ARCH: A LEGAL RESOURCE CENTRE
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

1999-2000 Annual Report

Mission Statement

ARCH is a non-profit legal resource centre dedicated to defending and advancing the equality rights of people with disabilities.  Recognizing the dignity and worth of all people with disabilities, ARCH promotes full social justice for people with disabilities and their realization of equality of opportunities and full participation.

VALUES & GUIDING PRINCIPLES

ARCH will be guided by a core set of values.  These are:

•	The belief that the dignity and worth of all people with disabilities must be respected.
•	The belief that all people with disabilities have the right to life, to self-determination, and to participate in a society free from barriers to their inclusion and integration.
•	The beliefs that people with disabilities are in the best position to determine their own priorities.
•	The belief that all people in society share the responsibility to create communities which are accommodating to people with disabilities

ARCH will also be guided by the following organizational principles:

•	ARCH will operate in accordance with the above core values.
•	ARCH is community based and community governed:
•	ARCH acts on matters of concern as expressed by member organizations and by individuals who contact ARCH;
•	ARCH is governed by a Board of Directors representing member organizations and the community at large;
•	ARCH is accountable to the community of people with disabilities and to its funders.
•	The core business of ARCH, as legal resource centre, is to defend and advocate the equality rights of people with disabilities through:
•	improvements in laws and policies affecting people with disabilities;
•	increased understanding of the rights of people with disabilities;
•	increased awareness of legal and other resources available to individuals with disabilities and to member organizations.
•	ARCH is not in the business of:
•	taking on disability-related legal or other disability-related problems of individuals with disabilities, if those problems can be addressed by others (except where a legal case would be precedent setting);
•	taking on legal or other problems of individuals with disabilities if the problem is not disability-related.

Table of Contents

1.	President’s Report: by Kathleen Haswell, dated February 27, 2001

2.	Executive Director’s Report: by Phyllis Gordon, dated February 27, 2001

3.	Strategic Planning Report: by Fraser Valentine, Chair, Strategic Planning Working Group, dated February 27, 2001

4.	Financial Statements (distributed separately)

5.	ARCH Member Groups

6.	ARCH Staff

President's Report

February 27, 2001

In December 1999, with the support of Legal Aid Ontario, a completely new Board of Directors accepted the responsibility of providing leadership and direction to the management of ARCH. The Board inherited a situation where the staff was demoralized and there was no executive director in place.  We also lacked, as a group of people sitting on the Board, any ARCH experience and so had no historical perspective from which to draw.  Given all of this, I must begin with thanking the members of the Board who gave extensively of their time and brought enthusiasm and a wide variety of competent skills to the management of ARCH.  Without this willingness to devote much time and energy to the job at hand we would not have been able to achieve the many goals accomplished this term.

At the outset, the Board made the difficult decision to close the intake of calls in order to eliminate the long waiting list of callers seeking ARCH’s assistance.  It should be noted though that during this period staff continued to take the most urgent calls.  In May 2000 the reduction of the backlog for summary advice and referral services enabled us to reopen our intake services.  Litigation services continued under the leadership of Geri Sanson from Sanson and Hart who had been retained on a contract by the previous Board as Senior Litigation Counsel, on a part-time basis.  Geri’s wealth of experience and expertise allowed ARCH to competently continue with its litigation commitment until the hiring process of a permanent senior litigator was completed.  Harry Beatty filled the position of Acting Executive Director and was working with the staff.  His experience and staff feedback was invaluable to the new Board. 

With adequate staffing in place, we focussed much of our attention on implementing the commitments of the prior Board with respect to the internal issues that had arisen in prior months, and achieved these goals.   With the help and assistance of Joanna Kuras from Legal Aid Ontario, the Board embarked on a complete review and restructuring process under the guidance of Shea and Company.  This process allowed the Board to look at the goals, vision, and direction that ARCH will be taking in the future. 

The Board and staff in collaboration did a needs assessment and developed the criteria for the new Executive Director’s position.  Concurrently, the staff were developing their own internal hiring process for the Senior Litigation Counsel position.

Ena Chadha was hired as Senior Litigation Counsel effective May 1, 2000.  Ena brings a very strong background in human rights and immigration law and refugee law, and has litigated extensively on behalf of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.  In her private practice she focused on disability as well as race and gender discrimination from a complainant’s position.   After a lengthy interview process, the Board of Directors appointed Phyllis Gordon as ARCH’s new Executive Director. Phyllis began in mid June of 2000 and brings considerable experience and commitment to the position.  She has previously practised law in Hamilton and Kingston, has been the Clinic Director of Parkdale Community Legal Services, Chair of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal of Ontario, a labour relations arbitrator and and a Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

In February 2000 the Board set up a steering committee to work with the consultants Shea and Company who took the Board through a complete review of ARCH’s internal and external processes.  They reviewed the organizational status, current issues & priorities, strengths upon which to build, and where to develop options for action.  They solicited some feedback from member agencies and others. The Board will be presenting the first stage of the restructuring process at the AGM to inform the member agencies that their participation in a broader consultative community feedback is welcomed. 

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those have helped ARCH during my term as President of ARCH.  The staff at ARCH have worked tirelessly with us, in developing consensus, and providing their positive feedback on many issues.  Joanna Kuras, formerly of Legal Aid Ontario provided leadership and expertise needed by the Board as we started our journey.  Both Board and staff appreciated Harry Beatty’s commitment and dedication to ARCH while serving as its Acting Executive Director.  Jim Shea and Joanna Doyle from Shea and Company provided the expertise and direction in guiding us through the task of reviewing the organizational structure and embarking upon the restructuring process. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank most sincerely the members of your Board of Directors who accepted the challenge of being part of a Board that had many challenges to meet, many obstacles to overcome, and many hours of hard grueling work.  It has been my privilege to work with individuals who stayed the course and committed their energy and time to help ARCH through this difficult period.  It is our hope that through our planned community consultation we will ensure that the services provided by ARCH will be meaningful, appropriate, and a reflection of the needs of persons with disabilities.

Respectfully submitted.

Kathleen Haswell
President

Executive Directors Report
February 27, 2001

When I arrived at ARCH in late June of 2000 I found a highly committed, very cohesive but very overworked Board and an eager but somewhat anxious Staff wondering what their new Executive Director would be like and how we would work together.   I, of course, was wondering the same thing.  What I found was a group of people, each of whom were ready to work hard and with an open mind. I believe that our discoveries about each other and the speed in which solid and respectful working relationships have developed have pleasantly surprised us all.  Above all, Board and Staff share a common goal - to make ARCH as valuable to persons with disabilities in Ontario as possible.  To this end, and with the support of the membership, we will find the best way of allocating our energy and resources.   Another stage of ARCH’s life as a specialty community legal clinic has begun.  We appreciate the patience and support of the community and the member groups.  Similarly, we are grateful for the understanding on the part of many at Legal Aid Ontario that institutions such as ARCH can go through highly stressful periods and can require time and support to rejuvenate. 

It is important to recognize that there have been many changes in our political, social and legal environments since ARCH opened its doors twenty-one years ago.  In this changed context it is appropriate and healthy for ARCH to reconsider its function and role and develop new strategies.  It is also appropriate to ask what it is we do best, and how we can most effectively advance the equality interests and other legal needs of low-income people with disabilities.   While we have many ideas and hopes for the future, we are presently focused on the importance of the planned consultation with the membership and community over the next several months.   We are committed to listen and to develop our future strategies based on the input we receive, and the guidelines of our funders.

Organization Developments and Initiatives

In the meantime and prior to our consultation, we have taken certain steps to assist us in our goal to work more effectively. The following summarizes some of these initiatives.  
•	Jim Shea and Jo-Anne Doyle were the consultants who examined ARCH in detail during the first half of 2000.  Staff and Board met with them at a day-long meeting in May and then in September and have also met together without the consultants to consider the recommendations.  With some variation, we have implemented the working teams suggested by them but continue to search for the most effective way to make decisions and enhance job satisfaction.  In response to staff concerns, we have implemented more effective internal communication mechanisms.
•	 Last year a commitment was made to ARCH staff that an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy and a complaint procedure would be adopted.  This has occurred.  We are proud of our new policy, which was the result of concerted work and was collectively developed at both the Board and Staff levels.  More policy development is underway.  A goal for the coming year is to complete the review of old polices and create new ones where needed.  
•	The Board of ARCH has decided that relocation of our offices was necessary.  Staff are suffering recurring health problems in reaction to the poor air quality. Our premises are neither welcoming or fully accessible.  Legal Aid Ontario has agreed to assist ARCH’s move and is providing professional assistance in this endeavor.  Our search for new premises is in its very early stages at this time. 

•	Another emphasis of the current leadership has been to give more meaning to the province-wide component of ARCH’s mandate.  The following decisions reflect this effort: the strategic planning consultation team will visit several centres outside of Toronto; electronic communication will be used more effectively; toll-free phone, fax and TTY lines for use by the community throughout Ontario have recently been established; and, individuals from more communities around the Province have been nominated to the Board. While we cannot predict the full impact of this initiative with certainty, we are aware that more demands will be placed on our already strained resources. 

•	An essential aspect of ARCH’s service over the years has been the summary advice provided to countless individuals.  However, we are told that there is a lack of understanding about what this service actually is, why there are delays and how and when ARCH decides to represent some people and not others. We are attempting to communicate with the public and other agencies and legal clinics more effectively on these issues.   One change is that we now refer to this service as “summary advice and referral” as this is a more accurate reflection of what we do.  We are also in the process of finalizing a newly written brochure outlining our current services.  Our Website will contain information about our case selection and summary advice processes that we hope will be clear.

•	ARCH’s publication and communication service has started again.  We have sent out four ARCH ALERTS electronically and one ARCH TYPE.  The Website will be activated in the very near future. Look for us at ARCH website www.arch-online.org.  Our plans for Website content include the posting of ARCH TYPE and ARCH ALERT, submissions and discussion papers prepared by ARCH, public legal education materials and links to key documents prepared by government and other advocacy organizations.

•	The number of calls received each week is increasing and we fully expect that this trend will continue.  Despite having assigned a second community legal worker to the summary advice function and despite our attempts to streamline the review of the advice conducted by legal staff, we are again experiencing a backlog, which we do not consider acceptable.  We are presently reviewing and compiling statistics on the summary advice aspect of our service so that when we consult with the community we will be able to describe the situation accurately so that options in this regard can be considered meaningfully. 

•	ARCH has undertaken major file management projects in the past year.  Under the direction of Geri Sanson, litigation files were reviewed and reorganized.  In the fall of 2000, we began another major filing project, which entailed an overhaul to the previous filing system and the institution of new filing procedures throughout the clinic and the closure of a number of stale files. This project is still underway.

•	ARCH is one of seventy-one legal clinics in Ontario and one of fourteen specialty clinics within the clinic system. Over the years ARCH’s relationship with the system has been inconsistent and should be strengthened. It is our view that the continued and strengthened mutual exchange of information, referrals and training will, in the end, be beneficial to persons with disabilities in Ontario.  To that end, I have supported staff participation at clinic training events, inter-clinic working groups, the Journal of Law and Social Policy editorial board and law reform initiatives. Likewise, I participate at Legal Aid sponsored conferences and quarterly meetings of Executive Directors in Toronto. 

•	Similarly, we support the training of staff at legal educational events as well as events in the community providing education about disability issues.   Staff lawyers attended the training provided by the Law Society of Upper Canada on the new Rules of Professional Responsibility. 

Throughout all of this activity, the work of the clinic has continued unabated.  The following are some highlights of our efforts in litigation, public legal education and law reform.

Litigation

Immigration
•	ARCH represents Angela Chesters as co-counsel in an action in Federal Court (Trial Division) challenging the constitutionality of s.19(1)(a) of the Immigration Act.  We are assisted by Ron Poulton, an immigration law specialist, through Court Challenges support. This case is a Charter challenge to the “medical inadmissibility” provision of the Immigration Act.  Pursuant to the legislation, Immigration officers can exclude prospective immigrants who they perceive may place excessive demands on Canada’s health and social services because of a disability.  ARCH’s client was denied permanent resident status because she has multiple sclerosis.  Immigration deemed her to be a person who would place excessive demands on social and health services without any examination of her personal circumstances. If successful, this case will have far reaching impact on persons with disabilities and especially on families with dependent disabled members.

Federal Employment Equity

•	In 1988, ARCH was counsel to the Disabled People for Employment Equity Human Rights Group (“DPEEHRG”) when it filed complaints of systemic discrimination in employment against several large federal employers on behalf of a coalition of disability rights organizations.  The complaints were based on statistics from 1987 Federal Equity Reports indicating lack of representation of persons with disabilities in federal work places.  In the fall of 1999, after several years of stalemate in negotiations, ARCH renewed settlement discussions and intensive negotiations were undertaken throughout the year.  ARCH’s research indicated that in the twelve years since these complaints were filed, that there was virtually no improvement in the situation of persons with disabilities in the respondents’ employ.  In the fall of 2000, DPEEHRG completed negotiations and arrived at successful agreements with three major respondents with ARCH acting as counsel throughout these negotiations. The settlements include a strategy for comprehensive barrier removal and mechanisms for ongoing consultation and collaboration between the coalition and the respondents.  Negotiations continue with the remaining respondents.

Education/Taxation/Accommodation

•	ARCH intervened before a federal human rights tribunal on behalf of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities in a complaint by Scott Wignall against the Minister of National Revenue.  ARCH adduced substantive expert evidence with respect to the disability related costs of pursuing education and the disadvantage experienced by students with disabilities because of Revenue Canada’s failure to integrate accommodation principles in its tax policy.  This case was heard in September 2000, and the decision is pending.  ARCH has a similar case proceeding before the Tax Court of Canada.

Provincial Human Rights

•	ARCH represented a number of clients with respect to their disability based human rights complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and before the Ontario Divisional Court.  In two judicial review cases, ARCH successfully secured investigations for the Complainants despite the Commission having exercised its statutory discretion to not deal with the complaints.  One case raised important issues about disability-based workplace harassment in a unionized setting.  The second case involved allegations of discrimination in education against a School Board with respect to the provision of appropriate accommodations. 

Taxation / Disability Accommodation

•	In October 2000, ARCH continued its representation of Fred Weeks, a parent of a young man with significant disabilities, in the Federal Court of Appeal challenging certain provisions of the Income Tax Act as unconstitutional.  This case was a judicial review of a 1999 decision of the Tax Court denying the income tax deductions claimed by Mr. Weeks for expenditures related to caring for his son at home.  Similar expenses would have been deductible if the Weeks had Institutionalized their son.  Successes achieved in litigating this case include the amendment of a Revenue Canada policy so that 20% of the capital cost of vans (to a maximum of $5,000) is now deductible.  Further, Revenue Canada conceded a number of items in dispute prior to the trial.  The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the claim in December 2000 holding that it required further evidence with respect to the comparative costs of institutional care and home care.

Transportation

•	The Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision with respect to ARCH’s application for leave to appeal in the Wheel-Trans case in September 2000.  In this application, ARCH had alleged that the TTC, and its funder, the City of Toronto, failed to accommodate disabled persons in the public transit system contrary to s. 15 of the Charter.  The applicants, all of whom were previously entitled to Wheel-Trans service, were cut off when new restrictions were introduced to limit the number of users.  ARCH argued that the Wheel-Trans eligibility criteria adversely affected persons with certain types of disability by denying them equal protection and benefit of the law in a manner that was discriminatory based on their disabilities. Ultimately the Supreme Court did not grant leave, although the litigation of this case generated significant community advocacy around the issues of public transit.

Law Reform

•	During 2000 and early 2001, ARCH has been invited to participate in several consultations. These include invitations from Human Resources Development Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Ministry of Labour, the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, the Ontario Disability Support Program Branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Law Society of Upper Canada, and the Canadian Medical Association.  Emerging issues of importance in these consultations included accessibility of the legal system to persons with disabilities, privacy and health information, and the international protection of human rights.
•	An important part of law reform is consulting with others doing important policy projects.   Recent visitors who have come to share and discuss issues with ARCH staff include: Natalie Des Rosiers, Chair of the Law Commission of Canada; Cam Crawford, the President of the Roeher Institute; Orville Endicott, disability law expert; and, Sherri Torjman, Vice-President of the Caledon Institute.  Issues discussed with these distinguished guests include new directions in disability supports, both personal and economic. 
•	ARCH actively participated in pre-conference meetings organized by Heritage Canada with respect to the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerances (WCAR).

•	ARCH has provided input on several issues in the legal profession which have systemic impact.  These include a written submission to the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Task Force on Courthouse Facilities, a written submission and a meeting with the co-chairs of the Tariff Review Task Force considering the Legal Aid Tariff, and a written submission and meeting with the Chair of the Law Society of Upper Canada ‘s Competency in the Profession Task Force.

•	ARCH is an active participant in a number of inter-clinic groups and other committees, including the Steering Committee on Social Assistance (provincial), the Social Assistance Action Committee (Toronto), the CPP Working Group, the Journal of Law and Social Policy Editorial Board and the Mental Health Legal Committee.

•	ARCH prepared written submissions to the Ontario Human Rights Commission’ Task Force on Ageing.  We have participated in the preparation of the development of submissions to a Legislative Committee presented by the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly with respect to restraints in public hospitals.   We will soon be presenting our submissions to the Legislative Committee studying Ontario’s proposed health privacy legislation. 

Public Legal Education

•	ARCH presented a two-day training workshop for front-line workers co-sponsored by Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic and ARCH in November 2000.  The topics covered included mental health legal issues, issues affecting children with disabilities, resources and special services for persons with disabilities, human rights in employment, and, an overview of eligibility for benefits and services under the Ontario Disability Support Program and Canada Pension Plan. 
•	A municipal elections and issues workshop was also held in November. This workshop was primarily for individuals with disabilities and others concerned about advocacy issues. Several ARCH Board members participated, along with ARCH staff and a member of the staff of the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario.  Topics included social service issues, homelessness and consumer/survivor issues, TTC and Wheel-Trans issues, and the municipal elections process. 

•	ARCH again presented highly successful sessions for Bar Admission students about the representation of clients with disabilities.  We are also revising and updating the article “What if Your Next Client has a Disability?” for inclusion in the Bar Admission materials for next year’s Bar Admission class and for general circulation to the profession.

Report from the Strategic Planning Working Group

February 27, 2001

I am pleased to submit the following report on behalf of the members of the Strategic Planning Working Group. 

The ARCH Board of Directors established the Working Group on October 30, 2000.  Its mandate is to develop and present ARCH’s Strategic Plan, as required in the LAO sponsored Shea & Company report on the renewal of the organization.  The parameters of the Strategic Planning mandate include three elements: (1) vision and mission statement/philosophy; (2) strategic directions/goals and objectives; and (3) development of individual/team workplans.  It was agreed that the focus of the Working Group is on the first and second elements, while staff, under the direction of the Executive Director, will undertake the third element.

To date, the Working Group has had five (5) meetings – November 17, 2000; December 6, 2000; December 19, 2000; January 9, 2001; and January 21, 2001.  Our work is not yet complete, but we are pleased to present the membership and the community with an update on our activities which have centered on three key areas: (1) the development of a revised ARCH Mission Statement; (2) ARCH’s physical space requirements; and (3) a community consultation.
The Revised Draft Arch Mission Statement

Early in our work, we realized that ARCH’s mission statement does not adequately reflect the organization’s mandate and activities.  Thus, we set out to revise the mission statement bringing it in line with our funding, our staff complement, the political environment, and community expectations.

The Working Group drafted – and the Board of Directors approved – the following working mission statement for presentation and discussion during the upcoming community consultation process.

‘ARCH: A Legal Resource Centre for Persons with Disabilities’ is a province-wide legal aid clinic and legal resource centre dedicated to defending and advancing the equality-rights of persons with disabilities. 

In recognizing the dignity and worth of persons with a variety of disabilities, ARCH promotes the full social justice of persons with disabilities, and their realization of equal opportunities and full participation on an individual and systemic basis.  To this end, the ARCH proceeds on the premise that: 

•	Persons with disabilities are confronted with unique legal challenges.
•	Persons with disabilities must have control over their own lives.
•	Persons with disabilities are not a homogeneous group.  Rather, this community is diverse, and does not have a uniform set of priorities.

Within available resources, ARCH undertakes (but is not limited to) the following:

1.	ARCH identifies key legal disability issues and conducts test-case litigation.
2.	ARCH monitors and responds to law and policy developments affecting persons with disabilities.
3.	ARCH provides summary advice and referral for individual persons with disabilities.
4.	ARCH provides education to the public and the legal profession on disability-related law.
5.	ARCH maintains a wide range of publicly accessible publications and legal materials.
6.	ARCH undertakes a variety of community development activities.
ARCH’s Physical Space Requirements

ARCH’s current office space is inadequate.  The office is not fully accessible, the air quality is poor, the resource centre is too small and physically inaccessible, and there is a lack of staff facilities (i.e., a kitchen, running water).  With the support of Legal Aid Ontario, ARCH is in the process of finding new office space.  Further, the Working Group identified the establishment of a fully accessible legal reference centre/library as a priority for the renewed organization. 

The Community Consultation

The ARCH membership and the community at large are important actors in the Strategic Planning process.  To that end, the Board of Directors wants to hear from the community.  We are pleased to announce that during the spring and summer ARCH will undertake an “Open Consultation Process” in which members of the public will be asked for input concerning strategic directions and priority setting.

During the consultation process, we commit to the following:

•	The consultation will be clear and straightforward.
•	To ensure accessibility, and full provincial coverage, the consultation process will include a variety of ways to engage the community including:
o	A series of regional meetings (or focus groups) held before the summer.  The meetings would be organized by the local regional ARCH Board member, and be attended by the Executive Director.  
o	An online questionnaire available on the ARCH Website.  The questionnaire will developed after the regional meetings facilitating the inclusion of lessons learned from that process.  
•	By the Fall 2001, the Board of Directors will have a final report from the consultation process at which point all decision by the Board will be made public via the ARCH Website and ARCH Communiqués.

In closing, recognition must be extended to the members of the Working Group including: Kathleen Haswell, Sandi Bell and Jerry Ford from the ARCH Board of Directors, and Phyllis Gordon, Catherine Larkin and Lana Kerzner from the ARCH staff.  Each has demonstrated a commitment not only to the task at hand, but also to future direction and of ARCH to disability equality-rights.

Respectively submitted,

Fraser Valentine
Chair, Strategic Planning Working Group

ARCH Member Groups

AIDS Action Now!
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Society of Toronto (A.L.S. Society of Toronto)
Arthritis Society 
Association for the Neurologically Disabled of Canada
Autism Society
Bob Rumball Association for the Deaf
Brain Injury Association of Toronto
Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Canadian Diabetes Association
Canadian Hard of Hearing Association
Canadian Hearing Society
Canadian Mental Health Association
Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB)
Canadian Paraplegic Association Ontario
Centre for Integrated Education & Community
Cheshire Homes Foundation
Down Syndrome Association Toronto
Easter Seal Society
Epilepsy Association Toronto
Epilepsy Ontario
Ethnic Organization for the Handicapped
Extend-A-Family
Family Alliance Ontario
Fibromyalgia Society of Ontario
Friends & Advocates
Frontier College
Greater Toronto Area Augmentative & Alternative Communication Advocacy Group
Hemophilia Ontario
Houselink Community Homes
Huntingtons Disease Resource Centre
Integrated Action Group Ontario
Kidney Foundation – Eastern 
Kidney Foundation – Central
Kidney Foundation – Greater Ontario
Learning Disabilities Association of Halton
Low Vision Association of Ontario
Margaret Fraser House
Mood Disorders Association of Metropolitan Toronto
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada – Toronto Chapter
Muscular Dystrophy Association of Ontario
National Educational Association of Disabled Students (NEADS)
National Federation of the Blind
North American Chronic Pain Association
Ontario Association for Community Living
Ontario Association of the Deaf
Ontario Federation for Cerebral Palsy
Ontario Fibromyalgia Association
Ontario March of Dimes
PATH Employment Services
Peel Association for Handicapped Adults
People First of Ontario
Persons United for Self-Help Northwest (PUSH Northwest)
Queen Street Patients Council
Reena Foundation
Spina Bifida/Hydrocephalus Association
Thalidomide Victims Association
Tourette Syndrome Foundation
Transportation Action Now
VIEWS – For the Visually Impaired

ARCH Staff

Staff and Position
ASCAH, Hester		Community Legal Worker
BEATTY, Harry		Director of Policy & Research
CHADHA, Ena		Senior Litigation Counsel
CIRILLO, Lisa		Staff Lawyer
GORDON, Phyllis		Executive Director
KERZNER, Lana		Staff Lawyer
LARKIN, Catherine		Community Legal Worker
SALVADOR, Alfonso	Office Manager
STONE, Kit			Administrative & Litigation Support Staff
WARD, Amanda		Receptionist/Support Staff
WORTH, Bettina		Administrative & Litigation Support Staff