I.
ARCH – A LEGAL RESOURCE CENTRE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
425 Bloor Street East, Suite 110 (416) 482-8255 (Main) 1 (866) 482-ARCH (2724) (Toll Free)
Toronto, Ontario M4W 3R5 (416) 482-1254 (TTY) 1 (866) 482-ARCT (2728) (Toll Free)
www.archlegalclinic.ca (416) 482-2981 (Fax) 1 (866) 881-ARCF (2723) (Toll Free)
October 18, 2004
1
ARCH Alert www.archlegalclinic.ca October 18, 2004
Government Proposes New ODA
By Roberto Lattanzio, Staff Lawyer
A new bill, to make Ontario fully accessible to persons with disabilities, was introduced in the Legislature on October 12th. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2004 (Bill 118) is the fulfillment of the government’s promise made one year ago. Unlike the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, enacted by the previous government, the AODA promises to effectively remove barriers for persons with disabilities.
Some of the highlights of Bill 118 are that it applies to private businesses as well as to the public sector. If passed, the bill will set up mandatory standards and make sure that those standards are met by requiring reports on accessibility. There will be rewards to encourage persons and organization to meet or exceed the standards. There also will be penalties for filing false or misleading reports or failing to comply with orders and inspections, including fines of up to $50,000 a day for persons and $100,000 a day for corporations.
Many Ontario disability advocates and organizations were invited by Dr. Marie Bountrogianni, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to the Legislature on the day of Bill 118’s introduction. ARCH was represented by our Chair, Kathie Brooks. Ms. Brooks is encouraged by Premier McGuinty’s, and the Minister’s, reaffirmation of their
Inside This Issue1 / Government Proposes New ODA
2 / ARCH Annual General Meeting
3 / "Spouse-in-the-house" Law Struck Down, Ontario Won't Appeal
4 / Cutbacks at the OHRC
4 / Ontario Government Initiative and Consultation on Developmental Services System
5 / Ministry Looks at CCAC
6 / ARCH at CRTC Hearings Regarding Internet Telephone Technology
7 / News from the Federal Government
8 / ODSP Update
9 / 10-Year Limit on Requests for Retroactive Changes to Your Income Tax Return
10 / New Decisions from the CTA
12 / Breaking Down Barriers to Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities
13 / Parental Duties Must Be Accommodated
14 / Alberta Human Rights Decision on Accommodation in Schools
14 / Wrongful Birth – The Next Canadian Chapter
15 / Library Update
15 / Changes to Arch Staff
16 / News Updates
commitment for a fully inclusive and accessible Ontario. The Minister, in her address to the Legislative Assembly, conveyed her thanks to David Lepofsky and the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario, and the Ontario March of Dimes, for their time, knowledge sharing and assistance.
We will follow the progress of Bill 118 with great interest—we held the press when we heard that it would be introduced this week! We will tell you more details in the next issue of ARCH Alert.
For a copy of Bill 118 at first reading, use the following links:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliament/Session1/b118.pdf
http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliament/Session1/b118_e.htm
ARCH Annual General Meeting
By Heidi Lazar-Meyn, Staff Lawyer
The ARCH Annual General Meeting was held on Tuesday, September 14, at Metro Hall in Toronto. The meeting featured a panel presentation by Brigette Witkowski, Lana Frado, Dr. Kate Fox and Kathie Brooks.
Ms. Witkowski is the Executive Director of Mainstay Housing. This group develops affordable housing for persons living with serious mental illness. She spoke about how the municipal planning process is being misused. The planning meetings should be about discussing the size and height of the planned buildings and how much green space there will be. Instead, people at the meetings want to argue about who should be allowed to be their neighbours. Ms. Witkowski reminded us that this discrimination violates the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Ms. Frado, the Executive Director of Sound Times Support Services, a support group for mental health consumers and psychiatric survivors, also is the first vice president of the ARCH Board of Directors. She stated that the mental health community rarely gets to talk to the planners, except about medical issues. She raised the question of how much service providers should give in order to get permission to build housing.
Dr. Fox, who is a person living with multiple sclerosis, spoke about the difficulty that she has in arranging transportation when she needs it and at an affordable cost. She also talked about problems caused by lack of accommodation when trying to file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and when working at a job. Dr. Fox then told us of her attempt to buy a house in an adult lifestyle community together with two friends who also are living with disabilities. They were told that they could not buy the house because the community would accept only married couples, and then because only two people could live in each house.
Ms. Brooks is the new chairperson and president of the ARCH Board. She is a sister and a parent of persons living with disabilities. Among her many activities, she is involved with the Ontario Coalition for Inclusive Education. She explained that family members of students living with disabilities often are told that the students’ needs cannot be accommodated in a regular classroom, and that they cannot attend their neighbourhood schools. She pointed out that, until this school year, the provincial funding formula for special education rewarded schools for having students with behavioural problems. Often these problems resulted from lack of accommodation of the students’ disabilities. The problems caused the students to act out. Then they were excluded from school because of the “safe school” no-tolerance policy. She is pleased that families are bringing human rights complaints, asking for proper accommodation, and that the funding formula has been changed this year.
The panel members’ presentations were followed by lively and thoughtful discussion on these serious issues of accessible and inclusive transportation, housing and education.
At the AGM, ARCH also said farewell to Sandi Bell, the former chair of our Board of Directors and thanked her for her leadership and commitment over the past three years as chair. We also thanked Scott Simser, Jim Buchanan and Jerry Ford, each of whom have made a much appreciated contribution to ARCH. We are grateful to them for their service to ARCH and we look forward to continuing to work with them.
Cheryl Blondell, John Feld, Effie Prattas, and Norm Tobias were elected as new Board members. Fraser Valentine, John Day and Terry Lynch were re-elected to serve another term on the Board. To learn more about our new—and our returning—Board members, visit our website at http://www.archlegalclinic.ca/aboutARCH/04_board.asp.
"Spouse-in-the-house" Law Struck
Down, Ontario Won't Appeal
by Lesli Bisgould, Staff Lawyer
How about some good news for a change? Many readers of ARCH Alert will be familiar with a case that has come to be known as “Falkiner”, after one of the four single mothers who went to court to challenge Ontario's 1995 "spouse-in-the-house" welfare law.
As part of its sweeping attempt at welfare reform, the previous government changed the definition of "spouse" so that two people were presumed to be spouses as soon as they started living together. (The previous law assumed that people were "spouses" only after they had lived together in an intimate relationship for 3 years, or had a child together.) The new definition meant that many people collecting social assistance were no longer entitled to it, since according to the new standard they had a spouse to support them.
As a result of this change, more than 9000 recipients, almost all of them women, lost their social assistance benefits completely. The definition was seen by many as insulting and unfair. It undermined the rights and dignity of all single women relying on social assistance.
In 1995, Sandra Falkiner and three other single mothers went to court and challenged the new definition, assisted by the community legal clinic system and pro bono counsel. All of the women had previously experienced abuse and were cautious about establishing new relationships. They made the point that women should not to be forced into financial dependence on men. They added that women should not have to avoid getting to know someone one step at a time, for fear that they could lose their benefits if the person was found to be a spouse.
The four women argued that the definition of spouse discriminated against them on the basis of sex, marital status and receipt of social assistance. In 2002, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the definition violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because this was a special definition only used for people who were receiving Social Assistance. This was the first time that the Court recognized that people are discriminated against and treated unfairly because they receive social assistance.
The provincial government of the time decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, late in August, the current government announced that it would drop the appeal. That's the good news, for now. The next step is to establish a more fair and respectful definition of spouse. Many advocates seek to return to the previous definition mentioned above, which is the same one used in family law matters.
Cutbacks at the OHRC
By Roberto Lattanzio, Staff Lawyer
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC) has a new process for drafting and receiving human rights complaints. Under the previous process, persons who wished to file a complaint were given a questionnaire at the intake stage. If they needed help in drafting the complaint, OHRC staff used the information from the questionnaire to assist them.
As of October 1, 2004, persons wishing to file a complaint are given a set of guidelines, a sample complaint, and a four-page form to complete. They now are expected to draft the complaint without the assistance of OHRC staff. This new “self-draft” process was preceded by the dismissal of three of the seven OHRC intake workers, who used to help in drafting complaints.
The OHRC states on its website that Intake Officers will continue to provide direct assistance to people who have a disability that makes it difficulty or impossible for them to draft the complaints themselves. It is unclear how the OHRC will decide who will get this assistance. The OHRC also promises that assistance will be provided through a telephone line, which at the time of this article was not yet set up.
Discrimination based on disability is the most common claim in OHRC complaints. From 2000 through 2004 the percentage of new claims listing disability discrimination has risen from about two out of five to about three out of five.
This cutback of intake staff and services will have a direct negative impact on persons with disabilities. A process that already was difficult now has added a further barrier to access.
Ontario Government Initiative and
Consultation on Developmental
Services System
By Lana Kerzner, Staff Lawyer
The Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) recently launched a review of the province’s developmental services system. It has been moving towards a community-based system and away from one that is institutional-based. As part of the plan the government states that it will invest up to $110 million over the next four years to strengthen community-based services. As well, the government intends to phase out the three remaining residential institutions for adults with developmental disabilities. Minister of Community and Social Services Sandra Pupatello states that these initiatives have been undertaken to ensure that the system is “fair, accessible and sustainable”.
To this end, MCSS has developed the Joint Developmental Services Sector Partnership Table, where its representatives meet with representatives of associations of self advocates, families and service providers. This group has prepared a discussion paper to encourage people to share their ideas on a vision and future directions for developmental services. MCSS will be distributing the paper and asking for feedback from persons with an interest in these issues. Feedback on the paper will help MCSS to develop a long-term plan for developmental services. MCSS then will undertake a broader public consultation on that plan. This is anticipated to take place beginning in the winter of 2005.
For more information on this process you may access the MCSS web site at www.cfcs.gov.on.ca.
ARCH has been monitoring MCSS’s activities in this initiative. We will provide formal feedback to MCSS in response to the discussion paper, and will continue to participate as the consultations progress.
If you wish to participate in this consultation please telephone the Developmental Services Branch, MCSS, at (416) 327-4954. ARCH would be pleased to hear your thoughts as well and we will consider them when preparing our response to MCSS. Please send them by e-mail to .
Ministry Looks at CCAC
By Lesli Bisgould, Staff Lawyer
CCAC Ottawa:
An investigation by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) into Ottawa's Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) has revealed that care for persons in need of it was reduced in order to pay for unneeded office space and computer software that doesn't work.
The audit of the CCAC was done by an 8-person team over the spring and summer of 2004. According to the Ottawa Citizen (September 2, 2004), their report "paints a picture of an organization that puts poorly thought-out schemes ahead of care for patients".
The report, entitled “Operational Review of the Ottawa Community Care Access Centre” (OCCAC) was published on September 7, 2004. It can be found on the website of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, at www.health.gov.on.ca.
According to the report's Executive Summary, a new Board and administration took over the OCCAC in February 2002. The many changes and initiatives made since that time have caused stress among the OCCAC staff. The staff also are unhappy because the OCCAC has been criticized by the public for some of the new projects, its “overly enthusiastic attempts at public communication”, and the reductions in client services that took place at the same time.