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 July 22, 2009 INSIDE THIS ISSUE - ARCH Annual General Meeting - Are You Interested in Being on ARCH's Board? - ARCH Website Survey - Supreme Court of Canada Refuses to Hear Case on Equality Rights of Person with a Disability - Public Consultation on First Regulation under Social Inclusion Act - New ODSP Practice for Persons with Addictions - Roundtable on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS - Publications at ARCH *** You Are Invited to ARCH's ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. Metro Hall 55 John Street Room 308 (King and John Street) Refreshments at 5:30 p.m. Meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. Speakers to be announced. RSVP to Theresa Sciberras by email at scibert@lao.on.ca or call: Tel.: 416-482-8255 or 1-866-482-2724 TTY: 416-482-1254 or 1-866-482-2728 Please Note: Sign language interpreters, real-time captioning and attendant services will be provided. If you require accommodations other than these, or have specific dietary needs, please contact Theresa Sciberras at ARCH by phone or e-mail at scibert@lao.on.ca. ARCH ENCOURAGES A SCENT FREE MEETING *** Are You Interested in Being on ARCH's Board? by the ARCH Nominations Committee The ARCH Nominations Committee is now preparing its Nominations Report, to be presented at the AGM. We would like you to consider volunteering on the ARCH Board or suggesting others who could make a valuable contribution on it. The ARCH Board is composed of thirteen directors who serve two-year terms. Our By-Law provides that a majority of the members must be persons with disabilities and a majority must be individuals who come from an ARCH member organization. Directors may be re-elected for subsequent terms. This year we will be electing six directors. ARCH is looking for individuals who are committed to defending and advancing the equality rights of persons with disabilities and in providing leadership and support to ARCH's staff. The nominating committee hopes to recommend to the membership a group of people whose combined skills and experience will provide strong oversight both with respect to policy and clinic administration. ARCH would also like to continue our practice of having board members from around the province, as ARCH is a provincial organization. This is an active volunteer board commitment. The Board is responsible for the oversight of ARCH, including the planning and monitoring of its activities and development of policies governing our operations. The Board also has the responsibility to ensure that we are meeting the requirements of our funders. Prospective board members should be ready to attend monthly board meetings, in person or by telephone, and participate on standing and ad hoc committees. Board members also attend community or Legal Aid Ontario events on behalf of the Board. Please let us know of your own interest or any suggestions of candidates you may have by August 31, 2009. Please mail, fax or e-mail a statement of interest, including a brief r‚sum‚, to: ARCH Nominations Committee c/o Theresa Sciberras ARCH Disability Law Centre 425 Bloor Street East, Ste. 110 Toronto, Ontario M4W 3R5 Fax: 416-482-2981 Toll-free Fax: 1-866-881-2723 e-mail: scibert@lao.on.ca *** ARCH Website Survey ARCH is reviewing our current website and would like to get your feedback. Please visit our website at www.archdisabilitylaw.ca and go to the ARCH Website Survey link in the 'What's New at ARCH' section of the website. Please complete the survey and let us know what you think about our current website. *** Supreme Court of Canada Refuses to Hear Case on Equality Rights of Person with a Disability By Laurie Letheren and Dianne Wintermute, Staff Lawyers The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear the case of Harris v. Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. The case sought to determine the proper rights of people with disabilities under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter]. The case is about a mother, Cynthia Harris, who stayed out of the workforce to care for her son with a disability. Later, Ms. Harris herself became a person with a disability and applied for a Disability Pension under the Canada Pension Plan [Plan]. She was denied this pension. When determining whether a person has made sufficient contributions to qualify for a Disability Pension, the Plan protects parents' eligibility for benefits by excluding the years a parent stays home to care for a child. This protection however, only extends to the care of children under the age of seven. Age seven was chosen as the cut-off because it is assumed that a child will be in school full-time by then, giving the parent the flexibility to return to the workforce. Ms. Harris' son however, had a disability that prevented him from attending school; she was therefore, unable to return to work after her son turned seven. Because Ms. Harris stayed home to care for her son for longer than the Plan assumes a parent normally would, she was denied the Disability Pension to which she had contributed. Ms. Harris sought to challenge the Government's decision to deny her a pension, arguing that it violates her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ARCH Disability Law Centre represented Ms Harris in this challenge to the Government's decision and ARCH recently filed an application to the Supreme Court asking the Court to agree to hold a hearing to review the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal's decision can be read at: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2009/2009fca22/2009fca22.html. In January 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal had found that the Government's decision did not violate Ms. Harris' rights. The three judges of the Federal Court of Appeal delivered three separate sets of reasons in the decision it released. Justice Linden found that the Plan discriminated against Ms. Harris and other parents like her whose children could not fit into the presumption that they go to school full-time when they are seven. Justice Linden found that the age seven cut off had a discriminatory impact on Ms. Harris and as a result, her rights that are to be protected by section 15 of the Charter had been violated. Justice Evans disagreed with Justice Linden. He concluded that the Plan was not discriminatory. Justice Evans determined that the purpose of the provision that allowed parents to exclude the years they stayed home was to benefit parents who temporarily leave employment to look after young children. Thus, parents of children under the age of seven, regardless of whether or not they have a disability, are eligible for this protection, while parents of children over the age of seven are not. He concluded that since Ms. Harris was treated like every other parent who had a child over age seven, she did not experience any discrimination. Justice Ryer concluded that Ms. Harris could not claim that she experienced discrimination because the years she stayed home until her son reached seven had been excluded from the calculations for eligibility just like all other parents. In June 2008, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in R. v. Kapp, which appeared to offer a simpler way of determining Charter of Rights cases. In Kapp, the Supreme Court acknowledged the barriers encountered by those who have sought to promote their rights under the Charter over the past several years. The Supreme Court stated that the test to determine whether a right protected by the Charter had been violated was the test that it had set out in one of its earliest Charter of Rights decisions, Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia. ARCH argued that the Federal Court of Appeal was to apply the test set out in Andrews in deciding Ms. Harris' case. Only Justice Linden refers to the Kapp decision in his reasons. It is ARCH's opinion that the Supreme Court was not completely clear about the current test that is to be applied in a case where a person is claiming that his or her section 15 rights are violated when it released it reasons in Kapp. Lower Canadian courts are applying Kapp in different ways. It was therefore, ARCH's hope that the Supreme Court would hear the Harris case to clarify how courts should determine Charter of Rights violations. ARCH had hoped that the Supreme Court would hear the Harris case and have an opportunity to further clarify how courts should determine Charter of Rights violations. The purpose of the government program that Ms. Harris was challenging is to protect parents' interests however, it has the adverse affect of excluding parents whose children have disabilities and who cannot fit in to society's presumptions of normalcy. Had the case been heard, the Court's answer would have been extremely important to people with disabilities and other equality seeking groups. People with disabilities and others have hoped that the Charter would protect them from discrimination and allow them to be recognized as equal members of Canadian society but for many this hope remains unrealized. *** Public Consultation on First Regulation under Social Inclusion Act by Rakhee Sapra, summer student and Kerri Joffe, staff lawyer The Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, was passed in the fall of 2008. This Act, also known as the Social Inclusion Act, makes important changes to the way in which the government delivers services to people with intellectual disabilities in Ontario. The government has not yet implemented the Social Inclusion Act, but when it does, the Act will replace the Developmental Services Act and associated regulation. Before the government passed the Social Inclusion Act, the Standing Committee on Social Policy held hearings to get public input into the Act. ARCH provided oral and written input to the Committee. ARCH's submissions outlined problems with the Act and provided recommendations on how these problems could be resolved. One of the main themes of ARCH's submissions was that the Act should be changed in order to create a rights-based framework for people with intellectual disabilities who receive government services and funding. It is ARCH's opinion that a rights-based framework should include: * full rights of appeal for decisions regarding whether an individual is eligible to receive developmental services, * a process for people who are receiving services to make complaints, * specific provisions to address abuse that people with intellectual disabilities experience when receiving services. To read ARCH's full submissions to the Committee, please see our website at: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/publications/submissions.asp . Another point ARCH presented to the Committee was that the Act leaves out many important details regarding how developmental services will be provided to individuals. The Act states that these details may be dealt with in regulations, which the government may make. ARCH recommended that if the government makes such regulations, the public should be allowed to comment before the regulations become law. This recommendation was accepted and became part of the Social Inclusion Act. Recently, the government posted the first regulation under the Social Inclusion Act. The regulation deals with several issues, including: * identifying which services and supports are available for direct funding agreements, * setting qualifications for who can conduct assessments to determine whether a person has a developmental disability, and * establishing when inspections can be carried out in service agencies and group homes. Members of the public can provide input and comments to the government on this regulation, until August 18, 2009. Comments may be sent to the Ministry of Community and Social Services by e-mail, fax or mail. The specific contact information as well as a plain language guide to the regulation can be found on the Ministry's website at: www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/developmental/index.htm. ARCH will be providing input to the government on this regulation, and will also be participating in a forum held by Community Living Ontario to develop a response to the regulation. For more information on this forum visit: http://www.communitylivingontario.ca/ *** New ODSP Practice for Persons with Addictions by Dianne Wintermute, Staff Lawyer A recent decision by the Divisional Court in the on-going case of Director v. Werbeski and Tranchemontagne has had a positive impact on how applications for Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits for persons with addictions will be assessed. In the past, people whose only medical condition was an addiction were excluded from receiving ODSP under the law. However, as was reported in the May 2009 edition of ARCH Alert, in the recent Werbeski/Tranchemontagne decision, the Court said that not only are addictions disabilities, but also to deny people ODSP benefits because their sole condition is an addiction is discriminatory, and contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Government has sought leave to appeal this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. However, unless leave is granted and the decision of the lower court is overturned, people who may not have previously qualified for ODSP benefits because their only medical condition was an addiction may now qualify for benefits. If you have already applied for ODSP benefits and have appealed a denial of those benefits to the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT), you may want to make sure that you have provided enough evidence to both the SBT and the Disability Adjudication Unit (DAU) to show that the addiction is a substantial one that has lasted more than one year and has a substantial impact on your ability to take care of yourself or function in the community or function in the workforce. If you have not applied for ODSP benefits in the past because you were told that you could not, then you may want to apply for benefits now. Unfortunately, it is not clear what will happen to people who applied and whose appeal was denied because in the past, addictions were not considered to be a disability. ARCH is working with other community legal clinics to determine what will happen in those kinds of cases. All cases that involve addictions and that are scheduled to be heard by the SBT are being adjourned to give the Disability Adjudication Unit an opportunity to develop criteria by which to adjudicate addictions cases. The plan is to have the criteria in place by fall 2009, and then the cases will be scheduled to be heard. The DAU is sending letters to people who have applied, advising them of the postponement of their appeal. However, the letters may be confusing. ARCH urges you to contact your local community legal clinic for assistance with these cases. *** Roundtable on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Ottawa June 25-26, 2009) By Ed Montigny, Staff Lawyer In December 2006, the United Nations General Assembly passed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Convention) - the first legally binding international human rights document to secure the rights of people with disabilities. The purpose of the Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. The Convention recognizes the diversity among persons with disabilities, explicitly including in its scope those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments. The Convention acknowledges that disability results from the interaction between persons with disabilities and the physical and attitudinal barriers that prevent people with disabilities from fully participating in society. The Convention prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and requires that all appropriate steps be taken to ensure that barriers are removed so that people with disabilities can participate fully in society. The Convention recognizes that accommodating differences by providing supports where required is the essence of equality. Overall, the Convention provides several rights for people with disabilities, including rights in: * employment * education * health services * transportation * access to justice * access to buildings, roads, The Convention calls on all participating governments to alter their country's laws to the extent necessary to comply with the Convention's terms. The process used to negotiate the Convention was unique in many ways. Non-governmental agencies contributed to the initial process to a greater extent than is usual at the United Nations [UN]. Over 800 non-government organizations (NGO), such as registered charities, community groups, advocacy groups and other voluntary organizations were involved. Canadian delegates played a major role in the formulation of a number of the Convention's most important articles. Although certain issues were contentious, on the whole there was an unusually large degree of consensus about the basic objectives and issues involved. Those involved in negotiating the Convention, commented that the process for developing this Convention was far quicker than usual due in large part to the widespread agreement concerning the need for the Convention and a general political will to succeed. The Convention employs a human rights model of disability which views people with disabilities as rights holders and members of society who are often more disabled by the physical and attitudinal barriers societies erect to exclude and stigmatize them than by their own physical or mental condition. The Convention requires state parties to identify and eliminate obstacles and barriers in order to ensure that persons with disabilities may access their environment, transportation, public facilities, services, information, education and communication on an equal basis with other citizens. . Despite the role played by Canadians in developing the Convention, the Canadian Government has not yet ratified the Convention. While Canada has signed the document, this offers no more than a symbolic message of support. Canada will not be formally bound by the terms of the Convention until it has been ratified. The Roundtable, organized by the Federal Government's Office for Disability Issues, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, and held in Ottawa June 25-26, 2009 was intended as a consultation to permit various NGOs to offer their input into the ratification process. The event brought together about 200 people from various groups, including ARCH, representing a wide cross-section of communities of persons with disabilities. It was obvious early on that the clear message being sent to the government was 'ratify the Convention' - NOW!. It may seem odd that a country such as Canada, which played a major role in formulating the Convention, should take so long to ratify it. As with any international agreement or treaty, the decision to ratify the Convention rests with the Federal Government. However, ratifying the Convention would obligate Canada to ensure compliance with all articles of the Convention. While the general sense is that Canadian law is, for the most part, already compliant with the Convention, many articles of the Convention touch on areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as education or health care. Therefore the Federal government must consult with and obtain the agreement of provincial governments before binding them to the terms of the Convention. The Federal and Provincial governments have been involved in discussions, most of them confidential, for the last two years. During this time the various NGOs and others representing communities of persons with disabilities have received little in the way of information about the content or progress of the various Federal-Provincial consultations. Many people who attended the Roundtable expressed their concern that groups that were intimately involved in the process leading up to the creation of the Convention were ignored once the consultations between the Federal Government and the provinces began. The Roundtable was an opportunity for the Government to re-engage with the various representative groups. However, the government representatives who attended the Roundtable were unable to reveal anything about the nature of the still on-going Federal-Provincial negotiations. Therefore, it remains unclear what, if any, obstacles stand in the way of ratification. Overall delegates were very frustrated with how long the Federal-Provincial negotiation was taking. The frustration continued after the government representatives gave no information about the process. Many delegates expressed concern that Canada's failure to ratify the Convention soon may have negative consequences. International meetings are scheduled for the fall 2009 to discuss some of the parts of the Convention, such as the articles related to legal capacity and decision making, where Canadian input could be most useful. Unfortunately, only nations who have ratified the Convention are able to participate at these fall meetings. The longer Canada waits to ratify the Convention, the longer Canadian delegates will be absent from these important discussions. The influence and leadership role Canada built up during earlier negotiations may therefore be compromised or even lost. Within Canada, many are also anxious for the Convention to be ratified, since the Convention is seen as having the potential to be a useful tool in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities. While the Convention does not create any new rights for Canadians, the Convention may be a useful tool to advance the rights of people with disabilities to be recognized as equal members of Canadian society. In many areas, the Convention offers details of how particular rights can be implemented. In the area of capacity law, for instance, the Convention focuses not on whether a person has capacity to make decisions, but upon how that person can be assisted so that he or she is able to make decisions affecting their life. This is of great assistance to those who wish to promote supportive-decision making initiatives already underway in various regions of Canada. However, many felt that a certain momentum that had built up during the period when the Convention was being negotiated could be lost if ratification is not achieved soon. Since those attending the Roundtable felt they could do little to influence the content or pace of Federal-Provincial negotiations, most discussions focussed on how to employ the Convention to promote the rights of people with disabilities in Canada. Small workshops were held on accessibility, independent living and how to promote, protect and monitor the rights set out in the Convention. A most useful plenary session discussed equality, decision making and legal capacity. These workshops and plenary sessions offered an excellent opportunity for the representatives of various groups to share their experiences, explain the challenges facing their individual communities and to learn from each other. Despite frustration over the time it is taking for the Federal Government to ratify the Convention, there was every sign that Canada will - eventually - ratify. Overall those attending the Roundtable were optimistic that the Convention will have a positive impact on the lives of persons with disabilities within Canada and across the globe. Canadians have good reason to be proud of the role Canada and the various representatives of communities of people with disabilities played in the creation of this important initiative. Also see: "Making It Real: A Call to Action on Ratification and Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities", Canadian Association for Community Living (June 2009) *** COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS ISAC Launches New Social Assistance Review Website The Income Security Advocacy Centre [ISAC] has recently launched its new Social Assistance Review website at www.sareview.ca. The website is a source for news, background papers, and information about the development of the Social Assistance Review that the Ontario government has promised to undertake. In addition, the website is a place where those who receive Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support benefits can share their views about: * how OW and ODSP programs have undermined you, failed to support you, denied you opportunities, or stopped you from reaching your full potential. * the ways that the system could be made better - the resources, programs, and assistance that you think would help you and people in your community thrive, have economic security, and be able to live the life you want to live. For more information contact: Income Security Advocacy Centre 425 Adelaide Street West, 5th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 Tel: (416) 597-5820 Toll Free: 1-866-245-4072 Fax: (416) 597-5821 e-mail: contact@sareview.ca Law Commission of Ontario Launches Project On the Law and Persons The Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) has recently launched a public consultation on the law as it affects persons with disabilities. This public consultation is the first stage of a major project that is expected to develop a new approach to drafting new laws or developing current laws that impact people with disabilities. The LCO operates independently of government to recommend law reforms to increase access to justice. The consultation is open until August 28, 2009. Read more at http://www.accessibilitynews.ca/acnews/press/all_articles.php?all=373 Toronto District School Boards Seeks Input From Parents of Children with Autism In May 2007 The Toronto District School Board [TDSB] released a memorandum "Incorporating Methods of Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) into Programs for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)". According to the TDSB, the memorandum is to provide direction to school boards to support their use of applied behaviour analysis (ABA) as an instructional approach in the education of many students with ASD. Throughout the spring, school principals completed a survey based on the implementation of the memorandum within their school. The survey is now available for parents of students with autism. The survey will be open for parents' input until mid-September. Parents' input is greatly welcome and the schools are encouraging parents to take part. The survey can be found at: https://secure.tdsb.on.ca/survey/survey.asp?id=1252 MS Society Conducts Survey on Transportation Challenges for Ontarians with MS The Multiple Sclerosis Society is preparing a position paper on accessible transportation in Ontario. They are gathering information from people affected by MS to help develop this paper. Information is being gathered through a short survey that may be accessed at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=EqO2_2fOH6eP0gOLhKs9IxKg_3d_3d. Please feel free to share this short survey with members of your community. The survey closes on Friday, August 7th, 2009. For more information on this project, please contact Kim Steele, Senior Coordinator, Government Relations, at 1-866-922-6065 ext. 2243 or by email at kim.steele@mssociety.ca. Public review of the Initial Proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard On July 14, 2009, the Ontario government released the initial proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act for a public review period. All standards are developed by a Standards Committee made up of representatives from the disability and business communities. The initial proposed standard sets out specific requirements for making the built environment in Ontario accessible, including all new construction and extensive renovations. The announcement from the Ministry of Community and Social Services states: * We asked the standards development committee to take a broad look at how to make Ontario's buildings, structures and other spaces accessible. The requirements the committee is proposing are not law. * Requirements for single family residential housing and for retrofitting existing buildings have been included for public discussion. But the government will not impose these requirements in the final built environment standard at this time. * The government does not plan to require that all existing buildings be retrofitted to meet accessibility requirements in the final accessible built environment standard at this time. Terms of reference outline that this standard will be focused on preventing barriers on a go-forward basis. Also, the government does not intend to require Ontarians to make their existing or new houses accessible in the final accessible built environment standard at this time. If you are interested in commenting on the proposed standard, go to: http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/accessibilityOntario/accesson/business/environment/comments/howto_comments.htm. You must do so by October 16, 2009. If you require an alternate format or method to provide your feedback, please contact: Accessibility Directorate of Ontario Outreach and Compliance Branch Ministry of Community and Social Services 777 Bay Street, Suite 601 Toronto ON Canada M7A 2J4 E-mail: publicreview@ontario.ca Tel.: 1-888-482-4317 TTY: 416-326-0148 or 1-888-335-6611 (toll-free in Ontario) Fax: 416-326-9725 The Ethno Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario (ERDCO) and community partners Annual DisAbility Community Picnic Date: Sunday August 16, 2009 Time: 12 noon - 4:30 pm Location: Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre 6 Garamond Court (off Wynford Drive) Main Intersection: Eglinton Ave. E. and Don Mills Rd. FREE * Volunteer Escorts available at Wynford and Garamond. * Vegetarian and Halal Food provided. * Attendant and ASL Services and Child Care provided. * (Please contact us regarding additional accommodations). RSVP at 416 657-2211 or e-mail demeyers@rogers.com Event Partners: Centre for Independent Living in Toronto (CILT) Canadian South Asians for Independent Living (C-SASIL) Wholenet Technology Birchmount Bluffs Neighbouirhood Centre *** Publications at ARCH ARCH writes or publishes papers, articles and fact sheets from time to time. Some of these materials are available on our website. We are providing a list of our current publications available to the public via our website, e-mail or by mail. To access any of the publications on ARCH's website, please go to http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/publications/index.asp. If you are unable to access them online and would like to have a publication sent to you, please contact Theresa at ARCH, providing her with the specific publication and how you would like to receive it (by mail or e-mail) at: Tel.: 416-482-8255 Toll-free: 1-866-482-2724 TTY: 416-482-1254 Toll-free: 1-866-482-2728 or by e-mail at scibert@lao.on.ca DISCLAIMER: THESE PUBLICATIONS PROVIDE INFORMATION ONLY AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE. THE CONTENTS REFLECT THE LAWS THAT WERE CURRENT AT THE TIME OF WRITING OR UPDATING AND THE LAW MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE THAT DATE. “Providing Legal Services to People with Disabilities - LSUC Article, April 2009”. This article is intended to be a resource for lawyers on representing clients who have disabilities. “Assistive Devices For People With Disabilities Fact Sheets, June 2008”. A series of three fact sheets on assistive devices for people with disabilities. ”Mental Health Fact Sheets, 2007-2008”. Two fact sheets which contain information for people who use or have used mental health services and supports. One fact sheet provides information about human rights and the right to be free from discrimination. The second fact sheet provides information about the right to language interpretation services at Courts and Tribunals. “Fact Sheet on Interacting with Persons with Disabilities, December 2007”. These fact sheets provide general tips on how to interact with people in a manner that best accommodates their disability. “Assistive Devices in Canada: Ensuring Inclusion and Independence, June 2007”. The report provides information to persons with disabilities about the rules that govern the safety, availability, reliability and cost of assistive devices in Canada. “Federal Disability Act: Opportunities and Challenges, October 2006”. This paper was commissioned by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) and the Canadian Association for Community Living (CACL). The paper considers what a Federal disability act might look like and what its reach could be. *** 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 PDF and Text Formats are distributed to ensure accessibility. Charitable Reg. #118777994RR01. Editor: Laurie Letheren Production & Circulation: Theresa Sciberras We welcome your comments and questions, as well as submissions. We will endeavour to include all information of general interest to the community of persons with disabilities and their organizations, but reserve the right to edit or reject material if necessary. We will advise you if your submission is to be edited or rejected. Please assist us in your submissions by being brief and factual. Please address communications regarding ARCH ALERT to: Theresa Sciberras, Program 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/