ARCH Disability Law Centre 425 Bloor St. E. Ste. 110 Toronto, Ontario M4W 3R5 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 ARCH Alert 12 February 2008 INSIDE THIS ISSUE - ARCH Welcomes Ivana Petricone as our New Executive Director - Phyllis Gordon Retires - Individual Assessments Needed for Skilled Worker Immigrants - One Person, One Fare Case - Hotel to Install Visual Fire Alarms - Human Rights Tribunal Rules that Employee Cannot be Fired for Failing to Disclose his Mental Health Disability - EndExclusion 2007 - Mental Health Commission of Canada's Stakeholder Consultation - Update to Ontario's Human Rights System - Information and Communications Standard Draft Released - The good, the bad and the ugly - Built Environment Resource - Telecom Complaints Agency Board Members Needed - Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006 - Accessibility Committee Three Year Plan Approval - David Lepofsky Appointed To The Order Of Ontario - Community Announcements - Correction ARCH Welcomes Ivana Petricone as our New Executive Director by Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer The Board of Directors of ARCH Disability Law Centre is very pleased to announce that Ivana Petricone joined ARCH as our new Executive Director in January 2008. Ivana comes to ARCH from Rexdale Community Legal Clinic in Toronto where she has been the Clinic Director since 1992. Ivana was called to the Ontario Bar in 1980. She began her career in private practice, focusing on legal services for the disadvantaged and became a staff lawyer at Rexdale Community Information and Legal Services in 1981. Her practice at the Rexdale Clinic focused on workers' compensation law. Ivana is a respected leader within the community legal clinic system of Ontario. She was a member of the Steering Committee that initiated the Association of Community Legal Clinics of Ontario and served on the Association's Executive for several years. She has served on two Clinic Funding Advisory Committees to the Ontario Legal Aid Plan as well as the original Quality Assurance Committee for community legal clinics. She has much experience providing public legal education and has been active in law reform initiatives. Most recently these have included advocating for reform of the process for appointments to administrative tribunals in Ontario and for important reforms for injured workers. Ivana is highly regarded in the legal clinic community for her professionalism and thoughtfulness. When members of the legal clinic community learned that Ivana had been hired as ARCH's new Executive Director, other ARCH staff were told how lucky we were and that Ivana would be great for ARCH. After her short time with ARCH, we are already beginning to understand why Ivana came so highly recommended. We look forward to developing and strengthening ARCH under Ivana's guidance. WELCOME IVANA *** Phyllis Gordon, Our Dedicated and Passionate Leader, Retires from ARCH by Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer After 7 years as a dedicated and passionate leader, Phyllis Gordon retired from her position as ARCH's Executive Director at the end of 2007. Phyllis began her role as Executive Director at a time of renewal for ARCH and lead ARCH to the place it occupies today as an important and integral member of the disability and community legal clinic communities. In December 2007, members of the community joined ARCH staff and board members at a celebration of Phyllis, the executive director and the person. Recognition of Phyllis as a respected leader in the disability community was reflected in passages recorded in a book of appreciation. The following are excerpts from this book: * Few words can properly express my sincere and heartfelt gratitude to you for your commitment and dedication to your role as ARCH's Executive Director. In this capacity, you have been the respected and passionate ambassador of ARCH, and for me personally, a thoughtful mentor and friend. * Phyllis' dedication and thorough knowledge of current and future issues that impact the people ARCH serves grew as I continued to benefit as a learner being exposed to her wisdom and genuineness. * Your integrity, hard work and positive attitude have been consistent. They will be missed! * One of the things that I admire about Phyllis is the long haul she has served trying to bring some equality to the marginalized sectors of society. The remarkable thing about Phyllis, as well as the vast majority of clinic staff, is by far that they care more for the people they serve than the prestige that comes with being a lawyer. * Phyllis' deep personal commitment to her work and to our mutual issues was always clearly in evidence and it was that combination of personal passion for the cause and professional expertise that made her such an admired leader. * You were at your best when you directly, but respectfully, pointed out to us all when we were falling down on the job, such as not responding to a systemic injustice or not supporting one another. We are stronger as a clinic system because of your leadership and wisdom. * After finally meeting you and getting to know you, I concluded that what I had heard was true: always a Montrealer at heart and in spirit; always an open mind; an easy smile and a pleasure to work with; always trying to make things right. * I would like to thank you for the thoughtful way that you led ARCH through the Bill 107 debate. This helped the entire equality-rights community to weather the storm of public controversy. Your role was invaluable. * Phyllis is admired for her ability to juggle the demands of being ED with her commitment to her family and friends and other pursuits that are important to her. Although Phyllis's presence is missed, her leadership and teachings continue to impact ARCH's work. We thank Phyllis for leading us in reaching many ARCH milestones. THANKS PHYLLIS *** Court Finds that Individual's Situation Must be Assessed before Rejecting Skilled Worker Immigrants Because of Their Disability by Debra M. McAllister, Barrister & Solicitor, ARCH Disability Law Centre The Canadian Association for Community Living ("CACL") and the Ethno-Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario ("ERDCO") recently intervened in a case before the Federal Court of Appeal known as Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Colaco. Debra M. McAllister of ARCH Disability Law Centre provided legal representation to the interveners. The issue in this appeal was the interpretation of a section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [IRPA] that provides that potential immigrants are not admissible to Canada if they have a health condition which might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demands on Canada's health or social services ["excessive demands assessment"]. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada determined a similar issue in Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); De Jong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [See November 9, 2005 edition of ARCH Alert]. In that case, two families applied to immigrate to Canada as business class immigrants. Their applications were rejected because each had a child with an intellectual disability and the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration decided that the children might cause excessive demands on Canadian social services. In both cases, the parents were able and willing to pay the costs of any social services the children required. The Supreme Court of Canada decided in Hilewitz that immigration officials must consider the individual circumstances of each applicant taking into account the family's ability and willingness to pay for social services for a child who is medically inadmissible. The Colaco family applied to immigrate to Canada as skilled workers. Like the families in Hilewitz, one of the Colaco children had an intellectual disability. Even though the parents were both well established professionals with significant net worth, immigration officials had refused to consider their ability and willingness to pay for the social services that their child might need. The government took the position that the Hilewitz decision only applied to business class applicants. Justice Barnes, of the Federal Court, rejected the government's argument and concluded that when considering applications made by skilled workers, the family's ability and willingness to pay the cost of social services is to be considered. Justice Barnes found that those who apply to immigrate to Canada as skilled workers must meet a financial means test and could also show that they may have additional financial resources that would be available to support a dependent with a disability. Those reviewing applications made by skilled workers need to take these factors into account. The Federal Government appealed Justice Barnes' decision. The government's appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was heard in Toronto on September 12, 2007. The Court listened to the government's argument but did not ask counsel for the Colaco family or the Interveners to speak in Court since the Judges were not persuaded by the government's argument. However, Justice Linden, speaking for all three Judges, commented that the Interveners' materials were very helpful to the Court. The Federal Court of Appeal denied the government's appeal agreeing with Justice Barnes that the reasoning in Hilewitz applied to skilled workers' applications. The Court also adopted portions of the decision in Hilewitz which warned against generic "cookie-cutter" assessments that automatically exclude everyone with a particular disability and attach "a cost assessment to the disability rather than to the individual." The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that "[i]f a skilled worker applicant ...can establish that his or her admissibility in Canada cannot reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on social services, there is ... no reason to exclude that applicant on that basis." Unfortunately, the Court did not go so far as to say that ability and willingness to pay must be considered for all categories of potential immigrants. The Minister did not seek leave to appeal the Colaco decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. As a result, CACL and ERDCO will have to wait for another case in which to make the argument that all potential immigrants should be assessed on their individual needs and individual circumstances including their ability and willingness to pay for the needs of a dependent with a disability. The government of Canada should not be permitted to arbitrarily exclude potential immigrants on the basis that they have a particular kind of disability. *** Canadian Transportation Agency Determines "One Person, One Fare" Case by Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer On January 10, 2008, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) released a decision known as the "One Person, One Fare" case that recognizes the rights of people with disabilities to travel by air without having to pay for a second seat, for an attendant or other use, to accommodate their disability. The CTA followed the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, in Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. Via Rail Canada Inc. (see April 2, 2007 edition of ARCH Alert). In that decision, the Supreme Court stated that the principles of the Canadian Human Rights Act must be applied by the CTA when it makes a finding that a feature of the federal transportation network represents an undue obstacle to some persons with disabilities and when it makes orders on remedies to remove the obstacle. The CTA indicated that the Human Rights principles that are particularly relevant to this Decision are the following: * persons with disabilities have the same rights as others to full participation in all aspects of society and equal access to transportation is critical to the ability of persons with disabilities to exercise that right; * all persons with disabilities are entitled to be treated in the same manner regardless of the underlying reason for their disability; and * persons with disabilities should not be placed at an economic disadvantage as a result of their disabilities and should not have to pay more for their transportation services than other passengers who do not have disabilities, including in circumstances where transportation service providers must provide different services to ensure equivalent access to the federal transportation network. The CTA decision confirms that once an undue obstacle is found, the transportation service provider must show that reasonable accommodation has been provided up to the point of undue hardship. What constitutes reasonable accommodation in each case is a matter of degree and depends on a balancing of the interests of persons with disabilities with those of the transportation service provider in the circumstances of the case. The CTA decision indicates that in most cases, there will be a range of alternatives available to address the needs of a person with a disability or a group sharing the same characteristics and, in each case, the most appropriate accommodation will be one that respects the dignity of the individual, meets individual needs, and promotes the independence, integration and full participation of persons with disabilities within the federal transportation network. To establish undue hardship, a transportation service provider must show that it has considered the accommodation requested and determined that there are no reasonable alternatives to better accommodate the person with a disability affected by the obstacle and that there are constraints that make the removal of the obstacle unreasonable, impracticable or, in some cases, impossible. David Baker and Sarah Godwin of bakerlaw in Toronto were counsel for the applicants in this case. *** Hotel to Install Visual Fire Alarms In Order to Accommodate the Needs of Deaf, Deafened and Hard of Hearing Guests by Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer On January 30, 2008, the Ontario Human Rights Commission announced that a settlement had been reached between the Days Hotel and Conference Centre, Toronto Airport East and hotel guest Barbara Dodd. Ms. Dodd, who is Deaf, filed a complaint with the Commission after she had stayed at the Days Hotel for a special event and had not been alerted when the early morning fire alarm went off. The hotel, like many other hotels, did not have a visual fire alarm system in place to warn deaf guests of a fire. According to the report from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the hotel has agreed to * install a strobe light fire alarm system in select locations of the hotel, including the lobby, restaurant, swimming pool area, ballroom, public washrooms and four selected guest rooms.; * equip four guest rooms with visual fire warning devices and reserve these rooms for people identifying themselves as deaf or hard of hearing until all others rooms are occupied; and * develop and implement policies and procedures for safely accommodating visitors who are deaf or hard of hearing, in consultation with the Commission, Ms. Dodd and expert advisors. The Commission also reports that Terry Mundell, President of the Greater Toronto Hotel Association, has stated that the Association is "taking accessibility very seriously and will continue to provide tools like the Checklist to help support our industry to increase hotel safety and accessibility for all Ontarians". The Checklist referenced is the Hospitality Accessibility Checklist featured on the Association Website at www.gtha.com. In addition, the report states that Rob Evans, President of the Ontario Restaurant, Hotel and Motel Association, has indicated that the settlement will be communicated to all members of that Association and that members will be encouraged "to provide similar measures on their premises". For background on Ms. Dodd's complaint and more information on the settlement see: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/news/dodd. *** Human Rights Tribunal Rules that Employee Cannot be Fired for Failing to Disclose his Mental Health Disability by Kerri Joffe, Staff Lawyer On October 16, 2007 the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario released its decision in Lane v. ADGA Group Consultants Inc. The Tribunal found that ADGA discriminated against Mr. Lane by summarily terminating his employment after discovering that he had a mental health disability. Lane had bipolar disorder. He did not disclose this information to ADGA at any point before he was hired. Four days after starting work he informed his immediate supervisor that he had bipolar disorder, offered to provide additional information, told his supervisor to contact his wife or doctor if anyone suspected he was acting differently, and informed his supervisor that he might have to take time off work to accommodate his disability. Lane's supervisors met and expressed concerns as to whether Lane's disability and behaviour were compatible with the responsibilities, stress and security dimensions of the job. They were convinced that Lane could not do the job and since they were within the 90 day probation period there was nothing preventing them from dismissing Lane. Lane was dismissed eight days after he began working for ADGA. One of the important issues the Tribunal ruled on was whether ADGA discriminated against Lane by failing to fulfill the procedural dimension of its duty to accommodate. It is well established that the duty to accommodate has a substantive and a procedural dimension. The procedural dimension requires the employer to make significant efforts to accommodate an employee's disability and to conduct an individualized assessment of the employee's needs. The Tribunal found that ADGA did not conduct an appropriate assessment of the situation to enable it to reach an informed conclusion that it could not accommodate Lane without undue hardship. ADGA had no accommodation policy establishing a process for assessing the needs of employees with disabilities. The supervisors involved in the decision to terminate Lane had no training in dealing with workplace accommodation issues and none of them took steps to assess whether ADGA could accommodate Lane's disability. Instead, the manager responsible for terminating Lane based his decision solely on his personal assessment of whether Lane could do the job. The Tribunal determined that ADGA should have considered whether careful accommodation of Lane's disability could have avoided problems in the workplace and should have postponed its decision to terminate Lane until it could fully evaluate whether it could accommodate him without undue hardship. Another important issue in the case was the Tribunal's finding that the failure to fulfill the procedural dimension of the duty to accommodate is a form of discrimination in its own right. This means that discrimination can occur when an employer fails to conduct an appropriate assessment to determine whether it can accommodate an employee's disability and such a failure has adverse consequences to the employee. The Tribunal also found that ADGA did not have the right to dismiss Lane once it discovered that Lane had failed to reveal his disability during the hiring process. Expert evidence established that persons with bipolar disorder may be reluctant to reveal their disability to prospective employers for fear of a stereotypical reaction by the employer leading to a decision not to hire the person. In these circumstances, ADGA could not rely on Lane keeping his disability secret as a justification for dismissing him. The Tribunal qualified Phillip Upshall who is a person with bipolar disorder and the President of the Mood Disorders Society of Canada, an advocacy group for persons with mental health disabilities, as an expert at the hearing. He was qualified as an expert to provide vital background and contextual information about bipolar disorder, including the impact the disorder can have, forms of treatment and management, and the extent to which accommodation is possible. The Tribunal also qualified Mr. Upshall as an expert to discuss research on attitudes to mental disorder in the workplace, stigma and stereotyping. These are just some of the important issues the Human Rights Tribunal dealt with in this case. To read the full decision, see www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2007/2007hrto34/2007hrto34.html. ARCH will continue to monitor the impact of this case on the duty to accommodate employees with disabilities. *** EndExclusion 2007 - Building An Inclusive and Accessible Canada by Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer EndExclusion.ca is a Canada-wide initiative designed to celebrate successes of people with disabilities. On November 22, 2007 the second annual EndExclusion event was held in Ottawa. The over 300 persons with disabilities, family members and allies in attendance discussed an action plan for realizing the vision developed in 2006 for building an inclusive and accessible Canada. The vision calls for the Federal Government to develop a National Action Plan that would involve "comprehensive short and long range plans and decisive action to create a national environment in which people with disabilities can and do achieve their full potential." The Government of Canada has committed to bringing forward a Federal Disability Act. According to the EndExclusion website, http://www.endexclusion.ca/english/plan_final2007.asp, "Canadians with disabilities will support a Federal Disability Act that moves forward quickly, encompasses the issues identified by EndExclusion.ca, allocates significant resources for improving access and inclusion and ensures a mechanism for strong enforcement of access and inclusion." The EndExclusion Nation Action Plan describes a Framework for Action. The Framework states that for an Inclusive and Accessible Canada to be a reality, the Government of Canada must show leadership by enhancing their role in four key areas: * Enhanced disability supports to enable Independent Living, active citizenship and full participation; * An enhanced Federal role in alleviating poverty of persons with disabilities and their families thus freeing up dollars at provincial/territorial levels for new investments in disability supports; * Labour force inclusion measures; * A national social development role to promote accessibility and community inclusion. For further details on the Framework for a National Action Plan on Disability and the demands to be made of the federal government see the full National Action Plan 2007 on the EndExclusion website at http://www.endexclusion.ca/english/plan_final2007.asp. To date, the Nation Action Plan had been endorsed by over 95 national and provincial disability organizations. *** Mental Health Commission of Canada's Stakeholder Consultation by Kerri Joffe, Staff Lawyer The Mental Health Commission of Canada was created in March 2007 with the goal of providing an ongoing national focus for mental health issues and helping to bring into being an integrated mental health system. The Commission has outlined three key initiatives that it intends to work on: * a 10-year anti-stigma campaign, * the promotion of a national mental health strategy, and * the creation of a Knowledge Exchange Centre. The Commission will do its work through a Board of Directors and eight Advisory Committees. In October 2007, the Commission held a Stakeholder Consultation Session in which it asked participants what they would like to see the Commission accomplish over the next three years and how their organization could assist the Commission to achieve these objectives. ARCH attended the consultation and made a written submission. In our submission ARCH, along with other mental health and consumer/ survivor organizations, urged the Commission to include more persons with mental health disabilities in its work. Currently, of the 18 members on the Commission's Board of Directors, only 3 are persons with a mental health or psychiatric disability and none of the Advisory Committee Chairs has identified publicly as a person with a mental health or psychiatric disability. At the consultation the Commission stated that its intention is to include at least one person with a mental health or psychiatric disability on each of the Advisory Committees. ARCH will be monitoring the make-up of the Advisory Committees to determine whether the Commission creates a more inclusive, participatory environment and includes more persons with mental health disabilities in its work. We also urged the Commission to reorient its focus away from an anti-stigma campaign and towards an anti-stigma/ anti-discrimination campaign. It is ARCH's position that it is not enough for the Commission to educate Canadians on myths, stereotypes, fears and beliefs that are harmful to persons with mental health or psychiatric disabilities. The Commission must go further and educate Canadians about the fundamental rights of persons with mental health and psychiatric disabilities to live free from discrimination. Employers, service providers, health care professionals, governments, educators, the criminal justice system and all aspects of Canadian society need to understand their legal obligations not to discriminate against persons with mental health or psychiatric disabilities and to provide accommodation where needed. Our submission also supported ideas put forth by consumer/ survivor organizations, suggested that the Commission make access to justice part of its work, and suggested that the Commission include information about human rights law and the duty to accommodate in its Knowledge Exchange Centre. The full text of our submission is available on ARCH's website, under Publications & Submissions at http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/publications/submissions.asp. One of the Commission's Advisory Committees is called Mental Health and the Law. This Committee is chaired by Edward Ormston, an Ontario Court of Justice judge who was involved in creating Ontario's Mental Health Court and is currently Chair of the Consent and Capacity Board. ARCH will continue to monitor the work of the Commission, and specifically the Mental Health and the Law Committee. For more information on the Mental Health Commission of Canada, see www.mentalhealthcommission.ca . *** Update on Bill 107 and Ontario's Human Rights Reform Process by Kerri Joffe, Staff Lawyer As we reported in our February 2007 issue of ARCH Alert, Bill 107, now known as the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006, received Royal Assent on December 20, 2006. The Act makes significant changes to Ontario's human rights complaint and enforcement system. The government has now proclaimed June 30, 2008 as the day on which these changes will come into force. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario [Tribunal] and the Ontario Human Rights Commission have both begun working on implementing the transition from the current system to the new one. In addition, a transition team has begun planning for and setting up the new Human Rights Legal Support Centre [Support Centre], which will open on June 30, 2008. Through our involvement in the Clinic Human Rights Working Group, ARCH has provided input to the Tribunal and the Support Centre's transition team on the importance of designing and implementing a fully accessible process. In October 2007, the Clinic Human Rights Working Group met with the Support Centre's transition team. The Support Centre has a mandate to provide advice and assistance on people's rights under the Human Rights Code and legal services in relation to applications to the Tribunal. The Support Centre must ensure that these services are available throughout the province. At the meeting ARCH stressed the importance of ensuring that the services provided by the Support Centre are designed using the principles of universal design and are fully accessible to persons with disabilities. ARCH also stressed the importance of ensuring that all of the locations through which the Centre will provide its services are accessible - accessibility should not be limited to one site. In November 2007, the Clinic Human Rights Working Group met with the Chair and legal counsel of the Tribunal. ARCH was encouraged to hear that the Tribunal's new hearing rooms in Toronto meet or exceed North American accessibility design standards and that the Tribunal is aware of the need to acquire accessible hearing rooms outside of Toronto. The Tribunal will be writing a policy on accessibility and accommodation, which will be published on its website. The Tribunal has recently released a draft of its new Rules of Practice for public consultation. The consultation is now open until March 14, 2008. For more information on the Rules and this consultation see: http://www.hrto.ca/english/rules/SteadyStateRules.doc. ARCH will continue to provide input to the Tribunal and the Support Centre as they plan and implement their new processes. This input will likely include outlining the legal obligations to provide accommodation when delivering legal services to persons with disabilities, providing examples of accessibility and accommodation, and recommending resources on accommodation and inclusive design. In addition, the Tribunal and Support Centre have said that they are open to hearing from community groups. Contact the Tribunal or the Support Centre to request a meeting if your group has comments, opinions, suggestions or information to share. Through our input ARCH hopes to emphasize the importance of creating a fully accessible human rights system. *** Initial Draft of Information and Communications Standard Released for Input (This article first appeared in the November 30, 2007 edition of Accessibility News: www.accessibilitynews.ca) The Information and Communications Standards Development Committee has released a draft of its Standard developed under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act [AODA]. The Committee is seeking input and comment on its initial draft proposed Standard while continuing to further develop the draft Standard. As mandated by the AODA, the Standard is to be released for public consultation. This consultation is likely to take place in mid to late 2008. The proposed Accessible Information and Communications Standard is available for your review and feedback at http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/accessibilityOntario/accesson/business/information/ . *** The good, the bad and the ugly - Design and Construction for Access by Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer Much like Ontario's Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act [AODA], Australia's Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) does not include technical specifications that can be referenced to ensure compliance with the Act. Australia's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [HREOC] along with many industry, community and government bodies have been working with the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) to develop a DDA Disability Standard on Access to Premises (Premises Standard). This is similar to the standards development process under the AODA. The expectation is that when completed, this Premises Standard, and corresponding changes to the Building Code of Australia (BCA), will provide designers, builders and certifiers with design specifications deemed to meet both DDA and BCA requirements. The HREOC reports that in far too many cases of new building construction or renovation the current requirements for access are not being met. As is stated in the document produced by the HREOC, The good, the bad and the ugly - Design and Construction for Access, Failure to put in fire control systems to specification or failures to ensure footings are appropriate for buildings are not tolerated. Yet we seem to tolerate handrails in accessible toilets being put in upside down, missing signage that is required by the BCA and ineffectively located Tactile Ground Surface Indicators. In response to the current failure to meet access requirements, the HREOC has developed a CD ROM that provides examples of common mistakes made in applying the BCA. The purpose of this resource is to explain why precise application of the BCA and its Standards is necessary to ensure that all persons benefit from good design and construction. A free copy of this CD can be ordered at publications@humanrights.gov.au or telephone 1300 369 711. The material is also available on the Commission's website and will be updated from time to time. http://www.humanrights.gov.au/disability_rights/buildings/good.htm According to the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services website, the members of the Standards Development Committee for the Built Environment Standard have been chosen and the members are now meeting. See: http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/accessibilityOntario/accesson/business/environment/. These resources produced by Australia's HREOC may be useful to those who wish to comment on the Built Environment Standard when it is released for public consultation in the future. *** Nominations for Board Members of Telecommunications Complaints Agency: Disability Voice Needed by Lana Kerzner, Staff Lawyer A new telecommunications consumer agency (Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services or CCTS) has been established to deal with certain types of consumer complaints such as complaints about telephone, cell phone and internet services. The board of this new agency is now being established. ARCH believes it is important that the disability community's views be reflected at the CCTS. Consumer groups (including disability groups) have an opportunity to nominate members for the board. Nominating a board member is an important way to give the disability community a voice in this process. We urge you to consider doing so. For more information please contact Lana Kerzner, Staff Lawyer, ARCH at kerznel@lao.on.ca by February 25, 2008. More information about the CCTS can be obtained at www.ccts-cprst.ca and http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2007/r071220.htm?Print=True. *** Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006 by Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer The Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) is a survey conducted by the Federal Government to collect information about persons with disabilities whose everyday activities are limited because of their disability. The survey took place between November 2006 and February 2007. PALS is funded by Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC). In May 2006, the 2006 Census questionnaire was delivered to households across Canada. The questionnaire included two general questions on activity limitations. Those chosen as respondents for the PALS were selected through the use of the census information on age, geography and the responses to these two general questions. Through this selection process, 48,000 people, consisting of approximately 39,000 adults and 9,000 children were chosen to be interviewed. Persons living in institutions and on First Nations reserves were excluded from the survey. The interviews were conducted by telephone with the interviewers using a computer assisted collection methodology. The last Participation and Activity Limitation Survey was conducted in 2001. PALS 2006 results can be compared with the 2001 survey to identify trends in the previous five years. The Survey results indicate that in 2006, 4.4 million or 14.3% of Canadians living in households reported having an activity limitation. This is an increase from the 2001 disability rate of 12.4%, when 3.6 million Canadians reported limitations in their everyday activities due to a physical or psychological condition or to a health condition. An analysis of the results concludes that the increase is due to a number of factors, including aging of the population and changing reporting behaviours. More detailed information about PALS 2006, is available on the Statistics Canada website at http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-628-XIE/89-628-XIE2007002.pdf. *** LAO Senior Management Committee Approves Accessibility Plan by Heather Hewer, Legal Aid Ontario Provincial Office Legal Aid Ontario's Senior Management Committee approved a three-year accessibility plan. The plan, which was developed following a survey of community agencies serving persons with disabilities, includes initiatives in the areas of technology, communications, client service and building facilities. Moving forward, LAO is developing a budgeting process to implement the accessibility plan. The Accessibility Committee was created to advise and assist LAO in meeting its responsibilities under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA) and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). The committee consists of LAO employees from across Ontario, with representatives from Provincial Office, area offices, clinics, SLASSs and duty counsel. The initiatives to be undertaken by LAO include the following: * Upgrades to office space to make more area offices and clinics physically accessible. * Changes to the LAO website to allow greater access for persons with disabilities * Training of staff on how to meet the needs of persons with disabilities * Making LAO publications available in alternate formats. * Enhancements to the application process to facilitate applications from persons with disabilities Work in some of these areas is already underway. LAO is committed to improving accessibility in the workplace and its services. *** David Lepofsky Appointed To The Order Of Ontario by Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer David Lepofsky, the Toronto lawyer and dedicated advocate of the rights of people with disabilities has been appointed to the Order of Ontario. David Lepofsky fought hard to have the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 and the subsequent Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005 enacted. His successful human rights complaint against the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) lead to an order by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that the TTC must call out all stops on all TTC vehicles. This accommodation is also being implemented in cities across Canada. *** COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS Tax Information Sessions Everyone is welcome to attend a free tax information session. At the session, a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) representative will explain how to claim: * the Disability Tax Credit * the Caregiver Tax Credit * Disability-related expenses AND NEW this year * the Registered Disability Savings Plan When: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 Refreshments 7:00 ~ Speaker 7:30 pm Where: Lecture Theatre, 2nd Floor, E Wing, Toronto East General Hospital 825 Coxwell Ave. (at Mortimer Ave.), Toronto, Ontario Free parking on adjacent streets. From Coxwell Subway Station: walk north on Coxwell (5 min.) or take the #70 bus for 2 traffic lights. For more information contact lmicallef@rogers.com or phone: 416-289-1674 Claiming Same-Sex CPP Survivor's Benefits Same-sex CPP survivor's benefits are the law. If your same-sex common-law partner contributed to the Canada Pension Plan and died after April 17, 1985, you are now eligible to make a claim for a CPP Survivor's Pension. All applications are confidential. Confidential enquiries may be directed to: Mike Law: (204) 888-7973 or Douglas Elliott: 1-866-877-0109 at Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor LLP For more information, visit www.reko.ca or www.servicecanada.gc.ca Consultation on Human Rights Tribunal Rules In preparation for its new mandate under the amended Human Rights Code, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has prepared draft procedural rules to govern the new process for applications filed directly at the Tribunal after June 30, 2008. The Tribunal is inviting public input and commentary on the proposed rules until March 14, 2008. For more information see: http://www.hrto.ca/english/rules/SteadyStateRules.doc Public Consultation on Ontario Human Rights Commission's Draft Policy on Mental Health Discrimination and Police Record Checks The Ontario Human Rights Commission has released a Draft Policy on Mental Health Discrimination and Police Record Checks for public consultation. The Commission has found that certain requirements, policies and practices relating to non-criminal police record checks can have a discriminatory impact on persons with mental health-related disabilities seeking employment. Such practices may also affect other individuals identified by Human Rights Code grounds. Police record checks are much broader than criminal record checks since they also include information about non-criminal contact with police, such as transfers to a medical facility, or being a victim or witness. The Commission has posted the Draft Policy on its website, and invites the public to make submissions over a six-week period, ending March 24, 2008. To view the Draft Policy and Backgrounder and learn where to send a submission, visit the Commission's website at www.ohrc.on.ca. An Invitation to Participate in a Study on ODSP Employment Policy Are you familiar with ODSP employment policy and some of the changes that have occurred in the past 2 years? Are you an advocate, committee member, or board member in the mental health sector? A graduate student in the Department of Rehabilitation Science at the University of Toronto is conducting a study and is interested in hearing about your insights and experiences with some of the recent changes to ODSP employment policy. This research will help us understand the development and the effects of the recent policy changes on the mental health sector. You are invited to participate and share your experiences in an individual interview. The interview will last approximately 1 hour and will be arranged in a convenient location. Please call: Rebecca at 416-946-8579 ext 1 (Leave a message and your call will be returned). *** Correction Please note the following correction to the article "Navigating the Student Loan System in Ontario for Students with Disabilities" in the November 9, 2007 edition of ARCH Alert. In the paragraph titled "OSAP Bursary for Students With Disabilities (BSWD)", it was stated that, Eligible students qualify for a taxable amount up to $2000 which can go towards the purchase of special equipment, note takers, tutors, counsellors and other costs related to a disability. The correct amount for which a student may be eligible is $10,000. *** ARCH ALERT is published by ARCH Disability Law Centre. It is distributed free via e-mail or mail to ARCH member groups, 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 Word 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 Assistant, ARCH Disability Law Centre, 425 Bloor St. E., Suite 110, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3R5, fax: 416-482-2981, TTY: 416- 482-1254, e-mail: scibert@lao.on.ca Website: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/