conflicts between their own interests and their patients’
interests: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, The
Practice Guide (Toronto: CPSO, September 2007), at pp. 4-5, 7;
McInerney v. MacDonald,  2 S.C.R. 138,  S.C.J.
No. 57, at p. 149 S.C.R.; and Norberg v. Wynrib,  2 S.C.R.
226,  S.C.J. No. 60, at pp. 270-72, 274 S.C.R. The practice
of a profession devoted to service of the public necessarily gives
rise to moral and ethical choices. The issues raised in this proceeding present difficult choices for religious physicians who
object to the Policies, but they do have choices. While the solution
is not a perfect one for some physicians, such as the individual
appellants, it is not a perfect one for their patients either. They
will lose the personal support of their physicians at a time when
they are most vulnerable. Ordinarily, where a conflict arises
between a physician’s interest and a patient’s interest, the
interest of the patient prevails. The default expectation is that
the physician is to personally provide their patient with all clinically appropriate services or to provide a formal referral.
Patients expect that their physicians will do so. However, the
Policies do not require this. They represent a compromise. They
strike a reasonable balance between patients’ interests and
physicians’ Charter-protected religious freedom. In short, they
are reasonable limits prescribed by law that are demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society.
 For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal. Costs may
be addressed by written submissions in the event they have not