for proper communication. At the time of the trial, the Warrens were expecting another child and wished to have an interpreter present at the birth. They stated that they would not be able to afford one for this purpose or for other visits to their doctor. 8 At trial, the appellants adduced expert testimony explaining that many deaf persons are severely limited in their ability to read and write. The average deaf person, one expert related, has a grade three literacy level. Evidence was also led indicating that miscommunication between deaf persons and their doctors may lead to misdiagnosis. It was also noted that in Alberta and Manitoba the provincial government funds interpreting services for the deaf giving the highest priority to medical interpretation. 9 The respondents presented evidence relating to the budgetary process of the Ministry of Health and the structure of the Medical Services Plan. The government, witnesses explained, does not provide any services directly. Rather, it pays for the provision of medical services by the medical and health care practitioners on a fee-for-service basis. The Plan covers most health services; however there are a number of services that are not included or are funded only in part. These include the services of clinical psychologists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, nutritional counsellors and dentists. Moreover, the province does not pay for such medically related expenses as artificial limbs, hearing aids, or wheelchairs and provides only limited funding for prescription drugs. 10 Hospitals in British Columbia are funded through lump sum "global" payments that they are for the most part free to allocate as they see fit. They are rarely ordered by government to provide specific services. In those instances, they are generally required to fund the service out of their global budgets. The government does provide some funding for specific programs, such as heart transplantation, but this is infrequent. Judicial History 11 The appellants filed an application in the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the failure to provide sign language interpreters as an insured benefit under the Medical Services Plan violates s. 15(1) of the Charter. Tysoe J. dismissed the application ((1992), 75 B.C.L.R. (2d) 68), finding that this failure did not infringe s. 15(1). He determined that sign language interpretation is ancillary to medically required services in much the same way as is transportation to a doctor's office. Any disadvantage suffered by the deaf, he concluded, is not the result of the government's failure to provide such services, but is rather the result of a limitation that exists outside the legislation. 12 In Tysoe J.'s view, the Charter does not require governments to implement programs to assist disabled persons. If the government provides a benefit, he stated, s. 15(1) requires that it be distributed equally. There is no obligation, however, to provide the benefit in the first place. He thus concluded that while it is desirable that deaf persons have interpreters for medical procedures and that the cost be borne by society if they cannot afford to pay, s. 15(1) does not demand this result.