thereby increasing the expense of the program dramatically. The possibility that a s. 15(1) claim
might be made by members of the latter group cannot justify the infringement of the constitutional
rights of the deaf. The appellants ask only for equal access to services that are available to all.
The respondents have presented no evidence that this type of accommodation, if extended to
other government services, will unduly strain the fiscal resources of the state. The government
has not made a "reasonable accommodation" of the appellants' disability nor has it
accommodated the appellants' need to the point of undue hardship.
The appropriate and just remedy was to grant a declaration that this failure is unconstitutional
and to direct the government of British Columbia to administer the Medical and Health Care
Services Act and the Hospital Insurance Act in a manner consistent with the requirements of
s. 15(1). A declaration, as opposed to some kind of injunctive relief, was the appropriate remedy
because there are myriad options available to the government that may rectify the
unconstitutionality of the current system. It was appropriate to suspend the effectiveness of the
declaration for six months to enable the government to explore its options and formulate an
appropriate response.
Cases Cited
Followed: Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; considered:
McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; Harrison v. University of British Columbia,
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 451; Stoffman v. Vancouver General Hospital, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 483;
Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn. v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; Lavigne v. Ontario
Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education,
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519;
Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; distinguished:
Symes v. Canada, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; referred to: RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., [1986] 2
S.C.R. 573; James v. Cowan, [1932] A.C. 542; Schneider v. The Queen, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 112;
Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; Re Ontario Film & Video
Appreciation Society and Ontario Board of Censors (1984), 5 D.L.R. (4th) 766, aff'g (1983), 147
D.L.R. (3d) 58; Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1
S.C.R. 295; Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; Andrews v. Law Society of British
Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; United States of America v. Cotroni, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469;
Reference Re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158; Minister of Home Affairs v.
Fisher, [1980] A.C. 319; R. v. Turpin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; Miron v. Trudel, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418;
Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; Thibaudeau v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627; Benner v.
Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358; Washington, Mayor of Washington, D.C. v.
Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development
Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977); Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256
(1979); Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489;
Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970; Reibl v. Hughes, [1980]
2 S.C.R. 880; Hopp v. Lepp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192; Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada (Employment and
Immigration Commission), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; Haig v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), [1993] 2
S.C.R. 995; Native Women's Assn. of Canada v. Canada, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627; Schachter v.
Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; Bliss v.