Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v British Columbia (AG)

Supreme court of Canada in summer

Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v British Columbia (Attorney General) [2004] 3 S.C.R. 657, 2004 SCC 78, is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning the scope of health care services covered by the government. The case revolved around the issue of whether the province of British Columbia was required to fund intensive behavioral intervention therapy (IBI) for children with autism under the Canada Health Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Background

The plaintiffs, representing a group of children with autism, argued that the government's failure to fund IBI therapy constituted discrimination on the basis of disability, violating Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. They contended that IBI therapy was essential for their children's development and that without government funding, they were denied access to necessary health care services.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the refusal to fund IBI therapy did not violate the Charter. The Court reasoned that the Canada Health Act and the British Columbia Medicare Protection Act did not guarantee funding for every medically necessary treatment. It distinguished between core and non-core health services, with only the former being required coverage under the health care scheme. The Court found that IBI therapy fell outside the scope of core health services that the government was obligated to fund.

Furthermore, the Court concluded that there was no discrimination under Section 15(1) of the Charter, as the differential treatment was not based on the children's disability but rather on a distinction between types of health care services. The decision was controversial, with critics arguing that it left vulnerable populations without necessary health care and support.

Implications

The decision in Auton has had significant implications for health care policy and the interpretation of the Charter's equality rights. It highlighted the limitations of the Charter in securing funding for specific health care services and underscored the discretionary power of governments in determining the scope of health care coverage. The case has been cited in subsequent legal challenges related to health care funding and disability rights, reflecting ongoing debates about the government's role in providing health care and the extent of protection offered by the Charter against discrimination in accessing health services.

See Also

• Canada Health Act
• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• Health care in Canada
• Disability rights in Canada