As I understand the applicants' argument, it relies in part on the analysis of the distinction between being "unable" or "unwilling" to avail oneself of state protection in Ward v. Canada (Attorney General), 1993 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689. The applicants contend that the purpose of paragraph 97(1)(b)(iv) is to avoid stigmatizing states as human rights abusers which are genuinely incapable of providing adequate health care. Where a state has the capacity but chooses not to apply it to its residents who cannot afford to access health care, the exclusion should not apply.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.