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: The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the families’ constitutional claims and held that the age criterion was not discriminatory under Charter s. 15 on the record before it. Interim relief during litigation was not a final merits remedy; leave to appeal was refused.

Relevance to Ontario autism litigation: Procedural and historical context for Ontario autism-services litigation. Do not present it as a successful merits claim or as an award of individual remedies.

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: A separate class action ended in negotiated settlement approval. The approval was not a merits finding and is not the Disability Rights Coalition human-rights proceeding.

Relevance to Ontario autism litigation: Keep the class-action settlement and the DRC systemic-discrimination case analytically separate when comparing remedies and authorities.

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.