Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The infant Respondents were all diagnosed with varying degrees of autism which caused impairments in their social interaction and communication skills, and caused varying degrees of inappropriate behaviour. Untreated, children suffering from the disorder face physical, emotional, social and intellectual isolation. All of the four infant Respondents had received early behavioural intervention treatments based on a method developed by Dr. Ivan Lovaas (“Lovaas Autism Treatment”, a form of applied behavioural analysis techniques) The adult Respondents are parents of these children and have sued in their own right and as litigation guardians. The parents of the children have for years funded the Lovaas treatments received by the children, and in the case of Connor Auton, his mother can no longer afford the expense of the therapy. All of the families have sought to have the therapy funded by the Ministries of Health, Education and Children and Families, but have been refused. The Respondents sought an order of mandamus requiring the Crown to pay for the costs already incurred for the treatment and for the costs of future costs of the therapy. They also claimed relief pursuant to the Charter, and sought a declaration that the denial of funding violated sections 7 and 15. The applications judge granted a declaration that the Appellant had violated the infant Respondents’ rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter by failing to provide them with effective treatment for autism in the form of early intensive behavioural intervention (“EIBI”)and that the violation was not a reasonable limit under s. 1. Further, she awarded each of the adult Respondents symbolic damages in the amount of $20,000. This judgment was upheld on appeal. The Respondents cross-appeal on the issue of the length of the indemnification period ordered by the Court of Appeal.