ARCH: A LEGAL RESOURCE CENTRE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

2004 – 2005 Annual Report

Table of Contents
1.	ARCH Mission Statement

2.	Chair’s Report by Kathie Brooks, April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005

3.	Executive Director’s Report: by Phyllis Gordon, April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005

4.	Audited Financial Statements, March 31, 2005 (distributed separately)

5.	ARCH Member Groups

6.	ARCH Staff

7.	Appreciation Page

Mission Statement

‘ARCH: A Legal Resource Centre for Persons with Disabilities’ is a province-wide specialty legal aid clinic 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, 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.

•	A cross-disability approach to advocacy issues is essential, but it is equally important to recognize and respect difference.

•	Persons with disabilities may also face disadvantage due to other reasons such as their gender, race, age, economic status and sexual orientation, compounding their experience of discrimination or exclusion.

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

•	ARCH identifies key legal disability issues and conducts test-case litigation.

•	ARCH monitors and responds to law and policy developments affecting persons with disabilities.

•	ARCH provides summary advice and referral for individual persons with disabilities.

•	ARCH provides education to the public and the legal profession on disability-related law.

•	ARCH maintains a range of publicly available publications and legal materials.

•	ARCH undertakes a variety of community development activities.
VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

ARCH is guided by the following set of core values:

•	The dignity and worth of all persons with disabilities must be respected;

•	Persons with disabilities have the right to life, self-determination, and full participation in a society free from barriers to their inclusion and integration;

•	Persons with disabilities themselves are in the best position to determine their own priorities;

•	All citizens have a common responsibility to create communities accessible to all persons with disabilities.

Additionally, ARCH is guided by the following set of core organizational principles:

•	ARCH operates in accordance with the above core values;

•	ARCH is a community-based organization, governed by a Board of Directors composed of a majority of persons with disabilities;

•	ARCH is accountable to persons with disabilities in Ontario, its member organizations and Legal Aid Ontario. 

Adopted by the Board of Directors, May 13, 2002

Chair’s Report to ARCH’s Membership, 2005
Once again, ARCH’s board and staff are reflecting on a year of remarkable accomplishment as the organization continues to rise to the challenges set before us. I will refer to only some of these.
Through the publishing of ARCH Alerts and major projects such as our Fact Sheets that addresses the issue of abuse, we have strived to continue in our commitment to keep information flowing to persons with disabilities and other stakeholders engaged in the process of change. 
Through various means, we have worked to improve awareness and accountability in areas such as de-institutionalization, freedom and liberty, policing issues, individualized funding, income, health services, immigration, accommodation, employment, education, family status, privacy, transportation, disabled parking, taxation and telecommunications.
Through our reform work, we have had a voice in initiatives such as the finalization of the AODA, Developmental Services transformation at MCSS, education reform, reform in the areas of ODSP and Human Rights Commission reform. We made a major submission to Social Policy Committee of the Legislature regarding the AODA. 
Through our public speaking and public legal education work, we have addressed many different issues in many different contexts. These contexts include speaking to small and large meetings of persons with disabilities, legal conferences, the Law Society, and legal clinic colleagues and educational institutions such as Ryerson University and the University of Windsor. 
Staff members at ARCH truly are among the most conscientious of activists I have met. They are constantly searching for new ways to inform themselves about issues close to the hearts and lives of people with disabilities. One of the ways the staff are informing their work is close collaboration with community advisory teams such as the one that guided the production of our Abuse of Persons with Disabilities Fact Sheets.   We collaborate when time and resources permit.  From time to time we have international visitors and this year had the pleasure of consulting with a delegation from Bangladesh around issues pertaining to Legal Aid services. 

Like the staff, the Board is also always striving to educate itself about real issues and an example of this is a recent meeting devoted to learning more about issues related to autism. As well, we are continuing to benefit from regular, rotating staff presentations at board reports on the core of ARCH’s work.
Thank you for joining us tonight as we celebrate 25 years of exemplary work and look forward to many more together. Please enjoy the party that the staff team (with the help of a few board members) has worked so very hard on putting together, another testament to their commitment and devotion to what they do. Also, ARCH is very grateful for the generous support of CIBC who has made this night possible. 

Thank you,
Kathie Brooks
Chair of the Board

Executive Director’s Report  
April 1 2004- March 31 2005
 
I hope that you enjoy reading this report.  I feel confident you will agree that this past year has been demanding, exciting, and very productive. As I compiled this information I realized how much more I could have written about almost every one of the activities listed. This outline simply does not do justice to the quality of the work, the depth of the analysis or the commitment of the staff.  I want to start by whole-heartedly thanking the ARCH staff, the lawyers and other professionals, and, the administrative staff who supported our work. 
Summary Advice and Referral
 
The Summary Advice and Referral (SAR) Program has undergone substantial changes in the reporting period that have been overwhelmingly successful. In the past number of years there were significant problems with our ability to respond to callers in a timely way. We now do so. In our effort to resolve this problem, we undertook a thorough review of the way in which we deliver the service, resulting in a new system of service delivery.  Additionally, all staff lawyers and the information/referral worker (formerly misnamed “receptionist”) are more actively involved in service delivery. 

The pattern of concerns raised by callers to the SAR service is instructive for the direction of ARCH’s work. It provides a barometer of concerns of the grass roots disability community, which inform our systemic advocacy. We provide service to approximately 1,800 SAR callers each year.

ARCH Alert

ARCH ALERT is ARCH’s newsletter. It provides timely information on proposed legislation, major cases, government consultations, community initiatives, and other important disability-related initiatives and developments.  In this reporting year there were eight issues of ARCH ALERT, with a minimum circulation of 2500 readers.  ARCH ALERT is provided to persons with disabilities, family members, government officials, disability organizations, the media, lawyers and legal organizations throughout the Province and beyond, ARCH’s member organizations and the community legal clinics in Ontario.  
Library and Reference Centre

The library and reference centre has been open for business this past year. Use of the resource is gradually increasing and our collection is expanding.  

Website - www.archlegalclinic.ca
ARCH’s website has a searchable database of our library catalogue, where visitors can search the library collection of almost 3000 legal and disability related publications, as well as related websites and electronic documents.
Visitors to our website can read ARCH’s publications and law reform submissions as well as the online version of our newsletter ARCH Alert.  Currently, the website is visited 6,000 times a month.  This is a significant increase, as last year we reported a monthly visit rate of 2,500. 
Law Reform
ARCH staff participated in several law reform initiatives that included participation in coalitions, making written and/or oral submissions, meeting with officials, or a combination of these. Some of these initiatives are:

•	ARCH provided written submissions to the Post-secondary Education Review Secretariat (the Rae Review). 

•	ARCH made two oral submissions to the Toronto District School Board’s Task Force on Safe and Compassionate Schools.  The submissions focussed on the TDSB safe schools policies and their impact on students with disabilities. 

•	ARCH made oral submissions to the Adult Education Review on June 17, 2004. The Review was a joint effort of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of Education. The discussion focussed on the questions set out in the Adult Education Review Discussion Paper. 

•	ARCH made a written and an oral submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy with Respect to Bill 118, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2004

•	ARCH made a written submission to the Ministry of Transportation in response to their consultation on eligibility criteria for Disabled Person Parking Permits. 

•	ARCH made a written submission to the Ministry of Community and Social Services in response to a preliminary discussion paper on transforming services in Ontario of people who have a developmental disability.  Prior to this, ARCH met with senior staff at the Developmental Services Branch of the Ministry to provide recommendations about developmental services reforms. 

•	ARCH made written submissions to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in response to their Residential Tenancy Reform Consultation.   ARCH’s submission raised issues relating to supportive housing for persons with disabilities, litigants who are mentally incapable and accommodation of persons with disabilities. 

•	We participated as a member of a task force of the Speak Up Project, the purpose of which was to define effective practices for legal professionals working with clients who use augmentative communication.  
•	ARCH attended the trial of two police officers accused of assaulting a deaf, black man and has been involved in a coalition of groups concerned about that case in particular and policing of vulnerable communities more generally. 

•	ARCH co-organized roundtable discussions on special education, titled Ensuring Excellence in Ontario’s Education System – A Roundtable Discussion, held on April 16, 2004. Participants included more than 50 individuals, including teachers, teacher’s aids, school administrators, school board representatives, SEAC representatives, parents, community service providers, individuals with disabilities, and others.
Public Legal Education

ARCH staff, supported by Board and other volunteers, participated in a wide range of publications and presentations in the reporting period.  The following are some of the most significant:

•	Wrote “Abuse of Persons with Disabilities” - Fact sheets with grants from the Ministry of Attorney General, Victim Assistance Program.
•	Wrote and produced a pamphlet titled “Home Care: Bill of Rights” in partnership with ACE and CLEO.
•	Wrote a pamphlet on “ODSP and Inheritances” with CLEO.
•	Wrote articles on tax tips for the newsletters of the Toronto Chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Down Syndrome Association of Toronto, which were broadly circulated. Another longer version was written for the Canadian Paraplegic Association, which was also translated into French.
•	Presented a workshop on “Immigration Law and Disability” to 85 people at the African Canadian Disability Community Association conference in Winnipeg.
•	Presented to community mental health workers at COTA on the new ODSP application forms and related issues.
•	Sponsored a forum on the Disability Tax Credit presented by Lembi Buchanan and Harry Beatty entitled “Navigating the System" which was attended by 100 people.
•	Presented to staff of the Geneva Centre For Autism on the topic of “Developments in Autism Litigation" and "Pros and Cons of Litigation Versus Law Reform".
•	Spoke to a group of parents of children with autism at the Ancaster Child Care Centre regarding recent tax issues pertaining to persons with disabilities.
•	Presented a workshop “Powers of Attorney and Living Wills” to clients of Among Friends, who are in the mental health system.
•	Spoke to staff and parents at the Hanover Adult Resource Centre on capacity,  substitute decision making and wills.
•	Presented to St. Christopher House and ARCH staff on “Capacity, Substitute Decision Making and the Public Guardian and Trustee”.
•	Presented to staff at the Multiple Sclerosis Society on the topic of human rights and employment.
•	Presented a workshop on the topic of accommodation in employment to clients of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB).
•	Spoke at Centre for Addiction and Mental Health’s (CAMH) “Community Information Forum on Human Rights and Employment”
•	Presented three workshops to the Community Living Ontario Conference on the topics of “Benefits under ODSP”, “Human Rights and Education”, “Roundtable Discussion and Inclusion". 
•	Presented at the annual conferences of the Community Living Ontario and the Adult Protective Service Providers Association of Ontario about “Navigating the ODA”.
•	Presented to 100 vision teachers on the topic of “Human Rights of Students with Disabilities”.
•	Presented to a class of 100 at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology on “Human Rights in Canada”.
•	Spoke at Student Leadership Forum in Ottawa for the National Education Association of Disabled Students (NEADS) on human rights in post-secondary education.
•	Presented to students with special needs at the Toronto District School board Advisory Awareness Services on employment supports.
•	Spoke to students at George Brown College who have some involvement with the mental health system about human rights, particularly in the employment context.  
•	Presented two workshops for the “Speak Up Project” on abuse and related matters for persons with disabilities who use augmentative communication.  One session was for consumers and one session was for service providers.
•	Spoke to Hamilton consumers of attendant services on the issue of abuse.
•	Presented on the issue of “Accommodations at Discipline Hearings” to the Benchers at the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC).
•	Revised the LSUC article "Providing Legal Services to Persons with Disabilities" to be used to train new lawyers in the 2005 Bar Admission Course.
•	Instructed Public Law course at the Bar Admissions Course. 
•	Presented at the LSUC Regulation Department’s staff training on “Law of Accommodation” to 90 people
•	Presented on “Representing Clients with Disabilities” at the New Lawyer Continuing Legal Education held by the Law Society of Upper Canada.
•	With the success of the “Disability Law Primer” which was presented to 100 lawyers in the Toronto region in November 2003, we presented mini-sessions to the private bar in 4 additional cities in 2004: Sault Ste. Marie, Kingston, Welland and Ottawa. This was the collaboration of ARCH lawyers, Harry Beatty, Pro Bono Law Ontario and the Law Society of Upper Canada. The Law Foundation of Ontario supported this project.
•	Spoke at Ontario Bar Association’s Third Annual Charter Conference on the issues of Equality and the Charter. 
•	Presented at a workshop panel entitled “Pro Bono Legal Services for Persons with Disabilities” at the Pro Bono Law Ontario Conference (“Building the Public Good”).
•	Presented lecture on accessibility legislation advocacy at Faculty of Law, University of Windsor.
•	Contributed to “Worker’s Compensation Conference: Law & Practice” presented by Lancaster House and the University of Toronto on protecting confidential medical records.

•	Spoke to Department of Justice staff about disability awareness and disability accommodations. 
•	Spoke to Clinic professionals at various regional training conferences on human rights and housing, the basics of human rights and clinic practices, and a landlord's duty to accommodate tenants with mental health disabilities.
•	Spoke at WSIB-CPP Medical-Legal Advocacy Training on the Interaction of ODSP and CPP benefits, the Disability Tax Credit, and disability supports.  
•	Trained Tenant Duty Counsel on the topic of "Set Asides" as an accommodation.

Legal Writing by ARCH Staff

ARCH lawyers have undertaken academic writing during 2004 as follows:

•	Ena Chadha, "The Social Phenomenon of Handicapping" in Adding Feminism to Law: The Contributions of Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2005).
•	Ena Chadha & Tess Sheldon, "Promoting Equality: Economic and Social Rights for Persons with Disabilities Under Section 15" (2004) 16 National Journal of Constitutional Law 27.
•	Ena Chadha & Laura Schatz, "Human Dignity and Economic Integrity for Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary on the Supreme Court's Decisions in Granovsky and Martin" (2004) 19 Journal of Law and Social Policy 94.
•	Lana Kerzner has written a chapter on mental capacity and disability that will be published in Disability and Social Policy in Canada (2nd ed).
International Visitors

This year ARCH was happy to receive and meet with visitors from the National Human Rights Commission of India, the Swedish Governments Inquiry on Structural Discrimination and a Legal Aid Study Tour from Bangladesh. In each case the delegation was composed of senior officials, judges and advocates. These delegations were exploring the Canadian approach to their concerns.  In each case we discussed issues of common interest, dealing with rights issues, disability issues and delivery of legal aid services.
Litigation Highlights 

ARCH engages in test case litigation on behalf of groups and individuals, primarily in higher courts. Test cases include those in which an issue is being considered by a court or tribunal for the first time and in which an appellate court is deciding an issue that will affect a large number of people. ARCH's object in test case litigation is to provide a client’s disability perspective to the decision-maker when a case is being decided that will affect the lives of persons with disabilities.

Accommodation
Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., 2004 SCC 66

In 2004, ARCH participated in this appeal on behalf of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Canadian Hearing Society and the Canadian Association for Community Living in the Supreme Court of Canada.  One of the reasons that our clients intervened was that the decision of the Court of Appeal for Newfoundland and Labrador, under appeal in the Supreme Court, called for changes to the way in which courts are required to balance government action against claims of a violation of someone's rights. There is a test in place which the government must pass when legislation violates somebody's Constitutional rights. The Court of Appeal wanted to add a step which would have made that test much weaker than it is now, and which might have diminished the victories achieved by the disability community in cases such as Eldridge. On the one hand, the Supreme Court did decline to add the proposed new step to the test. On the other hand, unfortunately, the Court did weaken the existing test when it allowed alleged budgetary restraints to justify a violation of equality rights. 

Adult Protection
JJ v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Health) [2005] 1 S.C.R. 177

ARCH represented People First of Canada and the Canadian Association of Community Living in an intervention at the Supreme Court of Canada that challenged the interpretation of sections of Nova Scotia’s Adult Protection Act.  This statute operates to protect persons with certain disabilities from abuse and neglect and to provide them with “services” to enhance their independence. ARCH’s clients were concerned that the Court of Appeal had narrowed the scope of a court’s jurisdiction to determine the best interests of adults found to be in need of protection, and the jurisdiction of the court to order the Minister to provide those services.  ARCH made submissions based on accepted principles of statutory interpretation, including the use of Charter values and international instruments as tools for interpreting domestic legislation.  Submissions were also made on the parens patriae jurisdiction of the court and on resources. 

On 18 March 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision. Madam Justice Rosalie Abella, writing for the unanimous Court, held that, in order to fulfil its duty to ensure that the proposed services are in the best interest of the adult, a court must have the ability to amend or change the Ministry’s proposed plan of care. A court can look at the Ministry’s plan, and look at the adult’s best interests. If the Ministry’s plan is not in the adult’s best interests, then a court can attach reasonable terms and conditions to the plan.  The court’s role must be to supervise the decisions that are made on behalf of those adults to make sure that their best interests are respected and upheld.
 
It is interesting to note that at this hearing the court was dominated by legal aid lawyers. JJ was represented by the Dalhousie Law School legal clinic, the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly (ACE) intervened on its own behalf, and ARCH was there for People First and the CACL.

Disability Tax Credit
Simser v. Canada, 2004 FCA 414 (F.C.A.).

ARCH represented the Canadian Hearing Society in an intervention at the Federal Court of Appeal that challenged the current practice of taxing Special Opportunity Grants for Students with Disabilities. The money is allocated to students who demonstrate financial need and who require accommodation as a result of their disability.  The Federal Court issued its decision on December 7, 2004.  The Court held that the money received by the Appellant was a bursary and therefore subject to the rules of the Income Tax Act requiring taxation of student bursaries.  The Appellant was not successful in obtaining leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Immigration
Hilewitz and De Jong

The Supreme Court of Canada heard two appeals that squarely raise issues affecting persons with disabilities seeking admission to Canada. The cases were Hilewitz v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and De Jong v. the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. ARCH intervened in these appeals on behalf of The Canadian Association for Community Living and ERDCO, the Ethno-Racial People With Disabilities Coalition of Ontario. 
Canada’s former Immigration Act contained a provision that allowed immigration officials to refuse admission to Canada to families who have a member with a "disease, disorder, disability or other health impairment" that would cause, or might reasonably be expected to cause, "excessive demands" on health or social services. Our current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contains a similar provision, although it uses the language of "health condition" as its screening tool for a determination of "excessive demands". In these cases the appellants asked the Court to interpret these provisions; they did not directly challenge the constitutional validity of these provisions.  
Gavin Hilewitz and Dirkje De Jong have intellectual disabilities. Their families were denied entry into Canada because immigration officials determined that, because of their disabilities, Gavin and Dirkje would place "excessive demands" on social services, and in particular, on the education system. This finding was made although both the Hilewitz and the De Jong families had arranged for private education for their children. The families appealed the denial decisions, arguing that when considering whether an individual would pose "excessive demands" on social services, arrangements for private education are a relevant factor. Lawyers for the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration argued that family wealth and family support were not relevant considerations. Moreover, they argued that any possibility that a person would place excessive demands on health and social services is a good enough reason to deny them entry into Canada.
On behalf of our clients, ARCH examined the discriminatory history behind immigration legislation. We argued that the values of dignity, accommodation and inclusion contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in international human rights principles are important tools for statutory interpretation and that these values should infuse the legislation. We also argued that an individualised assessment of the unique circumstances of each person affected by the "excessive demands" provision would take into account a wide variety of factors, including the positive contributions that persons with disabilities make to society, and the important role that families and communities play in providing support to persons with disabilities. We pointed out the negative message that is given to Canadians with disabilities when persons with disabilities are refused admission because they are considered to be a drain on the public purse. The Supreme Court of Canada has reserved its decision. 

Public Transportation
Neusch and Fox v. Ontario (Ministry of Transportation), Hamilton (City), and Disabled and Aged Regional Transit System 
ARCH and Hamilton Mountain Legal & Community Services were co-counsel in a   human rights complaints against the Ministry of Transportation, the City of Hamilton, and a ‘para-transit’ operator by the name of D.A.R.T.S. This case challenged the adequacy of the City’s ‘para-transit’ service as an accommodation measure, provided in lieu of a fully-accessible ‘conventional’ public transportation system. The Complainants alleged that the Hamilton public transportation system was discriminatory because persons with disabilities were systemically unable to access the conventional service. In addition, the Complainants alleged that D.A.R.T.S. provided an inferior level of service, which denied persons with disabilities equal access to school, work, social, and cultural activities. The complaints against the Ministry of Transportation related to the province’s downloading of public transit funding to municipalities in 1998.  
The parties reached a settlement prior to the case being heard by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.  The settlement includes initiatives to improve public transit service for persons with disabilities in the City of Hamilton and surrounding areas.  The City agreed to: stop charging a registration fee; establish performance goals to minimize unaccommodated trip requests and late arrivals and; establish a revised policy for “no-shows” and eliminate the current financial penalties for the same. The City also agreed to design and implement a Complaints Process regarding transportation services for persons with disabilities.  The complainants received a small amount of money in recognition of their efforts in bringing this important public interest issue forward.  Their commitment to the issue over a very long period of time is to be commended. 

Application of the Human Rights Code
Norman Werbeski v. Ontario (Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services), and Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services), 2004 CanLII 41165 (Ont. C.A.)
ARCH represented the Empowerment Council as interveners at the Ontario Court of Appeal in this case that that originated from the Social Benefits Tribunal. The Ontario Court of Appeal examined whether the anti-discrimination provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code operate to prevent the Social Benefits Tribunal from applying an allegedly discriminatory provision within the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (the provision that bars persons, whose disability is addiction, from receiving benefits). The case was heard in May, 2004, and a decision was released in September 2004.  The Court held that while an administrative tribunal such as the SBT could apply the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Ontario Human Rights Commission was the more appropriate forum for the issue to be addressed.  The Supreme Court of Canada will hear the appeal in this case in December of this year and our client, as well as several  other organizations, have been granted intervener status.  
Supports
Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 78 (S.C.C.)
ARCH co-counselled with the law firm Cavaluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish on an interrvention on behalf of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and Canadian Association of Community Living in a case which considered the obligation of the British Columbia government to provide a particular therapy to children with autism. ARCH’s clients argued that the substantive equality guarantees under s. 15 of the Charter require provincial governments to provide supports and services geared to the individual needs of persons with disabilities in order to maximize their independence and inclusion in society. ARCH’s clients recognized that not every denial of a benefit support or service will have constitutional implications.  However, where the benefit, support or service promotes participation and social inclusion by accommodating a disability, there may be a constitutional imperative to provide it.  The clients took no position on the particular therapy sought by the applicants in this case. 
The case was heard on June 9 2004, and the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in November 2004.  The Court held that a province’s failure to fund a particular medical treatment does not amount to discrimination under the Charter, because, on the facts of this case, the benefit was not one “provided by law”.  The relevant legislation provides for funding for “core” medical services, which this treatment was not. 
Telecommunications
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) Proceedings
Having frequently heard concerns that telephone equipment and services are riddled with barriers for many people with disabilities, ARCH has become an active party at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the federal agency that makes the decisions regulating our telecommunications industry.  Our position is that the CRTC and the industry have the legal obligation to proactively ensure a fully accessible telephone service.  
Most of the cases we are involved in are protracted written processes and are less visible than court trials. The main players are the highly resourced telephone and cable companies. There are also consumer groups with much experience at the CRTC, such as the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC). Our submissions in the cases are posted on our website.
In 2003, ARCH participated in a case initiated by Chris and Marie Stark, blind advocates, who are requesting that the CRTC reconsider a key decision to not regulate telephone equipment. They eloquently demonstrate that unregulated competition has not resulted in accessible telephone equipment or services for the blind. This case was revived this year by the CRTC, after a long hiatus.
We are also waiting for an important decision in which the CRTC will decide how hundreds of millions of dollars accumulated by the major telephone companies are to be spent. ARCH argued that a substantial fund be created to systematically address the telecom barriers faced by persons with disabilities and to consult with persons with disabilities fully.
This May, the CRTC released its decision about local telephone services that will be provided using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. It held that in accordance with its mandate to create regulatory conditions that foster competition, such services will be regulated. Bell Canada has appealled this decision and ARCH is a party in the appeal, with the firm Paliare Roland acting as our pro bono counsel. 
ARCH was one of a few public-interest parties. We argued that VoIP services must be designed from the outset in a manner that meets the needs of persons with disabilities. We illustrated that as VoIP products and services begin to permeate our homes, businesses, educational institutions and leisure activities, they will either level the playing field or they will impose ever- increasing barriers in daily living, employment and education.  Although the CRTC did not adopt all of our submissions, it has given limited positive direction with respect to accessibility issues and VoIP. The CRTC referred several issues raised by ARCH to a subcommittee of the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) with a requirement to report in six months.  
ARCH Funders
Legal Aid Ontario
 The Board of ARCH wishes to acknowledge the on-going support of Legal Aid Ontario (LAO), ARCH’s primary funder. LAO is a large organization that both delivers and funds legal services to Ontarians with low income people. Clinics are in the forefront of urging LAO to undertake initiatives that will enhance and broaden the reach of the delivery of legal services.  
Where we have been able, ARCH has been advocating for more formal recognition of the necessity to remove barriers throughout LAO. This past year we have been an active member of the Legal Aid Ontario Accessibility Advisory Committee. Special recognition must be given to Linda Hall, a lawyer working in the Counsel Office of LAO. In chairing this committee, Linda has become a serious advocate for barrier removal. ARCH applauds her contribution.  
As the Government of Ontario has not increased the budget of LAO for some time, the Clinic Resources Offices of LAO have had to place new limits on how they fund community legal clinics with respect to personnel. This has created an even greater strain on several clinics, ARCH included.   Thus, not only are there no raises for clinic staff, there are new rules which make our planning more difficult. 
Other Funders
The City of Toronto has once again provided ARCH with a Community Grant that supports our information and referral program, for which we are appreciative. These funds assist ARCH to pay for support staff.  During this fiscal year we also successfully applied for a grant from the Access and Equity Department of the City of Toronto.  These funds will support the preparation of public legal education outreach with respect to mental health. 
ARCH is also licensed by the Ontario Lottery Corporation to participate in the Break Open Ticket program.  Receipts from this initiative support our information/referral worker, library purchases and staff training.
The federally funded Court Challenges Program funds test case litigation from time to time, depending on the nature of the case and whether it’s within the federal jurisdiction.  
The Victim Services Branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General provided funds which have supported the Abuse of Persons with Disabilities Fact Sheets.
We have also received funds from Human Resources and Skills Development for summer student funding. We continued to use funds received from the Law Foundation of Ontario referred to last year. 
ARCH Staff 
 ARCH has a staffing complement of thirteen positions. Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) is ARCH’s primary funder.  LAO provides our basic operating and personnel funds. We are able to fill 9.5 positions with LAO funds: the executive director (who is also a lawyer); the office manager; five staff lawyers; one community legal worker and 1.5 support staff.  
ARCH raises funds through various non-guaranteed sources each year for the remaining positions: .5 support staff; an articling student; an information/referral worker; and, our resource centre co-ordinator. 
Non-permanent staffing includes law students who work with us in the summer, or, on a pro bono basis.  ARCH also contracts individuals from time to time to work on specific projects.
Students At ARCH
During 2004 and 2005 there has been a great deal of interest expressed by law students to work with ARCH in various capacities. A number of pro bono law students, summer students, articling students and bar admission course students have greatly enhanced our productivity. They bring talent, energy and commitment to the work ARCH is doing, as well as humour and fun to the office.

Appreciation of Professional Support
ARCH is very appreciative of the support of the private bar and the pro bono assistance of lawyers and law students provided to ARCH itself, and to our clients.  We acknowledge the significant contributions of the following lawyers and law students: 

•	Joan Axelrad, Barrister & Solicitor, Kingston 
•	Harry Beatty, Barrister & Solicitor
•	Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.  For several years Blakes has been placing an articling student with ARCH for a period of three months. Michelle Wood made an outstanding contribution this year.
•	Josée Bouchard, Law Society of Upper Canada
•	John Bozzo, LAO LAW
•	Nevina Crisante, Ministry of the Attorney General
•	Sean Dewart, Sack Goldblatt 
•	Fay Faraday, Cavalluzzo, Hayes, Shilton, McIntyre & Cornish 
•	Jennifer Gibson, Crown Attorney
•	Joan Gilmour, Osgoode Hall Law School 
•	Katherine Haist, student at law
•	Robert Hickman, Miller Thompson LLP
•	John Judge, Stikeman Elliott
•	Jodi Kaiman
•	Judith Keene, Clinic Resource Office
•	Carol Krause, student
•	Michelle Kushnir, student
•	Andrew Lewis, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
•	Joanna Leong, student 
•	Vaso Marik, Stikeman Elliott
•	Elisabeth McIntyre, Cavalluzzo, Hayes, Shilton, McIntyre & Cornish
•	Jacqueline Murphy, LAO LAW
•	Maureen Murphy, LAO LAW
•	Ethan Poskanzer, Sack Goldblatt 
•	Pro Bono Law Ontario
•	Pro Bono Students Canada
•	Zehra Qizilbash
•	Thomas Rajan, student
•	Carol Rogerson, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
•	Linda Rothstein, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
•	Heidi Rubin, Sack Goldblatt
•	Amy Schumacher, LAO LAW
•	Elizabeth Shilton, Cavalluzzo, Hayes, Shilton, McIntyre & Cornish
•	Christopher Taylor, Barrister & Solicitor, Ottawa
•	Angie Wynn, student
Volunteer Support

ARCH is also appreciative of the support of volunteers and professionals who have provided ongoing general support in our reference centre or offered us specific insight and information which has advanced our work. 

•	Adele Furrie
•	Ben Geiling
•	Wayne Johnston
•	Jeannie Kippax
•	Michael Mader
•	Laurel Parker
•	Alexis Pastuch
•	Karen Reeves
•	Shamira Rupani
•	Maxine Wilson

Abuse of Persons With Disabilities Advisory Committee  
There is one group of volunteers who made a very significant contribution to our
work this year—the members of the community who participated on our Abuse of persons with Disabilities Advisory Committee.  Their insights and comments were most helpful and their commitment inspired us to complete the first phase of the Fact Sheets.  A very special thank you to:
•	Harry Beatty, disability consultant and lawyer
•	Sandi Bell, equity consultant, mediator, ARCH board member
•	Nevina Crisante, Counsel, Ontario Victim Services Secretariat, Ministry of the Attorney General
•	Lana Frado, Executive Director, Sound Times Support Services, ARCH board member
•	Jennifer Gibson, Crown Attorney, Ministry of the Attorney General
•	Tim Kinney, Ontario Federation for Cerebral Palsy
•	Fran Odette, Project Coordinator, Women with Disabilities and Deaf Women's Program, Education Wife Assault
•	Marianne Park, facilitator, instructor, advocate, DAWN Ontario board member
•	Marie Theresa Paul, Ethno-Racial People with Disability Coalition of Ontario (ERDCO) board member
•	Cara Wilkie, articling student, ARCH

On a Personal Note

It is with deep sadness that we remember the untimely and unnecessary death of past board member, Joanne Nother of Sudbury. Joanne was a talented, wise and loving person and I know, is dearly missed by many.  For those of you who do not know, Joanne died when her mobility device went on fire.  Remembering this will keep us all on track.  The work we do, and the rights we are fighting for, are essential if we are to achieve a fully participatory society, based on values of citizenship, autonomy and personal dignity. 

I began this report thanking our staff. I want to conclude with my personal statement of profound appreciation for our Board of Directors. They continue to support our work, give policy direction and management oversight on an ongoing basis. They devote many hours of their already busy lives to this organization, without complaint. Finally, although there are many days when I am overwhelmed by the workload, at heart, I know this is a wonderful place to work. 

Respectfully Submitted,

PHYLLIS GORDON
Executive Director
October 6 05

	ARCH Member Organizations
	
AIDS Action Now!
	Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians (AEBC)
	Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Society of Metro Toronto
	AND (Association for the Neurologically Disabled)
	Arthritis Society
	Autism Society Ontario
	BALANCE
	Bob Rumball Association for the Deaf
	Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
	Canadian Diabetes Association Ontario Division
	Canadian Hard of Hearing Association
	Canadian Hearing Society
	Canadian Mental Health Association Ontario Division
	Canadian National Institute for the Blind - Ontario Division
	Canadian Paraplegic Association of Ontario
	Community Living Ontario
	Down Syndrome Association - Toronto
	Easter Seals Society
	Easter Seals/March of Dimes National Council
 	Employment Access
	EOH Meta Foundation
	Epilepsy Association of Toronto
	Epilepsy Association Ontario
	Extend-A-Family
	Family Alliance Ontario
	Fibromyalgia Society of Ontario
	Friends and Advocates
	Frontier College
	Hemophilia Ontario
	Houselink Community Homes
	Huntington Disease Resource Centre
	Integration Action for Inclusion
	Kidney Foundation - Central Ontario
	Kidney Foundation - Greater Ontario
	Learning Disabilities Association of Halton
	Low Vision Association of Ontario
	Margaret Fraser House
	Marsha Forest Centre
	Mood Disorders Association of Ontario
	Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
	Muscular Dystrophy Association
	National Network for Mental Health
	NEADS (National Education Association of Disabled Students)
	Ontario Association of the Deaf
	Ontario Coalition for Inclusive Education
	Ontario Federation for Cerbral Palsy
	Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addictions Programs
	Ontario Fibromyalgia Association
	Ontario March of Dimes
	P.U.S.H. Northwest
	PATH Employment Services
	People First of Ontario
	Reena Foundation
	Rotary Cheshire Homes
	Sound Times Support Services
	Spina Bifida & Hydrocephalus Association of Ontario
	Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada
	The Independent Living Centre London and Area
	Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada
	Transportation Action Now!

Staff List 

Staff and Position

Amanda Ward, Information/Referral Worker 
Amy Wah, Articling Student
Doreen Way, Office Manager
Heidi Lazar Meyn, Staff Lawyer
Jane Baumann, Litigation/Program Assistant
Lana Kerzner, Director of Summary Advice and Referral
Leslie Bisgould, Staff Lawyer
Lishanthi Caldera, Reference Centre Co-ordinator
Phyllis Gordon, Executive Director and Acting Director of Litigation
Robert Lattanzio, Staff Lawyer 
Tess Sheldon, Staff Lawyer
Theresa Sciberras, Administrative Assistant
Ena Chadha, Director of Litigation (On Leave)

A Special Thanks to Our Supporters

Legal Aid Ontario - Aide Juridique Ontario

Alcohol and Gaming Commission

City of Toronto Community Services Grants Program

Court Challenges Program of Canada

The Ontario Trillium Foundation - La Fondation Trillium de L’Ontario

Ministry of the Attorney General

The Law Foundation of Ontario

Pro Bono Law Ontario

CIBC

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Stikeman Elliott

Paliare Roland

The Law Society of Upper Canada - Barreau du Haut-Canada