TORONTO – An Ontario judge has denied a motion that would have allowed a woman who suffers solely from a mental illness to apply for a medically assisted death.
Claire Brosseau, a 49-year-old Toronto resident, filed a motion in May seeking a constitutional exemption from a law that currently prevents people from applying for MAID on the basis of mental illness alone.
“It is yet another barrier put in front of me that is forcing me to extend my suffering, and yet another example of governmental systems telling people with mental illnesses that we do not have the same rights nor the same autonomy as others,” Brosseau said in a statement Thursday in response to the decision.
“Canada is clearly delivering a message. Despite its promise to be a country with equal rights, it is not. It doesn’t value bodily autonomy, or at least not for a certain kind of person, and it appears that I am one.”
Brosseau’s legal team argued in court on July 20 that she required emergency relief from persistent suffering that began when she was a child and has only intensified over the last 35 years.
She says she’s been treated for bipolar disorder, an eating disorder, substance use disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Canadians are not eligible to apply for MAID on the basis of mental illness alone.
That aspect of the government’s MAID legislation has been highly controversial since it was put in place as a temporary exclusion in 2021.
Justice Carissima Mathen said in a decision Thursday that although she is dismissing this motion, she is ordering the Attorney General to respond to a constitutional challenge Brosseau launched in August 2024.
The case has not commenced in court, which ultimately led Brosseau to launch her own urgent motion.
Mathen said the two parties must schedule next steps for the charter challenge within 14 days.
“I will make orders to ensure that the underlying application moves forward more quickly,” Mathen said in her decision.
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice said that it agrees with the court’s decision that the legal requirements for granting a special exemption or pause of the law were not met in this case.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 3, 2026.
