ARCH Alert April 26, 2012 ARCH Disability Law Centre 425 Bloor St. E. Ste. 110 Toronto, Ontario M4W 3R4 Tel.: 416-482-8255 Toll-free: 1-866-482-2724 Fax: 416-482-2981 Toll-free: 1-866-881-2723 TTY: 416-482-1254 Toll-free: 1-866-482-2728 www.archdisabilitylaw.ca INSIDE THIS ISSUE: INSIDE THIS ISSUE - ARCH Alert - Readers Survey - ARCH Joins the Law Society to Host Annual Access Awareness Event - The Federal Court of Appeal Considers Web Accessibility - ARCH Celebrates Inclusion - News from ARCH's Board of Directors - Update on the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario - Supreme Court Rules on Safe Injection Sites - Review of Ontario's Human Rights System - Test of Public Interest Standing Considered by Supreme Court - Human Rights Lawyers' Association - Important Decision for People with Intellectual Disabilities - Proposed Enhancements to the RDSP Rules - Duty to Accommodate Students with Disabilities - Getting Services Right - Emergency ALS Interpreting Services - Survey of Experiences of Legal Professionals with Disabilities - Publications at ARCH Editors Note: As you will notice from this edition of ARCH Alert, we have been extremely busy at ARCH Disability Law Centre. Unfortunately this has meant that there was a lengthy gap in time since we released our last edition of ARCH Alert. We apologize for this delay but hope you find that it was worth the wait when you read this newsy edition. *** ARCH Alert - Readers Survey ARCH Disability Law Centre is looking to improve the layout of our newsletter "ARCH Alert". We would also like to ensure the ARCH Alert continues to be accessible. We are seeking the input of you, our readers. In February, we sent an email to our ARCH Alert readers who view our newsletter online inviting them to complete the survey. We thank those individuals who have already completed and submitted a survey. We were unable to reach some of our ARCH Alert readership so we are re-posting the survey on our website. We invite anyone who wishes to complete the survey, to submit it to Theresa Sciberras by May 25, 2012. For readers who receive the ARCH Alert by email, you can access the survey via our website. Go to: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=arch-alert-readers-survey or www.archdisabilitylaw.ca - "ARCH Alert - Readers Survey". On the ARCH website, copy and paste it into an email and send your response to Theresa at scibert@lao.on.ca. For readers who receive the ARCH Alert by mail, a print version of the survey has been included in your envelope. Either mail it back to the address below or, if you wish to respond by email, you can access the survey on our website at: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=arch-alert-readers-survey or www.archdisabilitylaw.ca - "ARCH Alert - Readers Survey". Copy and paste the survey into an email and send your response to Theresa at scibert@lao.on.ca . You can also complete the survey and return it via mail, fax, telephone or TTY: Theresa Sciberras ARCH Disability Law Centre 425 Bloor St. E., Ste. 110 Toronto, ON M4W 3R4 Tel.: 416-482-8255; 1-866-482-2724 TTY: 416-482-1254; 1-866-482-2728 Fax: 416-482-2981; 1-866-881-2723 *** ARCH Joins the Law Society to Host Annual Access Awareness Event By Karen R. Spector and Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyers On June 20, 2011, ARCH and the Law Society of Upper Canada hosted a disability awareness event titled "UnChartered Territory: Legal Mechanisms beyond the Charter to Advance Disability Rights". The event was open to members of the legal profession and the community. The panelists presented their experiences with some of the unique ways of advancing the rights of people with disabilities beyond Charter litigation. Professor Ravi Malhotra explored recent court decisions in equality rights cases that could considerably hamper the original promise of the Charter and the human rights system if such court decisions remain unchallenged. Karen R. Spector of ARCH spoke about some of the barriers faced by individuals who have been involuntarily detained on a long term basis under the Mental Health Act. She shared her work on the law reform initiatives that related to some of her clients' cases. These reforms may result in an increase in the oversight role of the Consent and Capacity Board to ensure that hospitals transfer individuals to less secure hospital settings in order to promote their transition into the community more quickly and more effectively. David Rosenfeld of Koskie Minsky discussed how class actions can advance the rights of persons with disabilities, particularly those who would not traditionally be capable of doing so on their own. Koskie Minsky is representing the class of persons who were institutionalized at Huronia. David described the unique ways that his firm is providing support to these people and their families so that the best evidence is available to the court. Marianna Adams and Andreas Prinz, who are members of the Self-Advocates Drop-In which is a place where people who have been labeled with an intellectual disability regularly gather to support each other in self advocacy, shared creative ways of changing attitudes and educating the public about the value of people with disabilities. The panel was moderated by Laurie Letheren of ARCH. The panel discussion was attended by close to 200 people. After the panel discussion, there was a celebratory reception in Convocation Hall. Laurie Beachell, National Coordinator, Council of Canadians with Disabilities delivered a key note address about the litigation experiences and challenges of people with disabilities and reminded us to reflect on how much we have achieved together. The very powerful documentary, "Offence Taken" was also screened at the reception. There is a link to a slideshow of the event. http://www.flickr.com//photos/law_society_of_upper_canada/sets/72157627430680257/show/ Please reserve a spot in your calendars for this year's annual Access Awareness event which will be held on June 6, 2012 from 4pm to 8 pm. Refer back to ARCH's website for further details on the event. *** The Federal Court of Appeal Considers the Inaccessibility of the Government of Canada's Websites for Individual's with Vision Disabilities By Karen R. Spector and Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyers On November 15 and 16, 2011, in the case of Jodhan v. Attorney General of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal considered whether Donna Jodhan, a person with a vision disability, was denied her rights under Section 15 of the Charter. Ms. Jodhan and other persons with vision disabilities often use technology such as screen readers, to access on-line information. Ms. Jodhan claims that she was denied her rights guaranteed under the Charter to equal access to and benefit of federal government information and services. Ms. Jodhan had attempted to apply for jobs through Services Canada and access government information through various other federal websites. She was not able to access this information when she used her screen reading technology. ARCH lawyers Karen R. Spector and Laurie Letheren represented the Intervener, the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians (AEBC), a national organization that advocates for the rights of persons with vision disabilities. The Government of Canada argued that the exclusion of persons with vision disabilities from accessing the government's websites does not constitute a violation of section 15 of the Charter because the information and services were available by other means. The Government of Canada claimed that the Charter rights of people with vision disabilities were not violated because they could still get the information by attending a government office in person or by phone or fax. The Government failed to acknowledge that such means require the assistance of sighted individuals thereby imposing the burdens of dependence and resulting in the loss of privacy and dignity. In the case of job applications, the time delay and barriers to applying electronically meant that Ms. Jodhan's application was not placed into the same pool as other applicants. The AEBC emphasized the need to ensure that Canadians with vision disabilities have internet access to government information and services. The internet is a very important tool for achieving substantive equality for people with vision disabilities by eliminating many of the barriers that exist in daily life. For people with vision disabilities who have been historically excluded and marginalized from the social, economic and political activities of daily life and forced to rely on others for assistance in accessing information, the internet has provided access the same information and services that is available to sighted individuals and on the same terms. The AEBC also encouraged the Court to recognize the importance of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) when interpreting substantive equality rights under the Charter. In particular, the AEBC argued that the CRPD aims to achieve the full inclusion and full participation of persons with disabilities and outlines the practical application of what States parties must do in order to advance substantive equality for people with disabilities. The AEBC relied on Article 9 of the CRPD which promotes access for persons with disabilities to the internet. The AEBC argued that by ratifying the CRPD, Canada signaled its commitment to people with disabilities and made a specific commitment under Article 9 to ensure internet access to government information and services. AEBC argued that since Canada has made this commitment, the Court must interpret the meaning of substantive equality under section 15 of the Charter in a manner that ensures the Federal Government promotes rather than evades its commitments under the CRPD. In making this argument, the AEBC relied on the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence that international human rights obligations are a relevant and persuasive factor in Charter interpretation, and their content is an important indicator of the meaning of the full benefit of the Charter's protection. The Federal Court of Appeal's decision is still under reserve. *** ARCH Celebrates Disability Advocacy By Robert Lattanzio, Staff Lawyer ARCH Disability Law Centre celebrated the United Nations International Day for Persons with Disabilities by hosting a community event on December 2, 2011. The captivating architectural space at the Wychwood Theatre in Toronto provided a fitting backdrop for the inspiring speakers who shared their stories. ARCH was honoured to have a distinguished group of individuals participate in this event. We were privileged to begin the event with words from the Honourable Justice Stephen Goudge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Justice Goudge's message provided a strong reminder to us not to forget the human stories behind the litigation and court decisions, and to celebrate those stories. He reminded us of the struggles and the toll that litigation has on those bringing legal challenges forward. The keynote speaker was Kory Earle, President of People First of Ontario. Kory provided those in attendance with a history and sampling of the Herculean work that has been achieved by People First of Ontario; a self advocacy, consumer-driven organization. Kory also provided a passionate plea to work forward cooperatively in tackling continuing barriers. Kory underscored the challenges facing true inclusive education throughout Ontario and that poverty amongst persons with disabilities must be addressed effectively and immediately. Kory spoke of the dangers of labeling and the need for supported decision-making, better supports for people receiving "developmental services" and ensuring that the union right to strike does not infringe the rights of people living in group homes. The Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Barbara Hall, spoke in her capacity as the current President of the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA). CASHRA has launched an initiative and new brochure on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, calling on governments at all levels to begin implementing the new Convention. You can learn more and access the brochure by using the following link: http://www.cashra.ca/news.html ARCH was honoured to feature a panel discussion with Emily Eaton, her father Clayton Eaton, and Kathleen McDonnell, author of Emily Included, which is a children's book capturing the story of Emily's fight to stay included in her school. Emily's legal fight became a groundbreaking case for disability rights in Canada. Emily's case was the first case to by heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in which a person was claiming a right to equality on the grounds of disability pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Emily challenged the school board's decision that she leave her current school and friends, to attend a segregated educational placement. Emily and Clayton shared their thoughts about inclusion, what it means to them, and provided insights into their inspiring battle to ensure that Emily remain included in everything that she did. They provided a glimpse of what they faced during their remarkable journey, and the hardships they overcame. Kathleen McDonnell spoke from the perspective of an author retelling Emily's story; she shared what she had observed and experienced while she was writing the book, and what she learned throughout the process. Emily Included masterfully and skillfully gives Emily a clear voice in her own story. This book will no doubt challenge young readers to think beyond any previous understandings they may have had about inclusion and disability. If you would like more information about Emily Included, please use the following link: http://secondstorypress.ca/books/222-emily-included ARCH represented Emily throughout her legal fight. In addition to Justice Goudge who was one of the lawyers who represented Emily at the Supreme Court, we were privileged to have with us the lawyers who worked at ARCH at the time and represented Emily throughout her legal fight. The Honourable Justice Anne Molloy of the Superior Court of Justice and Janet Budgell, Vice President of the Southwest Region and Specialty Clinics, Legal Aid Ontario, provided some of their experiences as counsel, and shared personal observations that were deeply moving and insightful. ARCH wishes to sincerely thank all of the speakers, and all who were present, in making it such a memorable event. *** News from ARCH's Board of Directors By Peter Wells, Chair ARCH Board of Directors Rather than wait until the Annual General Meeting to let the members of ARCH and its community know what your Board has been doing, we thought it might be useful to provide you with periodic reports of the Board's activities during the year. We have just finished the fiscal year and are in the first month of the new fiscal year. While the exact details are not yet clear, there will be changes that affect our finances in the coming year. Legal Aid Ontario is looking for clinics to find administrative savings and innovative ways of delivering services. In our most recent strategic plan, the Board sought to identify priority areas where progress would have a significant positive impact on the lives of people with disabilities. Staff have been developing strategies to deliver services in these priority areas, and in the course of that process added access to justice as a priority area in addition to attendant services, education, legal capacity and services for persons with intellectual disabilities that had been previously identified. The Board also struck a bylaws committee to review the bylaws of ARCH to make sure that they continue to meet the needs of the organization. We also considered the issue of succession planning for board members, and this work will continue. None of these initiatives has been prompted by any issue or concern, but the Board's intent is to be proactive and ensure that the structures are in place in the event we have an issue or concern to face. ARCH is a member of an umbrella organization of legal aid clinics in Ontario, the ACLCO. At ACLCO's initiative, a process to develop a strategic plan for the clinic system has begun. With the challenges that face Legal Aid Ontario in an economic climate of austerity, it is critical that ACLCO has a clear vision of how the clinic system will operate in that environment. As part of an initiative to broaden our contacts with other clinics beyond the relationships our staff have with other clinic staff and through the ACLCO, I attended the meeting of the Board of Waterloo Region Community Legal Services (WRCLS) on April 19. It was interesting to hear them discuss the challenges the clinic faces. We will be sharing some information with them, and hopefully we will discover new ways of serving our respective communities. Legal Aid Ontario is developing new software to help clinics track their work and collect statistics on it. The current system is in need of an overhaul. A steering committee made up of representatives of LAO and the clinics has been established to review the work being done to develop this software and to ensure that it meets the needs of LAO and the clinics. I am one of the clinic representatives on this committee. A regular feature of our board meetings is a presentation from one of the staff members reviewing the statistics and outlining some of the work done in the previous month. This is a useful way for the Board to get to know the lawyers who work with our clients and also to get a snapshot into the challenges and triumphs involved in our service. I am always amazed at what our staff are able to accomplish, and their enthusiasm for and dedication to the work of ARCH. *** Update on the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario By Ivana Petricone, Executive Director The Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario was appointed by the Ontario government to review Ontario's social assistance system. The Commission must submit recommendations and an action plan to the Ontario government by June 30, 2012. The task of the Commission is to make suggestions on how to improve the system that provides Ontario Works (OW) benefits and benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Plan (ODSP). The Commission asked for input from stakeholders and communities in two steps. In the first step, the Commission asked for feedback from the public on its first paper prepared which was called Discussion Paper: Issues and Ideas. The public provided feedback on the paper from June to September 2011. In the second step, the Commission released Discussion Paper 2: Approaches for Reform. This paper is available on the Commission's website at: www.socialassistancereview.ca. It contains some suggestions that the Commission is thinking about on how to improve the social assistance system. The public had the chance to comment on these suggestions in early 2012. The Commissioners stated that it is clear to them that they need to transform the social assistance system and that small fixes will not be enough. Several issues of concern to people with disabilities are raised in Discussion Paper 2. Examples of these issues are: * The Commissioners state their agreement with the government that employment is one of the best ways to help people to move out of poverty. Discussion Paper 2 focuses on features of effective employment services and supports, both pre and post employment. * Discussion Paper 2 considers the active engagement in the labour market for everyone receiving social assistance, including people with disabilities. The Commission asks for input on the question whether Ontario should have a way of testing whether a person can work and then make it mandatory for people who can work to find work if they want to receive social assistance income. * The Commission seeks input into the question of whether Ontario should wait to introduce such work requirements until substantial progress is made on removing barriers to employment for people with disabilities, including the full implementation of the AODA. * Discussion Paper 2 contains an extensive discussion on 'Designing Benefits for People with Disabilities'. The Commissioners suggest that low income people with disabilities should get a supplement to their income that does not come from the social assistance system. This proposal would remove the large difference between the amount of assistance a person receives from Ontario Works and the amount a person receives from ODSP, and introduce a new supplementary benefit, outside the social assistance system, which could be provided to low-income people with disabilities. * The Commissioners suggest that a new program could also be developed to provide a basic income for people with 'severe disabilities' who are not likely to earn much money in their lifetime. * The question of whether the amount of assets that a person receiving social assistance can have is raised in Discussion Paper 2. * The Commissioners ask if full responsibility for the Temporary Care Allowance or Assistance for Children with Severe Disabilities should be transferred to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. * Discussion Paper 2 considers income security issues beyond the social assistance system and examines several examples of policies and programs in other areas that impact the number of people receiving social assistance, such as Employment Insurance, CPP Disability and minimum wage policies. ARCH has broad experience working with people with disabilities who rely on social assistance and/or who live in poverty. ARCH regularly hears from people with disabilities who cannot get the supports they need to work. ARCH understands that a very high number of people with disabilities live in poverty. We believed that it was critical for the Commissioners to hear from people with disabilities from the perspective of their lived experience. In order to canvas the views and opinions of persons with disabilities, ARCH consulted a wide range of organizations that advocate on behalf of persons with disabilities, including persons with intellectual disabilities, persons with physical disabilities, persons with mental health disabilities and persons with episodic, recurring and/or intermittent disabilities. ARCH prepared submissions to the Commission that covered the comments made by the people who were part of this consultation process as well as comments that persons with disabilities have made when they have come to ARCH for assistance or information. ARCH's submissions to the Commission are available on ARCH's website at www.archdisabilitylaw.ca. Our comments addressed the following issues: * The urgent need for the removal of barriers to employment and necessary supports; * The need for stable income supports for people with disabilities until employment barriers are substantially removed; * Before any changes to the social assistance program for persons with disabilities are made, the government must be sure that all changes are based on sound principles of poverty reduction. There must also first be more research, clearer proposals concerning eligibility rules, details about how income levels are set, how special needs and circumstances would be dealt with, and a full consultation with people with disabilities on any proposed changes; * There should be no requirement for mandatory treatment and/or rehabilitation as a condition for receipt of ODSP; * There should be no separate program for people with 'severe' disabilities; * Any new rules about asset limits must insure that people can cover the cost of disability, and allow people to afford the over all greater expenses faced by people with disabilities; * The Commission should recommend that young adults with intellectual disabilities have their needs adequately met through adequately funded Passport programs or other programs like them; * The Ontario government must consider the impact of its minimum wage level along with other income security schemes on social assistance programs. We would like to acknowledge and thank our clients and community partners for their thoughtful assistance to ARCH in providing their views and input on these important questions. We will advise our community about the Commission's final recommendations as soon as they are released. *** Supreme Court of Canada Rules that Government's Failure to Renew Safe Injection Site Licence Breached the Charter By Tess Sheldon, Staff Lawyer On September 30, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society. In its decision, the Court considered the failure of the federal Minister of Health to renew an exemption of a supervised injection site from the laws that prohibit the possession and trafficking of drugs. The Court found that the Minister's failure breached the claimants' Charter rights under section 7 ("life, liberty and security of the person"). In the early 1990s, injection drug use reached high levels in Vancouver's downtown eastside ("DTES"). A public health emergency was declared in the DTES in September 1997. After years of research on how best to address this crisis, a plan for a supervised injection site - which came to be known as Insite - was proposed. A supervised injection facility is a legally sanctioned facility that offers a safe place where people can inject drugs under the supervision of trained staff. There is a lot of research about the public health benefits of supervised injection/consumption facilities including that they reduce overdoses and the transmission of HIV as well as Hepatitis B and C. In order to run the facility, Insite employees and clients needed to be assured that they would not be charged with drug trafficking or possession. Under section 56 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act ("CDSA"), the Minister of Health could exempt Insite from the application of the laws that prohibit possession and trafficking. In 2003, the federal Minister of Health (under the Liberal government) granted Insite an exemption. However, in 2008 the Minister (under the Conservative government) did not renew the exemption. Four people, including residents of DTES and clients of Insite, claimed that their rights under Section 7 of the Charter ("life, liberty and security of the person") were breached. Among other arguments, they claimed that their Charter rights were breached because of the Minister's refusal to exempt Insite clients and staff from the application of the federal drug laws. In an unanimous decision, the Court found that the Minister's failure to renew Insite's exemption contravened the claimants' Charter rights. Without an exemption, Insite's clients were deprived of important health care, engaging their rights to life and security of the person. The Court also found that the Charter breach could not be justified. The impact of the Court's decision on the establishment and operation of other safe injection sites is unclear. However, harm reduction - including supervised injection sites - are current important public health issues. A recent study found that both Ottawa and Toronto need safe injection sites like Insite. The feasibility study was undertaken by researchers at the University of Toronto and St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto. That report can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88882905/TOSCA-Report-Short-Version-2 . The Court's full decision can be found here: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html *** ARCH's Submissions to the Review of Ontario's Human Rights System By Tess Sheldon, Karen R. Spector, and Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyers In 2011, Andrew Pinto was appointed to conduct an independent review of the implementation and effectiveness of the amendments to Ontario's Human Rights Code. ARCH prepared written submissions for the Review, made a deputation at the public hearings, and also participated in a stakeholder group meeting with Mr. Pinto. In the development of ARCH's proposals, we interviewed some of our community partners, stakeholder organizations and individuals in the disability community. As a team at ARCH, we reflected on our experiences with the current human rights system in Ontario. We also surveyed our records of the calls we have received on our province-wide telephone-based summary advice and referral line. Before 2008, people who had experienced discrimination had to make an application to the Ontario Human Rights Commission(OHRC) who, like a "gatekeeper", investigated the complaint and made a decision whether to forward the complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO). However, after the introduction of Bill 107, Applicants now file their application directly with the HRTO. The OHRC no longer makes the decision about whether the HRTO will hear an application. This decision is now made by the HRTO..ARCH supported these changes to a "direct access model" where complainants would have direct access to a hearing of their complaint. ARCH stated that the new direct funding model would only work if each of the OHRC, the HRTO and the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) were adequately funded. In our recent submissions to the Review, ARCH proposed that the new system is working, but needs more resources. Our main message was that in order for the Province to fulfill Bill 107's promise, it must commit to appropriately funding each of the HRTO, HRLSC and the OHRC. We continue to support the spirit of the amendments to Ontario's Human Rights Code. We imagine a system that includes: 1. direct access to an expert tribunal, with flexible procedures and streamlined access to accommodation; 2. a specialized agency that provides representation to all Applicants, properly funded and fully accessible to all Ontarians; and 3. a proactive Commission with a guaranteed allocation of sufficient resources, expert at preventing and redressing systemic discrimination, including ableism. Since the introduction of Bill 107, ARCH has witnessed improvements to the human rights system, making it more effective and more efficient. ARCH's submissions also reviewed the barriers that people with disabilities experience in accessing each of the HRTO, HRLSC and OHRC. For instance: * ARCH has received reports that the HRTO's application forms and other forms may not be accessible to many people. * ARCH is also very concerned that 71% of applicants before the HRTO appear unrepresented. This is an important concern to people with disabilities. * There is a lack of clarity about the important role that the OHRC plays. * We have also heard concerns about access to the HRTO, HRLSC and OHRC for people who live outside of the Greater Toronto Area. The bulk of our submissions to the Review focused on concrete proposals for moving forward. For instance: * ARCH proposes that the HRTO establish an Accessibility Office, which would act as a centralized point for persons with disabilities, streamlining accommodation requests. * ARCH is strongly opposed to the imposition of filing fees, in particular because they will have a disproportionate impact on persons with disabilities with low incomes. * Similarly, ARCH is vigorously opposed to the award of costs against an Applicant whose allegation is not substantiated by the HRTO. The threat of the order of costs would operate as an unjustified barrier for potential applicants with disabilities. * ARCH proposed that the HRTO offer guidance to a party with a disability requesting anonymity or redaction. This is important for people with disabilities, since the threat of disclosure of their disability will dissuade Applicants with meritorious complaints from seeking redress. * Finally, ARCH urged the Review to recommend that the Province take all necessary steps to ensure that there is a guaranteed allocation of sufficient resources to each of three human rights agencies and that the funding not be vulnerable to change in government. * ARCH's written submissions can be found here in a variety of formats: http://archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=written-submissions-arch-disability-law-centre-ontario-human-rights-review-0 *** SWUAV v. AG Canada: At the Supreme Court, ARCH Argues for a Broad Test for Public Interest Standing By Tess Sheldon, Staff Lawyer ARCH, in coalition with West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund for Women (West Coast LEAF) and Justice for Children and Youth (JFCY), recently intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada in support of "public interest standing" in the case of SWUAV v. AG Canada. The Coalition argued that the test for public interest standing, must take into account the substantial and systemic barriers to justice faced by people from marginalized communities, including persons with disabilities. In that case, an organization of sex workers (Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence or "SWUAV") brought a constitutional challenge to sections of the Criminal Code that prohibit public communication for the purpose adult prostitution, the establishment of a business offering the service of prostitution, and establishing a place where sex workers can work together ("bawdy house"). In December 2009, the BC Supreme Court dismissed the case, finding that SWUAV did not have "public interest standing" to bring the constitutional challenge. The main reason for the decision was that the members of SWUAV had not been charged under these sections of the Criminal Code and were not personally affected by the laws. The BC Court of Appeal disagreed, and found that the test for public interest standing must be broad. The BC Court of Appeal recognized that requiring a vulnerable person to individually challenge the very law which exacerbates their vulnerability at the very moment that they are charged renders them most vulnerable. ARCH, as a member of the Coalition, argued that public interest groups should be allowed to bring important cases on behalf of those who do not have effective access to the justice system. The ability to act collectively and seek standing as a group is particularly important for marginalized people, including people with disabilities. Many people from marginalized communities may be unwilling or unable to come forward as individual plaintiffs. The Coalition also argued that a broad and purposive interpretation of the test is supported by international law. For example, a restrictive interpretation of the test for public interest standing that has the effect of preventing individuals from effectively exercising their rights violates the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRPD requires that state parties establish accessible mechanisms through which vulnerable individuals can exercise and defend their rights. The Coalition made written submissions to the Court. The hearing was on January 19 2012. The case is under reserve. *** Human Rights Lawyers' Association By Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer In an effort to create a group of human rights mentors and have a forum for brain storming sessions, a group called the Human Rights Lawyers' Association has been organized. We plan to meet every couple of months over coffee and breakfast to allow for a group discussion on issues that are arising in our human rights cases and to have case conferencing. If you are a lawyer or legal worker who represents clients in human rights applications and would like to attend a meeting, please contact Laurie Letheren at letherel@lao.on.ca. Our next meeting will be on May 15, 2012 at the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. *** Supreme Court of Canada Delivers Important Decision Advancing the Rights of People with Intellectual Disabilities By Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer On February 10, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada released an important decision that advances the rights of people with intellectual and mental health disabilities to more fully access the criminal justice system. The Court's decision in R v. DAI determined the proper steps that a judge is to take when a witness' capacity to give evidence is challenged. Under section 16(3) of the Criminal Code, if a person's capacity to give evidence is challenged and the judge finds that the person does not understand the nature of an oath or solemn declaration, that person can still give evidence if she can communicate the evidence and promises to tell the truth. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in R v. DAI, lower courts had established a practice of placing an additional burden on witnesses whose capacity was challenged and who promised to tell the truth. Such witness were required to demonstrate that they understood what it meant to promise to tell the truth by explaining such abstract terms as "truth" or "lie". K.B. is a young woman with an intellectual disability. When she was about 19 she told her teacher that her mother's partner, DAI had touched her sexually. KB described the same events in her statement to police. DAI was charged with sexual assault. At DAI's criminal trial, KB demonstrated that she could communicate the evidence and promised to tell the truth. The trial judge asked KB a number of questions such as, "If I said the wall was black would that be a truth or a lie?" When she answered these questions, the judge found that KB understood the difference between telling the truth and lying in concrete situations. However, as the Supreme Court found, "the trial judge went beyond this to question K.B. on her understanding of the nature of truth and falsity, of moral and religious duties, and of the legal consequences of lying in court." The judge was not satisfied with how K.B. answered these more abstract questions. She had frequently answered "I don't know". The judge also relied on the opinion of a psychiatrist. Without ever speaking to K.B. this psychiatrist concluded that K.B. had "serious difficulty in differentiating the concept of truth and lie". As a result of these conclusions, K.B. could not give her evidence in court and the case against DAI was dismissed. The majority of the Supreme Court determined that the trial judge erred when he required KB to demonstrate that she understood the nature of the promise to tell the truth. The majority of the Court concluded that when a witness' capacity to testify is challenged there are only two requirements that the witness must meet: 1) the ability to communicate the evidence and 2) promising to tell the truth. The positive aspect of the Supreme Court's decision is that it removes the barrier that has been imposed on adults with intellectual and mental health disabilities that was not placed on other witnesses. However, the comparison of KB and other adults with intellectual disabilities to children throughout the history of this case is inappropriate. For example, although the courts acknowledged that the psychiatrist never met KB, the psychiatrist's assessment that KB who attended high school, who was involved in her community and who had 19 years of lived experience, "possessed the mental age of a three- to six-year-old" was accepted by the courts with no apparent hesitation. Such characterization of adults with intellectual disabilities needs to be challenged if the criminal justice system is to be truly inclusive. *** Proposed Enhancements to the RDSP Announced in Budget 2012 By Brendon Pooran, Lawyer PooranLaw ARCH would like to thank Brendon Pooran for his contribution to the edition of ARCH Alert In the 2007 Federal Budget, the Government of Canada announced the introduction of the Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP). The first of its kind in the world, the RDSP is a tax-deferred savings vehicle designed to assist individuals with disabilities to plan for long-term financial security. The RDSP became available in 2008 with RDSP beneficiaries being eligible for up to $4,500 in annual Government contributions. For beneficiaries in Ontario, RDSPs do not affect eligibility for most provincially administered social assistance programs, including the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Based on feedback received from an RDSP review last year, the Government of Canada proposed significant enhancements to the RDSP in the 2012 Federal Budget. If passed, these five improvements would provide beneficiaries with greater access and flexibility when opening, administering and benefiting from the proceeds of RDSPs. 1. Establishing Plans for Adult Beneficiaries For beneficiaries over the age of 18, the existing legislation authorizes the beneficiary or an individual that is "legally authorized" to act on behalf of the beneficiary to establish the plan. As a result of this limitation imposed by the requirement that an individual be legally authorized to act on behalf of another, many beneficiaries who have been deemed to lack the capacity to contract and to act as a plan holder have been prevented from opening an RDSP. Neither federal nor Ontario legislation currently provides for a legally recognized and dignified approach to providing support to individuals who may need support in the decision making process. Regrettably, many people with disabilities were told that they would have to be declared "legally incompetent" to manage their finances and a legal guardian would have to be appointed, resulting in an invasive, undignified, and expensive process in order to benefit from an RDSP. Given that questions of legal representation and guardianship are matters of provincial and territorial responsibility, the Government of Canada has urged the Government of Ontario to examine this issue. In the meantime, Budget 2012 includes temporary provisions that would allow spouses, common-law partners and parents of beneficiaries to become a plan holder where the person with a disability may not have the capacity to sign a contract. Unfortunately, no proposals were made that would address potential beneficiaries without spouses, partners or parents in their lives who may wish to open a plan but are deemed not to have the capacity to enter the contract. As a safeguard, financial institutions will be required to notify an individual that a plan has been opened for them. If the individual plan holder is later found to be capable to enter a contract, he or she will replace the family member. These new provisions will apply from the date on which the proposed legislation receives Royal Assent until the end of 2016. Qualifying family members who have established plans for beneficiaries during this period will be permitted to continue to act as plan holders beyond 2016. Finally, these provisions do not apply for RDSPs that have already been established or where a legal representative is already in place. It is hoped that during the next four (4) years the Ontario government can be persuaded to take steps towards establishing a legal framework that recognizes a supported decision making approach with respect to the administration of financial matters such as the RDSP. In the meantime, it would be wise for those individuals affected to take advantage of the proposed legislation by establishing an RDSP before the end of 2016. 2. The Proportional Repayment Rule Currently amounts withdrawn from an RDSP are subject to the "10-year repayment rule". Under this rule, if a person makes a withdrawal from their RDSP, no matter the amount, that person will have to repay all government contribution that were made within the previous 10 years of the withdrawal. This could amount to up to $45,000 of government contributions being repaid as a result of a withdrawal. In order to provide greater access to funds in the RDSP, a new "proportional repayment rule" will replace the 10-year repayment rule for withdrawals starting in 2013. The 10-year repayment rule will continue to apply to situations where a beneficiary passes away or loses eligibility for the plan. Under the new proportional repayment rule, for each $1 withdrawn, $3 of government contributions received within the previous 10 years of the withdrawal must be repaid. The maximum that would have to be repaid would remain as the amount of contributions that the government made to the individual's plan over the previous 10 years. These repayments would be attributed beginning with the oldest government contributions. 3. Withdrawals In addition to the proportional repayment rule, the Government of Canada proposed changes to maximum and minimal withdrawals from RDSPs. The most significant measure applies to plans where government contributions exceed private contributions (known as primarily government assisted-plans or "PGAPs"). Currently, annual withdrawals from PGAPs are limited to a formula that is based on the life expectancy of the beneficiary and the fair market value of the assets in the RDSP. As a result, beneficiaries wanting to access a greater amount from their RDSP savings earlier in their lives are restricted from fully benefiting from their plans. Under the proposed provisions, individuals will have greater flexibility and access to their RDSP savings by not limiting them to a payment-based formula primarily based on life expectancy. 4. Rollover of RESP Investment Income A brand new measure introduced in Budget 2012 would allow investment income from a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) to be rolled over to an RDSP. The rollover would be subject to certain conditions and would be eligible on transfers beginning in 2013. In order for the rollover to be possible, the following conditions must be met: The beneficiary must: * be under the age of 60; and * be a resident of Canada; and * have a "severe and prolonged mental impairment that can reasonably be expected to prevent the beneficiary from pursuing post-secondary education. The RESP must: * have been opened at least 10 years prior to the rollover and the beneficiary is at least 21 years old and is not pursuing post-secondary education; OR * have been opened at least 35 years prior to the rollover. Currently, when an RESP is collapsed, that income is included in the subscriber's income for tax purposes and is subject to an additional 20 percent tax. The amount of tax owing can be reduced by making a partial contribution of the AIP to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan. The proposed rollover provisions would allow the AIP to be rolled over to the beneficiary's RDSP on a tax-free basis, subject to existing maximum contribution limits. In addition, contributions to the RESP would be returned to the subscriber on a tax-free basis. These amounts could be contributed to the beneficiary's RDSP thereby attracting additional government contributions. Government contributions made into the RESP would be paid back to the government upon the collapse of the RESP. This is a welcome change for families that have established RESPs for their children who have decided not to pursue post-secondary education. They will now have the option of transferring tax-deferred income generated by their RESP to the beneficiary's RDSP on a tax free basis. 5. Terminating an RDSP Upon Becoming Ineligible for the DTC An individual must be eligible for the Disability Tax Credit ("DTC") in order to be the beneficiary of an RDSP. Currently, if DTC eligibility ceases due to an improvement in the beneficiary's condition, the RDSP must be terminated by the end of the following calendar year. As a result, the 10-year repayment rule would be triggered and any amount that remains in the RDSP would be paid out to the beneficiary and taxed accordingly. This could potentially affect eligibility for social assistance programs, such as the ODSP. If the individual later regained eligibility for the DTC, the RDSP could be re-established, however, personal contribution room and repaid government contributions could not be restored. Budget 2012 proposes to extend the period for which RDSPs can remain open to up to four years after an individual loses their DTC eligibility. In order to benefit from this measure, a medical practitioner must provide written certification that the beneficiary, because of her medical condition, would be eligible for the DTC in the foreseeable future. When an individual become ineligible for the DTC she can elect to keep the RDSP open. There is a time limit for making this election. Once an individual elects to keep the RDSP open, the following rule will apply commencing the first calendar year following loss of DTC eligibility: * Contributions, other than those allowed from a retirement savings plan under the current rules, will not be permitted. * Government contributions will not be made into the RDSP while the election applies. * Carry-forward entitlements of government contributions will not be generated. * Withdrawals will not be permitted and will be subject to existing and proposed repayment rules. This is a much needed amendment that takes into consideration the day to day reality of many individuals with disabilities. Finally, in addition to these substantive changes, there were a number of proposed administrative provisions to the RDSP included in Budget 2012. The proposed changes would ease administrative time limits imposed on financial institutions offering RDSPs. While some issues with the RDSP remain outstanding, the proposals in the 2012 Budget go a long way towards making the RDSP more accessible and beneficial to the population it was intended to serve by, among other things: removing barriers to establishing RDSPs for some adult beneficiaries; increasing access to RDSP savings by reducing payback amounts and increasing withdrawal limits; allowing for tax free rollovers of monies from RESPs to RDSPs; and implementing a grace period for individuals whose eligibility for the Disability Tax Credit may vary. This article is not a legal opinion and your legal rights, options and restrictions will depend on your particular circumstances. It is recommended that you contact a lawyer or other professional advisor to explore what estate or future-planning vehicles would best meet your needs. Brendon D. Pooran is the principal lawyer at PooranLaw, a Toronto-based law firm that focuses on wills, trusts and estates planning for individuals with disabilities and their families. He can be contacted at bpooran@pooranlaw.com or 416-617-6805. *** Supreme Court of Canada Considers Duty to Accommodate Students with Disabilities By Laurie Letheren and Robert Lattanzio, Staff Lawyers On March 22, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada heard appeals in a matter that examines the duty to accommodate within the delivery of public education services to students with disabilities. In the appeals of Frederick Moore on behalf of Jeffrey P. Moore v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Education, et al., a student with learning disabilities challenged the Ministry of Education of British Columbia and a school board in Vancouver for not providing him, and other students with learning disabilities, with appropriate accommodations. Jeffrey Moore was labeled as having a severe learning disability and in 1994, he became eligible to attend an intensive program for students with severe learning disabilities. That program had been cut due to financial cost saving measures made that same year. The services that were subsequently offered were not comparable to the services he would have received in the intensive program and Jeffrey later attended private school. Mr. Moore filed an application at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal alleging a failure to provide him with the intensive program or something that was as appropriate to meet his unique needs as a student. The Tribunal determined that Jeffrey Moore had experienced discrimination when the School Board and the Ministry of Education failed to accommodate his needs in the delivery of educational services. The Ministry and the School Board applied to have the Tribunal's decision reviewed by the British Columbia Supreme Court. That Court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision, and the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed Mr. Moore`s appeal. The majority of the Court of Appeal found that there was no differential treatment and that there was no basis for a finding of discrimination. The Court's starting point was to agree with the reviewing judge that the service for students with disabilities was "special education" rather than general education. The Court proceeded from that basis to compare Mr. Moore with other students who received "special education" and concluded that there was no differential treatment, since no student receiving "special education" had access to the services that Mr. Moore was asking for during that period of time. Section 8 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code states that when a person is delivering a service that is "customarily available to the public", that person must not discriminate against another on the basis of disability. The issues before the Supreme Court included the question of whether "services customarily available to the public" for students with disabilities should be limited to "special education" services or whether students with disabilities should have the right to receive general education services without experiencing discrimination. ARCH lawyers, Robert Lattanzio and Laurie Letheren, represented the intervener, Canadian Association for Community Living at the Supreme Court, and made written submissions on this issue. CACL argued that a finding that students with disabilities were entitled to a separate and different "special education" service was contrary to the goals of British Columbia's Human Rights Code and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which both promote inclusive education. CACL also argued that a finding that students with disabilities were entitled to a separate and different "special education" also perpetuates the historical exclusion and disadvantage experienced by students with disabilities. Other questions before the Supreme Court include the use of a comparator group analysis in human rights duty to accommodate claims and the limits on the scope of remedies that tribunals can order. The Supreme Court reserved judgment. The decision on these appeals will have a significant impact on future human rights claims. The decision will likely be released within several months. *** Getting Services Right: Innovative research sheds light on community needs, February 1, 2012 To help improve municipal recreational services for people with disabilities, the City of Toronto's Parks, Forestry and Recreation division (PFR) designed and completed an innovative research project in 2008 entitled "Getting Services Right for Torontonians with Disabilities: Demographics and Service Delivery Expectations". This study was funded by an Ontario Works grant and the City of Toronto. Working with the community and service agencies that address disability issues across the city, the goal was to understand what members of the disability community were represented and taking part in City recreational services. Another of the study's objective was to determine what types of disabilities respondents have and what their expectations were. This research included input from both citizens and professionals (e.g. disability service agencies and staff from PFR). Surveys both in hard-copy and online were completed by over 600 citizens with disabilities and 56 service agencies. 14 public and two staff focus groups also ensured community and PFR staff feedback were heard. This resulted in 46 recommendations to improve city Parks, Forestry and Recreation services. The City of Toronto has already begun to take action on these recommendations and is pleased to share the Getting Services Right report with other agencies and municipalities across the province. While some of the recommendations and findings are unique to Toronto's landscape, many speak to challenges in common with other agencies, individuals and cities across Canada. For example, many survey respondents asked for increased weekday recreation programs, greater transportation options and a more person-centered subsidy application and program registration process. These recommendations reflect a community desire for increased independence, flexibility, and a greater variety in the opportunities available to them. This research also created a better understanding of the changing demographics in Toronto. Responding to these shifts is a challenge faced by many service agencies. In an effort to help agencies and municipalities build programs suited to their individual environments, this report sheds light on the varying population profiles of Toronto's districts and provides insight into how an agency might adapt its programming appropriately. For example, approximately 25% of the agencies surveyed indicated that there was still a demand among their clients for activities such as improving life and social skills as well as for specialized sports like sledge hockey and wheelchair basketball . For more information about the findings of this research please visit: http://www.toronto.ca/parks/pdf/accessibility/Getting_Services_Right.pdf . "Getting Services Right" provides key information about the expectations of service users and offers clear, relevant ideas to help agencies address issues such as communication, support, accessibility, and affordability to help improve municipal recreational services for people with disabilities. For more information about the findings of this research, please visit the above website, or contact Lorene Bodiam, Advocate for People with Disabilities (416-394-8532,) or Elvin Dobani, Program Specialist - Research and Analysis, Office of the Advocate for People with Disabilities (416-394-2732, edobani@toronto.ca). *** Emergency ALS Interpreting Services Ontario Interpreting Services (OIS) is a service that is available at the Canadian Hearing Society. It provides American Sign Language (ASL) - English interpreting services across Ontario, and la langue des signes québécoise (LSQ) - French interpreting services in some regions of Ontario. OIS operates an Emergency Interpreting Service. * Anyone can request the service * Open 24 hours/day, 7 days/week, 365 days a year * We will try our best, however, emergency interpreting services may not be available at all times in all regions Emergency means: * Sudden, unforeseen crisis that requires immediate attention * Happens where? o Hospital emergency rooms o After-hours medical clinics o Crisis centres o Shelters o Police services o Child welfare emergencies If you need an interpreter for an emergency, contact: * 1-866-831-4657 TTY * 1-866-256-5142 Phone * ois@answerplus.ca For more information about Ontario Interpreting Services and other services of the Canadian Hearing Society, go to www.chs.ca This information was compiled with the assistance from OIS and the website of the Canadian Hearing Society. *** Survey of the Circumstances of Lawyers and Law Students with Disabilities in Ontario By Ed Montigny, Staff Lawyer THE ONTARIO BAR ASSOCIATION EQUALITY COMMITTEE NEEDS YOUR INPUT The Equality Committee of the Ontario Bar Association is conducting a survey to obtain information about the circumstances of lawyers and law students with disabilities in Ontario. If you are lawyer or law student with a disability or if your firm or organization employs lawyers or law students with disabilities, we want to hear your stories of your achievements and challenges within the profession. LAW STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES The Equality Committee wants to hear about the experiences of students with disabilities. We need to know whether you able to obtain the accommodations you required at law school; did you have equal access to programmes and summer employment opportunities?; do you feel your law school understood and met your needs and supported your career aspirations? LAWYERS WITH DISABILITIES The Equality Committee wants to know whether lawyers with disabilities are able to find employment in their chosen fields and whether they are able to obtain the accommodations they require from employers. We want to know what barriers still exist. Are some disabilities being accommodated more readily than others? We want to know about the challenges lawyers with disabilities face, but we also want to hear about success stories where creative solutions were found to promote inclusion and address issues of accommodation and access for both employees and clients. EMPLOYERS The Equality Committee wants to know what employers are doing to attract and accommodate lawyers with disabilities. What challenges do employers face in providing accommodation? What forms of assistance or support could bodies such as the Law Society of Upper Canada or the OBA offer to employers to help them promote inclusion and deal with accommodation issues. The Equality Committee needs to hear from you! Please share your experiences, challenges and success stories with us, so we can better understand what is being done and what remains to be done to ensure the full inclusion of persons with disabilities within the profession. We want to hear from you whether you are a person with a disability (either past or present) or a person without a disability who has experiences related to the employment or accommodation of a person with a disability. You can submit your experiences anonymously through Survey Monkey. Simply follow this link: English: http://www.oba.org/En/diversity/home/Survey.aspx French: http://www.oba.org/Fr/DiversityFR/EqualityCommitteeFR/Enquête.aspx If you require further options to access the survey please contact Ed Montigny at ARCH Disability Law Centre at 416-482-8255. Please submit your responses by May 30 2012. *** Publications at ARCH ARCH writes or publishes papers, articles and fact sheets from time to time. Some of these materials are available on our website. We are providing a list of our current publications available to the public via our website, e-mail or by mail. To access any of the publications on ARCH's website, please go to http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/publications/index.asp. If you are unable to access them online and would like to have a publication sent to you, please contact Theresa at ARCH, providing her with the specific publication and how you would like to receive it (by mail or e-mail) at: Tel.: 416-482-8255 Toll-free: 1-866-482-2724 TTY: 416-482-1254 Toll-free: 1-866-482-2728 or by e-mail at scibert@lao.on.ca DISCLAIMER: THESE PUBLICATIONS PROVIDE INFORMATION ONLY AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE. THE CONTENTS REFLECT THE LAWS THAT WERE CURRENT AT THE TIME OF WRITING OR UPDATING AND THE LAW MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE THAT DATE. FACT SHEETS NEW!!! “Education Basics for Students with Disabilities”, November 2011 Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=education-basics-students-disabilities This information booklet provides basic introductory information aimed at assisting students with disabilities and their parents in advocating for education services in public primary and secondary school. This material looks at disability and how it interacts with the Education Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code. UPDATED!!! “Assistive Devices Fact Sheets”, November 2011 Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=assistive-devices-fact-sheets-july-2008 A series of three fact sheets on assistive devices for people with disabilities. UPDATED!!! “Attendant Services Fact Sheets”, October 2011 Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=attendant-services-fact-sheets A set of 6 Fact Sheets each focusing on a specific area of Attendant Services: Attendant Services - General Overview; Direct Funding; Community Care Access Centres; Complaints; Home Care Bill of Rights; Health Services Appeal and Review Board; are intended to provide basic general information of use to people seeking or using attendant services. “Mental Health Fact Sheets”, December 2008 Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=mental-health-fact-sheets Two fact sheets which contain information for people who use or have used mental health services and supports. One fact sheet provides information about human rights and the right to be free from discrimination. The second fact sheet provides information about the right to language interpretation services at Courts and Tribunals. These fact sheets are available in the following languages: * English * French * Amharic * Brazilian Portuguese * Chinese * Punjabi * Tamil * Vietnamese "Fact Sheet on Interacting with Persons with Disabilities”, December 2007 Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=fact-sheets-interacting-persons-who-have-disability These fact sheets provide general tips on how to interact with people in a manner that best accommodates their disability. These fact sheets are available in English and French. WORKSHOPS NEW!!! “Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and Customer Service Standards”, November 2011 Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=accessibility-ontarians-disabilities-act-aoda-and-customer-service-standards In 2005, the Ontario government passed the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Organizations who deliver services in Ontario have to take steps to ensure compliance with the AODA Customer Services Standards. This power point presentation provides an overview of the standards passed under the AODA and the compliance requirements. "Know Your Rights: An introductory guide to disability, the Human Rights Code, the Education Act, and legal aid services in Ontario, August 2011" Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=know-your-rights-introductory-guide- disability-human-rights-code-education-act-and-legal-aid-service This information booklet was prepared by ARCH Disability Law Centre for the Summer 2011 Ready for School Connects Program, delivered at Crescent Town Elementary School, George Webster Public School, Secord Public School, Sprucecourt Junior Public School, and St. Paul's Catholic School. "Disability Tax Credit Webinar, June 2011" Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=disability-tax-credit-webinar The Disability Tax Credit is an essential benefit for many Canadians with disabilities. However, people often encounter problems with the forms and having them completed. This webinar is hosted by ARCH Disability Law Centre and presented by Brendon Pooran, who discusses issues around the completion of the forms and the benefits that flow from receipt of the Disability Tax Credit. CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION MATERIALS: "ARCH 30TH Anniversary Symposium - Notes on Presentations, March 2011" Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=arch-30th-anniversary-symposium-%E2%80%93-notes-presentations-0 These notes outline the basic content of the presentations made at ARCH's 30th Anniversary Symposium. These notes are intended to offer a general guide to what was said at the symposium. "Notes on Capacity to Instruct Counsel, February 2011" Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=notes-capacity-instruct-counsel-0 Overview of issues lawyers must consider when dealing with clients who may have capacity issues - instructions on how to assess client's capacity to instruct counsel. "Providing Legal Services to People with Disabilities, January 2011" Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=providing-legal-services-people-disabilities-0 This article is intended to be a resource for lawyers on representing clients who have disabilities. It contains a discussion of the concept of disability in jurisprudence and legislation, the applicability of the Law Society of Upper Canada's Rules of Professional Conduct to clients with disabilities and practical considerations for accommodating clients. "Addressing the Capacity of Parties before Ontario's Administrative Tribunals: Respecting Autonomy, Protecting Fairness, November 2009" Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=addressing-capacity-parties- ontario%E2%80%99s-administrative-tribunals-respecting-autonomy-protecting-fairne This report summarizes the procedures available to people with capacity issues before selected administrative tribunals in Ontario. "Addressing the Capacity of Parties before Ontario's Administrative Tribunals: A Practical Guide for Ontario Lawyers, October 2009" Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=addressing-capacity-parties- ontario%E2%80%99s-administrative-tribunals-practical-guide-ontario-lawyers This Guide offers concrete strategies and options to lawyers representing people with capacity issues before administrative boards and tribunals. ARTICLES AND POSITION PAPERS "The Shield Becomes the Sword: The Expansion of the Ameliorative Program Defence to Programs that Support Persons with Disabilities”, November 2010 Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=shield-becomes-sword-expansion-ameliorative-program-defence-programs-support-persons-disabilities ARCH prepared a research paper for the Law Commission of Ontario on the application of the "ameliorative program" provisions of the Charter to the equality claims of persons with disabilities. "Enforcing the Rights of People with Disabilities in Ontario's Developmental Services System”, November 2010 Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=enforcing-rights-people-disabilities- ontarios-developmental-services-system This paper was commissioned by the Law Commission of Ontario as part of its project on the Law As It Affects Persons with Disabilities. The paper discusses the need for laws to include rights for people who receive developmental services and supports. "Inclusive Education: Opportunities for Redesign”, May, 2010 Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=inclusive-education-opportunities-redesign This paper was written for 2010 CAPSLE Conference in Calgary on Inclusive Education and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. "Federal Disability Act: Opportunities and Challenges”, October 2006 Link: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=federal-disability-act-opportunities-and-challenges This paper was commissioned by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) and the Canadian Association for Community Living (CACL). The paper considers what a Federal disability act might look like and what its reach could be. Donating to ARCH While ARCH receives core funding from Legal Aid Ontario and grant funding from other sources, we also rely on the donations from individuals. We ask you to consider being a part of our work by contributing whatever you can. If you are able to assist please donate to ARCH through www.canadahelps.org. Or you can send your donation cheque to: Office Manager ARCH Disability Law Centre 425 Bloor Street East, Suite 110 Toronto, Ontario M4W 3R4 We will promptly send you a charitable receipt. Charitable No. 118 777 994 RR 0001 Become a Member of ARCH If you would like to become an individual member of ARCH, please visit our website at www.archdisabilitylaw.ca or contact our office to request an Application for Individual Membership form. Membership is free. ARCH ALERT is published by ARCH Disability Law Centre. It is distributed free via e-mail or mail to ARCH members, community legal clinics, and others with an interest in disability issues. ARCH is a non-profit community legal clinic, which defends and promotes the equality rights of persons with disabilities through litigation, law/policy reform and legal education. ARCH is governed by a Board of Directors elected by representatives of member groups reflecting the disability community. The goal of ARCH ALERT is to provide concise information, so that people are aware of important developments and resources. Articles may be copied or reprinted to share with others provided that they are reproduced in their entirety and that the appropriate credit is given. We encourage those who receive it to assist with distribution of information in this way. We do ask that both PDF and Text Formats are distributed to ensure accessibility. Charitable Reg. #118777994RR01. Editor: Laurie Letheren Production & Circulation: Theresa Sciberras We welcome your comments and questions, as well as submissions. We will endeavour to include all information of general interest to the community of persons with disabilities and their organizations, but reserve the right to edit or reject material if necessary. We will advise you if your submission is to be edited or rejected. Please assist us in your submissions by being brief and factual. Please address communications regarding ARCH ALERT to: Theresa Sciberras, Program and Litigation Assistant, ARCH Disability Law Centre, 425 Bloor St. E., Suite 110, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3R4, fax: 416-482-2981 or 1-866- 881-2723, TTY: 416-482-1254 or 1-866-482-2728, e-mail: scibert@lao.on.ca Website: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/