The McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) sought permission earlier this year to stop all the 42-year-old woman's treatments and give her palliative care after concluding she had no chance of neurological recovery.

Her husband opposed the change, asking the hospital to keep his wife alive long enough for her to be transferred home to Nigeria at the end of their children's school year.

Superior Court Justice Florence Lucas sided with the husband, writing that the advantages of the hospital's plan did not outweigh the rights of the woman, described as Mrs. S, to die in her home country.

"In the end, the court concludes that the beneficial effects of the care plan do not outweigh Mrs. S.'s fundamental rights to live, to be cared for and ultimately, to pass away in her country," the judge wrote in a decision dated April 18 that was recently published online.

"Given the exceptional circumstances of this case, the applicants' demand for care must be dismissed."

The court documents say the Nigerian-born lawyer moved to Montreal with her two children for graduate school in 2021, and had no health concerns until she suddenly took ill and collapsed in a hospital emergency room in July 2023. The document says she experienced "a prolonged cardiorespiratory arrest, requiring resuscitation, and reanimation [was] achieved after a prolonged period of time."

Hospital says approach minimizes suffering

Her husband, who flew from Nigeria to be at her side, argued that his wife did not have family in Quebec, that she hadn't planned to stay there and that she would have wanted to return to Nigeria if given the choice.

The plaintiffs — the hospital and a doctor — argued repatriation was against the patient's best interest, would likely cost the husband more than $150,000 and that "some might argue that, in the meantime, another patient is being deprived of a place and care in hospital," according to the decision.

They said their plan to remove life support and administer palliative care as soon as possible was the best one to alleviate pain and suffering.

Lucas, however, concluded the hospital's plan "denies Mrs. S. rights of liberty, autonomy and dignity" by depriving her the ability to return to her country. The judge also found the husband had taken all the necessary steps to complete the transfer while ensuring the children, who are in elementary and high school, could finish their school year.

The judge also noted there appeared to be "no emergency" when it came to removing life support, noting the patient had been stable for eight months and did not show any real signs of suffering, "considering her minimally conscious state."

According to the court document, the transfer had been scheduled for June 28.

The MUHC said Tuesday that for confidentiality reasons, it could not provide further details on the case. In a statement, it said that resorting to judicial arbitration is a last resort when the hospital and patient representative cannot resolve an impasse through other means.

"We understand the emotional impact of these situations on family members and staff, and are committed to acting with compassion and diligence to meet everyone's needs," spokesperson Christine Bouthillier wrote in an email.

The Canadian Press could not reach the lawyer listed as representing the patient and her husband.