Before anyone starts throwing money at a lawyer, make sure you get a clear and definitive answer to the following question:
What distinguishes our case from Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General),  3 S.C.R. 657, 2004 SCC 78
In deciding against this group of patients, the Supreme Court of Canada said "The benefit claimed — funding for all medically required treatment — is not provided by law. The Canada Health Act and the relevant British Columbia legislation do not promise that any Canadian will receive funding for all medically required treatment. All that is conferred is core funding for services delivered by medical practitioners and, at a province’s discretion, funding or partial funding for non-core services... "
"The scheme is, by its very terms, a partial health plan and its purpose is not to meet all medical needs. It follows that exclusion of particular non-core services cannot, without more, be viewed as an adverse distinction based on an enumerated ground. Rather, it is an anticipated feature of the legislative scheme."
Sounds very much like a case of 'been there, done that, patients lost' to me.