ARCH Disability Law Centre
 
2008 – 2009
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, 2009 (distributed separately)

5.	Member Organizations 2009

6.	Staff List

7.	Thanks to our Supporters

Mission Statement

ARCH Disability Law Centre is a province-wide specialty legal aid clinic dedicated to defending and advancing the equality-rights of people with disabilities.  
In recognizing the dignity and worth of people with a variety of disabilities, ARCH promotes the full social justice of people 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: 

•	People with disabilities are confronted with unique legal challenges.
•	People 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.
•	People 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 people with disabilities.

•	ARCH provides summary advice and referral for individual people 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 people with disabilities must be respected;

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

•	People 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 people 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 people with disabilities;

•	ARCH is accountable to people 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, 2008 – March 31, 2009

The last two years have been a time to consolidate following the many changes we had as an organization in 2007.  We no longer refer to Ivana Petricone as our “new” Executive Director – she is simply the Executive Director.  Nevertheless, we have been fortunate that Phyllis Gordon has been willing to help us out on a contract basis with various proceedings before the CRTC where her experience and reputation have been a considerable asset.

We have tried to reach out to the community we serve, and we have been in the process of carrying out a needs assessment as part of that.  We have also organized one meeting with groups and persons interested in disability issues, and will have more in the coming year.  It is critically important that we identify the most pressing needs for the disability community because our resources are limited.  If we are to continue to have an impact that will improve life for people with disabilities it is critical that we aim those resources at the targets that will make the greatest difference.

This need to ensure that we make the most effective use possible of our resources is compounded by significant uncertainty in the way that our primary funder, Legal Aid Ontario, proposes to carry out its mandate.  Part of that uncertainty comes from the fact that LAO faces many pressures – a budget that has not grown at the same rate as the population of the province, the increasing length and complexity of criminal trials, and the request for meaningful increases in the rate at which private lawyers are compensated for legal aid cases.  LAO never had more than a peanut butter and jam sandwich budget to begin with.  Over the years in order to make due we’ve switched to using day old bread, cut the jam entirely, and spread the peanut butter ever thinner.  It is now at the point that the peanut butter is spread so thin it’s often hard to tell.  The Attorney General has announced increased funding for Legal Aid.  However, we have yet to receive the details but we are optimistic that some funding will be directed to the clinic system. 

The coming year will bring significant change to our board.  Marcia Cummings, Mike Yale, Geoffrey Reaume, Jihan Abbas, and Kathie Brooks are not standing for re-election.  I have enjoyed working with all of them.  For those persons who will be joining the board for the first time, I look forward to learning from you, and working with you in the coming year.

Just because something is obvious does not mean it isn’t worth mentioning.  What makes ARCH what it is, is a dedicated staff of lawyers and support personnel.  They may be a small team, but they are very effective.  On behalf of the Board, and the membership I would like to thank them for their hard work and dedication.

I have finally come to the realization that change will always be with ARCH – that we will likely never be in simple “administrative” mode.  This is a good thing.  The very reason for ARCH is to change the status quo – the current situation, whether we consider the link between disability and poverty, or the barriers people with disabilities face in fully participating in the democratic process by being heard at all candidates meetings, or exercising a truly secret ballot, isn’t acceptable.  I am confident that our team at ARCH is up to anything we will face in the coming year.

Peter Wells,
President and Chair,
ARCH Disability Law Centre

Executive Director’s Report
October 2008 to September 2009

On behalf of the staff of ARCH, I am very pleased to report to our members on the work of ARCH during this past year. This is the first full 12- month report during my tenure as Executive Director. I present this to our members with much pride in and appreciation for the work of ARCH’s staff.  They are all to be commended for their fine work and engagement in providing legal aid services to our clients and to the disability community.  We have welcomed several new staff members in the second half of this reporting period.  They have all hit the ground running and I wish them continued success as part of the ARCH team.   The activities described below are testament to the hard work performed by this team to advance the rights of people with disabilities.

Again this year, our community is the beneficiary of the stalwart leadership and vision of our Board of Directors.  I am indebted to each of them for their stewardship of our legal clinic and their support for the work of ARCH.  Thank you to all.

Legal Services For Ontarians With Disabilities 

ARCH continues to provide a Summary Advice and Referral Service to Ontarians with Disabilities. In addition, ARCH has substantially increased its activities in providing additional legal services to individual callers if eligibility requirements are met. We refer to this portion of our service as Brief Services. The Summary Advice and Referral Service, and Brief Services, are provided directly by ARCH lawyers and articling students. 

Through ARCH’s Summary Advice and Referral Service, our staff provides summary advice, legal information, and referrals to people with disabilities across the province of Ontario. It is primarily a telephone service but other methods of communication, including in person meetings and email correspondence, are provided to accommodate disability. 

In the past year, ARCH has received calls concerning a vast array of legal issues. ARCH is increasingly receiving calls related to our identified priority areas which are: the provision of attendant care services, government funded services for persons with intellectual disabilities, primary and secondary education, and legal capacity issues. The majority of the calls received concern human rights matters, and human rights implications often arise in calls related to our priority areas as well. The majority of calls received which raised human rights issues are typically matters of employment, education, and government services. 

In the past year, ARCH’s activities providing Brief Services to Ontarians with disabilities has significantly increased. This service is primarily focused on ARCH’s priority areas but as with our Summary Advice and Referral Service, it is not limited to those areas. Unlike our Summary Advice and Referral Service however, other eligibility criteria may apply. Brief Services may include the provision of a legal opinion on a specific matter, contacting opposing parties on behalf of the individual to resolve the matter, and investigating the legal merits of a matter. The following are several examples of Brief Services provided by ARCH Lawyers in the past year:

•	Negotiating the reinstatement of attendant care services with Community Care Access Centres and other service providers;
•	Negotiating on behalf of an individual with a disability to resolve a complaint made against a disability service provider;
•	Negotiating on behalf of an individual who had unknowingly purchased a defective scooter for a new replacement;  and
•	Provide ongoing summary advice related to advocacy and procedural requirements to self-represented litigants pursuing an administrative adjudicative process at mediation and/or a hearing.

Litigation 

ARCH engages in test case litigation on behalf of groups and individuals. For ARCH, test cases are those whose outcomes will have broad impact on people with disabilities. In pursuing test cases, ARCH strives to provide decision makers with a disability perspective, with the goals of changing existing laws or advancing the rights of people with disabilities. Additionally, ARCH has taken on a larger role representing individuals in the current four core areas as outlined above. The following is a summary of some of ARCH’s litigation activities.

Accessible Elections 
ARCH has been asked to undertake constitutional litigation, pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to challenge aspects of the electoral system that are inaccessible for persons with disabilities.  ARCH will argue on behalf of the Alliance for Equality for Blind Canadians that persons with vision related disabilities should be able to vote in the same way as other Canadians. Instead of being assisted by someone else, the individual should be able to vote in a manner that is independent, private and verifiable. This would require electronic voting systems similar to those that are currently in use in the United States. This challenge would be commenced under s.3 (democratic rights) and s.15 (equality rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
ARCH has worked with the Alliance for Equality for Blind Canadians, using law reform methods, in an attempt to reach agreement with government to provide accessible voting machines.  Important, positive strides have been achieved in this way with respect to provincial and municipal elections.  The Alliance for Equality for Blind Canadians has decided that litigation is required as regards federal elections.  ARCH is pleased that the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto Law Faculty will provide valuable assistance in this important case.
Harris v. Minster of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada has refused leave to appeal the case of Harris v. Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. The case sought to determine the proper rights of people with disabilities under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter]. The case is about a mother, Cynthia Harris, who stayed out of the workforce to care for her son with a disability.  Later, Ms. Harris herself became a person with a disability and applied for a Disability Pension under the Canada Pension Plan [Plan]. She was denied this pension.

When determining whether a person has made sufficient contributions to qualify for a Disability Pension, the Plan protects parents’ eligibility for benefits by excluding the years a parent stays home to care for a child. This protection however, only extends to the care of children under the age of seven. Age seven was chosen as the cut-off because it is assumed that a child will be in school full-time by then, giving the parent the flexibility to return to the workforce. Ms. Harris’ son however, had a disability that prevented him from attending school; she was therefore, unable to return to work after her son turned seven. Because Ms. Harris stayed home to care for her son for longer than the Plan assumes a parent normally would, she was denied the Disability Pension to which she had contributed. 

Ms. Harris sought to challenge the Government’s decision to deny her a pension, arguing that it violates her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ARCH Disability Law Centre represented Ms Harris in this challenge to the Government’s decision and ARCH recently filed an application to the Supreme Court asking the Court to agree to hold a hearing to review the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which found that the Government’s decision did not violate Ms. Harris’ rights.

In January 2009, the three judges of the Federal Court of Appeal delivered three separate sets of reasons in the decision it released.  Justice Linden found that the Plan discriminated against Ms. Harris and other parents like her whose children could not fit into the presumption that they go to school full-time when they are seven.  Justice Linden found that the age seven cut off had a discriminatory impact on Ms. Harris and as a result, her rights that are to be protected by section 15 of the Charter had been violated.  Justice Evans disagreed with Justice Linden. He concluded that the Plan was not discriminatory.  Justice Evans determined that the purpose of the provision that allowed parents to exclude the years they stayed home was to benefit parents who temporarily leave employment to look after young children. Thus, parents of children under the age of seven, regardless of whether or not they have a disability, are eligible for this protection, while parents of children over the age of seven are not. He concluded that since Ms. Harris was treated like everyone other parent who had a child over age seven, she did not experience any discrimination. Justice Ryer concluded that Ms. Harris could not claim that she experienced discrimination because the years she stayed home until her son reached seven had been excluded from the calculations for eligibility just like all other parents. The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision can be read at: 
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2009/2009fca22/2009fca22.html. 

In June 2008, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in R. v. Kapp, which appeared to offer a simpler way of determining Charter of Rights cases.  In Kapp, the Supreme Court acknowledged the barriers encountered by those who have sought to promote their rights under the Charter over the past several years. The Supreme Court stated that the test to determine whether a right protected by the Charter had been violated was the test that it had set out in one of its earliest Charter of Rights decisions, Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia.  ARCH argued that the Federal Court of Appeal was to apply the test set out in Andrews in deciding Ms. Harris’ case.  Only Justice Linden refers to the Kapp decision in his reasons.

In reviewing the Court’s reasons in Kapp, the lawyers at ARCH found that the Supreme Court was not completely clear about the current test that is to be applied in a case where a person is claiming that his or her section 15 rights are violated. Lower Canadian courts are applying Kapp in different ways. It was therefore, ARCH’s hope that the Supreme Court would hear the Harris case to clarify how courts should determine Charter of Rights violations.

ARCH had hoped that the Supreme Court would hear the Harris case and have an opportunity to further clarify how courts should determine Charter of Rights violations. The purpose of the government program that Ms. Harris was challenging is to protect parents’ interests however, it has the adverse affect of excluding parents whose children have disabilities and who cannot fit in to society’s presumptions of normalcy. Had the case been heard, the Court’s answer would have been extremely important to people with disabilities and other equality seeking groups. People with disabilities and others have hoped that the Charter would protect them from discrimination and allow them to be recognized as equal members of Canadian society but for many this hope remains unrealized. 

An article on this decision written by Laurie Letheren and Dianne Wintermute will be published in the October 16, 2009 edition of Law Times.

Children and Family Services for York Region v. H.C., C.S. and R.C.

ARCH represented the Canadian Hearing Society as an intervenor in a child protection case before the Divisional Court. The case revolved around a young child whose parents are both deaf and communicate using American Sign Language (ASL). The trial judge found that after removing the child from her parents, the York Region Children’s Aid Society did not always provide a family support worker who could communicate with the parents in ASL and did not always provide ASL interpretation services. As a result, the Children’s Aid Society was not able to communicate appropriately with the parents. This negatively affected the Society’s understanding of the problems facing the family and the Society did not provide appropriate support to the parents. The trial judge ordered the child to be returned to the custody of her mother, and ordered the Society to assist the mother to reintegrate the child by providing a family support worker familiar with ASL. 

The Children’s Aid Society appealed, arguing that there was a provision in the Child and Family Services Act that removed the Court’s authority to order this accommodation. On behalf of the Canadian Hearing Society, ARCH argued that the Child and Family Services Act must be interpreted in a manner consistent with Ontario’s Human Rights Code, and that such an interpretation gives courts authority to order Children’s Aid Societies to provide accommodations to parents with disabilities. 

In its decision, the Divisional Court did not agree or disagree with ARCH’s arguments. Rather, the Court stated that it would leave this issue to be decided at another time. ARCH and the Canadian Hearing Society’s intervention in this case shed light on a significant legal barrier for people with disabilities who are involved with Children’s Aid Societies. The negative impact that results when Children’s Aid Societies do not provide appropriate accommodation to people with disabilities is tremendous, and courts must have the jurisdiction to remedy these situations.
	
Consent and Capacity Board Case (Re: D.K.)

ARCH represented D.K. at a hearing before the Consent and Capacity Board. D.K. acquired a brain injury and while in hospital, was found by hospital staff to be mentally incapable of consenting to admission to a long-term care facility. Against D.K.’s wishes, his substitute decision maker consented to D.K. being placed in a seniors’ residence. Due to D.K.’s family’s fears that he would escape from the residence and not be safe living on his own, he was placed in a locked unit. Consequently, D.K. has been confined to living on a floor where the other residents are several decades older than he and many have dementia. 

This case illustrates some of the key challenges in defending the capacity of persons found incapable. Initially ARCH had to fight to simply be recognized as counsel for D.K. since it was argued that he was not competent to retain or instruct counsel. 

On D.K.’s behalf, ARCH filed an application to the Consent and Capacity Board challenging the finding that D.K. was mentally incapable of making his own decisions about admission to a long-term care facility.  ARCH argued that D.K.’s acquired brain injury did not render him mentally incapable because he was able to understand information relevant to making a decision about where he wanted to live and he was able to appreciate the consequences of making a decision to leave the facility. ARCH also argued that the fact that D.K. disagreed with his family regarding the risk he would be taking by leaving the facility did not mean that he was incapable of making the decision. Although his family felt he needed to be protected and could not live independently, D.K. was entitled to make that decision for himself. The Board decided that D.K. was indeed capable.  
Highlights of Selected Program Initiatives 

Ontario's Poverty Reduction Strategy

In early 2008, the Ontario government announced its plan to form a Cabinet Committee on poverty reduction. This committee has been consulting with the community in an effort to develop poverty indicators and targets and to develop a strategy to reduce poverty in Ontario during its four year mandate. Last year we reported on workshops to bring members of the community together to encourage discussion about what is needed to reduce poverty in the community and to identify actions that can be taken in the community.  ARCH was asked to be a partner on this project in order to organize a workshop for people with disabilities and to work with the community to identify and work on issues that are specific to people with disabilities living in poverty. 

Early this year, the provincial government announced its poverty reduction strategy which sets a target of reducing poverty by 25 percent in 5 years. ARCH has been working with a group of people with disabilities who have identified themselves as people who have experienced poverty.  The group is working to ensure the government addresses the needs of people with disabilities in its poverty reduction strategy through meetings with government members, media spots and by working with other groups.

Supported Decision Making Project

ARCH researched and prepared a paper as the legal component of a project conducted by the Canadian Association for Community Living to address the concerns voiced by the disability community over the past 20 years that people with significant intellectual disabilities are particularly at risk of falling under one of the various forms of substitute decision making.  Disability organizations in Canada have called for an end to guardianship because of its violation of the right to self-determination.  The goal of the paper written by ARCH’s staff lawyer was to articulate a system for supported decision making and provide options for a legal framework which can support such a system.

Media Work

VoicePrint Interview
Laurie Letheren was asked to be a guest on VoicePrint for its Civic Holiday Special Program on August 3, 2009.  VoicePrint is a live internet news broadcasting service that serves “all Canadians, but particularly the millions of us who can't independently access printed materials - people who are: vision-restricted, learning disabled, mobility impaired, in need of literacy skills, Learning ESL or just getting older “.

Laurie was asked to discuss the obligations on those who run “tourist attractions” to provide services that are accessible to people with disabilities.

CBC Interview
Our Executive Director was interviewed by CBC Radio – The World at Six – on the impact of the recession on hiring of people with disabilities.  Specifically, the interview and broadcast following explored whether the current economic climate had amplified and increased discrimination against workers or job applicants with disabilities.

Law Times Article
Dianne Wintermute and Laurie Letheren wrote an article on the Harris v. Ministry of Human 
Resources and Skills Development case for Law Times.  The article describes the basis for Cynthia Harris’ challenge to the Ministry’s decision and explains why ARCH and other equality seeking groups had hoped that the Supreme Court of Canada would address the important issues raised in this case.

ARCH Needs Assessment Study

Over the past year ARCH has been conducting a needs assessment to ensure that the services and programs offered by the centre are meeting the needs of people with disabilities.  The assessment is a province-wide scan of people with disabilities and their current legal needs.  According to the survey that was developed for the study, and produced the quantitative data collected, the top five legal concerns were: income, employment issues, transportation, education and physical access.  Portions of the study were also devoted to improving awareness of ARCH among the disability community and suggestions on how ARCH could help to make legal services and programs increasingly accessible in individual communities.  The projected date for completion of this project is October, 2009. 

Telecommunications
ARCH continued its advocacy at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for the equality rights of persons with disabilities in accessing telecommunications products and services.  Over the past year the CRTC conducted an important public proceeding in order to try to begin to address the many outstanding concerns of the disability community with regard to the existing policy.  ARCH is pleased to report that as a result of the concerted efforts of committed organizations and individuals, including ARCH, the CRTC issued a policy directive which requires service providers to:

•	provide IP-relay – a computer-based extension of older MRS and TTY technology,
•	improve the accessibility of their customer service for persons with disabilities; particularly their websites and customer call centres; and,
•	offer at least one type of cell phone which meets the needs of persons who are blind and/or have moderate-to-severe mobility or cognitive disabilities.

In addition, the CRTC will continue to monitor the accessibility of telecommunications products and services in Canada, and initiate further proceedings as necessary. 
The link to the CRTC press release can be found at:  http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2009/r090721.htm 
 Access to Administrative Justice Project:  Capacity and Administrative Tribunals
Since October 2007, ARCH has worked on its Access to Administrative Justice initiative. The initiative has provided essential information about the consumer experience and legal context relating to capacity issues at administrative bodies, boards and tribunals.  The initiative is supported by the Law Foundation of Ontario and has produced two resource documents: 

1.	The Report, “Addressing the Capacity of Parties before Ontario’s Administrative Tribunals: Respecting Autonomy, Protecting Fairness and Efficiency”, summarizes the procedures available to persons with capacity issues before selected administrative tribunals in Ontario.  It sets out a variety of law reform options. The Report is written for the use by tribunals, policy makers, and organizations that represent persons with disabilities.
 
2.	The Practical Guide, “Addressing the Capacity of Parties before Ontario’s Administrative Tribunals: A Practical Guide for Ontario Lawyers”, is of practical use by advocates. It offers concrete strategies and options to lawyers representing people with capacity issues before administrative boards and tribunals. 

The two documents will be disseminated shortly to a wide range of tribunals, community legal clinics, community agencies/ partners, policy makers, advocates and persons with disabilities. In addition, ARCH has undertaken public legal education which is informed by our work on this project.

•	In May, ARCH co-sponsored with the Law Society of Upper Canada and presented at a forum on access to justice for persons with disabilities. 
•	In May, ARCH presented at the conference of the Canadian Council for Refugees regarding the appointment of designated representatives for persons with capacity issues before the Immigration and Refugee Board.  
•	ARCH has continued to work on the issue of the capacity of applicants and potential applicants to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, including with the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. 
•	Focusing on the capacity of complainants or potential complainants, ARCH provided submissions to the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Draft Protocol.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ARCH Support for People First during Community Living Workers’ Strike
For approximately eight weeks over the summer, Community Living workers went on strike in Lanark County. These workers provide services and supports to people with intellectual disabilities who live in Community Living group homes, and consequently many people with intellectual disabilities were affected by the strike. The striking workers picketed in front of the group homes, and People First of Lanark County, a consumer organization advocating on behalf of people with intellectual disabilities, was particularly concerned about the impact of this picketing on the people living in the group homes. 

ARCH provided legal and strategic advice to People First to support their advocacy efforts during the strike.  People First effectively made their concerns about the impact of the picket lines on residents of the group homes known, both to the union and to the Lanark county community. On August 28 the union withdrew its picket lines and on September 9 a tentative agreement was reached between the union and Community Living Association Lanark County.

Additional Law Reform Initiatives

ARCH staff participated in several law reform initiatives that included working with coalitions, making written and oral submissions to government committees and government officials. In many instances we see the suggestions made in the ARCH submissions reflected in the changes to legislation and policy. Some of these initiatives undertaken this year include:

•	Hosted a symposium with the Law Society of Upper Canada on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities. The panel included representatives from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, Legal Aid Ontario, the Ontario Courts Accessibility Committee, a disability law practitioner as well as ARCH.  Tess Sheldon discussed her work on the addressing the needs of people with capacity issues at administrative tribunals.

•	Oral and written feedback to the Minister of Community and Social Services on the Standards developed under the Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act.

•	Written submissions to the College of Physicians & Surgeons on its policies. Our submissions focus on physicians’ obligations to respect the human rights obligations to patients with disabilities. 

•	Written submissions to College of Physicians & Surgeons with respect to Third Party reports and the need to prepare useful reports for vulnerable patients, such as low income persons with disabilities who require reports to access income support and other forms of assistance. 

•	Collaborated with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Worker Adviser to ensure that human rights principles are applied to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board’s policies and decision making.

•	Presented at an international conference held at the University of Warsaw in Poland on inclusive education and the rights of students with disabilities. ARCH’s presentation promotes a human rights approach to education and an adoption of universal design principles. 
Public Legal Education Activities

ARCH delivered a number of educational sessions to lawyers and community legal workers in the clinic system on the issue of a client’s capacity to instruct a legal representative or capacity to participate in a legal proceeding. Much of the discussion focussed on the duty of legal representatives to accommodate their clients through the process of determining capacity while emphasizing that it is only in very rare situations where a client truly lacks capacity.  These discussions were very well received and there have been numerous calls from staff of other clinics to ARCH to discuss particular issues that the legal representative may be facing working with a client.

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

•	Presented at the conference "Accommodating Diversity - Stakeholder Perspectives" hosted by COBA (Conference of Ontario Boards and Agencies) on the experiences and legal context of people with disabilities in relation to tribunals and agencies. 

•	Presented at the “CLEO: Learn, Grow, Connect” conference on the Right to Know: Developing & Delivering Legal Info for People with Disabilities. 

•	Presented to several groups of people with intellectual disabilities and at community workshops for psychiatric consumer/survivors on their human rights. 

•	Presented to college students with disabilities preparing to look for work, on disclosing disability to employers and perspective employers. 

•	Presented at a workshop to clinic practitioners, private bar lawyers and others on using the Human Rights Code in workers’ compensation cases. 

•	Presented to a community forum on ARCH’s services, new service delivery model, law reform and test case litigation work. 

•	Presented at a community workshop for community members and lawyers on the appointment of designated representatives at the IRB and lessons for Ontario’s tribunals. 

•	Presented on a panel at the University of Windsor to lawyers, law students, law professors and judges on representing clients with disabilities. 

•	Presented at the conference “Employment Now: Diversity Planning for Inclusion” hosted by Canadian Council for Rehabilitation and Work on Accommodation in Employment for People with Invisible Disabilities. 

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.  ARCH Alert has a circulation of approximately 3,000 readers. It is distributed to people with disabilities, family members, government officials, disability organizations, the media, ARCH’s member organizations, the community legal clinics in Ontario, lawyers and legal organizations throughout the province and beyond. After the publication of each issue and at many public legal education events, people have expressed their appreciation for the information we provided and for the thorough and relevant content in the newsletter.   We frequently receive requests to reprint articles or post them on websites.  Some of the key issues we covered in this reporting year were:

•	ARCH’s Participation at the 2008 National Forum on Advancing the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities
•	Release of the 2008 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS)
•	Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Strategy
•	Standards Released Under the AODA
•	Important Transportation Cases
•	Release of Decision and Changes in Practice for People with Addictions Who are Trying to Access Ontario Disability Support Plan Benefits

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. The work of all of these committees is to advance access to justice for the poor in Ontario and to ensure their voices are heard by governors, policy and decision makers. Examples of committees staff were members of during the year include:  
Law Society of Upper Canada’s Equity Advisory Group [EAG], 
Ontario Disability Support Plan Action Coalition,
Ontario Disability Support Plan Access Committee,
Clinic Human Rights Working Group,
Association of Community Legal Clinics of Ontario Executive,
Knowledge Management Group, 
Lawyers & Community Legal Workers New to the Clinic System,
Toronto Injured Workers’ Action Group,
Toronto Legal Clinic Management Group,
Toronto Support Staff Association,
Ontario Legal Clinics’ Network on Workers’ Compensation

ARCH’s Work on Interclinic Workgroups

In the past 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. 

An ARCH staff member acts as co-chair of the Steering Committee on Social Assistance [SCSA] which 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. 

ARCH is a member of the Ontario Disability Support Program [ODSP] Action Coalition (Action Coalition) and the Access Subcommittee of the Coalition.  The 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 2008 to 2009 focused on raising the profile of people with disabilities and ensuring that their particular needs are addressed by the Ontario Government in its commitment to poverty reduction, assisting recipients to raise public awareness of the inadequacies of the Ontario Disability Support Plan and the barriers people with disabilities experience in accessing the Program, The activities of the coalition include creating and disseminating materials on ODSP and consulting with the provincial government in order to promote improvements to the Program. 

ARCH is a member of the Clinic Working Group on Human Rights.  Members of the group are clinic legal staff who practice human rights law.  The group engages with staff of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and the Human Rights Tribunal to ensure that the needs of our clients are heard and understood by those involved in developing policies and practices for service delivery by the Centre and the Tribunal. 

Association of Community Legal Clinics of Ontario

ARCH remains an active member of the Association of Committee Legal Clinics of Ontario and is represented on the ACLCO’s executive.  This work focuses on ensuring the continued vitality of Ontario’s poverty law services.  The ACLCO has focused this year on bringing the voice of community legal clinics to its funder and to government as plans are formulated to transform legal aid in Ontario. Specifically, the ACLCO has commenced an inter-clinic process to articulate a future for clinics that ensures adherence to the fundamental principles of clinics as independent, community based and governed organizations, providing a broad range of legal services, receiving secure core funding to do our work, and working together as a provincial system.

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.  Clinics are at the forefront of urging LAO to undertake initiatives that will enhance and broaden the reach of the delivery of legal services, particularly to those in marginalized and isolated communities.

ARCH has been advocating for more formal recognition of the necessity of removing barriers and addressing access and equity issues among all those institutions charged with delivering legal aid services in Ontario.  
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 administrative staff not funded by Legal Aid Ontario. 
The City of Toronto has also provided ARCH with an Access and Equity Grant which is being used to translate our Mental Health Fact Sheets into several languages. 

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 services, library purchases, disability accommodation, and staff training.  
We received funding from the Law Foundation’s Law and Innovation Fund to survey Ontario’s Administrative Tribunals to determine what rules are in place and what processes are used to address the issue of barriers faced by persons with disabilities in accessing administrative justice. 

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 thirteen 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 sources from year to year for the remaining positions: 1 articling student, 1 project lawyer, ½ support staff position and a Community Legal 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 2008 and 2009 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 work. 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: 

•	Christopher Taylor, Barrister and Solicitor
•	Jim Tobias, technology and disability expert
•	Jutta Treviranus, Director, Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
•	Phyllis Gordon, Barrister and Solicitor
•	Monica Ackermann, Board Member
•	Linda Rothstein and Andrew Lewis, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
•	James Cameron, Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP
•	Mesha Donaldson, Summer Student
•	Rakhee Sapra, Volunteer Student
•	Kathryn Culek, Articling Student
•	Thomas Rajan, Articling Student
•	Amy Spady, Articling Student
•	John Westdal, Sevigny Westdal LLP
•	Charles Layton, Law Student
•	Rochelle Grabenheimer, Personal Care Worker
•	Deena Jacobs, Volunteer Student

IVANA PETRICONE 
Executive Director

	Member Organizations 2009
	AIDS Action Now!
	Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians (AEBC)
	Autism Ontario
	BALANCE for Blind Adults
	Bob Rumball Association for the Deaf
	Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
	Canadian Diabetes Association - GTA Regional Leadership Centre
	Canadian Down Syndrome Society
	Canadian Hard of Hearing Association
	Canadian Mental Health Association, Ontario
	Canadian Paraplegic Association Ontario
	CNIB - Ontario Division
	Coalition for Persons with Disabilities
	Community Living Ontario
	Down Syndrome Association of Toronto
	Easter Seals Canada
	Easter Seals Ontario
	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 - Ontario Branch
	Learning Disabilities Association of Halton
	Low Vision Association of Ontario
	Margaret Frazer House
	Marsha Forest Centre
	Meta Centre
	Mood Disorders Association of Ontario
	Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
	Muscular Dystrophy Canada
	National Educational Association of Disabled Students
	National Network for Mental Health
	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
	Psychiatric Survivor Archives, Toronto
	REENA
	Rotary Cheshire Homes
	Sound Times Support Services
	Spina Bifida & Hydrocephalus Association of Ontario
	Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada
	The ALS Society of Ontario
	The Arthritis Society
	The Association for the Neurologically Disabled of Canada (A.N.D.)
	The Canadian Hearing Society
	The Independent Living Centre London and Area (ILCLA)
	Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada
	Transportation Action Now!

ARCH Staff List

Staff and Position
Ivana Petricone , Executive Director 
Amanda Ward , Information/Referral Worker
Amy Spady , Articling Student 
Dianne Wintermute , Staff Lawyer
Doreen Way , Office Manager
Ed Montigny (contract), Staff Lawyer
Kerri Joffe, Staff Lawyer
Lana Kerzner (on leave), Staff Lawyer 
Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer
Robert Lattanzio, Staff Lawyer 
Tess Sheldon (contract), Staff Lawyer
Theresa Sciberras, Program and Litigation Assistant
Thomas Rajan, Articling Student
Yangtzee  Tamang, Operations and Litigation Assistant

A Special Thanks to This Year's Supporters

Legal Aid Ontario

Alcohol and Gaming Commission

City of Toronto - Community Services Grants Program

City of Toronto - Access and Equity Program

Law Society of Upper Canada - Equity Department

Human Resources and Social Development Canada

Blake Cassels and Graydon LLP

Paliare Roland

And all individual donors - Thank You!