{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028503562945368172, 'fraction_numerical': 0.000791765637371338, 'mean_word_length': 4.990521327014218, '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}}
B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto.


 The Canadian Supreme Court held that the right of parents to choose or refuse medical treatment for their children based on religious beliefs is not a liberty included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The parents of S.B., a premature infant, consented to all medical treatment except blood transfusions, to which they objected as Jehovah's Witnesses. Because of a potentially life-threatening condition and a projected later surgery, S.B. was made a temporary ward of the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto in order to administer the blood. Section 7 of the Charter proclaims that "[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." The Chief Justice viewed parental autonomy as outside the concept of "liberty", because liberty had a physical connection or dimension specific to criminal justice. Four other judges, however, interpreted "liberty" not to mean unconstrained freedom, not mere freedom from physical restraint, and consequently under their view the state can intervene where parental decision making threatens a child's autonomy or health.
