if you die while your charter rights are violated, you cant sue.

W T F ?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/mans-charter-rights-died-with-him-wrha-132223648.html

"The health authority argues that if a person who claims their charter
rights have been violated dies while pursuing a claim, the claim cannot
continue."


Thats just, wow I dont even know what to say.

It's merely a legal maneuver.

In THIS case I don't believe his family should have standing to profit from this. From everything I've read to date his family abandoned him. If there is to be a financial penalty I'd want the award to go to an outreach program or some such thing...

Not profiting is one thing.

But the argument that there is lack of carter rights because he is dead is absurd.

Why would anyone sue the Manitoba Health Authority? The whole idea is ridiculous!

St Norberter wrote:Not profiting is one thing.

But the argument that there is lack of carter rights because he is dead is absurd.

yeah.. this... the profitting is whacked... but the argument should have someone fired.

Deank wrote:

St Norberter wrote:Not profiting is one thing.

But the argument that there is lack of cHarter rights because he is dead is absurd.

yeah.. this... the profitting is whacked... but the argument should have someone fired.

Agreed. There shouldn't be anyone cashing in on this, but the precident that it sets is dangerous. I don't see how his rights are any less relevant after death, when they were neglected/violated in life.

I see a certain amount of merit in the argument. If I'm dead, how can someone sue on my behalf??? If I die because of someone's negligence, then perhaps the argument can be made that my family (wife and kids) could sue for the expense of disposing of me (funeral costs), and I could even see an attempt to recover some benefit due to lost income, but not in the case of adult offspring.



We are not as litigous as our American friends, and generally a statement of claim is made to recover expenses.



What did Brian Sinclair's family actually lose (financially) as a result of his death?

The question for the court seems to be if a person's estate has the right to sue for breach of charter rights after that person dies, or does the charter's influence cease upon the death.

At least that the way I read it.

Who would determine who should act on behalf of someone's estate?

rosencrentz wrote:Why would anyone sue the Manitoba Health Authority? The whole idea is ridiculous!

I am surprised it did not happen a long time ago.

Freeman wrote:Who would determine who should act on behalf of someone's estate?

I reckon the courts will.

It is happening more today. When I asked my "free" Sundau 8AM coffee meeting lawyer about me suing because of "delay in treatment" he told me it wouldnt work. That one has to sue a Doctor , not the corporation.

I have the Regional health Authority's Act on my favourites section, but reading it and trying to figure out legal stuff is really for lawyers to do the research.

JTF wrote:The question for the court seems to be if a person's estate has the right to sue for breach of charter rights after that person dies, or does the charter's influence cease upon the death.

At least that the way I read it.

After having most of the day to dwell on it, this is what it seems to come down to. I wonder if there is precident in Canada for the estate to sue for violation of Charter Rights post-humously? The other question I have is whether, as the tone implies, all Charter violation cases be would be droped if the initiant were deceased while waiting for an outcome?

seems like a simple way to get around charter violations eh?

Does it make a difference if the violation of those charter rights led to
the person's death?

I can see them ceasing if an estate is looking to sue for something like denying employment that happened prior to and had no impact on the individual's death. But I think that if the violation of charter rights led to death, they should have the right to litigate.

Like so many things, legal and involving the wonderful Charter of Rights (Thanks, Pierre), the true issue is getting lost.



Did HSC, WRHA, its employees, etc screw up by not attending to this guy that spent 34 hours in the ER waiting room? Damn right.

Should someone, somehow be punished? Damn right #2.

Should the estranged family of this guy, who wasn't involved, didn't give a sh1t about him, benefit in any way from this tragedy? Absolutely not. But we (the taxpayers) will cough up how much our money to pay lawyers to fight both sides of this argument.



Theres alway the line to justify buying some expensive piece of medical equipment or installing a set of traffic lights or crosswalk to ask "How much is a life worth?" Why not just ask the SInclair family for an answer and get on with it instead of all this bullshit.

One thought...do we really know that his family was not concerned and trying to help him?

Just because his family wasn't around at the time of his death doesn't mean they weren't concerned.

Perhaps he was the one that kept them away. Do we have any solid information on his family background....other than speculation?

Just sayin'.

I recall an earlier article that he had virtually no contact with his family for some time. And even if he did, should they benefit financially in some way? This is surely not the case of the grieving widow with 4 young children who have lost their father and sole supporter.

It was well reported at the time that the gentleman's family had abandoned him.

This whole situation is ridiculous. Fix the problems at the hospital, fix the procedures. Move on.

But instead we have a family trying to cash in on this tragedy. IF they were so damned concerned for his wellbeing, why weren't they at the hospital with him when he was sick?

Hope they get nothing. Might learn to take better care of their family.

Deank wrote:seems like a simple way to get around charter violations eh?

Yes. The conspiracy theorist in me had strange visions of all sorts of corporations in litigation hell bumping off pain in the a$$ complainants.