Health Care and Human Rights After Auton and Chaoulli (Canada‪)‬

The judicial interpretation of the entitlement to health care under the Charter and human rights legislation has tended to swing between interventionist and non-interventinnist poles. In Eldridge, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a thilure to provide sign language interpretation where this was necessary to ensure equal access to health care was in breach of the equality provisions of the Charter. However, in a subsequent case, Auton, the Court narrowly circumscribed the limits of this approach, holding that the Canadian system of public health care was, by its very terms, a partial health plan. It followed that exclusion of particular non-core .services could not, in itself, be seen as less favourable treatment. The Chaoulli decision marked a return to a more interventionist approach with the Court holding (by a narrow majority) that the prohibition on private health insurance provided for in Quebec law was inconsistant with section 1 of the Quebec Charter. Tbis judgment has been cited in over eighty decisions of courts and tribunals.