Birgitta von Krosigk

The infant respondents suffer from autism and sought funding from the Province of British Columbia for applied behavioural analysis (ABA) or intensive behavioural intervention (IBI) therapy.

The Province refused to fund the therapy, arguing it was an emergent and controversial treatment and citing financial constraints.

The respondents argued this refusal violated their equality rights under section 15(1) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislative scheme does not promise funding for all medically required treatment, but only for core services provided by medical practitioners.

Since ABA/IBI therapy is a non-core service and the Province had not designated its providers as health care practitioners, the benefit claimed was not provided by law.

The Court concluded there was no discrimination and allowed the Province's appeal.

A forest fire caused by the negligence of Canadian Forest Products Ltd. damaged public lands in British Columbia.

The Province sued for suppression and restoration costs, which were agreed upon, as well as for lost stumpage revenue from harvestable trees and the value of non-harvestable trees in environmentally sensitive areas, including an environmental premium.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Province failed to prove a compensable financial loss for the harvestable trees because the Province's own Comparative Value Pricing system ensured revenue neutrality.

The Court also rejected the claim for the non-harvestable trees and the environmental premium, finding that the Crown had pleaded its case as an ordinary landowner rather than as parens patriae, and had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to quantify the environmental loss.