Woman’s appeal for colorectal cancer surgery coverage on ‘humanitarian’ grounds dismissed by Manitoba board

A Manitoba appeal board has dismissed an appeal from a woman whose surgery to treat advanced colorectal cancer was cancelled because she is on a visitor’s record and is not considered eligible for provincial health coverage.

The woman came to Canada in February 2024 on a visitor record, which was later extended until October 2025 by federal immigration officials, according to a Jan. 2 decision by the Manitoba Health Appeal Board. 

She started experiencing “severe gastrointestinal pain” in December 2024 and she was diagnosed with advanced colorectal cancer, the decision said. 

According to the document, a surgery was scheduled for July 13, 2025, but it was cancelled because the woman didn’t have provincial health coverage. 

Manitoba Health denied the woman’s application for coverage in an Aug. 12 letter, pointing to her “ineligibility due to her legal status in Manitoba,” the decision said. 

She then filed an appeal with the Manitoba Health Appeal Board, asking for Manitoba Health’s decision to deny coverage be overturned on “humanitarian and compassionate grounds,” the document said. 

The woman’s child, who was acting as a representative before the board, claimed the woman wouldn’t have access to adequate care for advanced colorectal cancer in her home country, as “the health care system there does not adequately meet [her] needs.”

The woman, referred to as “the appellant” in the document, is not named in the filing. Their home country is also unspecified. 

Manitoba Health’s insurance division argued it is following the Health Services Insurance Act’s residency regulation and the woman is “not entitled to provincial health coverage” because she is in Canada on a visitor’s record, the document said.           

Health officials asked that the appeal be dismissed. 

Manitoba Health said the insurance act “does not provide for eligibility on humanitarian or compassionate grounds,” the document said, arguing neither the provincial health department nor the appeal board has the authority to grant coverage.

The board decided to dismiss the appeal. 

In its decision, the board wrote that the woman’s visitor residency status means that she is not entitled to health coverage. 

“The Board acknowledges that dismissing the appeal will have serious consequences for the Appellant and their family. However, the Board has no authority under the legislation to override the Act or its regulations on humanitarian or compassionate grounds,” the board wrote. 

“It is therefore compelled to dismiss the appeal.”