Law Problem Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Law Problem - Essay Example Jean-Guy Tremblay as the respondent. The judges present at the hearing were Brian Dickson C.J. and Lamer, Wilson, Gerard La Forest, Claire, L'Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin The Facts The parties in this case were in a relationship which ended after five months of cohabitation. This was because of the beating which Tremblay used to hand Daigle, despite knowing of her pregnancy. At the time of separation, the appellant was 18 weeks pregnant. She, however, decided to undertake an abortion following the separation. The respondent sought an injunction from the court seeking to prevent the mother from having the abortion. The father of the unborn child wanted the court to grant his unborn child right to life. The trial judge in this court found that a foetus is a "human being" under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. He therefore concluded that the foetus should be accorded a "right to life" under s. 1 (Tremblay, para. 2). Through considering this, the ju dge ruled that the respondent had the necessary â€Å"interest† to make the request for an injunction. The Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms provides for the protection of a foetus before birth (Art. 945). In this article, mechanisms for the protection of a foetus are provided. The article does not, however, accord any additional rights and freedoms to the foetus. The Supreme Court considered these facts before rendering a decision on the appeal. The Anglo- Canadian law does recognize a foetus to be a â€Å"human being† with the aim of protecting its future. It however, goes ahead to define that the rights and freedoms enjoyed by humans can only be accorded to a foetus when it is born alive. This meant that the foetus had to be born first for it to enjoy the privileges enjoyed by other â€Å"humans†. The father at this point was seeking to protect the unborn baby. The foetus is not in a position to defend itself in a court of law. The protection of a f oetus can only be done by a third party who has an interest in the future of the baby. The lower court based its ruling on the fact that the father had interest on the baby and was acting as a third party to protect the foetus. The ruling by a lower court awarding the respondent in this Supreme Court case injunction is what led to the appeal. The court of appeal, however, dismissed the appellant’s case and upheld the injunction that had been earlier awarded. Ms. Daigle, the appellant, then went on and appealed in the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court made its decision, she left the province of Quebec and went to the United States of America to terminate the pregnancy. Prior proceedings In the Quebec superior court, the father was the plaintiff while the mother was defendant. The father sought injunction to bar the mother from having an abortion. The court concluded that a foetus is a â€Å"human being† under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. It the refore should enjoy a â€Å"right to life† and a â€Å"right to assistance† under ss. 1 and 2 respectively. While recognizing the inconvenience that would be caused by the injunction, the court decided the foetus’ rights should prevail in the situation (Tremblay, para. 3 & 4). The defendant appealed to the Quebec court of appeal and the case was dismissed for two reasons. First,