{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01485148514851485, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0024752475247524753, 'mean_word_length': 5.175572519083969, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Supreme disagreement: The highest court affirms an empty right

In a narrow and contentious 4:3 decision in the appeal case of Chaoulli v. Quebec (Atttorney General), the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down Quebec laws prohibiting the sale of private health insurance on the basis that they violate Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. This paper provides critical comment on the reasoning of the Court's decision and highlights some key difficulties of the decision as illustrated through experiences in other OECD countries. The paper concludes with the possible implications of the Chaoulli decision moving forward finding that without a flourishing private sector the right to purchase private insurance is meaningless, as such the real effect of this decision is to protect an empty right.