Manitoba Law Reform Commission issues the "Report on Sterilization and Legal Incompetence"

January 27, 1992. In 1986, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "in the absence of legislation, a court can never consent on behalf of such a person where the proposed sterilization is non-therapeutic in nature (that is, performed for social reasons like contraception and not for the protection of the person's physical or mental health)" (Manitoba, 1992) in the case of Re Eve. This meant that any persons who was too young, had mental or intellectual disabilities could not have someone lawfully consent to a sterilization procedure on their behalf if they were incapable. This ruling helped prevent wrongful sterilization in Canada, but was also controversial. In response to this ruling, in Manitoba, a Commission was tasked with researching the current state of the law and possible options, as well public endorsement for those options, in order to propose further provincial legislation in regard to consent of sterilization (Manitoba, 1992).

A Discussion Paper was created in November 1990, summarizing the results of the research performed in towards this goal. The paper was distributed to numerous individuals and organizations in Manitoba, without recommending any legislative proposals, in order to discern popular opinion. The paper concluded that the issue at hand was very divided among two different, but equally supportable, philosophies. In 1992, following the Discussion Paper, a report was prepared in an attempt to suggest how to proceed forward. This report discussed the necessity of consent for medical procedures, who decision-makers could be in cases of consent, reactions to the Eve decision, legislation in other geographic regions (including Britain, Australia, the United States, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec), as well as a summary of the 1990 Discussion Paper.

The report, entitled "Report on Sterilization and Legal Incompetence" concluded that due to the unique circumstances of the issue, the Commission was not able to provide one recommendation over another, especially since the issue was so tied to human rights. Instead, it was suggested that a decision would be "best handled directly by the Government and Legislature" (Manitoba, 1992, p.3).

The report can be accessed online here.

-Colette Leung

  • Manitoba. Law Reform Commission. (1992, January 27). Report on sterilization and legal incompetence. Winnipeg: Government of Manitoba.

Manitoba Law Reform Commission issues the "Report on Sterilization and Legal Incompetence"

January 27, 1992. In 1986, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "in the absence of legislation, a court can never consent on behalf of such a person where the proposed sterilization is non-therapeutic in nature (that is, performed for social reasons like contraception and not for the protection of the person's physical or mental health)" (Manitoba, 1992) in the case of Re Eve. This meant that any persons who was too young, had mental or intellectual disabilities could not have someone lawfully consent to a sterilization procedure on their behalf if they were incapable. This ruling helped prevent wrongful sterilization in Canada, but was also controversial. In response to this ruling, in Manitoba, a Commission was tasked with researching the current state of the law and possible options, as well public endorsement for those options, in order to propose further provincial legislation in regard to consent of sterilization (Manitoba, 1992).

A Discussion Paper was created in November 1990, summarizing the results of the research performed in towards this goal. The paper was distributed to numerous individuals and organizations in Manitoba, without recommending any legislative proposals, in order to discern popular opinion. The paper concluded that the issue at hand was very divided among two different, but equally supportable, philosophies. In 1992, following the Discussion Paper, a report was prepared in an attempt to suggest how to proceed forward. This report discussed the necessity of consent for medical procedures, who decision-makers could be in cases of consent, reactions to the Eve decision, legislation in other geographic regions (including Britain, Australia, the United States, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec), as well as a summary of the 1990 Discussion Paper.

The report, entitled "Report on Sterilization and Legal Incompetence" concluded that due to the unique circumstances of the issue, the Commission was not able to provide one recommendation over another, especially since the issue was so tied to human rights. Instead, it was suggested that a decision would be "best handled directly by the Government and Legislature" (Manitoba, 1992, p.3).

The report can be accessed online here.

-Colette Leung

  • Manitoba. Law Reform Commission. (1992, January 27). Report on sterilization and legal incompetence. Winnipeg: Government of Manitoba.