The article can be accessed at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050207.wxcort0207/BNStory/National/

Quoting some excerpts from the article:
....
The case raises several questions that are as prickly as they are legally compelling. Are disabled people akin to damaged goods, capable of being rejected because they were not born in perfect condition? Should the wealthy be allowed to buy their way into Canada, when those of moderate means would be turned away?

....
Lawyers for both the federal government and the two families aim to tap into different values the current Supreme Court bench has frequently espoused in recent years. The families will appeal to the court's willingness to come to the aid of vulnerable groups. Federal lawyers, on the other hand, will play strongly to the court's recent pattern of declining to interfere in the way social programs are administered by government.

....
It also argues that if prospective immigrants are to be rejected based on the extra drain they may place on Canadian health and social services, then heavy smokers and unsafe drivers should be barred as well. It says that the rejection of those with defects is part a lingering attitude that denies the opportunities and services to a vulnerable group.