doctors to provide assistance.

   Historical treatment and limits

   Historical endpoint: 2015. The later statutory MAID regime and subsequent amendments are outside this collection; these criteria are not a current eligibility checklist.

   Read the source and pinpoint

   Judgment · 2015 SCC 5

   2015 SCC 5, paras. 41–48, 56–90, 95–123, 126–132