Carter v. Canada: Kay Carter, Gloria Taylor and MAID

Who were Kay Carter and Gloria Taylor?

Canada's assisted dying law began with two women. Neither of them lived to see it.

Kay Carter was 89. In 2008, doctors found she had spinal stenosis. This condition slowly squeezes the spinal cord. By 2009 she needed help with almost everything: eating, moving, going to the bathroom. She lived with constant pain. Her family told the court that Kay did not want to live out her life as an "ironing board", lying flat in bed.

Kay asked her daughter, Lee Carter, and Lee's husband, Hollis Johnson, for help. She wanted to go abroad for an assisted death, because it was a crime to help her in Canada. They knew that helping her could mean prosecution. They agreed anyway. Kay died in January 2010.

The planning had to stay secret. According to the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), Kay "could not even risk saying good-bye to many of her loved ones." Lee and Hollis believed she should have been able to make this choice in Canada, among family and friends.

Gloria Taylor was a former postal worker and care worker who loved motorbikes. In 2009, at about 61, she learned she had ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). ALS slowly takes away the use of the hands, legs, speech and, in the end, breathing. She started a support group for people with ALS in Kelowna. She also had a granddaughter she adored.

In June 2011 she asked to join the BCCLA's court case. She explained what she wanted in a statement that the Supreme Court later quoted at length:

"I want the legal right to die peacefully, at the time of my own choosing, in the embrace of my family and friends." — Gloria Taylor, quoted in Carter v. Canada, 2015 SCC 5, para. 12

In the same statement she said: "I know that I am dying, but I am far from depressed." There was still "a lot of good" in her life, she said.

In June 2012 a judge gave Gloria a personal exemption. She became the first person in Canada with legal permission to ask a doctor for help to die. She never used it. She died suddenly and unexpectedly in October 2012, from a short illness (BCCLA).

What was the law before Carter?

Suicide itself stopped being a crime in Canada in 1972. But helping someone else die was still a crime under section 241(b) of the Criminal Code. Section 14 also said nobody can consent to having death caused to them (Wikipedia summary).

The Supreme Court had already looked at this once. In 1993, Sue Rodriguez, a mother with ALS, asked the Court to strike the ban down. She lost, 5 votes to 4. Our guide to the Sue Rodriguez case tells her story.

Normally, lower courts must follow Supreme Court decisions. So how could the Carter case even start? The Court later explained that past decisions are "not a straitjacket". A lower court may look again when the legal questions are new, or when the evidence has changed a lot. By 2011 there was new evidence, including years of experience from places that allowed assisted dying, such as Oregon, the Netherlands and Belgium. Our section on euthanasia laws by country explains how each of these places works.

What did the courts decide, and when?

The case took four years. Here is the timeline, from the BCCLA and the Department of Justice:

• April 2011: the BCCLA files the lawsuit with Lee Carter, Hollis Johnson and a doctor, William Shoichet. Gloria Taylor asks to join in June.
• 15 June 2012: the BC Supreme Court rules the ban unconstitutional and gives Gloria her exemption.
• 10 October 2013: the BC Court of Appeal overturns that ruling, 2 to 1. It says only the Supreme Court can change Rodriguez.
• 6 February 2015: the Supreme Court of Canada rules 9 to 0 for the families.
• January 2016: the Court gives Parliament 4 more months. The new deadline is 6 June 2016.
• 17 June 2016: Bill C-14, Canada's first medical assistance in dying (MAID) law, becomes law.

The judgment was credited to "The Court", not to one judge. CBC News noted that this is unusual. It signals that the whole Court stands behind the decision.

Why did the Supreme Court strike down the ban?

The judgment opens with a short summary. People who are gravely ill and suffering had only two options, the Court said. They could end their lives early, or they could suffer until a natural death. "The choice is cruel."

The Court used section 7 of the Charter. It protects "life, liberty and security of the person". The judges found the ban harmed all three.

• Life. The trial judge heard that some people died by suicide earlier than they wanted. They feared they would later be too weak to act. So the ban could shorten lives, not only protect them (paras. 57–58).
• Liberty. Patients could already refuse treatment, stop life support or ask for strong sedation. But they could not ask a doctor for help to die. This took away a basic choice about their own bodies (para. 66).
• Security of the person. The ban left people like Gloria to "endure intolerable suffering" (para. 66).

The key legal idea is overbreadth. Think of a fishing net. The ban's purpose was to protect vulnerable people from being pushed into suicide "at a moment of weakness". That is a fair goal. But the net was so wide that it also caught people it was never meant to catch. Canada itself accepted that some disabled people have "a considered, rational and persistent wish" to die. Gloria was found to be competent, informed and free from pressure. Catching her did nothing to protect the vulnerable (para. 86).

The Court also agreed with the trial judge on one more point. A "carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards" could limit the risks (para. 117).

So the Court struck down the ban, but only for a competent adult who:

1. clearly consents to ending their life, and
2. has a "grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability)" that causes "enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual" (para. 127).

"Irremediable" does not force a patient to accept treatments they find unacceptable. And no doctor would be forced to take part. The Court said that is a matter of conscience and, for some, religious belief (para. 132).

What changed in Canada after the ruling?

2016: the first law. Bill C-14 allowed MAID only when a person's natural death was "reasonably foreseeable". The BCCLA was deeply disappointed. It said that Kay Carter herself would have been barred, because her condition caused great pain but would not kill her.

2019: Truchon. The Superior Court of Quebec agreed that the "reasonably foreseeable" rule was unconstitutional (Department of Justice).

2021: Bill C-7. Parliament removed the rule. There are now two tracks. Track 1 is for people whose death is reasonably foreseeable. Track 2 is for people whose death is not. Track 2 has extra safeguards. The assessments must take at least 90 days. The person must be told about counselling, disability support, mental health services and palliative care. And an expert in their condition must be consulted.

Mental illness. People whose only condition is a mental illness have been excluded. The end date moved from 2023 to 2024, then to 17 March 2027. On 7 October 2026, Justice Minister Sean Fraser said a new bill this autumn will keep the exclusion with no end date. He named two reasons: poor access to mental health care in some communities, and no agreement on when a mental illness is incurable. Dying With Dignity Canada is challenging the delays in court (The Guardian). Our guide to MAID and mental illness explains this debate.

Advance requests. Since 30 October 2024, Quebec lets people with a serious and incurable illness that will take away their capacity, such as Alzheimer's disease, make an advance request. No other province allows this. Fraser said the new federal bill will also "open the door" to advance consent.

The numbers. In 2024, 16,499 people received MAID. That is 5.1% of all deaths in Canada. Since 2016, the total is 76,475. Cancer was the most common condition (63.6%). Only 732 people (4.4%) were on Track 2. The median age was 77.9.

What do supporters and critics say?

The Court itself noted that people with disabilities do not agree with each other on this question (para. 10). That is true of doctors and faith groups too. Our section on the arguments for and against euthanasia sets out the evidence on both sides.

Supporters say the ruling put choice where it belongs: with the patient. The BCCLA called it "a historic victory". On the day of the ruling, Lee Carter told CBC she wanted "everybody in this country to live the life as they want to". She was glad that people with incurable illness who do not want to continue now had a choice. Supporters also point out that 74.1% of people who received MAID in 2024 also received palliative care (Health Canada).

Disability-rights groups are the strongest critics, especially of Track 2. In 2021, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities shared a warning from UN human rights experts:

"Disability should never be a ground or justification to end someone's life directly or indirectly." — UN human rights experts, January 2021

Jonathan Marchand, a disabled man living in a Quebec care home, said in the same release: "We want choice and control over our lives, not a fast track toward death." Critics fear that poverty, loneliness or a lack of home care can make life feel unbearable, and that MAID may be easier to get than support. In 2024, 44.7% of Track 2 recipients listed isolation or loneliness as one source of their suffering, compared with 21.9% on Track 1. Health Canada adds that loneliness was never the only source of suffering in any case.

Religious voices see deliberately ending a life as wrong. In 2016, Edmonton Archbishop Richard Smith said MAID tells people who suffer that "your life is no longer worth living", and called this "a major societal failure". Alberta's Catholic bishops said that excellent palliative care, without assisted death, is the ethical way to care for people who are dying. Read more about what different religions say about assisted dying. In 2015, the group Campaign Life Coalition urged Parliament to pass a new law to protect vulnerable people from assisted suicide.

Doctors are divided. Some see MAID as part of patient-centred care. Others refuse to take part for reasons of conscience. Law professor Jocelyn Downie, who worked on the Carter legal team, wrote in a medical journal that conscience rights come at a cost to patients' access, and that clear rules on referrals were needed. On mental illness, CBC reported that the October 2026 decision angered some MAID advocates while "pleasing many in the medical community".

Which worry feels stronger to you: being trapped in suffering with no choice, or being quietly pushed towards a choice you would not make if you had more support?

What does the Carter case mean for families today?

Kay's family had to plan in secret and travel far. Gloria's family watched her fight in court while she was dying. Today, families in Canada have more legal options. But the lessons from both stories apply anywhere.

• Talk early. Kay told her family clearly what she wanted. That clarity helped them act, even under great stress. Our guide on how to talk to family about end-of-life wishes suggests first sentences you can use.
• Write it down. An advance directive tells doctors which treatments you would and would not want. It is a separate thing from MAID. In most of Canada, MAID needs your consent at the time. See our guide to advance directives and living wills.
• Name one person. A healthcare proxy speaks for you when you cannot. Read how to choose a healthcare proxy.
• Ask about palliative care first. Good pain and symptom care can change how a person feels about the future. Our palliative care guide explains what it offers.
• Know your local law. MAID is a Canadian law. Rules are very different elsewhere. Our page on countries where euthanasia is legal compares them, and euthanasia vs assisted suicide vs MAID explains the terms.

Ask yourself: if your family had to speak for you tomorrow, would they know what you want?

Why does this case still matter?

Kay Carter and Gloria Taylor wanted some control over the end of their own lives. Their families and lawyers turned that wish into a case that changed Canadian law. Lee Carter called the ruling "a legacy for Kay".

More than ten years later, Canada is still arguing about how far that legacy should go: to people who are not dying, to people with mental illness, to people who can no longer consent. Each step brings both new choices and new fears.

For more landmark stories, see our overview of famous euthanasia cases.

If this topic brings up painful feelings, or you are struggling right now, you do not have to face it alone. You can talk to someone today.