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 June 13, 2006 INSIDE THIS ISSUE: - ARCH Board Considers Ontario Human Rights System Reform - Supreme Court Decides Human Rights Cases - Paratransit Services Are Not "Special Programs" - Ministry of Community and Social Services Seeks Comments Regarding Ontario's Developmental Services System - Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council Releases Report on Regulation of Health Care Practitioners - News Flash: Education Reforms Announced - It's Not Too Late to Be Counted in the 2006 Census - Provincial and Federal Governments Table Budgets - Sabrina's Law Helps Students with Severe Allergies - Supreme Court Hears Accommodation in Employment Case - Supreme Court to Decide VIA Rail Case - Can You Afford a Copy of Your Medical Record? - Note on Private Members' Bills - Legal Services in Ontario for the Deaf Community - ODSP Update - News Briefs from the Ontario Government - MCSS Sets out 10-Year Strategy - Have You Ever Received Social Benefits from the Government of Alberta? - Assistance for Persons with Hepatitis C - Federal Government Reports on Progress on Disability Issues *** ARCH Board Considers Ontario Human Rights System Reform By Phyllis Gordon, Executive Director The ARCH Board of Directors had a long discussion about Bill 107, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006 ("the Bill") at its May meeting. Several members of the ARCH staff also took part in the discussion. The Board concluded that the current human rights system in Ontario is seriously flawed, and does not adequately address the experience of discrimination on the part of countless Ontarians. The Board supports the right of persons who file human rights complaints to a hearing, with assistance and legal representation provided throughout the process, as the Ontario government has promised. Before the Board meeting, ARCH held an in-house seminar on the Bill. Officials from the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General gave a presentation and answered questions. The Board members found this presentation quite useful. It also gave the persons who are drafting the Bill a way to hear from members of the disability community first-hand. The Bill passed second reading on 6 June 2006, by a vote of 57 to 22. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy ("the Committee"). ARCH staff will be doing a detailed analysis of the proposed Bill. The analysis will be published in a future issue of ARCH Alert. ARCH is pleased to see that in the following excerpt from the 8 June 2006 Hansard, Attorney General Michael Bryant promised to "provid[e] full legal supports to all Ontarians who turn to their human rights system". Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, I have been hearing from individuals and groups in the social justice community who are asking questions about Bill 107, which, of course, proposes to improve Ontario's human rights system. If passed, this bill would ensure that human rights complainants will have adequate support when they appear before the Human Rights Tribunal. But groups are now asking if we can do even more to ensure that. Minister, what steps are you taking to answer their concerns? Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): I thank the member for London North Centre. I know she, and many members of this House, have taken the opportunity to meet with Ontarians about this very important bill. This is, after all, the first time in more than 40 years that this House has had an opportunity to engage in substantial changes to the Human Rights Code, so there have been a number of questions about the bill, and so there should be. After a lengthy and productive second reading debate, the House has voted in favour, in principle, of the bill. I know that the government has consulted and will continue to consult with Ontarians. I know that MPPs in this House have consulted and will continue to consult with Ontarians on this bill. So now it goes to the standing committee on justice and social policy, where open, full public hearings will take place. Of course, at that committee we'll seek input and the committee will seek input about the bill and any potential amendments that could be proposed. Ms. Matthews: Will the Attorney General take steps to ensure that legal supports for human rights complainants are further entrenched in the proposed law that would improve our outdated human rights system? Hon. Mr. Bryant: The human rights legal support centre that we are establishing is the first of its kind in the country. We have committed to providing full legal supports to all Ontarians who turn to their human rights system, at the same time as the Human Rights Commission goes forth and, on behalf of all Ontarians, addresses systemic issues, both on behalf of the commission and before the tribunal. Section 46 of the bill does make reference and entrenches the first-ever human rights legal support centre, but the McGuinty government recognizes the need for clarity and endeavours to bring even greater clarity to this bill, long overdue, and this reform, long overdue. So to answer the question directly, we do intend proposing amendments at the appropriate time to section 46 in order to bring even greater clarity, not only to section 46 but to the entire human rights process, and we look forward to hearing from all Ontarians and all members of the committee on that front. We look forward to making a submission at the Committee hearings on the Bill that the Attorney General mentioned. Our goal is to improve the Bill. *** Supreme Court Decides Human Rights Cases By Lesli Bisgould, Staff Lawyer, and Heidi Lazar-Meyn, Reference Centre Lawyer On 21 April 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada made an important decision in two related cases which have come to be known as Werbeski (Tranchemontagne and Werbeski v. Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program of the Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services). The Supreme Court held that the Social Benefits Tribunal ("SBT") and other tribunals (if they meet the test set out by the Court) may apply the Ontario Human Rights Code ("Code") in cases they are hearing. As we reported in earlier issues of ARCH Alert, Mr. Tranchemontagne and Mr. Werbeski were denied benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act ("Act") even though they met the Act's definition of "person with a disability", because the law specifically excludes persons whose disability results from addiction to drugs or alcohol. The two men wished to challenge that section of the Act as discriminating against them on the basis of their disability, in violation of the Code's provisions. The SBT, which hears appeals from decisions made under the Act, said it did not have the jurisdiction to apply provisions of the Code to its own enabling legislation. The men appealed this decision to the Divisional Court, who agreed with the SBT. The men further appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal ("CA"). The CA said that the Code is the most important law in Ontario and therefore applies to everyone. As a result, the CA stated that the SBT, which determines questions of law, also has to consider the Code. But the CA added that the SBT is not the best place to decide whether the denial of ODSP benefits to persons with addictions is justified. The CA held that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is the most appropriate place to have this question decided. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 4 to 3 decision. It sent the case back to the SBT, saying that it must hear the men's argument and it must apply the provisions of the Code. "This is not a trivial matter. Access to timely justice can be about a person's liberty or even life or death. The supports people need to survive cannot be doled out on a discriminatory basis", said Jennifer Chambers, Coordinator of the Empowerment Council, one of the interveners in the case. The Empowerment Council was represented by ARCH Disability Law Centre together with East Toronto Community Legal Services. Other interveners were the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, the African Canadian Legal Clinic, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This decision is important because it means that persons who find themselves before a tribunal such as the SBT or the Consent and Capacity Board, the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, the Ontario Review Board, the Special Education Tribunal, and the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, and who have related human rights concerns can raise them there, while they are already before the relevant tribunal. ARCH is pleased that the majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the Empowerment Council's argument that, if persons had to start a separate human rights complaint instead, it could lead to harmful delay and uncertainty. You can read the Supreme Court's decision in Werbeski at: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2006/2006scc14.html *** Paratransit Services Are Not "Special Programs" By Heidi Lazar-Meyn, Reference Centre Lawyer On 7 April 2006, the Ontario Human Rights Commission ("Commission") announced that it had issued Declaratory Orders that four paratransit services are not "special programs" within the meaning of section 14 of the Ontario Human Rights Code ("Code"). The four paratransit service providers-Wheel-Trans in Toronto, DARTS in Hamilton, Handi-Transit in Windsor, and the paratransit service in London - had argued that because they are "special programs" they were protected from complaints of discrimination under the Code. The Commission followed the recommendation of its staff's policy paper, on which it held a limited consultation last year. The Commission explained that service providers must provide a service in a way that does not discriminate, and that they have a duty to accommodate the persons who use those services unless it would cause undue hardship. That means that it would be so expensive, even if outside funding were found, that the business would have to shut down or change drastically, or that someone's health or safety would be at risk. Special programs, on the other hand, are a service that a provider chooses to give when it does not have a legal obligation to provide that service. The Commission decided that, since these four transit providers have a legal responsibility to provide their services to all persons in a way that does not discriminate, and to accommodate persons with disabilities, those services are not "special programs" under the Code. Although ARCH is pleased with the Commission's Orders, we are concerned that at first the Commission asked only thirteen disability rights organizations, and no paratransit advisory committees or municipal accessibility advisory committees, to participate in the consultation that led to these Declaratory Orders. We argued in our first submission that the Commission should have held a broader community consultation. Details can be found in the March 2005 and June 2005 issues of ARCH Alert . The Commission has posted the Declaratory Orders, and the list of reasons supporting them, on its website at: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/english/news/e_transit-reasons.shtml *** Ministry of Community and Social Services Seeks Comments Regarding Ontario's Developmental Services System By Rachel Buhler, Student at Law The Ministry of Community and Social Services ("MCSS") released, in May 2006, a consultation paper called "Opportunities and Action: Transforming Supports in Ontario For People Who Have a Developmental Disability". The paper is available on the MCSS website at: http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/CFCS/en/programs/SCS/DevelopmentalServices/Transformation/consultation.htm The paper is based on opinions and ideas from consultations that the government held in 2005, upon which Ernie Parsons, M.P.P. Parliamentary Assistant (Disabilities) to the Minister of Community and Social Services, wrote a report. The report about the 2005 consultations is available on the MCSS website, at: http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/CFCS/en/programs/SCS/DevelopmentalServices/Publications/parsonsReport.htm ARCH wrote a submission to MCSS which focuses on essential legal issues to be considered in the Ministry's initiative regarding developmental services. The submission urges the Ministry to take steps to evaluate and amend the statutory framework governing developmental services. It urges the Ministry to be proactive in anticipating and preventing injustice and abuse. It is posted on our web site at: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/aboutARCH/lawReform/index.asp The Ministry is seeking comments on their May 2006 paper, and also states that the government will be holding focus groups with families. There are several ways to send your comments to MCSS: * Fill in an on-line form at: http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/CFCS/en/programs/SCS/DevelopmentalServices/Transformation/Consultation/form.htm * E-mail them to: dstransformation.mcss@css.gov.on.ca * Fax them to: 416.325.5554 Toll-free: 1.866.340.9112 * Mail them to: Developmental Services Transformation Feedback Developmental Services Branch Ministry of Community and Social Services 4th Floor, 80 Grosvenor Street Toronto, Ontario M7A 1E9 The deadline for comments is 30 June 2006. If you want more information about commenting on the paper, you can call: Telephone: 416-327-4954 Toll-free: 1-866-340-8881 *** Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council Releases Report on Regulation of Health Care Practitioners By Rachel Buhler, Student at Law and Lana Kerzner, Staff Lawyer The Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council ("HPRAC") recently released a report to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, called Regulation of Health Professions in Ontario: New Directions ("the report"). It was prepared in response to a request by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to address a number of specific issues. The report, which contains a copy of the Minister's letter, is available on line at: www.hprac.org/downloads/newdirections/english.pdf The report contains an analysis and recommendations regarding the legislative framework relating to regulation of health care practitioners. It also contains recommendations regarding the regulation of psychotherapy, optometrists, opticians, hearing care, naturopathy and homeopathy, kinesiology, pharmacy technicians and personal support workers. The report contains HPRAC's conclusions and recommendations about the role of Regulatory Colleges. It recommends changes to the roles of some health practitioners, and addresses issues that are specific to new and emerging health professions. HPRAC stressed the need for the Ministry to act on its recommendations quickly. ARCH recently made the following two submissions to HPRAC: * Submission of ARCH on 11 November 2005, which makes recommendations relating to protecting and promoting the equality, independence and inclusion of persons with disabilities in relation to regulated health professions; * Submission of ARCH on personal support workers on 17 March 2006, which addresses the interaction between personal support workers and persons with disabilities and encourages HPRAC to consider a breadth of issues in relation to ensuring that persons with disabilities receive a high quality of services from personal support workers in a way that promotes their dignity and autonomy and is free from abuse. ARCH's submission on personal support workers was quoted in the HPRAC report. The concerns raised by ARCH about abuse of persons with disabilities were quoted in Chapter 8. The HPRAC did engage in consultations in preparing the report. However, ARCH has had concerns, specifically regarding the consultation process relating to personal support workers, which we highlighted in our 17 March submission. ARCH's submissions to HPRAC are posted on our website at: www.archdisabilitylaw.ca The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is seeking comments on the report by 30 June 2006. You can download a comment form at: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/program/pro/hprac.html#feedback You can send your comment form to the Ministry in several ways: * E-mail it to: RegulatoryProjects@moh.gov.on.ca * Fax it to: 416-327-8879 * Mail it to: RHPA Review Project 80 Grosvenor Street, 8th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 1R3 *** News Flash: Education Reforms Announced By Roberto Lattanzio, Staff Lawyer As ARCH Alert went to press, Education Minister Sandra Pupatello announced that the Ontario government will invest $50 million in education reforms to assist students with disabilities. These reforms to the public education system are in response to the recommendations made by the Working Table on Special Education in a report released to the public on 8 June 2006. ARCH Alert will report on the proposed reforms in its next issue. *** It's Not Too Late to Be Counted in the 2006 Census By Amy Wah, Student at Law Every five years, Statistics Canada ("Statscan") holds a census to gather information about the social and economic situation of all Canadians. The day that was chosen for the recent census was 16 May 2006. But if you have not completed your census form yet, it is not too late to send it in. It is important for everyone who lives in Canada to participate in the census. The more people who send in their information, the more complete and accurate the census will be. The federal, provincial and municipal governments use the census data to plan funding and services in areas including housing, education, health and transportation. Community organizations and private businesses also may use the published information to help them decide what services to provide. Statscan has asked everyone to answer eight basic questions. 1 out of 5 households was sent a long-form questionnaire containing 53 questions about sociocultural information, place of birth of parents, education, geographic mobility, household and labour market activities, and income in 2005. The long form includes two questions that are especially important to persons with disabilities. Question 7 asks if you have any difficulty hearing, seeing, communicating, walking, climbing stairs, bending, learning or doing any similar activities. Question 8 asks whether there is a "physical condition or mental condition or health problem" that limits the activity that you can do at home, work or school or in other activities, such as transportation or leisure. Statscan says that they need this information to help them find out what barriers persons with disabilities face. According to Statscan, you still can mail in a paper questionnaire or complete the census questionnaire online at: www.census2006.ca You should fill in the information as if you had completed the form on 16 May 2006. Statscan says that you can use the JAWS Screen Reader or a Braille outboard display, among other technologies, when filling out the online questionnaire. You can navigate the questionnaire using only the keyboard. Paper questionnaires are available in large print and Braille versions. You also can get another copy of the census form, get a translation of the questions into another language, or complete the questionnaire by interview. To do this, or if you need any help or accommodation, you can call the Census Help Line at: Telephone: 1.877.594.2006 TTY: 1.888.243.0730 Census staff are contacting persons who have not sent in their questionnaires or whose questionnaires have information missing. This is not because those persons are in trouble. The census staff want to help them complete the questionnaire because the law says that all Canadian citizens must fill out the census form. Some people worry that they have to give personal information, such as their name and address, to the federal government as part of the census. The government promises that the personal information will be kept private, unless you agree to allow people to see it 92 years from now-in the year 2098. Before then, Statscan will publish only information based on the number of answers to each census question. For example, Statscan will publish a list of the languages that people report as their first language, such as English, French, American Sign Language, Langue des signes québecoises, Cree or Inuktitut; and how many people and what percentage of the population listed each language as their first language. *** Provincial and Federal Governments Table Budgets Ontario Budget By Katherine Haist, Project Lawyer On 23 March 2006, the Dalton McGuinty Liberal government released its third budget. The budget increased spending in some areas that are important to persons with disabilities but it is disappointing in other ways. The government stated that it "is making key investments to improve the lives of persons with developmental disabilities..." These investments include increased funding of: * $80 million to expand community supports, residential services and day programs, increase supports to families caring for their family members and help support agency operating costs; * $10 million to increase services for children; * $7 million for places of board or lodging for persons who need supervision of their activities of daily living, and developing common service standards for those places; and * $11 million for interpreter and intervenor services for persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind. The budget also put $4 million into a new Employment Innovations Fund to "engage employers in expanding job opportunities" for persons who receive benefits from the Ontario Disability Support Program ("ODSP") or Ontario Works ("OW"). However, persons who continue to receive ODSP or OW benefits only got a two per cent increase. Furthermore, the province still claws back all but about $17 per child of the National Child Benefit Supplement. According to the Income Security Advocacy Centre, "a single mother on Ontario Works will receive $1007 a month. A single mother on ODSP with one child will receive $1497 a month. The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Toronto is $1052. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Toronto is $888." The budget also noted that the federal, provincial and municipal governments are investing $734 million in the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program Agreement. Some of this money will be used for 15,000 new affordable housing units, including housing for persons with psychological impairments. The government stated that health care is a priority. One way in which the government has promised to help Ontarians is by "continu[ing] to increase efficiency and accountability by...working with the 14 LHINs [Local Health Integration Networks] as they assume their roles and responsibilities." The budget also provides $12 million to pay for insulin pumps and related supplies for young persons with Type I diabetes. $7 million was allocated to expand the number of "diseases" for which Ontario newborns are screened, and to create a new screening facility. The government promised to "introduc[e] new legislation to fulfill the government's commitment to strengthen standards in long-term care homes, improve care, and ensure residents' safety and dignity." With respect to education, the government said that it planned to "reform...special education by focusing on good outcomes for all students", but gave no details. Funding was created for a Jobs and Skills Renewal Strategy to expand and improve training services for "the unemployed, the underemployed, new Canadians, the working poor and [Ontarians receiving] social assistance." Although the budget gives about $1 billion for public transit, there was no mention of funding for paratransit services. However, the budget reports that 47 per cent of the public transit fleet in Ontario is now accessible. Dwight Duncan, the Ontario Minister of Finance when the budget was tabled, stated that "Ontario will be at its best only when every Ontarian has the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential." ARCH looks forward to seeing this promise carried out, and the results of the budget in action, over the coming months. You can find more information on the 2006 Ontario budget at: http://www.ontariobudget.ca/english/index.html Federal Budget By Heidi Lazar-Meyn, Reference Centre Lawyer Jim Flaherty, the Minister of Finance, tabled the Conservative minority government's first budget on 2 May 2006. The federal government promised to implement all of the policy recommendations that the Technical Advisory Committee on Tax Measures for Persons with Disabilities ("the TAC") made in its report, Disability Tax Fairness ("the Report"). We wrote about the Report in the March 2005 issue of ARCH Alert. The federal budget provides a few increases in supports for persons with disabilities. These are: * Increasing the maximum Child Disability Benefit ("CDB") to $2,300 a year, beginning July 2006; * Extending eligibility for the CDB to almost all families who are caring for a child who is eligible for the disability tax credit ("DTC") by reducing the rate at which the CDB is reduced as family income rises, beginning July 2006; and * Increasing the maximum amount of the refundable medical expense supplement to $1,000 for tax year 2006. The government also promised that the Minister would appoint a group of experts to think about ways that parents could save money for the long-term needs of their children who have disabilities. The group was to report back in six months with their recommendations. The budget provides a new $500 non-refundable tax credit for fees that a family pays for a child under 16 who is enrolled in an eligible physical fitness program. The Children's Fitness Tax Credit will become available in 2007. The government reports that it is considering whether there should be a special definition of "eligible program" for programs that are designed for children who have a disability. On 9 May 2006, the Minister of Finance tabled a Ways and Means Motion ("the Motion") that includes these proposed budget changes. The Motion also includes changes to the Income Tax Act that were proposed in the prior Liberal government's 2005 budget, but that had not become law when Parliament was dissolved. Many of these changes were made in response to the TAC's recommendations in the Report. These proposed changes: * make more persons medically eligible for the DTC; * add new items for which taxpayers can take the Disability Supports Deduction and the Medical Expenses Tax Credit; and * increase the amount of the credit that the taxpayer can take for expenses paid on behalf of certain dependants. As ARCH Alert reported in the March 2006 Tax Tips article, Canada Revenue Agency allowed persons to calculate their taxes for tax year 2005 as though these changes already had become law. The Budget and the Motion have not yet become law. It is expected that they will soon. You can find out more information about the federal budget at: http://www.fin.gc.ca/budtoce/2006/budliste.htm You can read the Motion at: http://www.fin.gc.ca/drleg/wmmMay06_e.html *** Sabrina's Law Helps Students with Severe Allergies by Roberto Lattanzio, Staff Lawyer Sabrina's Law ("Act") came into force in Ontario on 1 January 2006. The Act is named after a young woman who died from an allergic reaction to food that she ate at school. The first law of its kind in North America, the Act requires school boards to set up and maintain a policy on how to deal with severe allergies that can cause a life-threatening reaction. These allergies are called "anaphylactic allergies" and the reaction is called "anaphylaxis". The policy must include: * plans to reduce the risk of exposure in classrooms and common areas to foods or other items that could cause anaphylaxis; * plans to give information on life-threatening allergies to parents, students and school employees; * regular training to school employees and other persons who regularly work with students on how to deal with life-threatening allergies; * a requirement for every school principal to make an individual plan for every student who has an anaphylactic allergy; * a requirement that school principals make sure that parents, guardians and students are asked about life-threatening allergies when the student registers for school; and * a requirement that every school principal keep a file for each student with an anaphylactic allergy of current treatment and other medical information. The Act allows parents, guardians and some students to authorize school employees to give students medication or to supervise them while they take medication for an anaphylactic reaction. The Act also allows school staff to use an epinephrine auto-injector or to give a student other prescribed medication if they think that the student is having an anaphylactic reaction, even if there was no preauthorization. The Act protects school staff from being sued for damages based on what they did in response to a student's anaphylactic reaction, unless the damages happened because a school employee was grossly negligent. You can read Sabrina's Law at: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/05s07_e.htm *** Supreme Court Hears Accommodation in Employment Case By Lesli Bisgould and Robert Lattanzio, Staff Lawyers On 12 April 2006, ARCH appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada, representing the Intervener, the Ontario Network of Injured Workers' Groups ("ONIWG"), in Centre universitaire de santé McGill (Hôpital Général de Montréal) v. Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital Général de Montréal, et al. The appeal involves a challenge to well-established human rights principles. Among the issues raised in this appeal is whether the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship under human rights law can be limited by collective agreements and automatic termination provisions. In this case, an employee worked as a full-time medical secretary at a hospital for 15 years. She stopped working due to depression. She returned to work three days a week during four separate periods. She would have returned to work full-time on an agreed upon date, but was injured in a car accident several months before that date. As a result, she was unable to return to work as previously agreed upon. The collective agreement applicable in this case states that an employee's job status is maintained for three years if she is absent due to a non-work related injury or illness. The automatic termination provision provides that if an employee is not able to return to work after three years, her employment ends. Therefore, three years after the employee first stopped work, her employment would be terminated. The union filed a grievance on her behalf, asking the employer to attempt to accommodate her. By the time it got to arbitration, she was still waiting for surgery for the shoulder fracture caused by her car accident. At issue is whether the employer provided sufficient accommodation to the employee, whether undue hardship was proven, and whether automatic termination provisions can override human rights law provisions. ONIWG provided a disability and human rights perspective, arguing that it is settled law that human rights legislation in Canada cannot be contracted out of or limited, as it is recognized as having quasi-constitutional status. ONIWG further argued that individualization is at the essence of the accommodation process and that accommodation attempts are not limited to "one per customer", as argued by the employer. Furthermore, ONIWG argued that the employer failed to prove that accommodating the employee would have created cost, health or safety issues that constitute undue hardship; mere impressionistic evidence will not suffice. ONIWG also submitted that the automatic termination provision assumes that persons with long-term or permanent disabilities who cannot return to work in a fixed number of years from the onset of disability will never recover, and can be written off from the labour market. The provision also may constitute discrimination when applied to workers with episodic and recurring disabilities. It treats all illnesses and accidents as chronic situations by treating all workers who are absent for a specific length of time in the same manner. It fails to recognize that certain conditions may come and go. Although the automatic termination provision in this case distinguishes between work and non-work related injury and illness, other similar provisions do not. This decision may have an impact across the country on how automatic termination provisions are to be interpreted. The Supreme Court reserved judgement in this case. ARCH Alert will report on the decision when it is released. *** Supreme Court to Decide VIA Rail Case By Amy Wah, Student at Law In 2000 VIA Rail bought 139 Renaissance rail cars. They got the rail cars at a bargain price of $1 million each because the European company that had ordered them no longer wanted to buy them. Unfortunately, Renaissance rail cars did not meet the United Kingdom's accessibility standards for persons who use wheelchairs. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities ("CCD") filed an application under s.172(1) of the Canada Transportation Act with the Canadian Transportation Agency ("CTA"), which regulates interprovincial rail travel in Canada. CCD argued that purchasing the rail cars would be an "undue obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities". The CTA found that VIA Rail had already bought the rail cars, but went on to conclude that the rail cars contained "undue obstacles" to the mobility of persons with disabilities. The CTA ordered that the rail cars had to be fixed to remove these obstacles. VIA Rail successfully appealed the CTA's decision to the Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA"). Justice Sexton, writing for the majority, stated that the CTA had not sufficiently balanced the rights of persons with disabilities with other interests, such as the costs to VIA Rail involved in making the Renaissance trains accessible, and the interests of non-disabled passengers in having affordable rail fares. The FCA held that VIA Rail does not have to make their Renaissance cars fully accessible to persons with disabilities if there are other accessible transportation options in the network, such as providing alternative transportation or having trains with accessible rail cars at certain times. CCD was granted leave to appeal the FCA's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. The CCD argued that Part V of the CTA is specialized human rights legislation, and must be interpreted consistently with human rights legislation and in accordance with substantive equality principles that are applied to all human rights legislation and Charter equality cases. A number of human rights commissions and disability rights organizations were granted intervener status on this appeal. ARCH is representing the interveners Transportation Action Now ("TAN"), the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians ("AEBC"), Canadian Association for Community Living ("CACL"), and the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association ("CHHA"). In its factum filed on behalf of TAN, AEBC, CACL, and CHHA, ARCH argued that the proposed balancing approach would have a negative impact on the rights of persons with disabilities set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). ARCH argued that regulatory bodies cannot treat the rights of persons with disabilities as merely one of many equal competing interests, and that the FCA's decision is wrong because it does not recognize the importance of advancing equality rights for persons with disabilities. Rights that are protected by the Charter, as well as by domestic and international human rights legislation, must be given precedence over competing non-constitutional interests. We will report on the Supreme Court's decision in a future issue of ARCH Alert. You can read the Federal Court of Appeal decision in VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency at: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2005/2005fca79.html *** Can You Afford a Copy of Your Medical Record? By Lesli Bisgould, Staff Lawyer The Personal Health Information Protection Act ("PHIPA") allows medical offices and hospitals a "reasonable cost recovery" for providing copies of medical records to their clients. PHIPA does not specify what "reasonable" might mean. The government has drafted changes to Regulation 329/04 under PHIPA, including one that would set amounts for these fees. The proposed changes would allow a "health information custodian" to charge a fee of up to $30 for almost any activity involving access to records. This fee would include such tasks as locating and preparing the record, making the first 20 pages of photocopies, 15 minutes of review to determine if the record contains personal health information to which access may be refused, 15 minutes of supervising a person while they examine their original record and e-mailing the record, faxing it to a fax number in Ontario or posting it to an address in Canada. However, the proposed charges do not end there. Additional photocopies could cost up to 25 cents per page, paper copies from microfiche or microfilm could cost up to 50 cents per page and a copy of the records on a diskette or compact disc could cost up to $10. Copies of other types of media could range from $2 to $32 per item. The "health information custodian" could charge up to $45 for each additional 15-minute period of reviewing records. Additional supervision of examination of the original record could be charged at up to $6.75 for each 15-minute period. On 10 May 2006, ARCH wrote a letter to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care expressing that the proposed fees are too high for many persons with disabilities to afford. We encouraged the government to dramatically reduce the proposed fees and to provide a mechanism to ensure that persons who do not have the financial means could be exempted from paying fees at all. The proposed fees are surprisingly high in light of the settlements in two recent cases involving fees that were charged for medical reports under PHIPA. In both cases, the person who requested the report complained to the Information and Privacy Commission, which governs PHIPA, and in both cases, received a refund. In one case, the complainant was charged $255 for a 105-page copy of her hospital record. When her complaint reached the mediation stage, the mediator suggested that the parties should consider agreeing on a fee of 20 cents per page, the amount allowed by the regulations under other provincial privacy laws. They agreed, and the complainant received a $234 refund. In the other case, the complainant was charged $145 for a 118-page copy of his health record from a medical centre. The medical centre claimed that its fees were based on the Ontario Medical Association's guidelines. These guidelines allow a doctor to charge $29.60 for the first 5 pages and $1.17 for every page thereafter. The mediator again suggested that the parties look to the other provincial privacy laws that limit the fee to 20 cents per page. The medical centre agreed to refund $100 of the charge. *** Note on Private Members' Bills By Rachel Buhler, Student at Law Bill C-304, the National Strategy for the Treatment of Autism Act, received first reading on 17 May 2006. If it becomes law, this bill would require the federal Minister of Health to meet with the provincial and territorial ministers to develop a national strategy for the treatment of autism. The Minister then would have to present a report to Parliament, and specify a plan of action for implementing the strategy. Bill C-304 also would amend the Canada Health Act to include Applied Behavioural Analysis ("ABA") and Intensive Behavioural Intervention ("IBI") for persons with autism as medically necessary services. This means that provincial health plans, such as the Ontario Health Insurance Plan ("OHIP"), would have to pay for ABA and IBI. Bill 90, the Ombudsman Amendment Act (School Boards), 2006, received first reading on 5 April 2006. If it becomes law, this bill would amend the Ombudsman Act to allow the Ombudsman to do anything in respect of a board of education as it is permitted to do in respect of any governmental organization. This would allow the Ombudsman to investigate the acts and decisions of a school board, including those acts and decisions that affect persons with disabilities. ARCH will follow these bills, and report on their progress, if any. Private members' bills rarely reach second reading or become law. If you are interested in supporting or commenting on either of these bills, you can contact your MP with regard to Bill C-304, or your MPP concerning Bill 90. You can read the bills on line at: Bill C-304: http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-304/C-304_1/C-304_cover-E.html Bill 90: http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliament/session2/b090_e.htm The following link gives contact information for your MP when you enter your postal code: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/PostalCode.asp?Language=E&source=sm The following link gives contact information for your MPP when you click on "find your electoral district", and enter your postal code: http://www.electionsontario.on.ca/en/home_en.shtml *** Legal Services in Ontario for the Deaf Community By Rachel Buhler, Student at Law Ontario Association of the Deaf ("OAD") has received funding from the Law Foundation of Ontario for a project which recognizes the need for legal services specifically for deaf, deafened and hard of hearing people. The goal of the project is to provide assistance to deaf, deafened and hard of hearing clients who cannot afford legal services while also addressing some of the daily and systemic barriers to access to justice that deaf, deafened and hard of hearing people face. The one-year project will allow OAD to quantify the types of legal services that deaf, deafened and hard of hearing people need, with the support of Pro Bono Law Ontario, Law Society of Upper Canada and various legal aid clinics across Ontario. These services will range from summary advice and brief legal services to public legal education. The project also will be involved in a test case, in partnership with Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton Mcintyre & Cornish LLP, on the right of deaf children to receive government support for American Sign Language or Langue des signes québecoises services when they have received government-funded cochlear implants. Finally, the project will conduct research and design the most efficient and accessible delivery of legal aid services for persons who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing. Another initiative has been started by a group concerned with the level of accessibility of services funded by Legal Aid Ontario ("LAO") to the deaf community. The group involved in the new project includes members of non-profit agencies that serve the community and LAO staff at area offices and community clinics and senior management. This group is working to provide materials and resources to LAO service providers to help them accommodate clients that are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing. One of these resources, which will be available soon, is materials on intake practices that are appropriate and helpful. The group wishes to educate those involved in the provision of legal aid such as duty counsel, private lawyers on LAO certificates, and the staff of clinics and area offices to the special needs of the deaf, deafened and hard of hearing community. *** ODSP Update By Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer New Service Delivery Model for ODSP Offices The Ministry of Community and Social Services ("MCSS") is changing the way that Ontario Disability Support Program ("ODSP") offices serve clients. The changes are being made in response to a grievance that was filed by staff of ODSP offices who felt that the team delivery approach had created an unhealthy work environment. The MCSS also is responding to the concerns of persons who receive ODSP benefits that ODSP decision makers needed to be more accountable for their decisions. The changes will be made throughout Ontario over the next few months. Each office will do some things in its own way but some common changes will be made in all ODSP offices. The new model provides clients with more direct contact with the people who make decisions about their income support. Each client's file will be assigned to two people, a Client Services Representative ("CSR") and an Income Support Specialist. Clients will receive the direct phone number for the CSR. Any report of changes or requests for information should be made to that person. In this way, those persons who are most familiar with a recipient's particular situation will make the decisions. Clients will be able to communicate with their CSR in person or by telephone. In addition, all ODSP offices will have teletypewriters (TTYs) to accommodate persons who are Deaf, deafened or hard of hearing or who have a speech impairment. At a recent information session on the new model, an ODSP program manager stated that MCSS is thinking about setting up a system that would allow clients to contact their CSR by e-mail. All ODSP offices will have separate teams for applications and earnings reporting. Some ODSP offices will have a separate special team to manage wheelchair and scooter work orders and to make decisions on diabetic supplies, surgical supplies, transportation to medical appointments and other necessary items under the Mandatory Special Necessities program. The ODSP program manager stated that MCSS wants to ensure that services are delivered in accordance with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Clients are encouraged to discuss any accommodations that they need with their CSR. Clients also are encouraged to give feedback to MCSS on the changes because the new service delivery model will be reviewed and evaluated. Ontario Removes 4-Month Limit on Retroactive ODSP Grants MCSS recently announced that it will revoke the four-month limit on initial retroactive ODSP grants. According to a new Ministry directive, ODSP benefits now will be paid back to: * the date on which an application is complete, if the application is made directly to ODSP, or * the first day of the month following the month in which the application is complete, if the applicant is receiving Ontario Works benefits when applying. The new policy is in effect as of 25 May 2006. These changes were part of the recommendations that André Marin, the Ontario Ombudsman, made. The Ombudsman investigated 71 complaints that he received about the length of time that it takes to process ODSP applications. The Ombudsman also recommended that the Ontario government pay restitution to every ODSP applicant who lost benefits because of administrative delay. The Ombudsman urged the Ministry to act quickly to find the necessary means to repay those persons, noting in a news release that the "investigation has found that thousands of individuals with disabilities were deprived of benefits, which they were otherwise rightfully entitled to...Many of those affected faced months of undeserved financial hardship and in the end lost out on much needed monies, which should have been in their pockets to pay for food, shelter and other necessities of life." The government has indicated that it would consider this recommendation, but made no formal commitment. The Ombudsman's report, "Losing the Waiting Game", can be downloaded from his website at: http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/english.asp This policy change shows that complaining to the Ombudsman can be an effective strategy in certain situations. The ODSP Action Coalition has encouraged ODSP applicants, recipients and agencies to file complaints with the Ombudsman on other ODSP issues, such as lack of respect shown to clients, lack of communication with clients, lack of knowledge about a disability, inconsistency in decisions made by ODSP, lack of fairness and transparency in decision making and lack of accountability by those who are making decisions about ODSP benefits. If enough people make complaints, the Ombudsman may start a new investigation which could lead to an improvement in ODSP services. Information on how to file a complaint with the Ombudsman Ontario is on his website at: http://www.ombudsman.on.ca There is also useful information on the website of Community Legal Education Ontario at: http://www.cleonet.ca/items/1079 and on the ODSP Action Coalition's website at: http://www.odspaction.ca/ombudsman.htm Changes to ODSP Rules on Employment and Earnings Certain changes to the ODSP program regarding employment, the treatment of employment earnings and related benefits and supports took effect on 1 April 2006. Under the new rules, if an ODSP recipient has a spouse who is not considered to be a person with a disability under the ODSP Act, the spouse usually will have to comply with the participation requirements of Ontario Works ("OW") in order to continue to receive ODSP benefits as a dependent. A spouse can continue to receive ODSP dependent benefits if: * the spouse is already working or looking for work * OW is satisfied with the spouse's efforts to find work * the spouse has obligations as a caregiver that make participation impracticable * the spouse is 65 or older * there are "exceptional circumstances" to justify excusing the spouse from compliance MCSS guidelines on employment supports state that, as of 1 April 2006, the program's focus would change to connecting people with disabilities to jobs in the labour market, and providing the supports that they need to keep the jobs. Persons on ODSP can choose whether to take part in the employment supports program. Participants will choose the person or company that they think will provide the employment supports that best suit their needs, impairments and employment goals. They also will take an active role in identifying work that that best suits them and the supports that they may need to find and keep a job. The persons or companies that provide these employment supports will be responsible for providing the full range of services and supports that their clients need to become employed. MCSS will provide the funding for these services. The funding will be tied to meeting targets for job placement, job retention and client earnings. MCSS has announced that beginning 1 November 2006, there will be: * changes to the calculation of earnings that will be exempt from income charges under the ODSP Act * an increase in the maximum deduction from earnings for informal child care costs * an increase in the maximum deduction for disability-related work expenses * an increase in the job start-up allowance * a new benefit and an extension of health benefits paid under the ODSP Act for recipients who become ineligible for ODSP because their total income equals or exceeds budgetary requirements * an extension of rapid reinstatement to persons who were grandparented on to ODSP from Family Benefits Allowance These changes will be detailed more fully in a future issue of ARCH Alert. Exemptions for Post-Secondary Student Grants The Regulations made under the ODSP Act and the OW Act have been changed so that certain post-secondary student grants do not count when calculating a recipient's income and assets. The following grants are all exempt under the Regulations: * Canada Access Grant for Students from Low-income Families This is a federal grant of up to $3,000 to assist first-year, first-time students with tuition costs. For more information on this grant, see: http://osap.gov.on.ca/eng/not_secure/CAG.htm#CAG%20Low%20income * Canada Study Grant for the Accommodation of Students with Permanent Disabilities This is a federal grant of up to $8,000 a year for students with permanent disabilities who demonstrate need, to cover services and equipment that they need because of the disability. For more information on this grant, see: http://osap.gov.on.ca/eng/not_secure/bswd.htm#BSWD-CSGD * Millennium Ontario Access Grant (MOAG) This grant is funded jointly by Ontario and the Canada-Millennium Scholarship Foundation. It provides up to $3,000 to help first-year, first-time students from low-income families with tuition costs. For more information on this grant, see: http://osap.gov.on.ca/eng/not_secure/Mill_OAG.htm * Ontario Access Grant This is a provincial grant of up to $3,000 to help second-year students from low-income families with their tuition costs. For more information on this grant, see: http://osap.gov.on.ca/eng/not_secure/OAG.htm This grant is fully exempt for ODSP, but not for OW: * Canada Access Grant for Students with Permanent Disabilities This federal grant of up to $2,000 is available to full-time and part-time students to help them with the costs of tuition, books and supplies, living expenses and other education-related expenses. It does not count as an asset for ODSP or OW. It also does not count as income under the ODSP Act. However, any portion of the grant that is for living expenses counts as income under the OW Act. For more information on this grant, see: http://osap.gov.on.ca/eng/not_secure/CAG.htm#CAG%20PD *** News Briefs from the Ontario Government By Heidi Lazar-Meyn, Reference Centre Lawyer Special Services at Home In December 2005, the Ministry of Community and Social Services ("MCSS") made two new policies for the Special Services at Home ("SSAH") program. Persons with a developmental disability, and children with a physical disability, now can get SSAH funds even if they are not living with their families, if a community agency cannot provide the support they need. Persons who get support from a community agency may be able to get SSAH funding for a short time when they are moving from their family home into the community. However, persons who are living in a place funded by MCSS are not eligible. Also, primary caregivers now can use SSAH funds to pay family members to provide services for respite or for personal development and growth. This policy will help families to meet needs concerning culture and language, and those families who live in areas where it is hard to find and keep support workers. However, the funds cannot be used to pay the primary caregivers themselves, children under age 18 or the spouse of a person who has a developmental disability and receives SSAH funds. More information is available from your regional MCSS Office. You can find the contact information at: http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/CFCS/en/regOffices/default.htm Removing Barriers in the Community The Canadian Standards Association ("CSA") has developed a customer service standard for people with disabilities with the support of a grant under the Ontario government's EnAbling Change partnership program. On 30 May 2006, MCSS reported that seven businesses and organizations have tested the CSA's new customer service training for businesses to use when serving customers with disabilities. The seven businesses are: * Shaw Festival * Eatertainment (including Toronto's Panorama Restaurant and Bloor Street Diner) * Delta Chelsea Hotel, Toronto * Cineplex Galaxy Theatres * Sears Canada * Wal-Mart * Wendy's Restaurants Canada This standard is not required by law. It is not one of the accessibility standards that are being developed under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act ("AODA"). It is important because it means that businesses have learned the importance of being fully accessible to all members of the community. Seven other organizations will be working on increasing accessibility through the EnAbling Change partnership program in 2006-7. ARCH looks forward to seeing the results of these projects. New Funding for Community Mental Health Services On 19 May 2006, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care announced that it was putting $68.5 million into community mental health services. $22.5 million of this amount will be used to help persons with psychological impairments stay out of the criminal justice and correction systems. The money will pay for: * crisis response and outreach services, available all day and all night; * "safe beds" where a person released on bail can stay temporarily; * supportive housing units for 500 persons who have come into contact with the legal system, in which they can stay while arranging for long-term housing and support services; * court support services to divert persons with psychological impairments, especially youths aged 16 to 18, from the court system; and * support services to help persons with psychological impairments live in the community. These services will be provided particularly to persons who also have addiction issues or a developmental disability. $16 million will be spent on supportive housing units for 1,250 persons to live independently within the community. Also included is $23 million for crisis response and outreach services, early intervention programs for adolescents and young adults and multi-disciplinary community treatment teams, and $7 million in additional funding to be spread among every community health agency in Ontario. *** MCSS Sets out 10-Year Strategy By Katherine Haist, Project Lawyer The Ministry of Community and Social Services ("MCSS") has outlined the direction, vision and mission, priorities and strategies and values that will guide their work over the next ten years in a document called Thriving Communities. The title of the report comes from the Ministry's vision of "thriving communities sustained by the economic and civic contributions of all Ontarians." MCSS lists the following five priorities: 1. Champion community inclusion; 2. Build individual resilience and opportunity; 3. Collaborate with partners for social change; 4. Safeguard vulnerable Ontarians; and 5. Model excellence in public service. These priorities are important to making sure that persons with disabilities are fully included as members of their communities. In particular, MCSS says that it will move all persons with disabilities who are still living in the three remaining provincial institutions into the community, "enforce accessibility standards to allow people with disabilities to participate equally in the workforce" and develop specialized services for adults with special needs by strengthening the community's service capacity. ARCH is looking forward to seeing the Ministry carry out these important goals. You can find Thriving Communities online at: http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/CFCS/en/ThrivingCommunities/default.htm *** Have You Ever Received Social Benefits from the Government of Alberta? By Katherine Haist, Project Lawyer There is good news for some people who received disability benefits under Alberta's Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped Act or other benefits under the Alberta Social Development Act or Widows' Pension Act. Persons who were underpaid the income support that they were entitled to, or who repaid income support overpayments, may be entitled to get benefits from the Government of Alberta based on a class action settlement. This may apply to you if: * You repaid income support overpayments of more than $500 to the Government of Alberta between 1 December 1979 and 1 May 1983; * You repaid disability income overpayments of more than $1,000 to the Government of Alberta between 1 May 1983 and 29 April 2004; or * You were underpaid the income support to which you were entitled by the Government of Alberta for longer than six months between 1 December 1979 and 1 March 2005. If you did not live in Alberta on 11 January 2006, and you want to ask for benefits as a class member, you must fill out a claim form. The last day to submit your claim is 11 January 2007. If you think that you might be a member of one of these classes, you can get more information from the Claims Administrator at Crawford Class Action Services: Telephone: 1.877.507.7706 Fax: 1.888.842.1332. Website: www.incomesupportsettlement.ca or from the Class Counsel: Philip S. Tinkler Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP Barristers and Solicitors 2900 Manulife Place 10180 - 101 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3V5 *** Assistance for Persons with Hepatitis C By Katherine Haist, Project Lawyer The Government of Manitoba is offering a one-time payment of $10,000 to some persons who were infected with hepatitis C before 1 January 1986 or between 1 July 1990 and 28 September 1998. To qualify, you must have been infected by a blood transfusion or blood or blood products that you or your spouse, partner or parent received in Manitoba. Representatives for the estate of persons who died of hepatitis C after being infected in this manner also may apply. You can contact the Manitoba Hepatitis C Assistance Program ("MHCAP") for more information. MHCAP's toll-free number is 1.866.357.0196. *** Federal Government Reports on Progress on Disability Issues By Katherine Haist, Project Lawyer Advancing the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities 2005 ("the report") is the third report from the Government of Canada about its progress on disability policy and programs. The report focuses on seniors who have disabilities. One chapter talks about the issues that face First Nations, Métis and Inuit elders who have disabilities. The report looks at the relationship between aging and disability. The report discusses how the government has worked towards inclusion in the areas of disability supports, health and well being and income, as well as community involvement, employment and skills development and learning. The report also presents information on policy developments and spending on disability issues, and the federal Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities. In his introduction to the report, Ken Dryden, the Liberal MP who was then the Minister of Social Development, wrote, "For people with disabilities, we must realize our vision to create a truly accessible Canada. A Canada where, thanks to adaptation, to technology, and to supports of various kinds, all can live full, realized, Canadian lives." ARCH looks forward to future reports on the progress of disability policy and programs under the guidance of Diane Finley, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development for the present Conservative minority government. You can read the report online at: http://www.sdc.gc.ca/en/hip/odi/documents/advancingInclusion05/index.shtml ARCH ALERT is published by ARCH Disability Law Centre. It is distributed free via e-mail, fax, 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: Heidi Lazar-Meyn 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, Administrative 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/