This paper explores the Federal Court of Appeal’s (FCA) decision from July 4, 2014 that opposed the changes to the Interim Federal Health Program that traditionally provided a wide range of health care coverage for refugees and asylum seekers in Canada. Using a case-study approach, I will explore the various perspectives, outline policy implications and analyze what changes still need to be made from both federal and provincial governments. I will argue that Canada’s current conservative government is using a neoliberal lens to justify their harsh, decision-making regarding this issue and it is an approach that disregards fundamental human rights. However, it is clear that the humanitarian approach that is used by both the advocates as well as Justice MacTavish is the most popular amongst refugees, asylum seekers, academics, health care professionals and many Canadian citizens who oppose these changes. In my analysis, I use both critical frame and discourse analysis to unpack the various perspectives on this debate and explain how the stakeholders have framed their argument to offer a holistic view for understanding this unprecedented court ruling.