Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

The claim failed because the benefit claimed — funding for all medically required ABA/IBI treatment — was not a benefit provided by law under the Canada Health Act/Medicare Protection Act and B.C. regulations; consequently s.15(1) did not apply to compel funding, and on the facts and appropriate comparator there was no discriminatory denial of a legislated benefit; no s.7 breach established.

Citation
2004 SCC 78
Parties
Appellants/respondents on Cross Appeal: Attorney General of British Columbia and Medical Services Commission of British Columbia; Respondents/appellants on Cross Appeal: Connor Auton (infant) by his Guardian ad litem Michelle Auton, et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Charter Challenge / Constitutional Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on November 19, 2004
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 15 Equality, Section 7 Fundamental Justice, Medicare Funding, Benefit Definition, Comparator Selection, Applied Behavioural Analysis (aba/ibi)
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Health Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Section 15 Equality Section 7 Fundamental Justice Medicare Funding Benefit Definition +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General of British Columbia and Medical Services Commission of British Columbia

Appellants/respondents on Cross Appeal

Connor Auton (infant) by his Guardian ad litem Michelle Auton, et al.

Respondents/appellants on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Charter Challenge / Constitutional Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on November 19, 2004

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether provincial refusal to fund ABA/IBI for preschool autistic children violated s.15(1) Charter
  2. 2 Whether the claimed benefit (funding for medically required treatment) is a benefit conferred by law
  3. 3 Appropriate comparator group for s.15 analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The claim failed because the benefit claimed — funding for all medically required ABA/IBI treatment — was not a benefit provided by law under the Canada Health Act/Medicare Protection Act and B.C. regulations; consequently s.15(1) did not apply to compel funding, and on the facts and appropriate comparator there was no discriminatory denial of a legislated benefit; no s.7 breach established.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of British Columbia Court of Appeal set aside to the extent it required provincial funding; no declaration of breach of s.15(1) or s.7 for the statutory definitions at issue
  • Cross-appeal dismissed; provincial obligation to fund ABA/IBI not established by law