While it is true that some of the devices and services that are listed in the legislation provide assistance for the same types of medical problems that the appellant faces, such as a lack of mobility and heart dysfunction, none of the provisions can, in my view, be fairly interpreted to apply to a general emergency response call system. In this regard, I agree with the decision of my colleague, Webb J., in Urdang v. The Queen, 2007 D.T.C. 1439.
"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.