ARCH Disability Law Centre

2006 – 2007 
Annual Report

110-425 Bloor Street East
Toronto, Ontario
M4W 3R5

Index

1.	Mission Statement

2.	Chair’s Report

3.	Executive Director’s Report

4.	Audited financial Statements, March 31, 2007  (distributed separately)

5.	Member Organizations 2007

6.	Staff List 

7.	Thanks to our Supporters

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, 2006 – March 31, 2007

I have had the honour of serving on the ARCH Board for the past several years, the last few as its Chair. 

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 CRTC. 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.  The website has been redesigned to ensure full accessibility and user ease.  The library and reference centre continues to be evaluated to ensure it’s 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.

The Board has been active in planning initiatives this year: our new strategic plan involved considerable planning and discussion; as well, the Board struck a transition committee that has been actively engaged in the transition of the leadership of the clinic. 

Legal Aid Ontario is a very engaged funder, in the past it often required much input from the boards of legal clinics. This year the key change at LAO has been its own reorganization. This has resulted in the loss of the Clinic Services Offices of LAO and a reorganization of the relationships between legal clinics and LAO.  We are not yet certain about how these changes will impact our work or our funding.   Despite a recent small increase to funding of LAO from the Ministry of the Attorney General, funding for staff salaries of community legal clinics remains low and problematic. 

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. I would especially like to thank Phyllis Gordon who is retiring soon.  Phyllis is dedicated, hard working and has shown great leadership both at ARCH and in the community.  It has been wonderful working with her. 

I am also retiring from the Board of ARCH this year. I have seen the clinic return to being a viable, respected organization after some difficult times.  Although at times it has been demanding work, I am proud to have been involved and feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with all the individuals in this organization who, without exception, are steadfast in their dedication to the disability community. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Lana Frado
Chair, ARCH Disability Law Centre
October 18, 2007

Executive Director’s Report
April 1, 2006 – March 31, 2007

Barriers to the effective participation of people with disabilities in social, economic and political life are still so pervasive in Ontario and Canada. At times the economic injustice and administrative unfairness people experience seems unending, and it feels like the work of the disability community and organizations like ARCH will never be done.  However, these days there is a strong advocacy energy in the disability community with very focused efforts leading to change, hopefully on a large and effective scale.  ARCH is proud to be a part of that energy and commitment. 

On behalf of the staff of ARCH, I am happy to report again about our year’s work.  I hope you will share my pride and applaud the staff for their continued hard work, dedication and effective advocacy throughout this past year. 

Litigation 

ARCH engages in test case litigation on behalf of groups and individuals. Test cases include those in which an issue is being considered by a court or tribunal for the first time. ARCH’s objective is to provide decision makers with a disability perspective, with the hope of changing existing laws in cases where the outcome would broadly affect persons with disabilities. ARCH was engaged in the following litigation during the fiscal year April 1, 2006 through to March 31, 2007.

A. Ongoing Cases

Consumers’ Association of Canada v. CRTC; Bell Canada v. CRTC, Federal Court of Appeal 

On February 16, 2006 the CRTC released its Deferral Accounts Decision [Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-9]. Large telephone companies including Bell Canada – known as incumbent local exchange carriers or “ILECs” – are required under the CRTC price cap regulatory regime to set aside deferral accounts that contain over $30M. In response to arguments made by ARCH, the CRTC ordered the ILECs to set aside 5% of the funds in their deferral accounts to improve accessibility of telecommunications goods and services for persons with disabilities. The remaining 95% is to be used for expansion of broadband (Internet) services to rural and remote communities. The CRTC ordered the ILECs to propose initiatives to dispose of their deferral accounts. 

Two consumers groups have appealed the CRTC’s decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. They argue that the CRTC had no jurisdiction to make the order, and that the money in the deferral accounts can only be released to residential subscribers who paid for services under the price cap regime. Bell Canada has also appealed. Bell does not challenge the award of 5% for disability purposes, but argues that the CRTC has no jurisdiction to order consumer rebates. 

The two appeals will be heard together, likely in January 2008. ARCH is a party in the consumer groups’ appeal.

Harris v. Canada (Minister of Social Development Canada), Pension Appeals Board

ARCH is co-counsel to the Respondent, Ms. H, in this appeal. Ms. H applied for a Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”) disability pension, but did not qualify because her contributions to the CPP were short by the one year she spent caring for her son because of his disability. The CPP child rearing dropout provision does not apply for that year since her son was over the maximum age of seven. Ms. H had a connection to the workforce before and after her son’s disability. 

The issue is whether the government’s refusal to extend the Child Rearing Dropout provision for the one additional year during in which Ms. H cared for her son violates s.15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ms. H successfully challenged the Minister’s decision before the Review Tribunal, but the Minister of Social Development Canada appealed to the Pension Appeals Board. 

ARCH and co-counsel, East Toronto Community Legal Services, are representing Ms. H at the Pension Appeals Board. The appeal will be heard on October 29, 2007.

Brown v. National Capital Commission and Public Works and Government Services Canada, Federal Court of Canada

ARCH was retained by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) and was granted leave to intervene in two judicial review applications: Bob Brown v. National Capital Commission and Bob Brown v. Public Works Government Services Canada. 

The issues in this case are whether the National Capital Commission (NCC) failed to accommodate the interests of persons with disabilities in constructing the York Street Steps in Ottawa and building an elevator at a different location, and whether Public Works had a duty to participate in the consultation process to investigate non-discriminatory solutions. 

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal adopted the principles of universal design, and concluded that the Steps were inaccessible and that the NCC discriminated against Mr. Brown by failing to accommodate his needs. The construction of the elevator at the other location did not satisfy the Crown's obligation to accommodate persons who cannot climb stairs. The Tribunal ordered the NCC to consult with Mr. Brown, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the disability community generally. It also ordered Public Works to participate in the consultation process with NCC.

The Federal Court of Canada is set to hear both applications for judicial review on April 7-10, 2008 in Ottawa.

The Minister of Human Resources Development Canada v. Marsden, Federal Court of Appeal

ARCH represents the Respondent in this appeal, Mr. M. The issue is whether the Minister erred in interpreting the definition of “permanent disability” in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and its Regulation. 

Mr. M applied for the Permanent Disability Benefit (PDB) for his Canada Student Loan. PDB allows for the Federal portion of the loan to be absorbed by the Federal government. Mr. M’s application was denied on grounds that he did not qualify as having a “permanent disability” based on the fact that he was still attending school at the time of his application and therefore was not “prevented” from participating “in studies”. 

Mr. M represented himself at the Federal Court of Canada and successfully challenged the Minister’s interpretation of “permanent disability”. On October 18, 2006 the Federal Court’s decision was released [2006 FC 1246]. Kelen J. held that the Minister erred in law in refusing Mr. M’s PDB application and ordered that the application be reconsidered by a different medical officer. The Minister appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.

The hearing date for this appeal has not yet been set. 

B. Decisions Rendered

Colaco v. (Canada) Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Federal Court of Appeal 

Section 38(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that potential immigrants are not admissible to Canada if they have a medical condition which might cause excessive demands on health or social services. The Supreme Court of Canada held in Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); De Jong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [“Hilewitz”] that the government must carry out individual assessments that take into account the family's ability and willingness to absorb the cost of social services for a child who is medically inadmissible. However, Hilewitz involved two families who applied to immigrate in the investor and self-employed business classes. 

The Colaco family applied to immigrate as skilled workers. Like the families in Hilewitz, one of the Colaco children has a mild intellectual disability. However, immigration officials refused to consider the parents’ ability and willingness to absorb the cost of any social services the child might need. The government argued that the principles in Hilewitz only applied to business class applicants since they alone are required to make an immediate and significant contribution to the Canadian economy.

Justice Barnes of the Federal Court rejected the government’s argument and held that potential immigrants who apply as skilled workers are entitled to an individual assessment of excessive demands that takes into account the family’s ability and willingness to absorb the cost of Canadian social services. However, Justice Barnes permitted the government to appeal the question of whether the reasoning in Hilewitz applies to skilled workers. 

ARCH represented the Canadian Association for Community Living (“CACL”) and the Ethno-Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario (“ERDCO”), who intervened before the Federal Court of Appeal. The government’s appeal was heard in Toronto on September 12, 2007 by Justices Linden, Létourneau and Sexton. The Court heard the government’s argument but did not call upon counsel for the Colaco family or the Intervenors to make oral submissions, since the Judges were not persuaded by the government's argument. However, Justice Linden, speaking for all three judges, commented that the Intervenors' materials were very helpful.

Justice Létourneau, in oral reasons for the unanimous Court, dismissed the government’s appeal. He agreed with Justice Barnes’ conclusion that the reasoning in Hilewitz required an individual assessment of the need for social services and of the applicants’ ability and willingness to pay for these services. The Court also adopted extracts from Hilewitz, which warned against using a generic “cookie-cutter” assessment that would automatically exclude everyone with a particular disability and attach “a cost assessment to the disability rather than to the individual.” [Colaco FCA at para.7, citing Hilewitz at para. 56-58.] Unfortunately, the Court did not go so far as to say that ability and willingness to pay must be considered for all categories of immigrants. It is uncertain whether the Minister will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

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”) as an Intervenor in the appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. 

The main issues in this appeal were 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. 

The Supreme Court held that “the period negotiated by the [union and the employer] is a factor to consider when assessing the duty of reasonable accommodation” but the period does not definitely determine the extent of the duty to accommodate. Such “negotiated accommodations” are still subject to human rights legislation. 

Justice Deschamps, writing for the majority, held that "a termination of employment clause will be applicable only if it meets the requirements that apply with respect to reasonable accommodation, in particular the requirement that the measure be adapted to the individual circumstances of the specific case." The Court confirmed that "[t]he importance of the individualized nature of the accommodation process cannot be minimized”.

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), which is dedicated to accessible transportation for all persons with disabilities. 

The Court also granted intervenor status to the Canadian Transportation Agency, the DisAbled Women’s Network Canada (DAWN), the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres (CAILC), and the Human Rights Commissions of Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Only the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Transportation Agency were granted leave to make oral submissions. 

The issue was whether the “undue obstacle” provision in s.5 of the Canada Transportation Act is human rights legislation that must be applied in the same manner as the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In late 2000, VIA Rail Canada Inc. (VIA) purchased 139 ‘Renaissance rail cars’, which were available at a ‘bargain price’ because they had been rejected by the United Kingdom for failing to meet accessibility standards for persons with disabilities. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) challenged this purchase before the Canadian Transportation Agency (the Agency).  After a three year inquiry, the Agency concluded that the Renaissance cars contained undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities, contrary to s.5 of the Canada Transportation Act (the Act), and ordered VIA to eliminate these obstacles. 

The Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Agency’s decision on the basis that the rights of persons with disabilities to accessible transportation must be balanced with all competing interests, and need only be accommodated somewhere in the rail transportation network. The CCD appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where there were two issues to be decided. First, is the “undue obstacle” provision human rights legislation that must be interpreted consistently with other Canadian human rights laws and, second, was VIA denied procedural fairness by not being given sufficient time to present evidence regarding the cost of renovating the Renaissance cars. 

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the Agency’s decision. Justice Abella confirmed that the undue obstacle provision must be interpreted consistently with Canadian human rights law, and that “(i)ndependent access to the same comfort, dignity, safety and security as those without physical limitations is a fundamental human right for all persons who use wheelchairs” [para. 162]. VIA was not entitled to depart from this standard because it found a better bargain for its able‑bodied customers. The fact there are accessible trains on some routes does not justify inaccessible trains on other routes. All of the rail network should be accessible to persons with disabilities.  Further, VIA was not denied procedural fairness by the Agency, which was not obliged to wait for VIA to produce cost estimates that it had repeatedly and explicitly refused to provide. 

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

ARCH and co-counsel, East Toronto Community Legal Services, represented the Intervenor, Empowerment Council - Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, in this appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Tranchemontagne and Werbeski applied for support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 (“ODSPA”).  The Director denied their applications, an internal review confirmed the Director’s decisions, and the Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”) dismissed their appeals pursuant to s.5(2) of the ODSPA since both applicants’ primary disability was  alcoholism. The ODSPA specifically precluded the SBT from considering the constitutional validity of laws and regulations. The SBT held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider whether s.5(2) was inapplicable because it discriminated against persons with a disability contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”). 

The Divisional Court agreed. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that the SBT had the power to declare a provision of the ODSPA inapplicable for infringing the Code, but it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction in favour of a more appropriate forum. 

The Supreme Court held that the SBT had authority to apply the Code and to treat legislative provisions as inoperable if they contravened the Code. The majority relied on the presumption that a tribunal which has authority to determine questions of law has jurisdiction to apply any law that is necessary to decide an issue that is properly before it. The legislature differentiated between constitutional issues, which the SBT could not decide, and the Code, which could be applied to resolve conflicts between statutes. 

The majority found that two elements of the Code supported this approach. First, the Code has primacy over other legislation, which had not been eliminated by statute. Second, the Code has been amended to provide that the Ontario Human Rights Commission no longer has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Code, and to allow the Commission to defer to another forum that is better suited to decide a human rights issue. 

The majority concluded that since the SBT had no authority to decline jurisdiction, it had to consider the Code in these cases. Further, the SBT was the most appropriate tribunal to decide the entire dispute; it is the forum to which vulnerable applicants must appeal when they have been denied ODSPA assistance and they seek a prompt and binding resolution of their entitlement and their human rights. The case was referred back to the SBT for a decision on the applicability of s.5(2) of the ODSPA.

C.  Cases Settled

B. v. Community Care Access Centre Ottawa-Carleton, Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court)

ARCH represented Mr. B on a judicial review application before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court). 

The Ottawa Community Care Access Centre (OCCAC) adopted guidelines as a cost containment measure under which all clients receiving Personal Support and Homemaking services were reassessed and their hours of service reduced. Most homemaking services were no longer provided except for the “core” homemaking services provided in conjunction with the Personal Support Services where safety and hygiene were of concern. Mr. B’s hours of service were reduced significantly which was insufficient to meet his needs. 

Mr. B appealed to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (“HSARB”) and was partially successful. 

ARCH was retained by Mr. B and sought judicial review of this decision, while the OCCAC commenced its own judicial review application. This matter was set down for hearing by the Divisional Court on November 21, 2006. It was settled on the day before the hearing.

Highlights Of Selected Program Initiatives 

Abuse of Persons with Disabilities

ARCH has continued to actively work to address abuse of persons with disabilities.  ARCH has continued to participate in a project funded by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to address and prevent abuse in their attendant service programs for persons with physical disabilities.  With funding from the Canadian Bar Association, ARCH contracted with a criminal lawyer who undertook an analysis of criminal laws and processes that are relevant to and can support persons with disabilities who have experienced abuse.  The project is culminating in the writing of a continuing legal education paper detailing the findings.  ARCH continues its efforts to disseminate information on abuse.  ARCH spoke at the Ontario Federation for Cerebral Palsy’s 59th Annual Conference on the topic.  ARCH’s submission relating to the abuse of persons with disabilities in the context of personal support workers was quoted in a report of the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council.

Assistive Devices

ARCH received funding from Industry Canada to research and analyze the legal, political and program contexts that govern how assistive devices are regulated in Canada.  The project both describes the current landscape and suggests options for change.  The project is grounded in the concerns expressed to ARCH over several years by persons with disabilities, supported by research, regarding a range of problems with their assistive devices and their unmet needs.  This has often resulted in barriers to their independence, and exclusion from participation in work, social and community life.  The project aims to assist persons with disabilities to advocate for themselves and to provide suggestions for policy reform.

During this year ARCH conducted legal and community based research.  Consultations were undertaken with those who have a direct interest in assistive devices, including persons with disabilities, disability organizations and government officials.  Our research uncovered inadequate funding despite several government and non-government funding programs, and a complex set of laws which leave several important aspects of assistive devices unregulated.  In the next fiscal year, the findings were written in a comprehensive report.

Federal Disability Act

In November 2006 the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and Canadian Association for Community Living held a national forum in Ottawa titled “End Exclusion”.  As a part of that process ARCH was invited to write and present a paper about what a federal disability act might look like.  Starting early in 2006 we met with CCD members to discuss the parameters of the vision and did so again later on. We then wrote a paper called “Contributing to the Dialogue: A Federal Disability Act: Opportunities and Challenges”.

Human Rights Code Amendments 

On 20 December 2006, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 107) received Royal Assent. Bill 107 was initially introduced on April 26 of that year and proposed significant changes to Ontario’s human rights system. ARCH made oral submissions to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy in Ottawa on August 9, 2006. ARCH also prepared an ARCH Alert special edition, which provided its readership with a legal analysis of the Bill and an understanding of how the system currently operates. 

After discussions about the current human rights system in Ontario, ARCH Board members concluded that it is seriously flawed, and that it did not adequately address the experience of discrimination of countless Ontarians.  ARCH’s view is that the problem with the current system is more than a delay and backlog of cases.  The Board supports the framework of Bill 107 in that it provides persons who file human rights complaints with the right to a hearing and legal assistance, as these changes would address some of the current problems with the system. However, ARCH’s submissions included the need to amend Bill 107 significantly before it became law. Numerous amendments proposed by ARCH and other equity seeking organizations were considered and adopted. 

Among the reforms that Bill 107 will bring about, the following three are the most fundamental: individuals will have direct access to the Tribunal to have their discrimination cases heard; they will be supported by an independent legal support centre; and the Commission will no longer be charged with the fundamentally patronizing role of determining which cases go to a hearing and which are dismissed. The Commission will be free to champion systemic responses to the on-going discrimination that exists in Ontario. 

These amendments will come into force on June 30, 2008. 

ARCH continues to be involved in ongoing matters related to the implementation of Bill 107.

OBA 5th Annual Charter Conference

ARCH Barrister & Solicitor Debra McAllister organized and chaired the Ontario Bar Association's 5th Annual Charter Conference on Friday, September 29, 2006. The Conference is a full day Continuing Legal Education program on developments in Charter law and practice, which is held annually at the OBA’s conference facility in Toronto. The speakers include judges, academics and practitioners from the private and public sectors, and lawyers from Legal Aid Ontario. The 2006 program featured over 30 speakers including: the Honourable Coulter A.A. Osborne - Integrity Commissioner of Ontario; The Honourable Justice Robert J. Sharpe - Court of Appeal for Ontario; Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall – Ontario Human Rights Commission; Professor Wayne MacKay - Dalhousie Law School; Professor Lorraine E. Weinrib - University of Toronto Faculty of Law; A. Alan Borovoy - General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association; and Joseph J. Arvay - Arvay Finlay, Vancouver.
 
The program covers up-to-date significant developments in substantive and practice issues under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The conference begins with an overview of recent Supreme Court decisions, and important upcoming cases and trends in Charter law. In addition to three plenary sessions, participants have a selection of three morning and three afternoon seminars to choose from, on subjects ranging from practice issues in constitutional cases, to substantive legal developments in areas including criminal law and social and economic rights. The conference has an average audience of over 100 lawyers, who represent a broad cross-section of the legal community.

Public Legal Education Forum On Mental Health And Criminal Law

This event was co-sponsored by The Law Society of Upper Canada, Criminal Lawyers’ Association and ARCH.  Phyllis Gordon was the moderator for the evening.  Lana Frado was a panellist and she, along with Jennifer Chambers of the Empowerment Council, presented the Consumer/Survivor perspective on the Mental Health and Criminal Justice System.  There were also presentations from Canadian Mental Health Association and Reconnect Mental Health Services on the types of supports provided to consumers/survivors who become involved in the criminal justice system.  Justice Richard Schneider, who presides over the Toronto Mental Health Court, and Ted Kelly, a criminal lawyer, discussed the procedures, expectations and outcomes of the Mental Health and Criminal Justice System as well as the role of lawyers in this system.  The event was well attended.

Standard Created under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act [AODA Standards]

Under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 [AODA], accessibility standards are to be developed by committees.  The first standard to be developed under the AODA was the Customer Service Standard.  The draft Customer Service Standard was released for public consultation and ARCH made submissions on the Standard in December 2006.  ARCH had a large number of significant concerns about the proposed standard including:

•	Its failure to include and advance principles of inclusive design;
•	The lack of prescriptive and mandatory language; 
•	The use of terms and definitions that promote the doctrine “separate but equal” that are inconsistent with Ontario human rights law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and
•	The fact that the Standard created classes according to the number of persons employed.

Prior to releasing the final draft of the Standard to the Minister, the committee made some changes to the initial draft. A number of the changes made reflect the recommendations made by ARCH.

ARCH will be monitoring further standards released by the AODA committees.

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.  We have been actively working with several disability groups to achieve this end.

ARCH has continued to be a party in proceedings before the CRTC (the federal agency that regulates our telecommunications industry) in proceedings that have an impact on persons with disabilities.  One of the most significant of these during the fiscal year relates to a decision of the CRTC requiring the major telephone companies to allocate money which could amount to as much as $34,000,000.00 for accessibility initiatives for persons with disabilities.  A coalition of national disability organizations, of which ARCH is a member, formed to participate in a process ordered by the CRTC about the use of this money.  Unfortunately, the CRTC’s decision relating to the use of this money has been appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.  In an effort to preserve this money, ARCH became a party in this appeal.  This year ARCH participated in other CRTC proceedings, including one relating to a 50% discount on long distance calls for people using a TTY and a proceeding relating to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP).  This year the CRTC released a decision denying a request made by advocates Chris and Marie Stark, and supported by ARCH, to regulate phone (terminal) equipment, which is inaccessible to many people with disabilities.

ARCH’s telecommunications advocacy has taken other forms as well.  We were invited by the CRTC to attend a consultation with key members of the executive staff and the vice-chairmen of the CRTC and did meet with them to raise concerns about telecommunications and persons with disabilities.  We spoke at and wrote papers for conferences on telecommunications, including conferences hosted by the Canadian Bar Association/Law Society of Upper Canada and the Dis-IT Research Alliance.  ARCH was active in policy work and made submissions to the Standing Committee on Industry Science and Technology of Parliament and to Cabinet relating to the impact of deregulation of telecommunications on persons with disabilities.

Additional Law Reform Initiatives

ARCH staff participated in several law reform initiatives that included working with coalitions, making written and/or oral submissions, meeting with officials, or a combination of these. Some of these initiatives include:

•	Submissions (written and oral) to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy on the reform of  the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Tribunal. 

•	Submission (written) to the Customer Service Standards Development Committee and to the Minister of Community and Social Services on the Initial Proposed Customer Service Standard. 

•	Submissions (written and oral) to CRTC and Industry Canada on how CRTC should prioritize during their next planning period with regards to advancing the accessible telecommunications services.

•	Submissions (written and oral) to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy in response to Bill 103, An Act to establish an Independent Police Review Director.

•	Wrote two papers for the Council of Canadians with Disabilities regarding considerations for a Federal Disability Act and substantive legal and policy work on access at the federal level. 

•	Wrote a letter to Minister of Education outlining our concerns regarding Bill 78 and education generally. 

•	Wrote a letter to Wheel Trans General Superintendent regarding long wait times for booking rides and the late time window for ride confirmation. 

•	Wrote submission to Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council (HPRAC) about the incidence of abuse of persons with disabilities by personal support workers to assist them with their submission to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care on whether personal support workers should be regulated under the Regulated Health Professions Act.

Additional Public Legal Education Events

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

•	Published a special edition in the 3 August 2006 issue of the ARCH Alert covering ARCH‘s position on Bill 107. 

•	Published a special edition in the 6 April 2006 issue of the ARCH Alert featuring the insights and experience of Catherine Frazee on the Ontario Human Rights System.

•	Published an article on “Mental Capacity” in Disability and Social Policy in Canada, Second Edition.

•	Wrote a paper on “Accessible Telecommunications for Persons with Disabilities in the IP World” for a major Canadian Bar Association and Law Society of Upper Canada Telecommunications Conference titled “New Developments in Communications Law and Policy”.

•	Wrote a backgrounder on "Telecom Regulatory Environment and People with Disabilities” for an international conference titled “Bridging the Digital Divide for People with Disabilities”.

•	Wrote a paper titled “Mentally Defectives” Not Welcome: Mental Disability In Canadian Immigration Law, 1859-1927” which is forthcoming in Disability Studies Quarterly.

•	Co-wrote a paper for the Ontario Bar Association’s Continuing Legal Education conference “Cross Country Expedition: Probate and Incapacity Planning & Administration Across Provincial Boundaries” titled “Estate Planning and Persons with Disabilities: Use of Trusts in Ontario and other Canadian Jurisdictions”.

•	Revised the article “Providing Legal Services to Persons with Disabilities” for the Law Society of Upper Canada.

•	Revised the article “Disability-Related Income Tax Provisions”. 

•	Revised the pamphlet “Getting an inheritance when you are on Ontario Disability Benefits." with CLEO.

•	Presented at “Engaging Disability 2007”, an initiative of the University of Victoria’s Studies in Policy and Practice graduate studies program, on “National Policy”. 

•	Presented to students and professors of the Faculty of Law at University of Victoria on “The Road to Inclusion: Beyond Human Rights Complaints”. 

•	Presented to 1st year law students at Windsor Law School for the “Access to Justice” course. 

•	Presented at the CASHRA Conference in New Brunswick on the duty to accommodate persons with a disability. 

•	Presented at a community workshop for persons with disabilities and service providers on “Accommodation and the Law". 

•	Presented at a workshop to union members on “Understanding Workplace Accommodation and Respect”. 

•	Presented at a Provincial Prosecutors’ Seminar on “Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities”.

•	Presented at a community organization’s AGM on human rights and Bill 107. 

•	Presented to persons with disabilities who are seeking employment or are newly employed on “Rights to Accommodation”. 

•	Co-presented at a conference to persons with disabilities and service providers on the topic of abuse. 

•	Presented at a community health centre, to a group of persons with disabilities and seniors on the topic of powers of attorney, capacity and wills. 

•	Presented at a community organization’s Human Rights Summit via a webcast on Bill 107 - human rights reform. 

•	Presented at the Ontario Bar Association’s conference “Human Rights in Ontario” on direct access legislation passed. 

•	Presented at an “Alternative Telecommunications Policy Forum”. 

•	Presented at York University’s Canada Disability Studies Association on the history of immigration law and mental disability. 

•	Presented to Toronto Community Housing Corporation residents with disabilities about ARCH’s submission on Bill 107 - Human Rights Reform Act. 

•	Spoke at a workshop for ethno-racial persons with disabilities regarding human rights legislation. 

•	Spoke at Mohawk College to field placement supervisors about the legal issues related to field placements for community service worker students. 

•	Spoke at Ability Symposium 2006 on “Accommodating Persons with Disabilities - Recent Trends in Human Rights Law”. 

•	Spoke to service providers in the Ontario Health and Developmental Services Sector at Community Care Access Centre on legal aspects of mental capacity and substitute decision making for persons with developmental disabilities. 

•	Presented at an “Ability Symposium” at a secondary school to students and the community about the rights of students with disabilities in post-secondary. 

•	Presented to a support group consisting of parents of youth with developmental disabilities on the topic of wills, estates and ODSP. 

•	Presented at York University’s Critical Disability Studies Conference to graduate students, faculty and disability advocates on the topic of Human Rights and Bill 107. 

•	Presented at an “Extend-A-Family” session on Human Rights and Accommodation. 

•	Participated at a national conference “Building an Inclusive and Accessible Canada” on a panel titled "Is There Common Ground Between Bottom Lines and Human Rights”. 

•	Participated on an International Women’s Day panel about the work-life balance for women and men in the professions as lawyers and judges.

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 seven issues of ARCH Alert, including an issue on ARCH’s position on the human rights reform and an extensive article outlining ARCH’s submissions on the proposed Customer Service Standard of the AODA. ARCH Alert has a circulation of approximately 3,000 readers. People express interest in receiving the ARCH Alert after the publication of each issue. 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 is operating successfully. ARCH lawyers and ARCH’s articling student provide legal information, summary advice when appropriate and referrals to persons with disabilities and/or their lawyers, across the province of Ontario. It is primarily a telephone service but other methods of communication, including in person meetings, are provided as a form of accommodation. Callers will speak with an ARCH lawyer within a few days from their initial inquiry, at an appointment time convenient for them. Some callers will also be immediately referred to appropriate services by our Information and Referral worker. 

In the past year, ARCH has received calls concerning a vast array of legal issues. The most calls received concern human rights matters, typically in the employment, education, transportation, or government services context. Other areas of law for which ARCH receives the majority of calls include matters relating to abuse, the Assistive Devices Program, attendant care services, and capacity and guardianship issues. 

As an ongoing activity, ARCH maintains a private bar lawyer referral list. We also commenced a project that will survey some of the legal resources and services available to persons with disabilities across the province, such as pro bono initiatives and specialized community advocacy services, in order to more effectively assist callers from all parts of the province. ARCH also continues to develop and revise relevant training materials for staff and students related to the delivery of this service.

ARCH Launches Its Newly Redesigned Website 

ARCH has recently launched its newly redesigned, fully accessible website www.archdisabilitylaw.ca.  ARCH undertook this initiative to ensure that its website is accessible beyond contemporary accessibility standards and sets an example for accessibility.  Visitors can now search the site for ARCH materials, subscribe to ARCH Alert, and find useful links.  The site also explains in greater detail what we do and who we are.  Visitors can also look at ARCH’s papers, law reform submissions, fact sheets, and the online version of our newsletter ARCH Alert. 

We would like to thank ARCH staff, ARCH Board, and e-Snow for their contribution to the site’s development. 
ARCH’S Library and Reference Centre

While developing its Strategic Plan, ARCH’s Board decided that we will not actively continue the on-site resource-reference centre program (although we will maintain our two accessible workstations where persons with disabilities use the internet).  The Board decided that as a province-wide organization, it should focus on a redeveloped website as a means to reach more individuals and organizations. 

We have recently hired a law librarian (part-time) who will develop a method to archive the materials we have that are important for the history of the disability movement in Canada. 

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: 

Law Society of Upper Canada’s Equity Advisory Group [EAG], Executive of the Ontario Bar Association Constitutional, Civil Liberties and Human Rights Section, Mental Health Police Record Checks Coalition, Association of Human Rights Lawyers, Legal Aid Ontario Accessibility Committee, Court Challenges Program Committee, City of Toronto Disability Issues Committee, Canadian Working Group on HIV and Rehabilitation Episodic Disabilities Network, Ontario Coalition for Inclusive Education, Toronto Community Housing Corporation’s Accessibility Policy committee, the Toronto Executive Directors Group and the Legal Clinic Toronto Support Staff Association. 

ARCH’s Work on Interclinic Workgroups

In the past fiscal year, ARCH has been an active participant on a number of interclinic working groups. ARCH has been actively involved on both the Steering Committee on Social Assistance and the Ontario Disability Support Program Action Coalition. 

The Steering Committee on Social Assistance [SCSA] is made up of representatives from each of the clinic regions and from specialty clinics. The mandate of the SCSA is to effect positive changes to social assistance legislation, and to effect improvements in the delivery of services by the social services offices and the Social Benefits Tribunal. Most of this work is done through consultation and lobbying.  The Committee is able to bring forth issues and concerns raised by clinic clients when meeting with the Minister of Community and Social Services and her staff and the legal staff and Chair of the Social Benefits Tribunal. 

The Ontario Disability Support Program [ODSP] Action Coalition advocates for improvements to the income and employment supports provided by the Ontario Disability Support Program. The coalition members are advocates and recipients of ODSP. Much of the coalition’s work in 2006 to 2007 focused on raising the profile of poverty and disability for the Ontario budget, getting media attention on the rate of assistance and the inaccessibility of the program, and lobbying for improved access to the Program and in particular to the employment supports available under the Act. The activities of the coalition include creating and disseminating materials on ODSP and making representations to various levels of government. 
Although ARCH time and resources have not allowed us to be active members of the Canada Pension Plan working group and the Legal Clinics Housing Issues Committee, ARCH continues to monitor the work of the these groups.

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 at 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 of removing 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 support staff not funded by Legal Aid Ontario. 

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, disability accommodation, and staff training. 

We received funding from Industry Canada’s Contribution Program to look at the regulatory context of assistive technologies and accessible products in Canada. 

We received funding from the Canadian Bar Association’s Law for the Future Fund to produce researched papers and fact sheets on Criminal Justice for Persons with Disabilities Who Have Been Abused. 

We received funding from Access Apartments to work on a project aimed at ensuring that  persons with disabilities who receive attendant services do so in a way that is free from abuse of any nature. 

We received funds from Human Resources and Skills Development’s Summer Career Placement Program to hire a summer law student.

ARCH Staff  
ARCH has a staffing complement of twelve positions.  As our 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; and 2.5 support staff. 

ARCH raises funds through various non-guaranteed sources each year for the remaining positions: 1 articling student, ½ support staff position and an information/referral worker. 

Non-permanent staff include law students who work with us in the summer or on a pro bono basis throughout the year.  ARCH also contracts individuals from time to time to work on specific projects.

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

During 2006 and 2007 law students have expressed a great deal of interest in working 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 that has advanced our work.

ARCH gratefully appreciates the contributions of the following people:

•	Madam Justice Maureen D. Forestell
•	Patrick M. R. Groom, Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish, LLP Barristers & Solicitors
•	Adele Furrie Consulting Inc.
•	Emma Michael, Law Student
•	Eli Hansen, Law Student
•	Michelle Kushnir, Law Student
•	Alexa Sulzenko, Law Student
•	Chris Taylor, Telecommunications Expert
•	Professor Liora Salter, Osgoode Hall Law School 
•	Christy Pentland, Law Student,  Osgoode Hall Law School
•	Christina Hollingshead, Law Student, Osgoode Hall Law School
•	Scott Sawler - Graduate Student, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

On A Personal Note

This will be my last “personal note” in ARCH’s annual report.  There are many things I could say but will briefly say just two. The first is THANK YOU to the many people in the disability community and the legal clinic community I have worked with, the incredibly committed people who have served on ARCH’s board during my time at ARCH, and to the staff, past and present, for their outstanding individual and collective contribution to the work of the clinic.  The second is BEST OF LUCK for all of ARCH’s future endeavours.  May you continue to challenge and demand and succeed.  May people with disabilities celebrate as the barriers come down and the doors open. 

Finally, I have had a wonderful time working at ARCH. Perhaps I shouldn’t name anyone because there are so many individuals who have enhanced my time here immensely.  However, there are three Board members who have been so absolutely solid in their commitment to ARCH that they must be mentioned.  These are Lana Frado, current Chair, Fraser Valentine, departing Board Member, and Sandi Bell, former Chair.  
Respectfully Submitted,

PHYLLIS GORDON
Executive Director
October 9, 2007

	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 Paraplegic Association Ontario
	CNIB - Ontario Division
	Community Living Ontario
	Down Syndrome Association of Toronto
	Easter Seals Canada
	Easter Seals Society
	Employment Access
	EOH Meta Foundation
	Epilepsy Ontario
	Epilepsy Toronto
	Extend-A-Family
	Family Alliance Ontario
	Fibromyalgia Society of Ontario
	Friends and Advocates
	Frontier College
	Hemophilia Ontario
	Houselink Community Homes
	Huntington Society of Canada
	Integration Action for Inclusion
	Kidney Foundation - Greater Ontario
	Kidney Foundation - Ontario
	Learning Disabilities Association of Halton
	Low Vision Association of Ontario
	Margaret Frazer House
	Marsha Forest Centre
	Mood Disorders Association of Ontario
	Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
	Muscular Dystrophy Canada

	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
	PATH Employment Services
	People First of Ontario
	Persons United for Self Help in Northwestern Ontario (PUSH)
Psychiatric Survivor Archives, Toronto (PSAT)
	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 (ILCLA)
	Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada
	Transportation Action Now!

ARCH Staff list

Staff and Position
Phyllis Gordon , Executive Director 
Amanda Ward , Information/Referral Worker
Debra McAllister , Staff Lawyer
Doreen Way, Office Manager
Kerri Joffe, Staff Lawyer
Lana Kerzner, Staff Lawyer 
Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer
Melanie Greaves, Law Clerk
Robert Lattanzio, Staff Lawyer 
Ruby Dhand, Articling Student
Theresa Sciberras, Program Assistant
Yangtzee  Tamang, Operations Assistant

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