The Ontario Superior Court of Justice must consider findings from a parliamentary committee that advised that medical assistance in dying be disallowed for patients whose sole medical condition is mental illness, a lawyer for the federal Attorney-General said Tuesday.

Joseph Cheng, senior counsel for the Attorney-General of Canada, addressed the committee’s report during court proceedings in Toronto on a motion filed for “emergency relief” for a 49-year-old patient living with persistent mental illness.

Claire Brosseau’s legal pursuitto die by MAID underscores a contentious policy debate over whether patients with mental illness should be able to have medical help to end their lives.

Ms. Brosseau,who sued Ottawa alongside advocacy organization Dying With Dignity Canada in August, 2024, for barring MAID access to patients with mental illness, has lived with bipolar disorder for 35 years.

She is seeking an exemption from the court, which would apply only to her, to die by MAID, at a time when the procedure remains against the law for patients living with mental illness. Despite trying several medical interventions, she said she endures “constant pain and unrelenting torment.”

Lawyer for woman seeking MAID for mental illness asks court to ignore parliamentary report

“Almost two years after I filed my lawsuit, the government has yet to respond to me or meet any of their deadlines,” Ms. Brosseau said in a statement Tuesday.

“Because of their continued inaction, I’ve been forced to go to court again. In wanting to access MAID, I’m not taking the easy way out. I’ve lived most of my life with a severe and persistent mental illness.”

MAID access for patients with mental illness is currently set to take effect in March, 2027, but the timeline could change if the federal government introduces legislation to do so.

In May, three sources told The Globe and Mail that the government is open to introducing such a bill.

Mr. Cheng said Tuesday that Parliament’s engagement “underscores why what is being asked of this court falls well outside of the institutional role of the court.”

“Parliament is currently deciding how it will respond to the report and what it will do with the mental illness exclusion,” he said.

Crucial decision in MAID debate looms

In 2021, the country’s MAID law was expanded after a Quebec Superior Court decision two years earlier found a requirement in the original law that patients’ deaths be reasonably foreseeable, to be unconstitutional. The federal government did not challenge the court decision.

The amended law expanded criteria, allowing for patients with incurable conditions to seek to end their lives, known as “track two” MAID. A two-year temporary exclusion was put in place to give time to study the delivery of MAID for patients with mental illness, but implementation has been twice delayed.

This spring, a parliamentary committee held hearings to examine Canada’s readiness for MAID for patients with mental illness.

Last month, a majority of members produced a report that said they heard “significant complexities and risks, grave concerns and deep divisions that continue to accompany this issue.”

On Monday, Ms. Brosseau’s lawyer, Michael Fenrick, argued the report from a majority of members on a parliamentary committee should not be considered, adding its findings do not reflect the will of Parliament.

Committee recommends Ottawa not extend MAID to people whose sole condition is mental illness

Mr. Cheng told court on Tuesday that Ms. Brosseau’s lawyer asked the court to “be willfully ignorant of the legislative context.”

“They try to downplay the latest AMAD [the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying] report,” he said.

The federal government is reviewing its response to the committee findings. Last month, Justice Minister Sean Fraser said the matter was serious and he planned to take time to review the report, and dissenting opinions, and “get it right over the summer.”

Mental illnesses may cause “profound suffering”, Mr. Cheng told court Tuesday, while he acknowledged Ms. Brosseau and supporters in the courtroom.

However, he said the applicant has not satisfied an evidentiary or legal burden to establish “irreparable harm on the record before the court.”

The main point, Mr. Cheng said, is there is enacted legislation on MAID, its constitutional validity has not been resolved, and Parliament is actively considering the issue.

Additionally, he said when the consequences of error are irreversible, public interest and other considerations favour the law until its merits have been determined.

Justice Carissima Mathen reserved a decision Tuesday and intends to make a determination later, at an as yet unspecified date. She intends to alert parties 24 hours ahead of a decision.