Canadian Man Tries to Euthanize His Wife Without Her Consent

LINK

Roxanne Egan-Elliott reported that Justice Bradford Smith removed a Canadian man’s power to make health-care decisions for his 77-year-old wife with advanced Alzheimer’s after the court learning that the man intended to end her life and then take his own.

The article that was published by the Times Colonist on December 23, 2025 reports that a woman known as E.W. was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in 2017 and her husband has pushed to have her killed by euthanasia, without her consent. The article states:

E.W. was assessed as eligible for medical assistance in dying in 2020, but by September 2021, a doctor determined in a second assessment that she was ineligible because her condition had progressed to a point that she no longer had sufficient insight into dementia to consent to MAID.

E.W. also told the doctor at that point that she was not interested in receiving MAID in circumstances related to worsening memory or confusion, the court decision says.

Her husband, T.W., is a “strong advocate” for MAID and has told various people that if he and E.W. are eligible for MAID, they intend to receive it.

He has also told family, friends and Island Health staff that if his wife becomes ineligible, he intends to end her life and take his own, the decision says.

Clearly, her husband was considering murdering his wife and then dying by suicide.

The court heard that E.W. never agreed to her husbands “death plan.” Egan-Elliott reported:

“On the contrary, E.W. was understandably upset by it,” and told their daughter that T.W. “was trying to kill her,” the decision says.

Island Health increased the frequency of its wellness checks and clinical assessments of E.W. after receiving a report from the doctor who assessed E.W. for MAID that she had said she was not ready to die, and that if her husband learned she was ineligible for MAID, he planned to carry out the death plan, which he referred to as “dignicide.”

The article reports that in January 2022 that Island Health obtained emergency powers to remove E.W. from the couple’s home and to place her in a long-term care facility for protection.

Egan-Elliott reported that the husband continued to inappropriately treat his wife. He would call the care facility every day, against her wishes, at 6:30 am to wake her up, she was often dressed in tattered clothing and shoes, that TW provided, including worn-out men’s work boots, that he insisted that she wear, and more.

Justice Bradford Smith decision stated:

“Having regard to what is in E.W.’s best interest and her lack of cognitive capacity, I find that the only currently tenable solution that will protect E.W. from risk of death or grievous harm is to remove T.W.’s authority as her personal representative,”

Isabel Grant, a law professor at the University of British Columbia’s Peter A. Allard School of Law, told Lisa Steacy for CTV news on December 22 that:

“The death plan is contrary to our murder laws. And I think it’s really important not to have us talk about the murder of elderly people as some slightly improper form of MAID. That’s not what it is. It’s murder. Just because she has a disability does not transform this into something else. This case demonstrates how our MAID regime has normalized death as a response to disability for the elderly.”

Steacy also reported Grant as stating:

Grant also said she finds it troubling the decision does not indicate that any moves were made by any authorities to limit or prevent T.W.’s contact with his wife in light of his seemingly unabashed professions of his intent to kill her, or that there was any discussion about how or whether his actions would warrant a criminal investigation or charge.

The relationship between T.W. and E.W. is also one with all the hallmarks of coercive control—a form of intimate partner violence that Canada is taking steps toward criminalizing, Grant pointed out.

In that context, Grant said the repeated references to T.W. advocating for MAID for his wife, his apparent attempts to find a way consent to it on her behalf, and his plan to kill her if MAID was not available are particularly troubling.

Grant’s concerns are correct. E.W.’s life was directly threatened by her husband. E.W. has Alzheimer’s and needs support, but her husband is not only controlling her but doing so in an abusive manner.

E.W. not only needed her husband removed as her medical decision maker but he should be barred from seeing her as a protection for her. The husband is abusive and is willing to kill her.

This article might be seen as proving that the law protected E.W. from her husband but considering that Québec has approved euthanasia by advanced request and the federal government is considering expanding euthanasia to advanced request, the situation may have been different if advanced requests were permitted.