establish that, because of a distinction drawn between the claimant and others, the claimant has been denied "equal protection" or "equal benefit" of the law. Secondly, the claimant must show that the denial constitutes discrimination on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds listed in s. 15(1) or one analogous thereto. Before concluding that a distinction is discriminatory, some members of this Court have held that it must be shown to be based on an irrelevant personal characteristic; see Miron (per Gonthier J.) and Egan (per La Forest J.). Under this view, s. 15(1) will not be infringed unless the distinguished personal characteristic is irrelevant to the functional values underlying the law, provided that those values are not themselves discriminatory. Others have suggested that relevance is only one factor to be considered in determining whether a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground is discriminatory; see Miron (per McLachlin J.) and Thibaudeau v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627 (per Cory and Iacobucci JJ.). 59 In my view, in the present case the same result is reached regardless of which of these approaches is applied; for similar reasoning, see Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358 (per Iacobucci J. for the Court). There is no question that the distinction here is based on a personal characteristic that is irrelevant to the functional values underlying the health care system. Those values consist of the promotion of health and the prevention and treatment of illness and disease, and the realization of those values through the vehicle of a publicly funded health care system. There could be no personal characteristic less relevant to these values than an individual's physical disability. 60 The only question in this case, then, is whether the appellants have been afforded "equal benefit of the law without discrimination" within the meaning of s. 15(1) of the Charter. On its face, the medicare system in British Columbia applies equally to the deaf and hearing populations. It does not make an explicit "distinction" based on disability by singling out deaf persons for different treatment. Both deaf and hearing persons are entitled to receive certain medical services free of charge. The appellants nevertheless contend that the lack of funding for sign language interpreters renders them unable to benefit from this legislation to the same extent as hearing persons. Their claim, in other words, is one of "adverse effects" discrimination. 61 This Court has consistently held that s. 15(1) of the Charter protects against this type of discrimination. In Andrews, supra, McIntyre J. found that facially neutral laws may be discriminatory. "It must be recognized at once", he commented, at p. 164, ". . . that every difference in treatment between individuals under the law will not necessarily result in inequality and, as well, that identical treatment may frequently produce serious inequality"; see also Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra, at p. 347. Section 15(1), the Court held, was intended to ensure a measure of substantive, and not merely formal equality. 62 As a corollary to this principle, this Court has also concluded that a discriminatory purpose or intention is not a necessary condition of a s. 15(1) violation; see Andrews, at pp. 173-74, and Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519, at pp. 544-49 (per Lamer C.J.); see also Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536, at p. 547. A legal distinction need not be motivated by a desire to disadvantage an individual or group in order to violate s. 15(1). It is sufficient if the effect of the legislation is to deny someone the equal protection or benefit of the law. As McIntyre J. stated in Andrews, at p. 165, "[t]o