Not necessarily. I notice you're from the US, so I'll point out that our "rights" are a lot more flexible than yours. Section 1 of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms basically allows reasonable restrictions of any Charter rights (the key being reasonable).

This is why even though the parents religious and parental rights were violated in that 1995 case (sec 2 & 7), the SC ruled that section 1 allowed the Child Welfare Act to override those rights. It did rule that under sec 7, the parents were required to be given a hearing first. (In that case, there was no medical emergency, so there's a loophole.)

In this case, BC's version of the Child Welfare Act allows the gov to seize & treat children IF there is a danger to the child's life, without a hearing. The judge likely ruled that refusing emergency medical treatment likely constitutes a danger to the child's life. (A hearing is required for all other medical treatment that parents refuse.)

So it's not whether the doctors acted illegally, it's whether BC's law is a reasonable restriction of rights under Section 1.

2 things will be argued before the court. 1) Were the children's lives in danger? (alternative treatments may play a part in arguing one way or the other) 2) If yes, is the BC Child, Family and Community Service Act Sec 29 & 30 a reasonable restriction of parental rights under Sec. 1 of the Charter?