Rules and regulations referred to
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rule 14.05(3)(d)
APPLICATION for declaratory relief.
Andrew Faith, for applicant.
Joseph Chang, for respondent Attorney General of Canada.
Josh Hunter, for respondent Attorney General of Ontario.
PERELL J.: —
 Two physicians have concluded that AB meets the criteria
of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 for a medically assisted
death, and one of them was prepared to provide the assistance.
However, when a predecessor physician did not agree that AB
met the criteria of the Criminal Code — because he felt that
AB’s natural death was not reasonably foreseeable — no physician was prepared to offer her medical assistance in dying.
The physician who had been prepared to provide assistance,
although still of the view that AB qualified, declined to provide
assistance because of a fear of being charged with murder.
 Although she has qualified, no physicians are prepared to
assist AB with a medically assisted death, which is her constitutionally protected civil and human right, unless the court grants
a declaration that would protect them from criminal charges. AB
has applied for that declaration. The position of Ontario and
Canada is that the declaration should be refused, but they take
no position on whether AB meets the criteria for medical assistance in dying. They also submit that granting a declaration
would improperly interfere with prosecutorial discretion by purporting to predetermine criminal liability.
 It appears that AB is already eligible for medical assistance in dying, but Ontario and Canada are technically correct
that it is not the court’s role to confirm what her existing constitutional rights are should she wish to exercise them. Ontario
and Canada may also be correct about the issue of court interference with prosecutorial discretion, but I need not decide
that point because what I propose will not interfere with prosecutorial discretion.
 AB’s heartbreaking application is misconceived. Ontario’s
and Canada’s response is as unhelpful as it is technically correct.
 The court cannot grant AB the declaration that she seeks.
However, the court can do something, which is to address the
real problem, which is a matter of interpreting and explaining