Morgentaler (1988)
Issue:  does abortion section of Crim Code (251) violate s. 7?
5 to 2:  yes, but 3 different opinions:
Dickson, Lamer: 251 violates sec of person; inadequate procedural safeguards.  No Dn of “health.”  S1 Obj:  “life and health” of preg women.  Fails rational connection test.
Beetz, Estey:  Violates sec of person; hosp requirement unnecessary; committee too restrictive.  “Health” Dn not a problem.  S1 Obj:  “protection of fetus.”  Fails rational connection test.
Wilson:  Violates sec of person, and defects substantive.  Also, violates “liberty.”  No fundamental justice.  S.1 Obj:  protect fetus.  Can’t limit fr of conscience during first trimester.
McIntyre:  defer to Parliament (LeDain agrees).

Borowski (1989)

Issue:  Does s. 251 violate the rights of the fetus?  B. wanted declaration that “everyone” in s. 7 and “every indiv” in s.15 includes the fetus.
Unanimous decision written by Sopinka:
Borowski’s case is moot.  Developed a test for mootness:
is there a live controversy?  If not, should court hear case anyway?
Judicial economy
Traditional role of jud.
Issue of standing:  Borowski no longer had it

Winnipeg Child & Family Services (1997)

Issue:  can a judge use a common law remedy to protect a fetus who is endangered?
7 to 2:  no.  A fetus is not a legal person.  Only the legislature can change this.
Dissenting judges:  Common law out of date; courts must fix it to bring into line with current medical knowledge.  The “slippery slope” can be avoided.