Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General)
Canada Supreme Court
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 624 (1997)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
Robin Eldridge, John Warren, and Linda Warren (collectively, Eldridge) (plaintiffs) were deaf. When Eldridge sought medical treatment under Canada’s socialized-medicine regime, Eldridge could not obtain quality and effective medical service because the medical facilities did not provide sign-language interpreters for people who were deaf or hard of hearing. As a result, Eldridge could not effectively communicate with the medical staff. Eldridge filed suit, claiming that the government’s approach to delivering care discriminated against Eldridge based on her disability—deafness. The government argued that it provided funding broadly and did not specify how the medical facilities provided care. Deaf persons are part of a protected enumerated class under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms—disabled persons. The trial court found that the failure to provide sign-language interpreters was not discriminatory, as deaf persons were afforded the same access as nondisabled persons. Eldridge appealed, but the appellate court agreed with the trial court. Eldridge sought relief before the Canada Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (La Forest, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
