Annual Report
2009-2010

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

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, 2009 – March 31, 2010

We have continued as an organization to build on the foundations we have been putting in place.  We continue to work at developing and improving our connections to the community we serve, and to incorporate into our practices the results of the needs assessment we completed in the past year.  The roll out of our new website was one significant step in these efforts.  This year we are engaged in updating our strategic plan.  As I said a year ago, 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 part of my report will also impart a feeling of déja vu to those of you in attendance last year.  Funding from Legal Aid Ontario is going to change in ways we cannot fully predict.  Nevertheless, it is clear that both our reporting to LAO and the manner in which we are funded will be different within a year or two.  As a board we have spent much of our time attempting as best we can to manage that change and ensure that ARCH will be there and positioned to help people with disabilities deal with the problems they face.  Regardless of the challenges that this change will bring, we are determined that those who depend upon ARCH will not be disappointed.

While all of this poses challenges for ARCH, we are, after all, in the change business.  While change brings with it the stress of adapting, it can also bring with it opportunity.  I must tell you that the adaptability of ARCH staff, and their focus on serving our community with the resources at hand is remarkable.  We recognize that it has not been easy.  On behalf of the board I want to thank each and every one of them for their hard work and dedication.

Having told you of our challenges, and hinted at our advantages, I want to focus briefly on more of our advantages.  ARCH is on a sound financial footing.  We have a strong leader in our Executive Director.  We have an outstanding staff.  We have a plan, and we are working to improve it during the strategic planning process.  As an organization, we are poised to take on whatever challenges we will face in the coming years.

Peter Wells,
President and Chair,
ARCH Disability Law Centre

Executive Director’s Report
October 2009 to September 2010

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 year has seen several changes at ARCH.  We have revised our by-laws, acquired new staff and taken on several important projects on behalf of the disability community. ARCH’s staff continue to provide legal services and support to our community of people with disabilities with commitment and excellence. I thank each of them for their fine work and dedication.

ARCH’s Board of Directors continues to provide the leadership, governance and vision that maintain our organizational health and stability. Most importantly, our Board keeps us rooted and responsive to the community we are mandated to serve.  I am grateful to each of them for this guidance and for their unwavering commitment to the mission of ARCH.

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’s activities providing Brief Services to Ontarians with disabilities has continued to increase. 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. Brief Services may include the provision of a legal opinion on a specific matter, negotiating with service providers or 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:

•	assisted a capable person to have the PGT removed as their guardian for property;

•	assisted a person to obtain an accounting of his affairs from his former attorney for property and hold the attorney accountable for the manner in which it managed his money and other affairs;

•	provided ongoing legal advice and assistance regarding an application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination in the receipt of services based on a disability;

•	assisted a person to file a complaint against the police for discrimination on the basis of mental health disability;

•	provided ongoing legal advice and assistance regarding an application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination in the workplace based on disability;

•	provided representation to an individual whose attendant care services were being withdrawn by the Community Care Access Centre and the attendant care service provider. ARCH successfully negotiated the reinstatement of services on behalf of the client;

•	provided ongoing assistance to an individual, who was denied para-transit services and was unsuccessful in appealing that decision, but subsequently, successfully advocated for eligibility. 

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 and/or advancing the rights of people with disabilities. Additionally, ARCH has taken on a larger role representing individuals in the current four priority areas as outlined above. The following is a summary of some of ARCH’s litigation activities.

Accessible Elections 

On March 17, 2008, Election Day in the federal by-election in the downtown riding of Toronto Centre, Peter Hughes, a voter with a physical disability, had to go down a set of stairs "on the seat of his pants" in order to cast his ballot. Once again on October 14, 2008, the general election, he experienced barriers due to inaccessibility at the same polling station, St. Basil's Church. Mr. Hughes made a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission against Elections Canada about the barriers he encountered. ARCH acted for the Council of Canadians with Disability in its role as interested party in the case of James Peter Hughes and Canadian Human Rights Commission and Elections Canada and Council of Canadians with Disabilities, heard before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in October, 2010. 

On behalf of the CCD, ARCH shared with the Tribunal CCD’s views on remedies that would benefit voters with disabilities in future elections. 

In a ground-breaking decision, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered Elections Canada to cease situating polling stations in locations that do not provide barrier-free access. The decision also compels Elections Canada to alter a number of its practices related to complaints, consultation, leasing, policies and guidelines, signage, and training. For example, Elections Canada has been ordered to revise its standard lease for polling stations to include the requirement that the leased premises provide level access and be barrier-free.  The Tribunal also ordered Elections Canada to implement a process for receiving, recording and processing verbal and written complaints about lack of accessibility. The number of complaints received about accessibility will be publicly reported via Elections Canada's CEO's post-election report to Parliament.  Elections Canada was also ordered to formulate a plan for greater consultation with voters with disabilities and disability groups.

Litigation Guardians at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Yuill v. Canadian Union of Public Employees

ARCH has been granted leave to intervene in this case, which is currently before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The applicant is a man who has intellectual and physical disabilities, and is not mentally capable of instructing a lawyer or proceeding with the litigation. The applicant’s sister has asked the Tribunal to allow her to act as his litigation guardian, meaning that she would make decisions about the human rights case and instruct a lawyer on behalf of her brother. Currently, the Tribunal does not have any rules or procedures that enable it to appoint or allow litigation guardians to act on behalf of parties who are incapable. The Tribunal’s Practice Directions instruct parties to go to court to have a litigation guardian appointed, however it is not absolutely clear that courts are legally able to appoint litigation guardians for tribunal proceedings. In addition, going to court can be very costly, often requires a lawyer’s services, and can delay the human rights case. This presents a barrier for people with disabilities who, because of their disability, are not mentally capable of bringing a human rights case. Without a litigation guardian they are prevented from making a human rights claim.

As an intervenor in the case, ARCH will argue that the Human Rights Tribunal should have a process in place to remove this barrier and ensure that all people with disabilities are able to exercise their legal capacity. Drawing on ARCH’s 2009 report, Addressing the Capacity of Parties before Ontario’s Administrative Tribunals: Respecting Autonomy, Protecting Fairness and Efficiency, ARCH will make submissions about a process by which the Tribunal can appoint or allow litigation guardians to act for incapable applicants. 

Terminating Guardianship 

ARCH was able to help a client assert his right to make decisions concerning his property. Our client is a middle aged man with an intellectual disability who had been declared incapable of managing his property by a court order in 1994. At the same time, a family friend was appointed ‘committee of the estate’ giving this person the power to control our client’s finances. 

After only a few years the relationship between our client and his ‘committee of the estate’ broke down. The ‘committee of the estate’ (now known as Guardian of Property) basically ceased to carry out her responsibilities. Nevertheless, the Guardian retained the legal authority to control the client’s finances. 

The local Community Living staff stepped in to assist our client and help him establish himself in a secure and supportive environment. Within a short time, he was working nearly full-time and had developed a support network that helped him manage his income and pay his bills. Our client came to ARCH to help him terminate the guardianship for property. 

Working with the Public Guardian and Trustee, ARCH was able to arrange to have this client assessed as to his capacity to manage property. The assessor agreed that as long as our client was functioning within the support network he had developed, he was capable to manage his own property. 

This case is a good example of how supported decision making can function to ensure that a person with a disability can maintain control over their own finances as long as there are people in place to provide support and guidance. To be found capable a person does not have to be able to carry out all functions independently. A person can have limitations and yet remain capable. A person is capable of managing their own affairs as long as they are aware of their limitations and understand the need to seek assistance from reliable persons. 

This positive assessment allowed ARCH to go to court and obtain an order declaring the client capable to manage his property and an order terminating the guardianship of property. 

Conflict between Person without Capacity and Attorney for Property

This case highlights some of the issues that can arise when attorneys for property refuse to carry out their obligations and responsibilities under the Substitute Decisions Act. 

Our client lives in a long-term care facility. He wanted his attorney for property to provide him with a small monthly allowance to ensure he had spending money to purchase juice and muffins when he went for walks in the neighbourhood. His attorney for property refused to provide him with any spending money until he agreed to take certain medications. In the meantime, the client decided that he wanted to know how much money he had, so he could have a better idea of whether his attorney could afford to provide him with the allowance he sought. Although the client had a clear legal right to obtain an accounting from his attorney for property, his attorney refused to comply. 

The attorney for property had a lawyer who argued that, because the client was incapable of making financial decisions, his attorney for property had no obligation to provide an accounting to him. This statement is entirely contrary to the provisions of the Substitute Decisions Act. 

It became apparent that the only way to assert the client’s right to an accounting was to go to court to obtain a court order forcing the attorney for property to pass her accounts. This would involve a lengthy and complex process in Superior Court. 

This case highlights the challenges an incapable person can face when attempting to assert their rights under the Substitute Decisions Act. Attorneys for property can easily thwart an incapable person’s attempts to assert their rights by simply refusing to co-operate leaving the incapable person with no recourse other than pursuing their attorney for property in the Superior Court of Justice. Given the complexity of Superior Court procedure and the costs involved, it is unrealistic to expect many incapable people to do so. The result is that, despite the protections offered by the Substitute Decisions Act, an incapable person often has little means of defending himself or herself from an attorney for property who fails to carry out their obligations and responsibilities. 

In our client’s case, logic prevailed and the attorney for property decided to co-operate with the client and provide him an opportunity to review the financial accounts and the cash allowance he sought.  Had our client not been able to access the services of ARCH and threaten court action, it is not clear the situation would have been resolved satisfactorily for the person with a disability. 

Complex Disabilities
S. v. Director, Income Maintenance Branch, Ministry of Community and Social Services

ARCH successfully negotiated a positive settlement for a client in two appeals before the Social Benefits Tribunal, which included the reinstatement of Ontario Disability Support Program Benefits.  The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program decided that our client was in an overpayment situation and also that our client was ineligible for ODSP benefits. Our client has a complex disability which requires equally complex and expensive treatment not available in Canada. ARCH argued that the individual nature and complexity of our client’s disability and treatment is at the heart of the events that occurred which allegedly made her ineligible and should be considered at the outset. 

Addressing the section 15 (2) defence to Charter challenges
ARCH represents the Canadian Association for Community Living in its application for leave to intervene on the case of Alberta v. Cunningham.  The Supreme Court will hear this case in December 2010. The case raises significant issues about the interpretation and application of Section 15(2) of the Charter.  ARCH, on behalf of the CACL, hopes that the Supreme Court of Canada will allow its motion to intervene in this important case.  The issues raised in this appeal are of importance to people with disabilities and many other equality seeking groups as government defendants are increasingly using Section 15(2) to defend against claims of Charter violations by people who rely on government services.  

Highlights of Selected Program Initiatives 

Enforcing the Rights of People with Disabilities in the Developmental Services System 

ARCH was commissioned by the Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) to write a research paper as part of the Loco’s project entitled “The Law as it Affects Persons with Disabilities”.  ARCH’s paper discusses the impact that new developmental services legislation will have on people with intellectual disabilities who receive publicly-funded services and supports from the Ontario government.  In 2008, Ontario passed the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act (“Social Inclusion Act”).  The Social Inclusion Act is intended to shift Ontario’s developmental services sector away from institutionalized care and towards a system of services and supports that will enable people with intellectual disabilities to exercise more independence, have greater decision-making power over their day-to-day lives, and ultimately live as full citizens in communities of their choosing.   ARCH’s report asserts that there are significant limitations to the new legislation that will prevent it from achieving its much-needed goal of transforming Ontario’s developmental services sector.  Two of these limitations are: the absence in the legislation of rights for people with intellectual disabilities when they receive developmental services and supports; and the lack of robust mechanisms to enforce such rights. Drawing on principles of a human rights-based approach as well as the input of people with intellectual disabilities and stakeholders in the developmental services sector, ARCH’s paper recommends that four key elements should be put into place: rights education; stronger legislative requirements concerning complaint procedures; the creation of an appeal mechanism; and the establishment of peer advocacy committees.  
ARCH’s paper can be found on our website in the publications section.  ARCH gratefully acknowledges the support of the Law Commission of Ontario, as well as the individuals, groups and organizations that participated in community consultations for this project.

Supported Decision Making 
On behalf of the Canadian Association for Community Living, ARCH prepared a research paper entitled, “Embracing Supported Decision Making: Foundations for a New Beginning” in March 2009.  The Paper reviews the legislative framework that governs legal capacity in Canada.  It offers a summary of legislation, jurisprudence and international law that may lend support to a supportive decision making framework in Canada. 

ARCH was invited to speak at the "International Forum on Legal Capacity and Supported Decision Making" which was held in Vancouver on April 15 and 16, 2010. The forum was convened in response to victory gained through the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognizing, for the first time in international law, a right to make one's own decisions in life, without discrimination on the basis of disability. The Convention also requires that governments ensure people have access to the supports they need to exercise their right to make their own decisions, and that others provide reasonable accommodations in the decision-making process. This was seen as a huge gain in the intellectual disability community.

Delegates from Europe, Australia and Canada as well as representatives from various international organizations engaged in a dialogue about the status of the rights of people with disabilities with respect to the recognition of their right to make decisions for themselves. The discussion demonstrated how greatly varied a person's rights can be from country to country. Much of the discussion focussed on the concept of supported decision making which, even within Canada, can have various meanings and degrees of recognition. Many speakers, including Laurie Letheren from ARCH, discussed the need to exercise caution in pushing the concept of supported decision making to the point where it would be interpreted by many to be substitute decision making before having in place all the necessary safeguards to protect an individual's rights.  Laurie Letheren gave an overview of the current climate in Ontario's courts and tribunals on the issue of capacity.  Laurie gave examples of recent decisions that reflect misconceptions of capacity to make one’s own decisions and reflect a lack of appropriate protections and procedures for those who may be found to lack capacity to pursue their rights through a court or tribunal process. It is hoped that the dialogue commenced at this Forum will continue.

The Law as it Affects Persons with Disabilities - A Law Reform Project of the Law Commission of Ontario
The Law Commission of Ontario (the LCO) is working on a project to address the question of how we ensure that the law takes into account the everyday lives of persons with disabilities.  We are very pleased that ARCH has been able to contribute to this project in several key roles.

The law may affect almost every aspect of the lives of persons with disabilities. Anti-discrimination protections and minimum physical accessibility requirements, education for children with disabilities, the Ontario Disability Support Program, accommodation for the needs of workers with disabilities, disabled parking permits and involuntary treatment for persons with psychiatric disabilities: these are just a few examples of areas where the law directly affects persons with disabilities.  
The law as it relates to persons with disabilities is confusing and complex. Too often, the needs and circumstances of persons with disabilities are not taken into account when laws are developed and implemented. The LCO is developing a framework for evaluating and reforming the law, with the goal of removing the confusion and making the law more responsive to what persons with disabilities really experience. 

The LCO aims to create a principle-based tool to help legislators and policy-makers consider the interests, legal rights and needs of persons with disabilities in the design of laws and policies.  This tool is intended to help legislators and policy-makers simplify the law and increase access to justice for persons with disabilities.

The LCO began work on this project in 2009. ARCH has participated from the outset in this project at the invitation of the LCO.  We began by making an initial submission to the LCO in response to its consultation on laws as they affect persons with disabilities. This work is guided by an Advisory Group made up of representatives of government, academia and organizations working with or for persons with disabilities. ARCH is pleased to serve on the Advisory Group.

The LCO has funded seven research papers by experts in the area of disability and the law, as well as conducting considerable research of our own. ARCH has been funded by the LCO to prepare two research papers:  the one referred to above: Enforcement Mechanisms in Ontario’s New Developmental Services System, and a paper dealing with the defence to Charter Challenges under section 15 (2), entitled The Shield Becomes the Sword: the Expansion of the Ameliorative Program Defence to Programs that Support Persons with Disabilities.

Throughout, the LCO has consulted with the community on priorities, methodology and key issues. In the spring of 2010, the LCO held 17 focus group discussions in London, Ottawa, Toronto, Owen Sound and Thunder Bay.  The consultations helped the LCO better understand how the law works or does not work for persons with disabilities, as well as identifying key themes and issues that arise in the relationship of persons with disabilities with the law. In meetings with well over 100 persons who live with various disabilities and over 60 representatives from organizations working with or on behalf of persons with disabilities, the LCO heard that:

•	persons with disabilities are often treated with disrespect and endure dehumanizing processes to access supports and services;
•	services offered to persons with disabilities often fail to take into account the needs of the whole person, so that those with complex needs fall through the cracks;
•	persons with disabilities are rarely consulted about the design and implementation of programs and policies that affect their lives;
•	there are multiple barriers to accessing information about rights and relevant programs and services;
•	persons with disabilities may be dissuaded from complaining about the violation of their rights by vulnerability and the fear of retribution;
•	the high level of poverty among persons with disabilities itself creates barriers to accessing the law; and
•	those who live at the intersection of disability and gender, race or sexual orientation experience unique additional barriers.

The LCO is now developing a Consultation Paper, to be released in the fall of 2010. This Paper will identify issues and directions based on what the LCO has heard to-date, and will seek input from the disability community, government, experts and others, in preparation for the development of the Interim Final Report and Final Reports in 2011.

Access to Administrative Justice Project:  Capacity and Administrative Tribunals
In December 2009, ARCH released its Report entitled “Addressing the Capacity of Parties before Ontario’s Administrative Tribunals: Promoting Autonomy and Preserving Fairness” and its associated Practical Guide.  The Report and the Practical Guide summarize the procedures available to people with capacity issues before selected administrative tribunals in Ontario and sets out a variety of law reform options. The Report and the Practical Guide were disseminated to tribunals, the Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators (SOAR), the Human Rights Practice Advisory Committee and the Attorney General of Ontario.   Presentations were made to the Canadian Bar Association’s Administrative Law Section (November 2009), the Toronto Clinic Training Conference (October 2009).  ARCH continues to work with Ontario tribunals to implement the recommendations of the Report.   In particular, ARCH staff have played a significant role in organizing a “Capacity Working Group” at the Ontario Bar Association. The group includes lawyers from across Ontario who have an interest in ensuring that clear processes and procedures are in place to enhance the ability of persons with capacity issues to seek justice before courts and tribunals. The group is currently exploring ways of ensuring that administrative tribunals have the resources and powers necessary to deal effectively with various capacity issues. 

ARCH Disability Law Breakfast Club

In the fall of 2009, ARCH hosted its inaugural “breakfast” club for caseworkers from community legal clinics around the province.  Our idea was to deal with certain disability law related topics, to familiarize and get other clinic staff interested in the work we do. We also saw this initiative as part of your community development strategy – to touch base with all people around the province, and to determine whether there were regional or provincial systemic issues that ARCH should be aware of.  Finally, we wanted clinic caseworkers to know that ARCH staff is available for consultations, or even co-counsel arrangements, should the need or interest arise.

We believe that the Breakfast Club has been a wonderful success.  We have covered a wide variety of topics – from the Client Service Standards under the AODA and what will be expected of clinics come 2012; capacity issues before administrative tribunals, which are always a difficult topic for lawyers to grapple with; and even a guest speaker from the new Ontario Police Independent Review Board.

Each session we held attracted approximately 20 or more caseworkers.  We made use of webinar formats to share information with participants who could not attend in person, and received grateful feedback, as it is often difficult for those on the telephone to keep up with speakers if they don’t have materials in front of them.

ARCH is pleased to continue this programme in the coming year, where we hope to be able to touch on issues that will introduce our clinic colleagues to more of the in-depth work that ARCH does, in order to better develop our province wide partnerships. 

Chile-Canada Human Rights Conference, Santiago, Chile (March 29, 2010)

Ed Montigny of ARCH was invited to speak about human rights and persons with disabilities in Ontario at a Chile-Canada Human Rights Conference entitled ‘Human Rights: New Directions Toward a Democratic Society: Experiences from Canada and Chile”, sponsored by the Canadian Embassy in Chile and the Centre for International Studies at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. The conference was intended to compare and contrast policies and practices in Canada and Chile in the areas of disability, immigration and aboriginal rights. Other speakers included Sebastien Grammond, Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa; Maria Soledad Cisternas, member of the United Nations committee of experts on the rights of persons with disabilities and Elizabeth Patterson a native rights lawyer from Montreal.

The conference was attended by Sarah Fontaine-Smith, the Canadian Ambassador to Chile, and Juan Emilio Cheyre, Director of the Centre for International Studies and the former Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean army who did much to promote democracy and the development human rights in Chile. Papers from the conference will be published (in Spanish) as a special edition of “Cuadernos de Difusion”, a journal of the Centre for International Studies.

Community Development

Symposium on Parenting with a Disability & the Legal System

ARCH partnered with ERDCO (Ethno-racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario) and the Law Society of Upper Canada to produce a series of presentations on legal issues of relevance to parents with disabilities. Ed Montigny of ARCH sat on the organizing committee. The event was chaired by Rabia Khedr of ERDCO with Ing Wong-Ward of the CBC as keynote speaker. The event was very well attended and featured speakers from Canada and the United States, who shared their legal expertise and personal accounts. Kerri Joffe of ARCH participated on a panel dealing with ‘challenges and solutions in child custody’ and delivered a presentation that discussed the law relating to the extent to which a judge can require the Children’s Aid Society to accommodate parents’ disabilities. The event was well attended and interest levels indicated that this is an area worth further exploration. 

Human Rights in Education

ARCH delivered a series of workshops to new Canadians in a number of schools regarding human rights and education as part of the Ready for School Connects program delivered by East York East Toronto Family Resources Organization. 

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:

Unacceptable waiting lists for Vital Supports and Services 
ARCH has observed an alarming and growing trend of people with intellectual disabilities being unable to afford vital supports and services that facilitate their development, independence and participation in the community.   ARCH met with the Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services, accompanied by a number of families, to address these concerns and specifically, the long waitlists to access funding programs such as the Passport program and Special Services at Home for adults with intellectual disabilities. ARCH is currently working with community partners to hear from individuals with intellectual disabilities and their families across the province and collect their stories. ARCH has also produced a lobby kit to assist families with their own self advocacy efforts on this issue. 

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 
ARCH made submissions to the Ontario Government on the Initial Proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard, made pursuant to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.  ARCH's submission includes: the need for clarity regarding the Ontario Human Rights Code, concerns about the import of Code defences, and the need to include principles of Universal Design.

ARCH presented on a panel discussion hosted by the Ontario Bar Association regarding the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Customer Service Standard. In addition, one of our staff lawyers delivered a presentation on human rights and accessibility in Ontario during an event hosted by the MS Society of Canada, Ontario Division, in conjunction with its Annual General Meeting. 

ARCH facilitated a community meeting and provided oral and written submissions to Charles Beer as part of the independent review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Services for People with Intellectual Disabilities
ARCH made written submissions to the Ministry of Community and Social Services on regulations regarding steps that must be taken by developmental services agencies and providers of other supports for people with intellectual disabilities to ensure the quality of these services and supports. The Ontario Human Rights Commission wrote to the Ministry of Community and Social Services in support of many of the recommendations made by ARCH. 

Inclusive Education
ARCH staff lawyers, Kerri Joffe and Robert Lattanzio, wrote and presented a paper at a national education law conference in Calgary. The paper analyzed provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and discussed the implications of these provisions for inclusive education. 

Advocating for those who encounter the Mental Health System
Dianne Wintermute and Tess Sheldon of ARCH prepared submissions for the Ontario Human Rights Commission as it examined the barriers experienced by persons with mental health issues, from an equality rights perspective. ARCH submitted that mental health disabilities are woven throughout all issues covered by the Code, and cannot be siloed off into a discreet category.  Our lawyers then participated in two subsequent consultations held by the Commission following our formal submissions.

Our lawyers also participated in a Community Response Team for the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions 10 year Strategy: Every Door is an Open Door. ARCH asked our community for stories, conducted a consultation and attended the Select Committee’s consultation.

Dianne Wintermute of ARCH prepared a submission for the LeSage Review, specifically dealing with how the Toronto Community Housing eviction policies could impact on persons with disabilities.  The review conducted by the Honourable Patrick LeSage resulted in an action plan by Toronto Community Housing focusing on improvements to its policies and procedures for preventing evictions and responding to vulnerable tenants.

Public Legal Education Activities

ARCH delivered a number of educational sessions to continue our goal to ensure that people with disabilities and those who represent them are aware of their rights and are enabled in their enforcement.   The following are examples of some of these sessions delivered during this past year.

•	a workshop for teenagers with physical disabilities regarding human rights, discrimination and self-advocacy. 

•	presentation at the March of Dimes’ national Leaders’ Conference on federal human rights law and accommodation of disability in the workplace.

•	in partnership with Students for Barrier Free Access, we organized and presented a workshop for university students with disabilities on human rights law and education. 

•	several presentations to legal aid clinics regarding the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service.
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 3,300 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 past year were:

•	Canada’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
•	Accessible voting issues, including new elections legislation and a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal requiring Elections Canada to provide barrier-free access to polling stations
•	Public consultation regarding Charles Beer’s independent review of the AODA
•	Update on service animal law in Ontario
•	Class action proceedings, including the Huronia Regional Centre Class Action, the Sheila Morrison School Class Action, and a settlement in the Woodlands School Class Action
•	Celebration of the 5th annual International Day of People with Disabilities
•	The launch of legal action on discriminatory zoning by-laws
•	Harmonized Sales Tax in Ontario

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 these committees on which ARCH staff participated 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. 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 the Ministry of the Attorney General as plans are formulated to transform legal aid in Ontario. Specifically, the ACLCO has commenced an inter-clinic process to articulate strategic goals for clinics that ensure 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 Service Partnership 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 was used to translate our Mental Health Fact Sheets into several languages and a new grant which will be used to assist ARCH with its outreach activities. 

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. 
The Law Commission of Ontario funded ARCH to prepare two research papers to support the LCO’s law reform project on The Law as it Affects Persons with Disabilities.
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 sources from year to year for the remaining positions: 1 articling student, 1 project lawyer and a ½ support staff position. 
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 2009 and 2010 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 acknowledges the contributions of the following people and organizations: 

•	Phyllis Gordon, Barrister and Solicitor 
•	Christopher Taylor, Barrister and Solicitor 
•	Jim Tobias, technology and disability expert 
•	Jutta Treviranus, Director, Adaptive Technology Resource Centre 
•	Esme Froggett, Law Student 
•	Caroline Gilchrist, Law Student
•	Dana Lue, Law Student
•	Martina Nikolic, Law Student
•	Nasreen Patel, Law Student
•	Joseph Sussman, Law Student
•	Michael Dytyniak, Law Student
•	All those who participated in focus groups to assist us in preparing the research papers for the Law Commission of Ontario
•	Alberta PDD Program Edmonton Region Community Board
•	California Area Board VII
•	Community Living British Columbia
•	Community Living Welland Pelham and Brock University 3 Rs Project: Rights, Respect & Responsibility
•	Council of Community Living Ontario
•	Greater Moncton Association for Community Living
•	People First of Lanark County
•	People First New Brunswick
•	People First of Ontario
•	Quebec Service Quality and Complaints Commissioner
•	West Montreal Rehabilitation Centre

IVANA PETRICONE 
Executive Director

ARCH Staff List

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

A Special Thanks to This Year's Supporters

Legal Aid Ontario
Alcohol and Gaming Commission (through Break Open Ticket  Sales)
Blake Cassels and Graydon LLP
City of Toronto - Community Services Grants Program
City of Toronto - Access and Equity Program
Human Resources and Social Development Canada www.hrsdc.gc.ca  
Law Society of Upper Canada - Equity Department
Osgoode Hall Law School – York University
Pro Bono Students Canada
Sevigny Westdal LLP
University of Ottawa – Faculty of Law

And all individual donors - Thank You!