Section 15 disability case law in Canada.

Holding: Government failure to fund sign language interpreters for deaf hospital patients = Charter s. 15 violation. Governments must take positive steps to ensure publicly-funded services are equally accessible to disabled persons.

Relevance to Ontario autism litigation: Foundational authority for the systemic-accommodation principle. Underpins the NS DRC case.

Holding: BC not constitutionally required to fund Lovaas/IBI therapy for autistic children at the time. Grounds: therapy was not part of BC's 'core' health system.

Relevance to Ontario autism litigation: Cited by governments as authority that Charter does not compel autism-therapy funding. Counter-arguments emphasize subsequent jurisprudence (Moore, NS DRC) and the fact that governments now do fund autism therapy, making program-design adverse-effect claims distinguishable.

Holding: Ontario program age cut-offs upheld; significant individual remedies awarded; political and policy pressure resulting from litigation contributed to subsequent reforms.

Relevance to Ontario autism litigation: Procedural and political precedent for Ontario autism-services litigation. Demonstrates that even partial legal losses can drive policy reform.

Holding: Failure to provide adequate special education for a learning-disabled student violated the BC Human Rights Code. Government cannot evade equality obligations through generic budget arguments.

Relevance to Ontario autism litigation: Critical for Ontario: rebuts the budget-constraint defence to systemic-discrimination claims. The question is whether the specific program design discriminates, not whether more funding would be desirable.

Holding: Province engaged in systemic discrimination in disability services delivery. Reversed Board of Inquiry on the systemic question.

Relevance to Ontario autism litigation: Most direct contemporary precedent. Led to 2023 binding Interim Consent Order requiring waitlist elimination by March 31, 2028. See full analysis at /precedent/nova-scotia-disability-rights-coalition.

Holding: Refined the s. 15 analytical framework: comparator groups not required; substantive equality based on context-specific analysis.

Relevance to Ontario autism litigation: Procedural, sets the s. 15 analytical framework for substantive-equality analysis. The substantive-equality lens is favourable to disability claimants.

Holding: HRTO discretion to decline jurisdiction must be exercised carefully, particularly where HRTO application and civil action address different time periods or seek distinct remedies.

Relevance to Ontario autism litigation: Recent procedural precedent strengthening the position of HRTO applicants.