The appellant, OHIP, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board which granted the respondent funding for a vaginoplasty without penectomy in Texas.
OHIP argued the procedure was not a specifically listed insured service and was experimental.
The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the plain reading of the Schedule of Benefits lists vaginoplasty and penectomy as separate procedures, and that interpreting the schedule to require a penectomy would be inconsistent with the WPATH Standards of Care and Charter values.
The court also declined to allow OHIP to raise a new argument on appeal regarding out-of-country funding criteria.
