Counsel for the complainant relied on Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1997 CanLII 327 (SCC),  3 S.C.R. 624. In that case, deaf persons needed interpretation services in order to receive medical care comparable to that received by hearing persons. The need for interpretation (and the consequent need for funds to pay for it) arose by reason of the disability. The government's policy of not funding interpretation services for anyone in conjunction with receipt of medical care had an adverse impact on the deaf, because they had to pay for interpretation in order to receive the same quality of care as the hearing.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.