Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., (1997) 96 B.C.A.C. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 09, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 96 B.C.A.C. 81 (SCC)

Eldridge v. B.C. (A.G.) (1997), 96 B.C.A.C. 81 (SCC);

    155 W.A.C. 81

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [1997] B.C.A.C. TBEd. OC.008

Robin Susan Eldridge, John Henry Warren and Linda Jane Warren (appellants) v. The Attorney General of British Columbia and The Medical Services Commission (respondents) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General of Manitoba, The Attorney General of Newfoundland, The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, The Disabled Women's Network Canada, The Charter Commission on Poverty Issues, The Canadian Association of the Deaf, The Canadian Hearing Society and The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (intervenors)

(24896)

Indexed As: Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

October 9, 1997.

Summary:

Deaf persons applied for declarations that, inter alia, the Medical and Health Care Services Act and the Hospital Insurance Act violated s. 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by failing to provide inter­preting services for the deaf as a benefit. The trial judge, in a decision reported in 75 B.C.L.R.(2d) 68, dismissed the application. The deaf persons appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 59 B.C.A.C. 254; 98 W.A.C. 254, dismissed the appeal. The deaf persons appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The court held that the legislation did not violate equality rights, but the hos­pitals and Commission, exercising a dis­cretion in furtherance of a specific govern­ment program, did discriminate against deaf persons. Discrimination was based on the adverse effects of the facially neutral benefit scheme. The decision not to fund sign lan­guage interpretation was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter, because it failed the minimal im­pairment test. The appropriate remedy was to declare the failure to fund unconstitu­tional and to direct the hospitals and Com­mission to comply with s. 15(1). The court suspended the effectiveness of the declaration for six months to permit the government to explore its options and for­mulate an appropriate response.

Civil Rights - Topic 910

Discrimination - Adverse effect or indirect discrimination - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5660.4 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5516

Equality and protection of the law - Tests for inequality - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the general analytical framework of s. 15(1) of the Charter - The court stated that "a person claiming a violation of s. 15(1) must first establish that, because of a distinction drawn between the claimant and others, the claimant has been denied 'equal protection' or 'equal benefit' of the law. Secondly, the claimant must show that the denial consti­tutes discrimination on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds listed in s. 15(1) or one analogous thereto. Before con­cluding that a distinction is discriminatory, some members of this court have held that it must be shown to be based on an ir­relevant personal characteristic ... Under this view, s. 15(1) will not be infringed unless the distinguished personal charac­teristic is irrelevant to the functional values underlying the law, provided that those values are not themselves discrimi­natory. Others have suggested that rele­vance is only one factor to be considered in determining whether a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground is discriminatory ... In my view, in the present case the same result is reached regardless of which of these approaches is applied." - See paragraph 58.

Civil Rights - Topic 5660.4

Equality and protection of the law - The deaf - British Columbia legislation did not require funding for sign language inter­preters for deaf persons receiving funded medical services - Hospitals and the Medical Services Commission, in exer­cising their discretion to allocate global health care funding, chose not to fund interpreters (i.e., legislation did not pre­clude such funding) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation did not violate equality rights (Charter, s. 15(1)) - However, the hospitals and Commission, exercising a discretion in furtherance of a specific government program, did dis­criminate against deaf persons - Effective communication was an indispensable part of the provision of medical services - Once the state provided the benefit (medi­cal services), it was obligated not to dis­criminate against those seeking the benefit - Discrimination was based on the adverse effects of the facially neutral benefit scheme - The court cautioned that inter­preters were not necessarily needed for "effective communication" in all medical situations - The decision not to fund sign language interpretation was not a reason­able limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter, because it failed the minimal impairment test.

Civil Rights - Topic 8311

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Nongovernmental or pri­vate interference - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Charter applied to private entities, such as hospitals and medical service commissions, insofar as they acted in furtherance of a specific governmental program or policy - The purpose was to preclude governments from escaping Charter scrutiny by delegating implementation of their policies and pro­grams to private entities - The court stated that "while a hospital may be autonomous in their day-to-day operations, they act as agents for the government in providing the specific medical services set out in the Act. The Legislature, upon defining its objective as guaranteeing access to a range of medical services, cannot evade its obli­gations under s. 15(1) of the Charter to provide those services without discrimi­nation by appointing hospitals to carry out that objective." - Further, where a Medi­cal Services Commission was delegated a discretion to determine what constituted a "medically required" service, the Commis­sion acted in a governmental capacity and was also subject to Charter scrutiny - See paragraphs 35 to 52.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5660.4 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8668

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - What consti­tutes a breach of s. 15 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5516 ].

Cases Noticed:

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 20].

James v. Cowan, [1932] A.C. 542 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,031; 40 C.R.R. 100, refd to. [para. 22].

Schneider v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 112; 43 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 24].

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 25].

Ontario Film & Video Appreciation Society and Ontario Board of Censors, Re (1984), 2 O.A.C. 388; 5 D.L.R.(4th) 766 (C.A.), affing. (1983), 147 D.L.R.(3d) 58 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 2 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 37].

Harrison v. University of British Columbia; Connell v. University of British Columbia, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 451; 120 N.R. 1; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 55; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 681; 52 B.C.L.R.(2d) 105; 2 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 37].

Stoffman et al. v. Vancouver General Hospital et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 483; 118 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 37].

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 37].

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Em­ployees' Union et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 39].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 53].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 36 M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, refd to. [para. 53].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 53].

United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; 23 Q.A.C. 182; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 53].

Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158; 127 N.R. 1; 94 Sask.R. 161; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 16, refd to. [para. 53].

Minister of Home Affairs v. Fisher, [1980] A.C. 319 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 8; 69 C.R.(3d) 97; 39 C.R.R. 306, refd to. [para. 54].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 693; 13 R.F.L.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 54].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161; 12 R.F.L.(4th) 201; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 54].

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 58].

Thibaudeau v. Minister of National Reve­nue, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627; 182 N.R. 1; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 58].

Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358; 208 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 59].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1; 24 C.R.(4th) 281, refd to. [para. 62].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 9 C.C.E.L. 185; 17 Admin. L.R. 89; 86 C.L.L.C. 17,002, refd to. [para. 62].

Washington, Mayor of Washington, D.C. v. Davis (1976), 426 U.S. 229 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].

Arlington Heights (Village) v. Metropoli­tan Housing Development Corp. (1977), 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].

Massachusetts (Personal Administrator) v. Feeney (1979), 442 U.S. 256 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].

Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Human Rights Commission (Alta.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489; 113 N.R. 161; 111 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 63].

Renaud v. Board of Education of Central Okanagan No. 23 and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 523, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970; 141 N.R. 185; 13 B.C.A.C. 245; 24 W.A.C. 245; [1992] 6 W.W.R. 193, refd to. [para. 63].

Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; 33 N.R. 361; 114 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 70].

Hopp v. Lepp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192; 32 N.R. 145, refd to. [para. 70].

Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 358, refd to. [para. 73].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 16 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 73].

Native Women's Association of Canada et al. v. Canada et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627; 173 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 73].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 92 C.L.L.C. 14,036; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 73].

Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 74].

Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 23 N.R. 527, refd to. [para. 74].

Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243; [1994] 1 C.T.C. 40; 110 D.L.R.(4th) 470; 19 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 94 D.T.C. 6001, refd to. [para. 75].

Canadian Odeon Theatres Ltd. v. Human Rights Commission (Sask.) and Huck (1985), 39 Sask.R. 81; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 93 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1985] 1 S.C.R. vi; 60 N.R. 240; 42 Sask.R. 240, refd to. [para. 78].

Howard v. University of British Columbia (1993), 18 C.H.R.R. D/353 (B.C.H.R.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

Centre de la communauté sourde du Montréal Métropolitain Inc. v. Régie du logement, [1996] R.J.Q. 1776 (T.D.P.Q.), refd to. [para. 78].

Bonner v. Lewis (1988), 857 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. Ct.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 84].

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 85].

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15. - see Attis v. Board of Edu­cation of District No. 15 et al.

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 85].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 85].

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 85].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 85].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Health Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-6, sect. 3, sect. 4 [para. 25]; sect. 5, sect. 7, sect. 9 [para. 26].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 84]; sect. 15(1) [para. 53]; sect. 32(1)(b) [para. 20].

Hospital Insurance Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 180, sect. 5(1) [para. 31]; sect. 10(1) [para. 32].

Medical and Health Care Services Act, S.B.C. 1992, c. 6, sect. 1, sect. 6, sect. 8 [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Minister of Human Resources Development, Improving Social Security in Canada, Persons with Disabilities: A Supplementary Paper (1994), pp. 3, 4 [para. 56].

Canada, Statistics Canada, Housing, Fami­ly and Social Statistics Division, Target Groups Project, A Portrait of Persons with Disabilities (1995), pp. 46, 47, 48, 49 [para. 56].

Canadian Bar Association, Task Force on Health Care, What's Law Got to Do with It? Health Care Reform in Canada (1994), pp. 9 [para. 50]; 15 [para. 24].

Chilton, Elizabeth Ellen, Ensuring Ef­fective Communication: The Duty of Health Care Providers to Supply Sign Language Interpreters for Deaf Patients (1996), 47 Hastings L.J. 871, pp. 883 [para. 81]; 886 [para. 82].

Elliot, Robin, Scope of the Charter's Ap­plication (1993), 15 Adv. Q. 204, pp. 208, 209 [para. 41].

Goundry, Sandra A., and Peters, Yvonne, Litigating for Disability Equality Rights: The Promises and the Pitfalls (1994), pp. 5, 6 [para. 56].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992)(Looseleaf Supp.), pp. 34-8.3, 34-9 [para. 21].

Lepofsky, M. David, A Report Card on the Charter's Guarantee of Equality to Persons with Disabilities after 10 Years: What Progress? What Prospects? (1997), 7 N.J.C.L. 263, generally [para. 56].

McLachlin, Beverley, The Evolution of Equality (1996), 54 Adv. 559, p. 564 [para. 54].

McLellan, A. Anne, and Elman, Bruce P., To Whom Does the Charter Apply? Some Recent Cases on Section 32 (1986), 24 Alta. L. Rev. 361, p. 371 [para. 42].

Pothier, Dianne, M'Aider, Mayday: Sec­tion 15(1) of the Charter in Distress (1996), 6 N.J.C.L. 295, p. 335 [para. 69].

Ross, June M., Applying the Charter to Discretionary Authority (1991), 29 Alta. L. Rev. 382, generally [para. 30].

Sacks, Oliver, Seeing Voices: A Journey Into the World of the Deaf (1989), generally [para. 57].

Counsel:

Lindsay M. Lyster and Andrea L. Zwack, for the appellants;

Harvey M. Groberman and Lisa J. Mrozinski, for the respondents;

Judith Bowers, Q.C., and Simon Fothergill, for the intervener, the At­torney General of Canada;

Janet E. Minor and Richard J.K. Stewart, for the Attorney General for Ontario;

Deborah L. Carlson, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

B. Gale Welsh, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General of Newfoundland;

Jennifer Scott, Katherine Hardie and Judy Parrack, for the interveners, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund and the Disabled Women's Net­work Canada;

Martha Jackman and Arne Peltz, for the intervener, the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues;

David Baker and Patricia Bregman, for the interveners, the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the Canadian Hearing Society and the Council of Canadians with Dis­abilities.

Solicitors of Record:

Heenan, Blaikie, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellants;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the re­spondents;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, the Attor­ney General of Manitoba;

Attorney General of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Newfoundland;

Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, the Women's Legal Edu­cation and Action Fund and Disabled Women's Network Canada;

Public Interest Law Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues;

Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handi­capped, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, The Canadian Association of the Deaf, The Canadian Hearing Society and The Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

This appeal was heard on April 24, 1997, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 9, 1997, La Forest, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.