Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation:
Pratten v. British Columbia (Attorney General),
 2011 BCSC 656Date: 20110519Docket: S087449Registry: VancouverBetween:
Olivia Pratten
PlaintiffAnd
Attorney General of British Columbia andCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
DefendantsBefore: The Honourable Madam Justice Adair
Reasons for Judgment
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., Sean Hearnand Alison M. LatimerCounsel for the Attorney General ofBritish Columbia:Leah Greathead, Bryant Mackey andAlison LukePlace and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C.October 25-29, November 1-3, 2010Written Submissions Received March 25, 2011Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C.May 19, 2011
 
Pratten v. British Columbia (Attorney General) Page 2 
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3
 
Procedural Background ............................................................................................. 7
 
The Experience of Donor Offspring .......................................................................... 18
 
(a)
 
Individual stories ......................................................................................... 18
 
(b)
 
The Donor Sibling Registry ......................................................................... 28
 
(c)
 
Expert Evidence .......................................................................................... 29
 
(i)
 
Dr. Julie Lauzon ....................................................................................... 30
 
(ii)
 
Dr. Diane Ehrensaft ................................................................................. 33
 
(iii)
 
Elizabeth Marquardt ................................................................................ 36
 
(iv)
 
Professor Ken Daniels ............................................................................. 40
 
(d)
 
Summary .................................................................................................... 41
 
Government Study of reproductive technologies and the Legislative Response ..... 43
 
Dr. Korn and the Keeping of Medical Records ......................................................... 52
 
Current Practices at selected Fertility Clinics ........................................................... 56
 
Adoption Reform – Rethinking the best interests of the child ................................... 62
 
Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 70
 
Analysis and Discussion .......................................................................................... 73
 
(a)
 
Section 15 ................................................................................................... 73
 
(i)
 
Does the law create a distinction that is based on an enumerated oranalogous ground? ........................................................................................... 74
 
(ii)
 
Section 15(2) ........................................................................................... 78
 
(iii)
 
Does the distinction create a disadvantage by perpetuating prejudice orstereotyping? .................................................................................................... 79
 
(A)
 
Disadvantage and stereotyping ............................................................ 81
 
(B)
 
Correspondence with actual characteristics, needs or circumstances . 83
 
(C)
 
Ameliorative purpose of the impugned legislation ................................ 84
 
(D)
 
Nature of the interest affected .............................................................. 86
 
(iv)
 
Summary of conclusions on s. 15 ............................................................ 87
 
(b)
 
Section 7 ..................................................................................................... 88
 
(i)
 
Should s. 7 be interpreted to include positive obligations? ...................... 90
 
(ii)
 
Has the Province deprived Ms. Pratten and other donor offspring of libertyor security of the person? ................................................................................. 95
 
(A)
 
Liberty and security of the person ........................................................ 95
 
(B)
 
Is the harm the result of state action? .................................................. 99
 
(iii)
 
Summary of conclusions on s. 7 ............................................................ 102
 
 
Pratten v. British Columbia (Attorney General) Page 3 
(c)
 
Section 1 ................................................................................................... 102
 
(d)
 
Remedies .................................................................................................. 105
 
Disposition – Summary .......................................................................................... 108
 
Schedule “A” .......................................................................................................... 110
 
(a)
 
Provisions of the
Adoption Act 
alleged to violate the
Charter 
................... 110
 
(b)
 
Provisions of the
Adoption Regulation 
alleged to violate the
Charter 
....... 118
 
Introduction
 [1] Olivia Pratten is a successful journalist in her late twenties. In 1981, she wasconceived using sperm from an anonymous donor. Like many donor offspring,Ms. Pratten knows almost nothing about the man who provided one-half of hergenetic makeup. She has long felt that a part of her identity is missing. She risksinadvertently forming a romantic relationship with a half-sibling. She worries herhealth, and the health of her future children, could be comprised by the lack ofinformation.[2] Ms. Pratten went to Dr. Gerald Korn, the Vancouver doctor who performedthe insemination, seeking information about her donor. As of November 2002, whenhe retired, Dr. Korn was not obliged to keep records for a patient for more than sixyears from the last entry recorded, according to the rules of the College ofPhysicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (the “College”) then in place. Dr. Kornsays he no longer has any records relating to Ms. Pratten’s donor, and that allrecords have been destroyed. Ms. Pratten says that the government of BritishColumbia (the “Province”) permitted the destruction, thereby depriving her of basicpersonal information that is necessary for her physical and psychological health.[3] From Ms. Pratten’s perspective, the Province has recognized, in theexperience of adopted children, that questions about biological origins and feelingsof loss and incompleteness are legitimate. The Province has addressed thoseconcerns by enacting laws whereby information about the biological origins andfamily history of adoptees is gathered and preserved, and adoptees have theopportunity (and in some cases, the right) to obtain that information. These laws are
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.

    • More From This User

    18 p.
    NMF Financial Report 30 June 2012
    Michael Cook
    209 Reads
    3 p.
    Alarm Over Genetic Control of Embryos Times 20 March 2013 (1)
    Michael Cook
    370 Reads
    4 p.
    Polyamory Action Lobby submission to NSW Parliament
    Michael Cook
    148 Reads
    18 p.
    THE PREEMBRYO’S SHORT LIFETIME. THE HISTORY OF A WORD
    Michael Cook
    176 Reads
    2 p.
    comment on Liverpool Care Pathway
    Michael Cook
    282 Reads
    3 p.
    Consensus Statement: Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient
    Michael Cook
    532 Reads
    4 p.
    10 reasons why the government is wrong to redefine marriage
    Michael Cook
    398 Reads
    4 p.
    Nick Chisholm 2005 BMJ
    Michael Cook
    371 Reads
    2 p.
    Iona Institute on preserving traditional marriage
    Michael Cook
    220 Reads
    52 p.
    The Gujarat, April 2012
    Michael Cook
    5121 Reads
    20 p.
    pro forma Surrogacy Agreement issued by Pulse Women's Hospital
    Michael Cook
    1058 Reads
    22 p.
    NMF Financial Report 30 June 2011
    Michael Cook
    476 Reads
    2 p.
    Media RELEASE Real Dignity Launch 11 May 2012
    Michael Cook
    389 Reads
    183 p.
    mourir dans la dignité
    Michael Cook
    1369 Reads
    21 p.
    Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs FAQ EUTHANASIA 2010
    Michael Cook
    1038 Reads
    9 p.
    In defence of conjugality
    Michael Cook
    443 Reads
    7 p.
    Implementation of a service for physicians’ consultation and inform...
    Michael Cook
    587 Reads
    27 p.
    Is There a Logical Slippery Slope from Voluntary to Nonvoluntary Eu...
    Michael Cook
    1477 Reads
    3 p.
    Top British hospital dragged into abortion ‘trick’
    Michael Cook
    554 Reads
    11 p.
    The Death of George V, by Francis Watson
    Michael Cook
    125 Reads
    4 p.
    Lord Dawson of Penn
    Michael Cook
    737 Reads
    14 p.
    The dying bear, by Nicolas Eberstadt
    Michael Cook
    858 Reads
    2 p.
    BMJ: euthanasia death of George V
    Michael Cook
    699 Reads
    18 p.
    Confronting Moral Pluralism in Posttraditional Western Societies: B...
    Michael Cook
    1311 Reads
    1 p.
    Detry Et Al Transplant Int 2008
    Michael Cook
    583 Reads
    Notes
    Load more