from the provincial government. In September 1990, the Institute discontinued the service because it no longer had sufficient funds to pay for it. 4 Prior to cancelling the program, the Institute made two requests of the Ministry of Health for funding. At the time, it had contracts with a number of government departments to provide sign language interpreters in connection with various services. The Institute requested similar funding for the provision of interpreters in the medical setting, suggesting that sign language interpretation be covered as an insured benefit under the Medical Services Plan. The first request was made in 1989 and was declined out of hand. The second request was made in May 1990 after the Institute had decided that it could no longer fund the service. The cost of the proposed program, which would have extended throughout the province, was estimated to be $ 150,000 per year. The Ministry turned down the request on the basis that it would strain available resources and create a precedent for the funding of similar services for the non-English speaking immigrant community. 5 Each of the appellants was born deaf. Their preferred means of communication is sign language. They contend that the absence of interpreters impairs their ability to communicate with their doctors and other health care providers, and thus increases the risk of misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment. One of the appellants, Robin Eldridge, suffers from a number of medical conditions, including diabetes. She sees a general physician and a specialist a number of times per year. Neither of these doctors knows sign language. She has also been a patient in hospital on several occasions. The hospitals did not provide her with sign language interpreters. Prior to its termination, she used the Institute's free medical interpreting service. Subsequently, she hired an interpreter when she had surgery in hospital. She testified that she would continue to hire interpreters for important medical situations but could not afford to hire one for every visit to the doctor or hospital. She finds visiting her doctors without an interpreter very stressful and confusing since, in her view, she cannot communicate adequately with them. Her specialist testified that he was satisfied with the level of communication when a sign language interpreter was present. In the absence of an interpreter, he explained, he was unsure about the accuracy of information conveyed by Ms. Eldridge. Communication with her in these circumstances, he stated, was inhibited and frustrating. 6 The other appellants, John and Linda Warren, see their doctor frequently. Although they had planned to hire an interpreter for the birth of their twin daughters, they were unable to procure one in time as the girls were born prematurely. Linda Warren testified that in the absence of an interpreter, the birth process was difficult to understand and frightening. During the birth, the nurse communicated to her through gestures that the heart rate of one of the babies had gone down. After the babies were born, they were immediately taken from her. Other than writing a note stating that they were "fine", no one explained their condition to her. 7 The Warrens' physician, who does not know sign language, testified that communication by written notes is time consuming, impractical and has the potential to result in harm in some circumstances. Adequate communication, she related, is particularly critical for childbirth. If the doctor can communicate with the patient so that the patient is able to help with the delivery, she explained, complications are less likely to occur and the patient is less apt to have a traumatic birth. In her view, writing notes is not effective in these circumstances; an interpreter is necessary