|
Newsletter
|
Donate
Long-term care advocates “shocked and disappointed” after court refuses to step in on Orchard Villa license extension
Posted: March 15, 2025
(March 14, 2025) By: Durham Radio News
The Ontario Health Coalition (OHC) is expressing disappointment with the results of two key legal cases against Queen’s Park and the for-profit long-term care industry.
The advocacy group had been challenging the province’s decision to grant a license extension for the operators of Pickering’s Orchard Villa building.
As well, the group tried to challenge a bill that charges certain patients $400 daily if they refuse to be sent to long-term care homes that they haven’t chosen.
The coalition noted Thursday that it does not have the funds to appeal either result. However, it will continue to advocate for policy changes on the provincial level.
Orchard Villa
The OHC was seeking a judicial review into a 30-year license extension that was granted to Southbridge Care Homes, the owner of Orchard Villa. The operators are aiming to demolish the main building and construct a new, larger facility on-site.
Orchard Villa was hard-hit during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020; the military would later allege that there were severe health violations.
“We will continue to fight for the right to compassionate and humane treatment for the elderly,” said Natalie Mehra, the OHC’s executive director. “For the families whose loved ones have suffered and died in Orchard Villa, we are so sorry. We share your heartbreak and frustration that there has been no justice and no accountability, and that the court dismissed this case despite the requirements of the legislation that were supposed to protect the public.”
“I am gravely disappointed in the court’s decision to dismiss our case,” Cathy Parkes, daughter of Paul Parkes, a resident who died at Orchard Villa. “It was my hope that the court would review the past conduct of the Orchard Villa and determine that the granting of a 30-year licence was not warranted to a long-term care home with such a horrible track record. […] The court’s statement that I do not have any future interest in expansion of Southbridge’s Orchard Villa couldn’t be further from the truth; the statement would imply that the families who lost their loved ones in Orchard Villa have no care about the fate of other people’s lives. Bill 7 also ensures that the statement from the courts can never be true.”
Hospital stay charges
Bill 7, titled the More Beds, Better Care Act, affects patients who are classified as ‘Alternate Level of Care.’ It allows health care planners to decide how eligible a hospital patient is for long-term care, and then authorize them for admission into a temporary home without their consent. The patient could later be moved into a preferred facility once a spot opens up.
While the bill was making its way through the legislature, government officials argued it would free up acute care beds.
Patients who refuse to go into a facility that isn’t of their choosing can be charged $400 per day.
The OHC launched a charter challenge, although the court wound up upholding the bill’s constitutionality.
“We are shocked and disappointed by the court ruling and we are very sorry not to be able to appeal,” said Mehra. “These cases are enormously costly and take a lot of resources to gather expert evidence. […] The court has told us that we don’t even have the right to be in court, even though the people most affected have no other recourse or access to justice. If we lose on appeal, the court can order us pay the legal fees of the government.”
“For the families who provided affidavits to the court, the cost of $400 per day was absolutely prohibitive,” she added. “It resulted in their loved ones being forced into long-term care homes that they did not want to go to. They described the hardship and suffering that resulted, including the increased use of drugs as a restraint, living in a room that is dark all the time, little to no programming, inadequate physiotherapy, inadequate staffing resulting in wait times of an hour-and-a-half to be toileted, and the attendant lack of dignity not to mention health care consequence of these. These are the conditions and consequences that gave rise to our decision to take this matter to court. These issues continue to impact families who are coerced under Bill 7 into long-term care homes that are too far away or that cannot provide decent and humane care.”
