13 On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1995), 7 B.C.L.R. (3d) 156, the majority (Hollinrake and Cumming JJ.A.) held that the lack of interpreting services in hospitals is not discriminatory because the Hospital Insurance Act does not provide any "benefit of the law" within the meaning of s. 15(1) of the Charter. Writing for the majority, Hollinrake J.A. noted that the extent of the services provided by each hospital is subject to its own decision as to how to spend the global grant received from government. The absence of interpreters, he thus found, results not from the legislation but rather from each hospital's budgetary discretion. Because hospitals are not "government" within the meaning of s. 32 of the Charter, he concluded, their failure to provide interpretation does not engage s. 15(1). 14 He next determined that the Medical and Health Care Services Act did not violate s. 15(1) of the Charter because it did not create a distinction between the deaf and hearing populations. The proper approach to the application of adverse effects analysis to benefit-conferring legislation, he held, was to focus on the impact of the legislation on the disadvantaged group. In considering this impact, he opined, a distinction must be drawn between effects attributable to the legislation and those that exist independently of it. In the absence of legislation, deaf people would be required to pay their doctors in addition to translators in order to receive equivalent medical services to hearing persons. The legislation removes the responsibility of both hearing and deaf persons to pay their physicians. The inequality resulting from the fact that the deaf remain responsible for the payment of translators, in his view, exists independently of the legislation. Thus, he concluded that the legislation provided the benefit of free medical services equally to the hearing and deaf populations. 15 Lambert J.A., in contrast, held that the legislation violated s. 15(1). He noted that many deaf patients, including the appellants, have difficulty communicating by writing. As a result, cases will arise where doctors will be unable to discharge their professional obligations without the aid of an interpreter. Because effective communication is an integral part of medical care, he concluded, sign language interpretation should not be considered a merely ancillary service. In his view, it is no answer to say that before the benefit was enacted, deaf persons were at a disadvantage and that this burden has not been increased by the provision of the benefit. The proper question is whether the law confers a benefit to which the disadvantaged group does not have the same access as others. He thus concluded that the Medical and Health Care Services Act discriminated against the appellants where they seek to obtain medical services that require, for the discharge of the practitioner's professional obligations, effective communication between the practitioner and the patient, and where effective communication can only be achieved through the provision of translation services. 16 Lambert J.A. found, however, that this infringment was justified under s. 1 of the Charter. He noted the Medical and Health Care Services Act does not ensure comprehensive health care coverage. It does not provide for a number of products and services that are required by disabled persons, such as artificial limbs, hearing aids and wheelchairs. In the allocation of scarce financial resources, he stated, governments must make choices about spending priorities. In these circumstances, he held, courts should defer to legislative policy and administrative expertise.