2005 – 2006 Annual Report

Table of Contents

1.	ARCH Mission Statement

2.	Chair’s Report by Lana Frado, April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006

3.	Executive Director’s Report: by Phyllis Gordon, April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006

4.	Audited Financial Statements, March 31, 2006 (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
April 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006

I have had the privilege of serving on the ARCH Board for the past several years, although my affiliation with ARCH goes back about 15 years to when I first struggled to answer the question, “What does ‘the ramp’ look like for an individual with a psychiatric disability trying to access employment or a post-secondary education?”  At that time, staff at ARCH were instrumental in helping me in thinking about that question, and since then, all the individuals I have met through my work at ARCH have continued to inspire me to work and think harder. I think I have received much more than I have given.

Phyllis Gordon outlines the details of the activities of the past year in her Executive Director’s report; from litigation work to program initiatives. ARCH’s litigation work has encompassed a wide range of disability issues. Program initiatives have included a number of activities related to the Abuse of Persons with disabilities and issues related to telecommunications and the CRCT. Our law reform work has included a number of submissions, and advocacy efforts. Public legal education and our Summary Advice and Referral remain an important cornerstone of our work and efforts over my time at ARCH to ensure the effectiveness of Summary Advice and Referral service have resulted in the elimination of any backlog of calls and direct access to service from a lawyer. The website, library and reference centre is utilized and continues to be evaluated to ensure its relevance to the needs of the community. And of course, ARCH Alert continues to make its way into the far reaches of the disability and allied advocacy communities.

I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Board of ARCH to thank the staff, volunteers and membership of ARCH for their commitment to the clinic and its work. Your dedication makes a difference every day to people with disabilities across the province, and often times, across the country.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lana Frado
Chair, ARCH Disability Law Centre
September 21, 2006

Executive Director’s Report
April 1 2005 – March 31 2006

I am happy to report again about our year’s work.  I feel confident you will agree that this year has been both demanding and productive. As I reviewed this information that staff have compiled I am again struck by the extent of the work our small office conducts each year. This outline does not do justice to the quality of the work, the depth of the analysis or the commitment of the staff.  I want to again recognize the outstanding contributions of the ARCH staff: lawyers, students and the administrative staff who support our work.
Litigation  
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.

Home Care

ARCH is representing Mr. B on a judicial review application before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court). At issue is a decision by the Ottawa Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) to substantially reduce his homemaking services pursuant to a policy that was implemented in response to budgetary restraints.  The reduced level of services is insufficient to meet Mr. B’s  needs. Mr. B appealed to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board and the Board decided in his favour. However, the Board also ordered that Mr. B be put on a waiting list for those services, despite evidence strongly suggesting that such services will most likely never be provided.  
ARCH, on behalf of Mr. B, commenced an application for judicial review to challenge this decision. The CCAC commenced its own judicial review application challenging the Board’s decision to grant the services requested. ARCH argues that the Board erred in ordering that the needed services be wait listed. This matter will be heard by the Divisional Court in November 2006. 

Accommodation
Centre universitaire de santé McGill (Hôpital Général de Montréal) v. Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital Général de Montréal, et al.  (Supreme Court of Canada)

On 12 April 2006, ARCH represented the Ontario Network of Injured Workers’ Groups (“ONIWG”) at the Supreme Court of Canada. The appeal involved a challenge to well-established human rights principles. Among the issues raised was whether the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship under human rights law can be limited by collective agreements and automatic termination provisions.   ONIWG was the only Intervener in this appeal.  We are awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.

The collective agreement applicable in this case stated that an employee’s job status is maintained for 3 years if she is absent due to a non-work related injury or illness. Once the 3 years expired, her employment was terminated.  At issue was whether the employer provided sufficient accommodation to the employee, whether undue hardship was proven, and whether automatic termination provisions can override human rights law provisions. 

On behalf of our client, ARCH provided a disability and human rights perspective, arguing that it is settled law that human rights legislation in Canada cannot be contracted out of or limited, as it is recognized as having quasi-constitutional status. ARCH further argued that individualization is at the essence of the accommodation process and that accommodation attempts are not limited to “one per customer”, as argued by the employer. Furthermore, it was argued that the employer failed to prove that accommodating the employee would have created cost or health or safety issues that constitute undue hardship. 

The Intervener also argued that the automatic termination provision assumes that persons with long-term or permanent disabilities who cannot return to work in a fixed number of years from the onset of disability will never recover, and can be written off from the labour market.  The provision also may constitute discrimination when applied to workers with episodic and recurring disabilities.  It treats all illnesses and accidents as chronic situations by treating all workers who are absent for a specific length of time in the same manner. 

Although the automatic termination provision in this case distinguishes between work and non-work related injury and illness, other similar provisions do not. This decision may have an impact across the country on how automatic termination provisions are to be interpreted.

Charter Rights and Autism Services
Wynberg et al. v. Ontario (Court of Appeal for Ontario)

ARCH and co-counsel John Judge and Vaso Maric of Stikeman Elliott LLP represented the Intervenors, the Canadian Association for Community Living (CACL) and Community Living Ontario (CLO) at the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The trial judge found that the Intensive Early Intervention Program of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, which offers Intensive Behavioural Intervention to children with autism between the ages of 2 and 5 years old, violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on grounds of age. She also found that the government discriminated on grounds of disability because appropriate special education programs and services and adequate transitioning into the public school system were not provided. The Government of Ontario appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal heard the five day appeal in December and released its decision on 7 July 2006.  The government’s appeal was unanimously allowed. The Court dismissed both the age discrimination claim and the disability discrimination claim, finding that there was no violation of section 15 of the Charter.

The Intervenors’ submissions were limited to the issue of what would constitute an appropriate and just remedy in this case. More specifically, that an appropriate and just remedy in this case should include a declaration that the government violated the Charter and an award for damages. In addition, it was argued that if a declaration of invalidity was upheld by the Court, it should be suspended in order for the government to consult with stakeholders. 

Canada Pension Plan

This is an appeal by the Minister of Social Development Canada (“Minister”) of a Review Tribunal decision. ARCH is representing the respondent, Ms H, before the Pension Appeals Board. The hearing for this appeal has not yet been scheduled but is expected to be held in winter/spring of 2007. 
This case is concerned with the rigidity of the Canada Pension Plan relating to the individual needs and fiscal realities of persons who are required to be temporarily absent from the workforce to provide caregiving for a family member. At issue is whether the application and interpretation of the Child Rearing Dropout provision in this case violates the equality provision under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

Ms H stayed out of the workforce in order to provide short-term caregiving for her son, who had a temporary disability.  She had a connection to the workforce both prior and subsequent to her son’s disability.  Ms H is asking that recognition be given to the caregiving services she performed for one year, in order that she herself might take advantage of the contributions that she made to the Plan, and qualify for disability benefits under that plan, as she now has a disability. The issues are whether the Minister’s refusal to provide the benefit of the Child Rearing Dropout provision to Ms. H was in violation of the Charter, and whether the provision is constitutionally valid on the facts of this case.  
Access to Public Transportation
Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. VIA Rail Canada Inc. (Supreme Court of Canada)

ARCH represented a coalition of four disability rights organizations, which were jointly granted leave to intervene in the appeal: the Canadian Association for Community Living (CACL); the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians (AEBC); the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association (CHHA); and Transportation Action Now (TAN). 

The ARCH Coalition of interveners submitted written arguments on how to interpret the power of the Canadian Transportation Agency to deal with undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities. They argued that regulatory bodies cannot treat the rights of persons with disabilities as merely one of many equal competing interests. Instead, rights that are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as domestic and international human rights instruments, must be given precedence over competing non-constitutional interests. The decision is under reserve.

VIA Rail purchased 139 Renaissance rail cars. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) asked the Canadian Transportation Agency to prevent VIA from purchasing the Renaissance cars on the basis that the cars contained undue obstacles for the mobility of persons with disabilities, particularly wheel chair users. The coalition ARCH represented also supported the CCD’s position.

The Agency did not prevent VIA from purchasing the Renaissance cars, but it did hold a lengthy inquiry that lasted almost three years. The Agency concluded that the Renaissance cars contained undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities, contrary to the Canada Transportation Act, and ordered VIA to eliminate these obstacles. 

VIA appealed the Agency’s decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court held that the Agency must look at the transportation network as a whole, weighing the interests of persons with disabilities equally with all other competing interests. The Court also held there is no undue obstacle if persons with disabilities can be accommodated somehow in the entire rail transportation network. 

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal on May 19, 2006. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities argued that the Agency’s authority to address undue obstacles constitutes human rights legislation which must be analyzed in a manner that is consistent with Canadian human rights jurisprudence while VIA argued that the Act is transportation legislation. 

Access to Courts through Advance Costs Orders

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue and Minister of National Revenue)  (Supreme Court of Canada)

ARCH and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) sought leave to intervene before the Supreme Court of Canada in Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada. The issue was whether a party (usually the government) can be ordered to pay the costs of court proceedings, in advance and regardless of the outcome, in cases involving public interest issues. 

The Little Sisters case was apparently the first non-aboriginal matter in which advance costs were ordered. The case was part of extended litigation between a gay and lesbian bookstore and federal Customs officials. 

ARCH and the CCD sought leave to intervene before the Supreme Court of Canada to support advance costs as a mechanism for funding significant public interest litigation, including disability rights litigation. They claimed intervener status based on their unique knowledge of the disability community’s experience with access to the justice system, including the numerous meritorious cases that cannot be pursued because of lack of funding. ARCH and the CCD sought to argue that since other public funding for equality rights litigation is discretionary and subject to shifting political agendas, it is critical that potential funding through court ordered advance costs be not only preserved, but expanded to clearly include cases brought by individuals and public interest organizations. Our application for intervener status was denied as were the applications of several other groups seeking to intervene. The appeal was heard on April 19, 2006 and the decision is under reserve. 

Tribunals and Human Rights

Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program) (Supreme Court of Canada)

On 12 December 2005, ARCH and co-counsel East Toronto Community Legal Services represented one of the interveners in this matter, the Empowerment Council, at the Supreme Court of Canada. On 21 April 2006 the Supreme Court released its decision, holding that the Social Benefits Tribunal and other tribunals (if they meet the test set out by the Court) may apply the Ontario Human Rights Code in cases they are hearing.

Many matters that concern persons with disabilities are determined by administrative tribunals, such as the Social Benefits Tribunal, the Consent and Capacity Board, the Special Education Tribunal and the Health Services Appeal and Review Board. The Empowerment Council argued that persons who find themselves before these tribunals and who have related human rights concerns should be able to raise them there, while they are already before the relevant tribunal.  If they are not allowed to do so and must instead start a separate human rights complaint, that could lead to harmful delay and uncertainty. 

This decision is important because it means that persons who find themselves before a tribunal and who have related human rights concerns can raise them there, while they are already before the relevant tribunal. ARCH is pleased that the majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the Empowerment Council’s argument that, if people had to start a separate human rights complaint instead, it could lead to harmful delay and uncertainty. 

Selected Program Initiatives

Abuse of Persons with Disabilities  
ARCH has undertaken various activities to address abuse of persons with disabilities.  ARCH staff have observed that persons with disabilities, lawyers and service providers tend to have little, and often inaccurate, information about laws as they relate to abuse.  Further, the laws that do exist are not sufficient to protect persons with disabilities from the severity and array of forms of abuse that they experience.  Many of ARCH’s activities over the past year have focussed on addressing these concerns.  Highlights of our activities include:

•	ARCH, in partnership with the Law Society of Upper Canada, held a forum addressing abuse of persons with disabilities.  The forum was at the Law Society and 120 people attended, including persons with disabilities, service providers and lawyers.  The forum, and abuse generally, received media coverage in the Toronto Star, The Lawyers Weekly and the Ontario Lawyers Gazette.
•	ARCH produced a series of five public legal education Fact Sheets on Abuse and Persons with Disabilities, with the financial support of the Ontario Victim Services Secretariat, Ministry of the Attorney General.  The Fact Sheets have been widely distributed to disability organizations, service providers, health care facilities and government offices.  They exist in hard copy and are also posted on ARCH’s web site.
•	ARCH has been an active participant in a project of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to address and prevent abuse in their attendant service programs.  ARCH wrote extensive legal backgrounders related to abuse which will be included in a package of material to be used by all service providers covered by the project.  The goal of the project has been to support attendant service providers to ensure that their clients receive services free from abuse.
•	ARCH wrote law reform submissions regarding health professionals and personal support workers to the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council (HPRAC) in which we raised concerns regarding abuse of persons with disabilities.  Our submission on personal support workers was quoted in HPRAC’s April, 2006 report to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.
•	ARCH has contracted (with funding from the Canadian Bar Association) with a criminal lawyer to write a continuing legal education paper regarding criminal law processes and remedies for persons with disabilities who experience abuse.

Telecommunications

ARCH has continued to advocate and litigate with the goal of ensuring that telecommunications equipment and services are fully accessible to persons with disabilities.  The federal agency that makes decisions regulating our telecommunications industry, the CRTC, in the past year released three decisions in proceedings in which ARCH was a party.  The CRTC has adopted some of our submissions and is progressing towards addressing concerns of persons with disabilities.

The decisions include the following:

•	The CRTC recognized that market forces may not be sufficient to protect vulnerable customers, including persons with disabilities, and their unique needs with respect to telecommunications services.  The Commission decided to ensure that the “social requirements” of users of telecommunications will continue to be addressed in the local exchange market.  Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15
•	The CRTC ordered the major telephone companies to allocate at least 5% of their deferral accounts for accessibility for persons with disabilities.  As a result of this decision, the major telephone companies are required to submit proposals to the CRTC.  The CRTC directed them to "consult and work with the appropriate advocacy organizations for persons with disabilities” in preparing their proposals.   A number of national disability organizations formed a coalition, of which ARCH is a member, to offer expertise and recommendations relating to the proposals.  Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-9
•	The CRTC’s decision about telecommunications services provided using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology gave limited positive direction with respect to accessibility of VoIP.  It referred several issues raised by ARCH to a subcommittee of the CRTC.  ARCH actively participated on this committee along with telecommunications service providers.  Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-28

During the year ARCH was a party to additional CRTC proceedings in which we continue to advocate that the CRTC and the industry have the legal obligation to proactively ensure fully accessible telecommunications.  ARCH is a party in appeals that have been launched regarding two of the decisions described above.  ARCH is also a party to appeals which raise Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues.

ARCH made substantial law reform submissions in response to a major review established by the Federal government, Telecommunications Policy Review Panel, relating to the current Canadian telecommunications framework.  ARCH staff also wrote papers and spoke about accessibility of telecommunications at two conferences.

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:

•	Submissions (written and oral) to a task force focussed on modifying income support for working age adults 
•	Submission to the Committee on Accessibility to the Justice System of Persons with Disabilities at Osgood Hall on “Accessibility to the Justice System of Persons with Disabilities”  
•	Submissions (written and oral) to the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council relating to the regulation of personal support workers
•	Wrote letters to the Attorney General of Ontario regarding the Reform of the human rights process in Ontario and participated in a human rights listening session at the Ministry of the Attorney General  
•	Submission (written) to the Ontario Human Rights Commission on the Family Status Consultation “Human Rights and the Family in Ontario” 
•	Submission (written and oral) to the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council relating to barriers experienced by persons with disabilities in relation to their receipt of services from health professionals
•	Submission (written) to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy with Respect to Bill 158 Film Classification Act, 2005, to provide disability perspective on movie issues such as captioning and review.  
•	Submission (written) to the Office for Disability Issues in conjunction with Stats Canada on drafting the PALS survey 
•	Presentation to the Toronto Police Services regarding policing, abuse and police interactions with persons with disabilities 
•	Submissions (written and oral) to the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel 
•	Submission (written) for proposed Income Tax Act Amendments  relating to the Disability Tax Credit and the Disability Supports Deduction
•	Participated in a consultation with the disability community on the UN Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities 
•	Legal writer and participant in a Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care project to address and prevent abuse in attendant services
•	Met with Education Minister Kennedy about the Safe School Action Team review and participated in a public consultation. ARCH also made a written submission to the Safe School Action Team. 

Public Legal Education 

ARCH staff participated in a wide range of publications and presentations.  Some of these are:

•	Article “Providing Legal Services to Persons with Disabilities” (update) which was published in the Law Society of Upper Canada’s 2005 Bar Admissions Course materials 
•	Published an article on disability transit “Running on Empty: The ‘Not So Special Status’ Of Paratransit Services In Ontario” in Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues
•	Presented at the Annual General Meeting of the Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Association of Ontario on the Accessibility of Ontarians with Disabilities Act 
•	Presented on a panel at a Conference (Canadian Association for Community Living) in Saskatoon on “Access to Disability Supports” as well as co-facilitated three “Disability Supports” workshops. 
•	Presented to the Toronto (Clinic) Management Training on “Accessibility and Inclusion” 
•	Presented to service providers at the Alternative and Augmentative Communication Clinic at West Park Hospital regarding abuse of persons with disabilities and duties of regulated health professionals
•	Presented to community members of Community Living Toronto (Etobicoke) on mental capacity and guardianship
•	Presented at an Information Windsor workshop titled "Do you know about AODA, ODA & ODSP" 
•	Presented to 1st year law students at Windsor Law School for the “Access to Justice” course 
•	Presented to York University students about written advocacy 
•	Spoke at training sessions on a panel at a training for principals of Peel District School Board regarding the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Education Guidelines 
•	Presented to students from Osgoode Hall Law School and Canadian Disability Studies Association on economic rights 
•	Assisted a community legal clinic with the preparation of a Continuing Legal Education program on “accommodations in education” for Windsor Canadian Hearing Society
•	Presented at Centre for Independent Living Toronto on substitute decision making and wills
•	Presented at Bayview Community Services on mental capacity and mental health laws
•	Guest lectured to students at Ryerson University on mental capacity
•	Presented to What Next Peer Support Drop In Center on mental capacity, mental health laws, ODSP and trusts
•	Presented to Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal Adjudicators on accommodating persons with disabilities in the hearing room 
•	Presented at a brainstorming session of legal clinics on legal strategies for addressing injustices in supportive housing

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 six issues of ARCH Alert, including a special federal election issue.   ARCH Alert has a monthly circulation of approximately 3,000 readers, increased by several hundred since last year.  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.  We frequently receive requests to reprint articles or post them on websites.

Summary Advice And Referral
 
ARCH’s summary advice and referral service (SAR) is operating successfully.  ARCH lawyers now more actively participate in delivery of the SAR service than in the past number of years.  As a matter of course, callers receive advice and/or referrals directly from lawyers, usually within a few days of their initial inquiry at an appointment time that is convenient for them.  At the same time staff are kept grounded on issues facing persons with disabilities on a day-to-day and ongoing basis.  There is no longer a waiting list for the SAR service, which is a great improvement over previous years where waiting times could be significant.  The Information and Referral worker is an integral part of the SAR service and provides assistance and referrals directly from reception in situations where an inquiry does not fit within the SAR program.  We provided service to approximately 1,600 callers this year.  We also completely updated our lawyer referral list by sending out questionnaires to all lawyers currently on the list. 
WEBSITE, LIBRARY AND REFERENCE CENTRE 

ARCH’s website, www.archdisabilitylaw.ca, has a searchable database of our library catalogue, where visitors can search the library collection of more than 3,000 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 4,000 times a month on average.  Reference materials are also available to the public from our library and reference centre, which has continued to be open for business this past year.

Committee Participation 

ARCH staff participate in a number of committees on an ongoing basis throughout the year.  These include committees of community groups, legal aid clinics, Legal Aid Ontario, the Law Society of Upper Canada and government.  Examples of committees staff were members of during the year include:  City of Toronto Disability Issues Committee, Legal Aid Ontario Clinic Law Advisory Committee, Community Living Ontario Inclusive Education Working Group, Law Society of Upper Canada Equity Advisory Group, Legal Aid Ontario Accessibility Committee, Legal Clinic Toronto Support Staff Association and Inter-Clinic Provincial CPP Working Group.

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 incomes. Clinics are in the forefront of urging LAO to undertake initiatives that will enhance and broaden the reach of the delivery of legal services. 

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. 
Other Funders
The City of Toronto has once again provided ARCH with a Community Grant that supports our education, information and referral program, for which we are appreciative. These funds assist ARCH to pay for support staff.

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 is within the federal jurisdiction.

We received funding from Industry Canada to assist in our preparation of our submissions to the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel.

We received funding from the Canadian Bar Association Law for the Future Fund to hire a lawyer to work on the criminal law aspects of abuse of persons with disabilities.
We received funds from Human Resources and Skills Development to hire a summer law student. 
The Students Law Society of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law awarded a law student a fellowship to work at ARCH during the summer.
ARCH Staff
 
ARCH has a staffing complement of twelve 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 articling student and 1.5 support staff.
ARCH raises funds through various non-guaranteed sources each year for the remaining positions: .5 support staff; 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.

Contributors to Arch’s Work:  Students, Lawyers and Volunteers

During 2005 and 2006 there has been a great deal of interest expressed by law students to work with ARCH in various capacities. Pro bono law students, summer students and articling 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.  Additionally, 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.  ARCH is also appreciative of the support of volunteers and professionals who have provided ongoing general support or offered us specific insight and information which has advanced our work.

ARCH gratefully appreciates the contributions of the following people:

•	Alison Baxter, LAO
•	Andrew Lewis, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
•	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.
•	Carol Krause, law student
•	Harry Beatty, Bakerlaw
•	Jacqueline Murphy, LAO LAW
•	Joanna Leong, law student
•	Jodi Kaiman, law student
•	John Bozzo, LAO LAW
•	John Judge, Stikeman Elliott LLP
•	Josee Bouchard, Law Society of Upper Canada
•	Katherine Haist, Barrister and Solicitor
•	Maureen Murphy, LAO LAW
•	Michelle Kushnir, law student
•	Nevina Crisante, Ministry of the Attorney General
•	Vaso Maric, Osler , Hoskin & Harcourt LLP 
•	Zehra Qizilbash, law student
•	Thomas Rajan, law student
•	Linda Rothstein, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
•	Amy Shoemaker, LAO LAW
•	Christopher Taylor, Barrister and Solicitor
•	Kimberley LeBlanc, law student
•	Elise Lenser, law student
•	Michael Mader
•	Laurel Parker
•	John McIndless
•	Martine Matthews
•	Wayne Johnston
•	Maxine Wilson
On A Personal Note

Throughout this year the staff and board of ARCH have had countless conversations, connections, meetings with individuals with disabilities and with representatives of disability organizations. It is quite amazing how much activity and energy there is in the disability community, working toward the common goals of full inclusion and the reduction of poverty for people with disabilities.  At this time, I would like to express our appreciation to community members who, by their interest in ARCH and exchanges with us, have supported our work, directly and indirectly. 

There have also been a number of individuals who have sent us financial donations in support of our work.  I thank you as well. 

Finally, I wish to recognize our Board of Directors and express my profound appreciation for their tireless commitment. 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. 

Respectfully Submitted,

PHYLLIS GORDON
Executive Director
September 21, 2006
 	ARCH Member Organizations
	AIDS Action Now!
	Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians (AEBC)
	Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Society of Ontario
	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, Ontario
	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 Cerebral Palsy
	Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addictions 
	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!

ARCH Staff List

Staff	Position	
Phyllis Gordon 	Executive Director 	
Amanda Ward 	Information/Referral Worker	
Debra McAllister 	Staff Lawyer	
Doreen Way	Office Manager	
Heidi Lazar Meyn	Reference Centre Lawyer and Coordinator 	
Jacqueline Esler	Articling Student	
Katherine Haist	Staff Lawyer	
Lana Kerzner	Staff Lawyer 	
Laurie Letheren	Staff Lawyer	
Robert Lattanzio	Staff Lawyer 	
Theresa Sciberras	Administrative Assistant	
Ena Chadha	Director of Litigation (On Leave)	

A Special Thanks to This Year’s Supporters

Legal Aid Ontario

Alcohol and Gaming Commission

Industry Canada

Human Resources and Development Canada

City of Toronto – Community Services Grants Program

Ministry of the Attorney General – Victim Services Branch

Court Challenges Program of Canada

Canadian Bar Association - Law for the Future Fund

Law Society of Upper Canada – Equity Department

Blake Cassels and Graydon LLP

Stikeman Elliott

Paliare Roland