The appellant, an anti-abortion activist, appealed her convictions for mischief and breach of probation arising from her attendance at an abortion clinic.
She argued that a foetus is a human being and sought to challenge the constitutionality of section 223 of the Criminal Code, asserting defences of defence of others, necessity, and mistake of fact.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision to decline a full evidentiary hearing on the biological status of a foetus, as binding appellate jurisprudence establishes that a foetus does not possess legal personhood or Charter rights.
The court also affirmed that the appellant's proposed defences were unavailable in law and that her probation conditions were reasonable.
