The Federal Court decision to strike down Ottawa’s cutbacks to health-care coverage for refugee claimants is just the beginning of what could be a long judicial battle.

In a surprisingly strongly worded statement Friday, the federal court ruled Ottawa’s cutbacks to health-care coverage for refugee claimants are unconstitutional because they constitute “cruel and unusual” treatment.

The decision was quickly lauded by many, including the Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and Justice for Children and Youth — groups that, along with two refugee claimants, challenged the law.

But within hours Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said Ottawa would be appealing the decision.

“We remain committed to putting the interests of Canadians and genuine refugees first,” he said in a statement.

“Failed claimants and those from safe countries like the U.S. or Europe should not be entitled to better health care than Canadians receive. We will vigorously defend the interests of Canadian taxpayers and the integrity of our fair and generous refugee determination system.”

Ottawa trimmed medical benefits for newcomers in 2012, leaving most immigrants with basic, essential health care but without supplementals, such as vision and dental care.

However, rejected refugee claimants — and refugee claimants from countries the government considers safe — are currently eligible for care only when they pose a threat to public health.

The changes have saved hundreds of millions of dollars at all levels of government, Alexander said later at his constituency office in Ajax.

How the ruling will affect refugee claimants across the country remains unclear for now. However, doctors in Ontario and Quebec will continue to provide health care for refugee claimants.

“All of the doctors I know who treat refugee claimants do not turn them away,” Philip Berger, the medical director at St. Michael’s Hospital's inner city health program and a founding member of Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, said at a news conference.

“However, we know a majority of physicians in clinics in various cities across Canada who will not accept refugee claimants as patients because they have no confidence in the federal government.”

Despite news of the appeal Berger and others were buoyed by the federal court’s decision.

“It is a good day for pregnant refugee women and sick refugee children who have been picked on and bullied for over two years by the federal Conservative government,” said Berger, who believes the government’s cuts had been “devastating.”

The Federal Court decision “makes clear that a government cannot deliberately subject human beings to physical and emotional suffering as a means of punishing them for seeking refugee protection,” said Audrey Macklin, professor and chair in human rights law at the University of Toronto, and executive member of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

“With today’s decision, the Federal Court has recognized that the government’s cuts to refugee health care violate the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, without any lawful justification,” said Lorne Waldman, lead counsel on the case and president of the lawyers association.

The “ruling confirms what the Ontario government has said all along: we support a health-care system that reflects the principles of fairness and compassion, providing the right care for those who need it,” added Ontario Health Minister Dr. Eric Hoskins.

Liberal MP John McCallum, the party’s immigration critic, praised the courts for rejecting what he called an “extraordinarily cruel and mean-spirited” policy.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

NDP critic for Citizenship and Immigration Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe also praised the ruling.

“Conservatives have repeatedly played politics with the lives of vulnerable people,” she said.

Justice Anne Mactavish wrote the changes put the health of children of refugee claimants at risk.

“I have found that affected individuals are being subjected to “treatment” as contemplated by Section 12 of the Charter and that this treatment is indeed “cruel and unusual.”

Mactavish wrote in her 268-page decision: “The 2012 modifications to the Interim Federal Health Program potentially jeopardize the health, the safety and indeed the very lives of these innocent and vulnerable children in a manner that shocks the conscience and outrages our standards of decency.”

She also said that the changes announced two years ago to the interim program create two tiers of health coverage between refugees who are from designated countries of origin and those who are not.

“It puts their lives at risk and perpetuates the stereotypical view that they are cheats and queue-jumpers, that their refugee claims are ‘bogus,’ and that they have come to Canada to abuse the generosity of Canadians,” Mactavish wrote.

Government lawyers had argued the new rules bring health benefits for newcomers in line with what other Canadians receive and deter those who would abuse the health care system.

They argued refugee claimants can still access health care through other programs, including those put in place by some provinces to reinstate access to essential and emergency care.

With files from The Canadian Press