The appellant, acting in person and representing her deceased husband's estate, appealed a decision finding that the former six-month sobriety requirement for liver transplants was moot and that the current eligibility criteria for alcohol-associated liver disease patients do not infringe sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the mootness of the former regime and the constitutionality of the current criteria, finding the criteria were based on medical evidence rather than stereotyping.
The court allowed the appeal relating to the Living Donor Criteria, holding that its constitutionality should only be decided in a live dispute.
A dissenting judge would have dismissed the application entirely on the basis that the self-represented appellant lacked the capacity to bring forward a complex constitutional claim under the public interest standing test.
