Once again, Canada may be on the verge of breaking new ground in a case involving the decriminalization of assisted suicide. Back in 2003 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 preventing an Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) patient, Sue Rodriguez, from having recourse to assisted suicide. This time, a British Columbia (BC) court ruled that Gloria Taylor, an ALS patient who wants to choose her moment of death, had the right to decide when. However, the ruling does not change the law for all future patients—just for Mrs. Taylor.

According to the BC court ruling, the Canadian federal government has a year to change the existing law to allow assisted suicide. Or, the case can once again make it to the Supreme Court. The Canadian court system, similar to U.S. courts, has been known to provide rulings with far-reaching social, cultural and political ramifications. Access to a therapeutic abortion, gay marriage and decriminalization of marijuana for simple possession and medical use are examples of the judicial audacity of our Canadian courts in recent years.

Canada’s Supreme Court judges are chosen by the prime minister, then scrutinized—but not confirmed—by the legislature as in the U.S. Canadians have benefitted from enlightened judgments that make Canada a leader in advancing the rights of individuals and breaking new ground. The adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights in 1982 has only added to the Court’s scope and range in decision-making.

This case has already stirred the waters.  Some experts like Margaret Somerville, director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, argue that the BC court ruling represents a slippery slope. It seems to place individual autonomy above all other values, says Somerville.

Others counter that legislation in the Netherlands, Belgium and in U.S. states such as Oregon, show that conditions must be met to avoid abuse and respect the rights of the disabled and therefore, allow assisted suicide. The case of Taylor is interesting because she is not in a terminal phase and does not want to die. She merely wants the right to choose and decriminalization would facilitate her wish.

A Native American group in British Columbia has won a ruling by the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) that will likely lead the federal government to defend its record on indigenous land rights at an international tribunal that the commission will set up later this year.

The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group, whose traditional territory consisted of nearly 750,000 acres of land on the east coast of Vancouver Island, contends that Canada has continuously violated tribal members’ human rights since it converted the tribe’s land to private property in an 1884 land grant to a railway company. According the group’s website, their goal is to secure the titles to tribal lands and regain control over local resources. The group is also seeking compensation for the territory it claims was illegally taken from its members.

At the heart of the case is the issue of whether the current British Columbia treaty process and Canada's judicial system are effective in protecting Hul'qumi'num land rights. Observers note that the ruling could ultimately change the future of the land claims treaty process in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada.