This followed the 1988 decision R. v. Morgentaler, which had struck down the federal abortion law as a breach of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Even here, the Court limited itself by not considering the issue of whether abortion relates to peace, order and good government, which would definitely make it federal jurisdiction.

The Court then quoted Nova Scotia's Hansard, which reinforced the notion that the provincial government saw Morgentaler's clinics as a "public evil which should be eliminated" and minimized the argument that the law had been meant to combat privatization.

In his book Constitutional Law of Canada, constitutional scholar Peter Hogg referred to this Morgentaler decision as "remarkable," noting that the regulation of the procedures besides abortion had been struck down after the Court had referred to them as a "smokescreen" for the "true purpose of the legislation."

In Hogg's view, the Court had done this under the doctrine of colourability, which holds that a law designed to look like it was enacted within the powers of the relevant legislative body, but in fact attempting to regulate a matter within another level of government's authority, should be struck down.