Annual Report
2011-2012

110-425 Bloor Street East
Toronto, ON
M4W 3R4

Vision and Mission Statement

VISION

A world in which all people with disabilities enjoy social justice and equal participation in society and our communities  
MISSION STATEMENT

ARCH Disability Law Centre, as a specialty legal clinic with a provincial mandate, undertakes to achieve this Vision by: 
•	Ensuring our work has Ontario wide impact 
Focusing on, identifying and removing systemic barriers 
•	Addressing issues that have an impact on low income people with disabilities, including the root causes of poverty 
•	Empowering people with disabilities 
•	Being recognized as experts in the law as it affects people with disabilities 
•	Addressing the heightened disadvantage, marginalization and exclusion faced by people with disabilities by reason of factors such as gender, race, age, language, economic status and sexual orientation
VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

ARCH is guided by the following set of core values:

•	The dignity and worth of all persons with disabilities must be respected;
•	Persons with disabilities have the right to life, self-determination, and full participation in a society free from barriers to their inclusion and integration;
•	Persons with disabilities themselves are in the best position to determine their own priorities;
•	All persons have a common responsibility to create communities accessible to all persons with disabilities.

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

•	ARCH operates in accordance with the above core values;
•	ARCH is a community-based organization, governed by a Board of Directors composed of a majority of persons with disabilities;
•	ARCH is accountable to persons with disabilities in Ontario, its members and its funders.
Adopted by the Board of Directors, November 23, 2010
Chair’s Report
April 1, 2011 – March 31, 2012

As I sat down to write this year’s report I found myself thinking back to learning to sail on Lake Huron when I was growing up in Sarnia.  You might well wonder why thinking about ARCH would do that.  Every year you, the members, have had a report from me or my predecessors telling you about all the changes and challenges facing ARCH and the disability community and what we plan to do about it.  One of the first things you learn in sailing is that you can’t steer from wave to wave or you will lose your direction.  You have to pick a spot on the horizon and keep your bow pointed in that direction.  If a wave knocks you off course, you correct the tiller to bring the bow back to that point.  If the wind isn’t favourable, you set a new tack and come at the point indirectly.  The key is to never take your eye off that point on the horizon.

That’s the challenge that faces ARCH, its staff and its board.  There are always waves trying to push us off course if we let them.  Last year a provincial election might have brought a change of government.  Fiscal challenges facing the province promise changes to the amount of funding that ARCH receives and the ways we may be restricted in how we spend it.  There is no shortage of these challenges, and we could easily become distracted if we focused on each of them as they came up.  Every fall the board meet with staff for a planning day.  We talk about that point on the horizon we are aiming for and whether we need to adjust the tiller or the sails, or set a new tack.  Actually, we talk about the goals set in the strategic plan and what we need to do to keep on track, but it really amounts to the same thing.  While we have to be aware of these challenges, we cannot let them distract us from the goals that we have set, and I think we have been successful in staying on course.
One of the ways that ARCH seeks to achieve its objectives is through public legal education.  Staff have made presentations to a number of organizations, and a variety of fact sheets have been prepared on topics as varied as disability and Ontario’s education system and capacity issues for persons appearing before administrative tribunals.  Every year ARCH partners with the Law Society of Upper Canada, the governing body for lawyers and paralegals in Ontario to present a symposium.  In June 2012 the focus of the symposium was “Independent Living and Attendant Services”.  I was able to attend, and I can tell you I was impressed not only with the outside speakers we were able to attract, but also the quality of the presentations from our own lawyers.  We have also been able to find ways to participate in seminars outside Ontario and learn how other organizations tackle some of the same problems we face.  
However, we could not do what we do as an organization without our committed staff.  We have an outstanding team of people dedicated to the community we serve.  While providing summary advice over the telephone isn’t as glamorous as arguing a test case in the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court of Canada, for the person receiving that advice it is at least equally important.  On behalf of the board and the membership I wish to thank them for another year of hard work and accomplishment.

Peter Wells,
President and Chair,
ARCH Disability Law Centre
Executive Director’s Report
October 2011 to September 2012

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. ARCH staff continues to provide legal services and advocate for 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 

A cornerstone of ARCH’s services is the Summary Advice and Referral Service for Ontarians with disabilities. 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.

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

Brief Services

In the past year, ARCH’s activities providing Brief Services to Ontarians with disabilities have 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 providing 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 some examples of Brief Services provided by ARCH lawyers in the past year:

•	ARCH assisted a number of individuals to terminate a guardianship over their property by assisting them to arrange new capacity assessment that ultimately rendered them legally capable of managing their property.  For these clients, being able to re-assert their autonomy has had a profound impact on their lives. 

•	ARCH has assisted several people who successfully regained control over their financial decision making powers from the Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee. 

•	ARCH has assisted numerous self-represented applicants before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario with ongoing support throughout different stages of the litigation process.

Significant Cases

ARCH engages in litigation on behalf of groups and individuals in cases in which potential outcomes will have broad impact on many people with disabilities. In pursuing these cases, ARCH strives to provide decision makers with a disability perspective, with the goal 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.

Rasouli v. Cuthbertson et al 
ARCH, in coalition with the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly (ACE), has been granted intervener status and oral argument before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Rasouli case. 

This case is about who can make ending of life decisions, and what process needs to be followed in order for that decision to be made.

Mr. Rasouli had an operation to remove a malignant tumour in his brain.  After the operation, he got an infection. The doctors determined, after a period of time, that Mr. Rasouli was in a permanent vegetative state, which means that any further medical intervention or treatment would offer no further medical benefits to him.  The doctors proposed to withdraw life support and recommended palliative care.  Mr. Rasouli’s wife, who is also his substitute-decision maker, did not agree with the doctor’s assessment. 

Under the Health Care Consent Act, a patient, or their substitute decision-maker, must consent to treatment before it can be administered.  If there is no consent, the doctors would usually refer the case to the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) for an independent Tribunal decision.  However in this case, the doctors took the position that they could unilaterally make an ending of life decision, because under the common law, withdrawing or withholding treatment is not a treatment that would require someone’s consent.  Instead of going to the CCB, this case ended up in Court, because the doctors took the position that they did not have to refer their decision to the Tribunal.

Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice held that withdrawing or withholding treatment is still a treatment decision.  Therefore, the process that is available pursuant to the Health Care Consent Act applies.  That means that the parties must go to the Consent and Capacity Board to resolve a dispute about whether life sustaining treatment can be stopped where the patient, or his substitute decision-maker, do not agree with a doctor’s proposed course of action. 

The doctors appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal, who took a different approach, although reached the same result.  The Court of Appeal held that when a doctor proposed palliative care, it was a new treatment plan that required consent.  If consent to the treatment plan was not given, then the parties had to proceed to the Consent and Capacity Board.   The doctors have now appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

ARCH and ACE will be arguing that older adults and persons with disabilities may be disproportionately affected if doctors are allowed to make unilateral decisions about ending of life decisions.  We are concerned that there continue to be stereotypes about the quality of life our communities experience that might impact on a doctor’s decision to withdraw or withhold life sustaining treatment. ARCH and ACE will also argue that treatment decisions under the Health Care Consent Act must comply with Canada’s Charter values and our international commitments under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  The Coalition will also take the position that this case is about access to justice for low-income older adults and people with disabilities.  Tribunals, like the Consent and Capacity Board, are much more accessible, cost effective and have expertise in making these kinds of decision than the Courts are. But above all, we will argue that the patient him or herself, or their prior capable wishes, must have the final say on the issue of consent.

This case is scheduled to be heard on December 10, 2012.

Jodhan v. Attorney General of Canada
On May 30, 2012, the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision in the case of Jodhan v. Attorney General of Canada. In this case, the Court considered whether the Federal Government had denied Donna Jodhan, a person with a vision disability, her rights to equal benefit and equal access to government information and services in violation of Section 15 of the Charter.  Ms. Jodhan had attempted to apply for jobs and access government information and services through various federal websites. She was not able to access the information or services when she used her screen reading technology.

ARCH Disability Law Centre lawyers, Karen R. Spector and Laurie Letheren, represented the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians (AEBC) as an intervener before the Court.  The Government of Canada had argued that the Charter rights of people with vision disabilities were not violated because they could still get the information or apply for jobs in person or by phone or fax. It was AEBC’s position that the Government had failed to acknowledge that such means require the assistance of sighted individuals thereby imposing the burdens of dependence and resulting in the loss of privacy and dignity.  In the case of job applications, the time delay and barriers to applying electronically meant that Ms. Jodhan’s application was not placed into the same pool and considered on the same terms as other applicants. The Court rejected the Government’s argument and agreed with Ms. Jodhan that “forcing her to rely on sighted assistance is demeaning and propagates the point of view that [people with vision disabilities] are less capable and less worthy”.

The AEBC emphasized the need to ensure that Canadians with vision disabilities have internet access to government information and services. The internet is a very important tool for achieving substantive equality for people with vision disabilities by eliminating many of the barriers that exist in daily life.  For people with vision disabilities who have been historically excluded and marginalized from social, economic and political activities and forced to rely on others for assistance in accessing information, the internet has provided access to the same information and services that is available to sighted individuals and on the same terms. 

The AEBC also encouraged the Court to recognize the importance of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) when interpreting substantive equality rights under the Charter.  The AEBC relied on Article 9 of the CRPD which promotes access for persons with disabilities to the internet.  
In its decision, the Court acknowledged the significant impact that the internet has had in assisting people with vision disabilities to overcome the barriers they encounter in accessing information. The Court described the internet as “one of the most, if not the most important tools ever designed for accessing not only government information and services, but all types of information and services”.

In this decision, the Court also recognized that the government’s failure to provide its online information and services in accessible formats not only breached the equality rights of Ms. Jodhan but the right to substantive equality for all Canadians with vision disabilities. The Court found that “there were very serious problems of accessibility… throughout the government apparatus” which justified the ordering of a systemic remedy.  ARCH anticipates that the Court’s finding that a systemic remedy was justified in this case will have far reaching impact on future cases for people with disabilities.

Frederick Moore on behalf of Jeffrey P. Moore v British Columbia et al.,
ARCH represented the intervener, Canadian Association for Community Living (CACL) in this matter before the Supreme Court of Canada, and made written submissions on their behalf. This matter focuses on the duty to accommodate within the delivery of public education services to students with disabilities. In this case, a student with learning disabilities challenged the Ministry of Education of British Columbia and a school board in Vancouver for not providing him, and other students with learning disabilities, with appropriate accommodations. 

Jeffrey Moore was labeled as having a severe learning disability and in 1994, he became eligible to attend an intensive program for students with severe learning disabilities. That program had been cut due to financial cost saving measures made that same year. The services that were subsequently offered were not comparable to the services he would have received in the intensive program and Jeffrey later attended private school. Mr. Moore filed an application at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal alleging a failure to provide him with the intensive program or something that was as appropriate to meet his unique needs as a student. The Tribunal determined that Jeffrey Moore had experienced discrimination when the School Board and the Ministry of Education failed to accommodate his needs in the delivery of educational services. This decision was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. 
The issues before the Supreme Court included the question of whether “services customarily available to the public” for students with disabilities should be limited to “special education” services or whether students with disabilities should have the right to receive general education services without experiencing discrimination. ARCH argued on behalf of the CACL that a finding that students with disabilities were entitled to a separate and different “special education” service was contrary to the goals of British Columbia’s Human Rights Code and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which both promote inclusive education. Furthermore, it was argued that the Court of Appeal’s finding that students with disabilities were entitled to a separate and different “special education” also perpetuates the historical exclusion and disadvantage experienced by students with disabilities.

The Supreme Court reserved judgment. The decision on these appeals will have a significant impact on future human rights claims. The decision will likely be released in the Fall of 2012.

Human Rights Complaint at the Canadian Human Rights Commission
ARCH represented a complainant at the Canadian Human Rights Commission against a Department of the Federal Government. ARCH’s client alleged that he experienced discrimination by not being hired for a job due to his disability. The matter was settled. The settlement included monetary compensation for ARCH’s client as well as systemic remedies including progressive changes to policies and practices specific to that Department. 

Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society (SWUAV)
In January 2012, a coalition of ARCH,  West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund for Women (West Coast LEAF) and Justice for Children and Youth (JFCY)  intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada in support of "public interest standing" in Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society. The Supreme Court released its decision on September 21, 2012. 

The case involved an organization of sex workers, Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence or “SWUAV”, and one former sex worker who brought a constitutional challenge to sections of the Criminal Code dealing with prostitution. The case was dismissed by the BC Supreme Court in December 2008, in part because the Court found that this group did not have "public interest standing" to bring this constitutional challenge.  That decision was overturned by the BC Court of Appeal in 2010, and the federal government launched an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was heard in January 2012.
ARCH, as part of the Coalition, intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada to argue that representative groups should be allowed to bring forward important constitutional cases on behalf of those who do not have effective access to the justice system on their own.  People with disabilities face considerable obstacles to accessing justice and advancing their legal rights in court. The Coalition argued that the test for public interest standing must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the principles of substantive equality and contextualized by an understanding of the barriers marginalized communities face in accessing the courts.
The Supreme Court released its decision on September 21 2012.   In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada changed the test for “public interest standing” to ensure that the test does not create an additional barrier to access to justice for disadvantaged groups.  The Supreme Court recognized the practical barriers that marginalized individuals face in bringing forward complex constitutional litigation, and affirmed the right of individuals to work collectively to challenge laws that heighten their vulnerability.  The ability to act collectively and seek standing as a group is particularly important for marginalized people, including people with disabilities face since they face substantial obstacles to accessing the justice system. 

The full decision can be read at:   http://scc.lexum.org/en/2012/2012scc45/2012scc45.html 

Yuill
In Yuill v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Cathy Yuill brought an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) on behalf of her brother Dalton, who lives in a group in Lanark, Ontario.  She alleged that picketing by the respondent union (CUPE) during a legal strike in 2009 at his Community Living group home violated Dalton’s Code rights. 

In August 2010, ARCH (in its own name) was granted intervener status on the preliminary motion on the question of who could bring litigation on behalf of Dalton Yuill. 

In February 2012, the HRTO made a decision about who can bring human rights complaints for their friends and family members.  The HRTO found that a family member can be a litigation guardian unless there is a clear conflict of interest.  The possibility that the litigation guardian has an additional interest furthered by the litigation or, hypothetical differences in interest should not disqualify her or him from acting on behalf of a person with a capacity issue. 

The recent decision can be found here:  Yuill v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2012 HRTO 366 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fq8wr

Jacobs
ARCH represented Mr. Gabriel Jacobs, who was arrested during the G20 meetings in Toronto in June 2010.  Mr. Jacobs filed an Application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) about the way that he was treated during his arrest and his detention.  He alleged that his disability related needs were not accommodated.   In March, Mr. Jacobs’ Application was settled to the mutual satisfaction of all parties. 

Capacity and Guardianship 

ARCH was involved in a motion to seek leave to appeal that raised a number of issues relevant to all individuals with capacity issues and all persons who may have to re-assert their autonomy after a period of incapacity. 

The issue was whether it was proper for a motion’s judge to Order, pursuant o s. 79(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, that the client undergo a compelled capacity assessment, despite having produced ample evidence of her capacity. Although it remains for the Divisional Court to hear the actual appeal and provide final answers, when granting our client leave (or permission) to appeal the motion judge’s order, the Court agreed that  there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the Order compelling the client to undergo a further assessment because: a) such assessments are intrusive and demeaning and should be employed only when absolutely necessary to obtain information essential to deciding the issues; b) it is rarely necessary to order a compelled assessment when the client has already produced assessments; c) positive capacity assessments should be relied upon unless there are obvious reasons to doubt their validity; d) one negative opinion, even an expert opinion, should not be allowed to outweigh a preponderance of positive evidence; e) even if a person is legally incapable, that cannot be used as the basis for a ‘reasonable belief in their incapacity’, if new evidence of capacity has been produced; f) a person is required to meet a standard of ‘balance of probabilities”, when demonstrating their capacity, meaning they must show that that they are more likely capable than not.  This is far lower than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. Neither the court nor a guardian is entitled to demand certainty. This is important, since many individuals, perhaps unconsciously, retain certain stereotypes about the vulnerability of persons with capacity issues. This can make even judges think twice about restoring autonomy to a person without being certain that they are capable. Applying this “unspoken” higher standard can create obvious barriers for most persons seeking to re-assert their autonomy after a period of incapacity.
Community Development

Community Outreach Project
In June 2011, ARCH received special funds from Legal Aid Ontario to hire a Community Outreach Coordinator.   During her time in the position, the Coordinator initiated groundwork activities. In particular, she began development of a contact database to manage our provincial network of community and private bar referrals. The current coordinator started at the end of April 2012.  Since starting, she has attended a variety of meetings and conducted topic-specific consultations in the following areas: 

1.	Community development
While the provincial outreach project is fairly new for ARCH, sister specialty clinics have been engaged in this work for many years. The coordinator held interviews with those sister specialty legal clinics which, like ARCH, practice in areas not generally covered by local community legal clinics. From these consultations we learned of outreach strategies that may be transferable to ARCH. 

Based on information from these consultations, ARCH’s Outreach Committee will pilot model community development activities in one region, for evaluation and adjustment prior to provincial roll-out.  Pilot activities will involve offering workshops and training opportunities to community members and staff through sister agencies in the identified region.  ARCH is working with the Community Advocacy and Legal Centre in Belleville to pilot within the Five County Services Providers Network. This allows us to reach centres and rural areas outside the GTA. It also preserves our travel budget so that we can coordinate our anticipated roll-out to northern Ontario with upcoming ARCH campaigns and projects.

We also hope to connect further, including with agencies serving racialized communities. We recognize the unique status of Aboriginal peoples and hope to engage in a parallel process to explore whether Aboriginal agencies think ARCH should play a specific role in providing services to Aboriginal people with disabilities. 

2.	Pro Bono Program
One aspect of the outreach project is development of an ARCH pro bono program. The program is intended to improve ARCH’s capacity to make appropriate and useful referrals; increase access to legal services by people with disabilities; and raise awareness and increase capacity of the legal profession to provide services to clients with a disability. 

The Coordinator consulted with agencies operating effective pro bono programs and delivering Continuing Professional Development (CPD). These consultations provided ARCH with useful information regarding best practices. Several programs shared templates and forms with ARCH, and ARCH is exploring partnership possibilities with some of these offices. 

ARCH plans to develop and deliver training accredited to meet lawyers’ annual CPD requirements as mandated by the Law Society of Upper Canada.  Lawyers participating in the training will be invited to join ARCH’s pro bono program. ARCH hopes to launch the pro bono program at the annual Access Awareness Public Education Event, held each June in collaboration with the Law Society of Upper Canada. 

3.	Improving access to legal information by people with disabilities
The coordinator is investigating alternative media to improve outreach.  She has conducted several consultations regarding social media strategy and policy. She will be developing a draft social media policy for review by the Outreach Committee. 

The Outreach Committee is also working with a volunteer law student to develop a video to promote ARCH services.  We will take steps to make the video as accessible as possible. 

ARCH and the Your Legal Rights project of Community Legal Education Ontario (CLEO) are collaborating to pilot accessible interactive webinars. This involves research and experimentation to break down barriers to accessibility.  These learnings will have long-term benefit for ARCH, as well as for others seeking to create more accessible resources. 

4.	Francophone outreach
The proposal for this project included a Francophone outreach component. The current Coordinator attended the French language study group at Northern Regional Clinic Training. As a result, we learned of the possibility to install Antidote program software for improving ARCH’s communications in French. This technology is now installed on key ARCH computers. 

The Coordinator has consulted with the bilingual lawyer from the Sudbury Community Legal Clinic. That clinic operates the French language line for northern Ontario.  She introduced ARCH’s outreach project at the spring 2012 meeting of the French Language Services Clinic Advisory Committee. She also participated in a webinar on engaging Francophones for health promotion provided through HC Link. HC Link is funded by the Government of Ontario to provide consultations, learning and networking events to community groups and organizations. The information from their webinar is transferable to ARCH’s work in rights education.  After the webinar, we were able to arrange for a consultant from HC Link to attend at ARCH to assist with key contacts and questions regarding our Francophone outreach.
Aging with a Mobility Disability 
ARCH has been an active member of a group organized by the Centre for Independent Living Toronto, whose mandate is to survey people with mobility disabilities and their service providers, conduct independent research and write a paper containing recommendation about the issues that people with mobility disabilities face as they age.  This is a very misunderstood and under-acknowledged issue within the community of people with mobility disabilities.  To date, the surveys have been conducted that have provided the group with ideas for further research and development.  We will provide additional information to our members as the work of the group progresses.

British Columbia Continuing Legal Education
ARCH participated in a unique opportunity this year.  We worked with British Columbia’s Continuing Legal Education Program and a disability lawyer in B.C. to present a two hour webinar focusing on working with people with disabilities and specific issues and solutions.  The goal of the program was to encourage more lawyers in B.C. to work on disability rights issues.  ARCH was asked to be involved in this project in recognition of our particular expertise in disability rights and accommodations issues.  We look forward to engaging in similar projects in the future.

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:

Social Assistance Review
ARCH has been an active participant in Ontario’s Social Assistance Review (the Review).  We have held consultations with our community partners to inform the submissions we have made to the Commissioners on the Social Assistance Review.  Participants in our consultations included organizations that advocate on behalf of, and people with, intellectual disabilities, physical and mobility disabilities, mental health disabilities, Deaf, deafened and hard of hearing, no or low vision, and episodic, recurrent and/or intermittent disabilities. We have also been an active participant in the ODSP Action Coalition’s Policy Committee and have participated in the drafting of their submissions.

Phase II of the Review, entitled Approaches for Reform, focused on measures to get people with disabilities into the workforce, effectively and with appropriate supports. There is a suggestion that the definition of disability might change to create three categories of social assistance recipients: people who are employment ready and in receipt of Ontario Works; people with disabilities who can work; and people with disabilities who cannot work. 

ARCH reminded the Commissioners that the Review is happening because of the Provincial Government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy.  Therefore, our submission is that any recommendations that the Commissioners make must keep that overarching goal in mind.  In other words, no one in receipt of social assistance in Ontario should be worse off as a result of the Commissioners’ recommendations, since the Poverty Reduction Strategy is designed to move people out of poverty. 

During its consultations, ARCH heard that overwhelmingly, people with disabilities want to work.  However, there are significant barriers that stand in the way of many people with disabilities, preventing them from entering the workforce in a meaningful way.  Therefore, the Commissioners must adopt an individualized approach to supports and services necessary for individuals who want to work.  A cookie cutter approach is not acceptable.  Moreover, any employment activities recommended by the Commissioners must be voluntary, supporting the right of people with disabilities to choose the way to live their lives. 

ARCH also underscored the history of discrimination and attitudinal barriers faced by people with disabilities generally, and more specifically, in employment.  We therefore urged the Commissioners to ensure that before any new employment program for people with disabilities is introduced, people with disabilities, their families and organizations that are supportive must be active participants in designing a program that meets their needs.  There should be no negative changes to the income support people receive under ODSP until this condition is met.  People with disabilities must have a real voice in drafting any new legislation.

The full text of ARCH’s comments to the Social Assistance Review can be found under Submissions at www.archdisabilitylaw.ca

Review of the Human Rights System
ARCH participated in Ontario’s review of its human rights system.  In 2011, Andrew Pinto was appointed to conduct an independent review of the implementation and effectiveness of the amendments to Ontario’s Human Rights Code.  ARCH prepared written submissions for the Review, made a deputation at the public hearings, and also participated in a stakeholder group meeting with Mr. Pinto. 

In the development of ARCH’s proposals, we interviewed some of our community partners, stakeholder organizations and individuals in the disability community. As a team at ARCH, we reflected on the experiences of our clients with the current human rights system in Ontario.  We also surveyed our records of the calls we have received on our province-wide telephone-based summary advice and referral line.

Before 2008, people who had experienced discrimination had to make an application to the Ontario Human Rights Commission(OHRC) who, like a “gatekeeper”, investigated the complaint and made a decision whether to forward the complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO).  However, after the introduction of Bill 107, Applicants now file their application directly with the HRTO. The OHRC no longer makes the decision about whether the HRTO will hear an application. This decision is now made by the HRTO.  ARCH supported these changes to a “direct access model” where complainants would have direct access to a hearing of their complaint.  ARCH stated that the new direct funding model would only work if each of the OHRC, the HRTO and the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) were adequately funded.  
In our recent submissions to the Review, ARCH proposed that the new system is working, but needs more resources. Our main message was that in order for the Province to fulfill Bill 107’s promise, it must commit to appropriately funding each of the HRTO, HRLSC and the OHRC.  We continue to support the spirit of the amendments to Ontario’s Human Rights Code. We imagine a system that includes: 

1.	direct access to an expert tribunal, with flexible procedures and  streamlined access to accommodation;  
2.	a specialized agency that provides representation to all Applicants, properly funded and fully accessible to all Ontarians; and
3.	a proactive Commission with a guaranteed allocation of sufficient resources, expert at preventing and redressing systemic discrimination, including ableism.

Since the introduction of Bill 107, ARCH has witnessed improvements to the human rights system, making it more effective and more efficient. ARCH’s submissions also reviewed the barriers that people with disabilities experience in accessing each of the HRTO, HRLSC and OHRC.  For instance: 
•	ARCH has received reports that the HRTO’s application forms and other forms may not be accessible to many people.  
•	ARCH is also very concerned that 71% of applicants before the HRTO appear unrepresented. This is an important concern to people with disabilities.  
•	There is a lack of clarity about the important role that the OHRC plays. 
•	We have also heard concerns about access to the HRTO, HRLSC and OHRC for people who live outside of the Greater Toronto Area. 

The bulk of our submissions to the Review focused on concrete proposals for moving forward.  For instance: 
•	ARCH proposes that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario establish an Accessibility Office, which would act as a centralized point for persons with disabilities, streamlining accommodation requests.  
•	ARCH is strongly opposed to the imposition of filing fees, in particular because they will have a disproportionate impact on persons with disabilities with low incomes. 
•	Similarly, ARCH is vigorously opposed to the award of costs against an Applicant whose allegation is not substantiated by the HRTO.  The threat of the order of costs would operate as an unjustified barrier for potential applicants with disabilities.
•	ARCH proposed that the HRTO offer guidance to a party with a disability requesting anonymity or redaction. This is important for people with disabilities, since the threat of disclosure of their disability will dissuade Applicants with meritorious complaints from seeking redress.
•	Finally, ARCH urged the Review to recommend that the Province take all necessary steps to ensure that there is a guaranteed allocation of sufficient resources to each of three human rights agencies and that the funding not be vulnerable to change in government. 

ARCH’s written submissions can be found here in a variety of formats: 

http://archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=written-submissions-arch-disability-law-centre-ontario-human-rights-review-0

Advisory Committee to the Administrative Justice Support Network
ARCH is a member of the Advisory Committee to the Administrative Justice Support Network (AJSN).  The ASJN was established as a resource for individuals or families who disagree with an administrative decision about the supports or services they are seeking. The Law Foundation of Ontario has funded the project, which includes the development of a web site and a mentoring network that will provide information and support for people who wish to challenge support or service decisions through an administrative appeal.  The site will include plain language descriptions of legislation and of the appeal process for several administrative tribunals.  These will include: the Social Benefits Tribunal, the Special Education Tribunal, the Landlord Tenant Board, the Health Services Appeal & Review Board (for Long Term Care), the Consent & Capacity Board, the Human Rights Tribunal, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the Child and Family Services Review Board.

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 some examples of the sessions delivered during this past year.

Human Rights in Education
ARCH routinely delivers presentations on issues related to public education services for students with disabilities. This summer, ARCH once again participated in the Ready for School Connects Program, run by East York East Toronto Family Resources Organization, and partnering with five schools across the Toronto District School Board. ARCH delivered 12 workshops to newcomer families on issues related to disability, the Education Act and Ontario’s Human Rights Code.

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 3700 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. 

In early 2012, we did a survey requesting feedback from our readers about the newsletter, particularly around the areas of accessibility and layout. We received fewer than 100 responses. As a result of the suggestions we received from our readers, we made some changes to the layout and look of the newsletter in order to increase the Alert’s accessibility.  We will continue to work to ensure that the ARCH Alert is accessible to all. 

We frequently receive requests to reprint articles or post them on websites.  Some of the key issues we covered in this past year were:

-	ARCH Celebrates Inclusion
-	Supreme Court Rules on Safe Injection Sites 
-	Review of Ontario’s Human Rights System
-	Test of Public Interest Standing Considered by Supreme Court 
-	Human Rights Lawyers’ Association
-	Important Decision for People with Intellectual Disabilities
-	ARCH Expands Legal Services to Deaf Community
-	Access Awareness Symposium June 6, 2012
-	The Federal Court of Appeal Confirms that Government Breached Charter Rights of Individual’s with Vision Disabilities
-	Kitchener Removes Restrictions on Supportive Housing from its By-laws
-	Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium

Highlights of Selected Program Initiatives And Special Programs

ARCH Celebrates Disability Advocacy 
ARCH celebrated the United Nations International Day for Persons with Disabilities by hosting a community event on December 2, 2011. 

ARCH was honoured to have a distinguished group of individuals participate in this event. We were privileged to begin the event with words from the Honourable Justice Stephen Goudge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The keynote speaker was Kory Earle, President of People First of Ontario. The Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Barbara Hall, spoke in her capacity as the current President of the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA). The event featured a panel discussion with Emily Eaton, her father Clayton Eaton, and Kathleen McDonnell, author of Emily Included, which is a children’s book capturing the story of Emily’s fight to stay included in her school. 

ARCH/Law Society of Upper Canada - Access Awareness Event

On June 6, 2012, ARCH, in collaboration with CILT (Centre for Independent Living, Toronto) presented a symposium on “INDEPENDENT LIVING AND ATTENDANT SERVICES: 
Tools to Promote and Defend the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” 

The symposium, which was attended by over 100 persons, included a broad range of speakers, including lawyers, academics and community advocates.  Janet Minor, a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, opened the event.  John Mossa of CILT provided an overview of the issues faced by persons receiving attendant services, and Robert Lattanzio of ARCH outlined the challenges involved in employing traditional processes to deal with these issues. The rest of the symposium focussed on describing other tools available to protect the rights of persons with disabilities in receipt of attendant services.

Connie Laurin-Bowie of Inclusion International and Chris Lytle of Disability Rights Promotion International introduced the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and outlined how Articles 19 and 20 can be used to promote independent living and greater access to attendant services. 

The next session explored how to resolve disputes that involve two or more competing rights. John Mossa of CILT, Rabia Khedr of Diversity WorX, Morag Fraser, a former manager/service provider) described various situations where the rights of attendants or others may conflict with the rights of a recipient of services. Jeff Poirier of the Human Rights Commission then outlined the Commission’s Policy on Competing Rights explaining how the policy can be employed to help craft acceptable solutions to these types of disputes. 

The final session explained how mediation can be used to deal with conflicts or disputes between recipients of attendant services, attendants and/or service providers. 

The symposium closed with presentations by the executive directors of ARCH and CILT, Ivana Petricone and Sandra Carpenter discussing emerging trends in attendant services and how these might be dealt with. 

The symposium was followed by a reception, hosted by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The keynote speaker at the reception was Scott Allardyce, Chair of Canadian Disability Alliance. Mr. Allardyce outlined draft legislation his group has developed to better serve persons with disabilities by eliminating the various complications people currently face due to the rather uncoordinated system of legislation that governs attendant services. 

The symposium was attended by many recipients of attendant services. Many took advantage of the reception to meet with the speakers and obtain further information. 

Barriers to Human Rights Claims of Systemic Discrimination Brought by People with Disabilities
ARCH presented a paper at the Ontario Bar Association’s Annual Human Rights update entitled “Barriers to the Claims of Systemic Discrimination Brought by People with Disabilities”. 

In this paper, ARCH examines the barriers faced by persons with disabilities who bring or contemplate bringing complaints of systemic discrimination before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.  ARCH argues that despite the broad remedial powers conferred on the Tribunal by the Ontario Human Rights Code, recent jurisprudence has created significant barriers for applicants with disabilities bringing claims of systemic discrimination in terms of their standing to bring such claims, in terms of the evidence needed to substantiate such claims and in terms of the scope of the remedies obtained. 

ARCH states that the human rights system has the requisite tools necessary to ensure both: (i) an efficient and fair direct-access system for individual applicants; and (ii) fulsome consideration of claims of systemic discrimination that go beyond the individual to challenge historical patterns of discrimination embedded in practices and institutions. 

ARCH argues that in order to fulfill the true promise of the Code and advance substantive equality for persons with disabilities, then, the Tribunal must take a broad approach to systemic claims and ensure that individuals or organizations acting on behalf of individuals are not precluded from bringing these claims.  
ARCH Library
Again, thanks to the support of the Law Foundation of Ontario, ARCH has been able to hire a law librarian to organize, scan, and re-catalogue our current and archival collection.  Our library was catalogued using a unique coding system.  Our librarian, Mary Hanson, who has assisted our sister clinic Injured Workers’ Consultants in a similar project, is carrying out this important project and is organizing and cataloguing the library onto a database which will allow it to be searchable using a subject index developed by our lawyers.  Once the collection is reclassified and entered into the database, it will be physically rearranged.  We would also like to scan (with the publisher’s permission) our extensive subject files.  These are mainly comprised of papers, newspaper clippings, and articles chronicling the disability movement over the last 30 years.   Our plan is to be able to find this valuable information with ease so as to support our work and to provide the information to the community.

Collaborative Work

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,
Knowledge Management Group, 
Lawyers & Community Legal Workers New to the Clinic System,
Toronto Legal Clinic Management Group,
Toronto Support Staff Association,
Ontario Legal Clinics’ Network on Workers’ Compensation

ARCH also participates in a committee of the Centre for Independent Living in Toronto that is considering the issue of Aging with a Mobility Disability, and will continue to do so in the coming year.  This project, coupled with the information we presented at the Canadian Conference on Elder Law will assist us in gaining a better understanding of the issues facing some communities of people with disabilities as they age, and may help to inform some of the other work we do.

ARCH also has a seat on the Director’s Review Committee for the Office of the Independent Police Review Commission, to ensure that the voice of people with disabilities is heard during the review process.

We are also working with the Peel Police, and the Canadian Hearing Society to draft a protocol for police to use when dealing with Deaf, deafened or hard of hearing persons.  We expect that there will be police and community training sessions once the protocol is adopted. 
ARCH’s Work on Interclinic Workgroups
ARCH has been very active with the ODSP Action Coalition Policy Committee this year, and has participated in the drafting of two submissions to the Social Assistance Review Commission.  We are waiting for the Commissioners’ Options report, which is due to be released this fall.  We intend to conduct another round of community consultations to inform our submissions to the Commissioner’s Report.
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 and last on bringing the voice of community legal clinics to its funder, Legal Aid Ontario, and to the Ministry of the Attorney General as plans are formulated to transform legal aid in Ontario. Specifically, the ACLCO has commenced a “first ever” Strategic Planning Process for the clinic system, has participated in facilitated meetings to achieve better collaboration with LAO. During a time of governmental restraint, the ACLCO continues to work to ensure the fundamental principles of clinics as independent, community based and governed organizations, providing a broad range of poverty law services, receiving secure core funding to do our work, and working together as a provincial system.
ARCH Funders 
Legal Aid Ontario
The Board of Directors 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 received a three year grant from LAO’s Client Service Coordination Fund to fund our Community Outreach Coordinator.  The project is described earlier in this report. 
Additional 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 enable ARCH to employ administrative staff not funded by Legal Aid Ontario. 

The Law Foundation of Ontario has provided ARCH with a grant to reorganize and re-catalogue our library collection.  Out librarian is doing a wonderful job. 

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 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 operating and on-going personnel funds.  We are able to fill 10.5 positions with LAO funds: the executive director (who is also a lawyer); the office manager; five staff lawyers; an intake and referral worker; a community outreach coordinator and 1.5 litigation assistants. 

ARCH raises funds through various sources from year to year that fund half the cost of an administrative staff as well as a librarian. 

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 2011 and 2012 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 of ARCH, 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 students:

•	Liam Oster, Law Student
•	Luke Reid, Law Student
•	Luke Johnston, Law Student
•	David Dueck, Student-at-Law
•	Chelsey Molar, Student

IVANA PETRICONE
Executive Director

ARCH Staff List

Staff	Position	
Ivana Petricone 	Executive Director 	
Amanda Ward 	Information/Referral Worker	
Dianne Wintermute 	Staff Lawyer	
Doreen Way 	Office Manager	
Ed Montigny 	Staff Lawyer	
Kerri Joffe (on leave)	Staff Lawyer	
Laurie Letheren	Staff Lawyer	
Mary Hanson (contract)	Librarian 	
Robert Lattanzio	Staff Lawyer 	
Tess Sheldon (contract)	Staff Lawyer	
Karen Spector (contract)	Staff Lawyer	
Theresa Sciberras	Program and Litigation Assistant	
Yangtzee Tamang	Operations and Litigation Assistant	
Yedida Zalik (contract)	Community Outreach Coordinator	

A Special Thanks to This Year's Supporters

Legal Aid Ontario
Alcohol and Gaming Commission (through Break Open Ticket Sales)
Blakes LLP
City of Toronto - Community Services Grants Program
Human Resources and Social Development Canada 	www.hrsdc.gc.ca  
Law Commission of Ontario
Law Foundation of Ontario
Law Society of Upper Canada - Equity Department
Osgoode Hall Law School – York University
Pro Bono Students Canada 
Neeson and Associates Court Reporting and Captioning Inc.
Spencer Bailey, Articling Student at Fasken Martineau 

And all individual donors - Thank You!