Ontario parents of autistic children are devastated by the recent Court of Appeal ruling in the Wynberg case. The ruling says government has no legal obligation to fund intensive behavioural intervention (IBI) for children age 6 and up. The Court of Appeal trusts government to decide how to fulfill what it calls "a compelling moral obligation" to children with autism. Unfortunately, parents' experience up to now suggests the Ontario government is either unfit or unwilling (or both) to fulfill this moral obligation. If inappropriate government conduct is not policed, particularly when governments fail to protect the most vulnerable members of society, then we are protected by nothing more than kangaroo courts. The Court of Appeal took the government's word in assuming that the original program for children under 6 was a "model program." It disregarded the stunning evidence found by the trial judge, which showed that only some of the funds given to the program had actually been used to help children with autism. This finding was based, in part, on the provincial auditor's conclusion that, in 2003, parent-directed programs cost $19 to $27 an hour to administer, compared with $108 to $126 an hour when administered by the government. Government surpluses in the autism program were withheld from parents who were languishing on government wait lists when they could have been starting parent-directed behavioural intervention programs. The unspent surplus of $21 million, reported for a single year, could have funded 438 children, using the average parent cost. Ontario's Minister of Children and Youth Services Mary Anne Chambers now says government will assess the needs of children both under age 6 and above in a "consistent" manner. Based on parents' experience, two particular groups of children will be deemed ineligible: those who are making sufficient progress, and those who are not. Parents fear that the process and criteria for determining eligibility will remain as obscure as they are inconsistent. The government's newly created "autism reference group" will recommend "best practices" for autism policy - but nothing about the group's membership, its political agenda, governmental allegiance, or whether it will take an evidence-based approach is transparent. We predict that the effect of this new policy will render the majority of children over 6 ineligible. Children with autism aged 6 and over are not well-served in the public education system. The government will allocate up to $60,000 to school boards for a disabled child in the school system, but, unbelievably, it does not require that this money be spent on the child. It can be diverted (and often is) to cover other expenses, including administrative, material, or any other item of the school board's choosing. Spending these funds to provide appropriate IBI training to teachers and the special-needs assistants already in the system would put taxpayers' money to far better use. Queen's Park argues that intensive behavioural intervention cannot be undertaken in schools. In the United States however, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires that public schools provide behavioural intervention to all children who need it. If a school board cannot competently offer it, it must fund private school tuition. Some private schools in Ontario are now using behavioural intervention for children with autism with excellent results. But, as the court recognized, their fees are beyond the reach of most families. Chambers suggests some parents believe IBI is not the only effective intervention for autism. Research has established repeatedly that IBI is the only effective treatment to date. Research also demonstrates that special education for children with autism, as currently undertaken without IBI, results in a lowering of IQ scores. The handful of parents who do not care for IBI should not determine public policy for all of Ontario. There is incontrovertible evidence that behavioural intervention saves money over the long term, by increasing independence and avoiding the need for government support over the rest of the lifespan of an autistic person, which is no shorter than that of the average Canadian. In opposition, Premier Dalton McGuinty said that refusal to fund IBI for children 6 and older was "unfair and discriminatory." After the 2003 election, he continued fighting the Wynberg case in order to prove the point that "courts cannot tell government how to spend money." The government has spent many millions of dollars fighting the Wynberg case. It has proved its point. McGuinty's promise of appropriate funding for children with autism for 6 and over remains unfulfilled. We believe the taxpayers of Ontario would rather help these children than help McGuinty to make a point. Dr. Sheila Laredo is an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Toronto. Simon Wynberg is a Toronto father of three who helped launch court action against the provincial government over the treatment of autistic children.