ARCH - CELEBRATING 25 YEARS

MESSAGE FROM PHYLLIS GORDON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

This brief history of ARCH reflects only a small portion of the energy, activism and sheer hard work of many individuals and groups over the past twenty-five years. The current staff team is often inspired by the courage and commitment of those who have participated at ARCH over the years and so we dedicate this book to the many volunteers who have sustained and led this organization. In particular, we would like to honour and express our deep appreciation to those who have served, and currently serve, as members of the Board of Directors of ARCH.   

In addition, we also would like to recognize and say thank you to the leadership and staff of Legal Aid Ontario and its predecessor, the Ontario Legal Aid Plan, for their support of ARCH throughout our history. We also recognize that the Government of Ontario has for several decades understood the importance of community legal clinics in the justice system of the Province. The significance of stable core funding for ARCH over the past twenty-five years cannot be underestimated.          

On behalf of the ARCH staff,

PHYLLIS GORDON, Executive Director
October 6 2005 

ABOUT THIS BOOKLET

The aim of this booklet is to commemorate ARCH’s contribution to the disability community over the last 25 years, and to acknowledge the commitment and dedication of all past and present ARCH staff, students, volunteers, and community members. By no means have we attempted to chronicle all the work ARCH has done throughout its 25-year existence, to document the impact that it has had, or to mention all of the many dedicated people who have been part of the ARCH team at one time or another. We could not possibly. Rather, this compilation will highlight features of ARCH’s services and gains achieved throughout the years.

ARCH – WHO WE ARE

ARCH: A Legal Resource Centre for Persons with Disabilities is a specialty legal aid clinic dedicated to defending and advancing the equality rights of persons with disabilities.  ARCH relies on the following principles: 

1.	Persons with disabilities are confronted with unique legal challenges. 
2.	Persons with disabilities must have control over their own lives. 
3.	A cross-disability approach to advocacy issues is essential, but it is equally important to recognize and respect differences. 
4.	Persons with disabilities also may face disadvantage due to other reasons such as their gender, ethnicity, age, economic status and sexual orientation, compounding their experience of discrimination or exclusion. 

ARCH is a charitable organization with a provincial mandate. Our membership consists of more than sixty disability consumer and service organizations. Our Executive Director reports to a consumer-controlled volunteer board of directors.

ARCH fulfills its mandate in many ways, including through law reform initiatives, community development, the provision of summary advice and referral, public legal education, and test case litigation. 

ARCH’s BEGINNINGS 
by David Baker, past Executive Director 

In the late 1970’s a fortunate congruence of circumstances afforded the opportunity for the establishment of a disability law centre that came to be known nationally and provincially as ARCH. 

First and foremost, a number of organizations of persons with disabilities were emerging. They were advocacy organizations; not conflicted in their role of representing members by offering services to them as “clients”. Their funding tended to come from government, so they were encouraged to work cooperatively, on a cross-disability basis, rather than compete for charitable dollars by currying public sympathy for one disability over another. 

The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped [now the Council of Canadians with Disabilities or CCD] was and remains the major national player, but groups such as People First, BOOST, DAWN, the Canadian Association of the Deaf and the On Our Own were all busting onto the scene. Preferring government over charitable funding of services, and valuing independence and legal rights they quickly gravitated to a proposal for the establishment of a legal centre that would work to support law reform and test case litigation.

Government was also receptive to the empowerment of persons with disabilities. Over the sixties and early seventies society had come to accept the importance of public policy in the lives of persons with disabilities. Governments of the day actually welcomed the notion that persons with disabilities could be involved in the process of social reform that was going on at all levels, even if that meant being themselves subjected to criticism. 

It was a different era. There was greater optimism than remains today that “Equality” could be achieved by disadvantaged persons. The disability movement was accepted as the next generation of equality seekers, building on the experience of racial minorities and women. Visionaries such as Attorney General Roy McMurtry, Justice Samuel Grange and lawyer Ian Scott pioneered the notion that communities of disadvantaged persons, including persons with disabilities, could be entrusted with legal aid resources with which to define and defend their own legal interests.

Often overlooked was the generosity of spirit and vision demonstrated by the “old guard” of voluntary organizations. Rather than attempt to stifle the voices of the emerging disability organizations, some charities encouraged and supported them. Like government, many of these organizations recognized the need for change, and therefore welcomed the critical voices of their “consumers” as they moved to de-institutionalize and de-stigmatize the way they served persons with disabilities. It should therefore not be surprising to learn that organizations such as the Canadian Hearing Society, the Canadian and Ontario Associations for the Mentally Retarded [now Community Living Ontario] and the Canadian Mental Health Association joined with the much smaller disability organizations to establish ARCH’s coalition structure.

Each of ARCH’s “member” organizations was entitled to name a board member. Organizations could name two board members, provided at least one member was a person with a disability: thereby assuring the pre-eminent position of persons with disabilities on the ARCH board.

Even with this happy alignment of favourable circumstances, ARCH would never have happened without the extraordinary efforts of many individuals. At the risk of offending by omission, I would like to acknowledge how Founding President Burt Perrin had the trust of board members from both the disability and voluntary organizations. His clear thinking and leadership allowed the board to work cohesively to reverse Legal Aid’s initial rejection of ARCH’s application for community legal clinic funding. Treasurer John Harty worked diligently and selflessly for 20 years to ensure ARCH was fiscally viable and well-managed. Jane Plumb and Leo Smits played founding leadership roles that later led to their assumption of the ARCH presidency. Harry Beatty and Carla McKague shifted over time from their initial voluntary leadership roles to become staff stalwarts.

The founding staff composed of Mike Yale, Annie Zifkin and myself could never have begun to respond to the instant and overwhelming demand for ARCH’s services without the shared vision and cohesion of a board that grew quickly to more than seventy. Out of meetings punctuated by the woof of guide dogs, the exclamations of persons with Tourette's and the impassioned voices of advocates emerged visionary leadership. Groups generously shared the talents of their staff and volunteers. Leading legal, disability and health experts contributed their services to work on the innumerable policy coalitions and as expert witnesses in the test cases that were to follow. I leave it to others to judge the significance of the role ARCH played over the years. 

Let me close by offering my thanks to ARCH’s current board and staff for this opportunity to think back to an interesting period in the history of Canada’s disability movement. I wish them every success in the future.

ARCH TEST CASE LITIGATION

ARCH engages in test case litigation on behalf of both groups and individuals. By test cases we mean those cases where a court or tribunal is looking at an issue for the first time, where an appellate court is deciding an issue that will affect a large number of people, or where there is a disability analysis that should be brought to the litigation. 

Participating in appeals at the Supreme Court of Canada is one approach to test case litigation. The listed Supreme Court of Canada cases are those in which ARCH has been involved either by providing legal representation to its clients as interveners, or directly representing one of the parties involved. Each Supreme Court of Canada case will be briefly featured at the end of this document,  with either a brief summary of the case, excerpts from articles released in ARCH*Type and ARCH Alert, or excerpts from the decision itself.

1.	Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); De Jong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) – Decision Pending
2.	Nova Scotia (Minister of Health) v. J.J.
3.	Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia 
4.	Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E. 
5.	Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Laseur
6.	Lovelace v. Ontario
7.	Grismer v. British Columbia (Super. of Motor Vehicles)
8.	Orlowski v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Inst.); Bese v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Inst.); Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Inst.); R v. LePage
9.	Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education
10.	Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General)
11.	Battlefords and District Co-operative v. Gibbs 
12.	Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) 
13.	Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General) 
14.	Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud
15.	Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
16.	Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia 
17. Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway Co.
18. Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears

Test cases do not occur just at the Supreme Court of Canada. ARCH has represented persons with disabilities and disability organizations in important test cases before all levels of court and various tribunals. Below, we mention just a few of those cases:

Clark v. Clark (1983), 40 O.R. (2d) 383 (Ontario County Court)

At age two, Justin Clark, a child with cerebral palsy, was institutionalized. Unable to communicate with others, he was assumed to be incapable of reasoning or making decisions for himself.  It wasn't until the age of 15, with the introduction of a new system of communication called Blissymbolics, that he was able to communicate his thoughts to the outside world. Having spent his entire adolescence in an institution, 19-year-old Justin decided that with the support of his friends, he was ready to move out into the community. His parents, however, raised the issue of Justin's competency and ability to make this decision for himself. ARCH represented Justin in the legal action that followed. The Court found that Justin’s physical disability was irrelevant to a determination of his competency and declared Justin competent.   It was through the use of Blissymbolics that Justin was able to communicate. This was the first time a party or witness testified using this method of communication in Canada.

Roberts v. Ontario (1994), 117 D.L.R. (4th) 297; [1994] 21 C.H.R.R. 259 (Court of Appeal for Ontario)

Mr. Roberts was 71 years old and had low vision. He applied to the Assistive Devices Program (ADP), for financial assistance in buying a device to enable him to read and do other tasks. Mr. Roberts was denied funding as there was an age limit on certain assistive devices, including the one that he needed.  ARCH represented Mr. Roberts in his complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and eventually at the Ontario Court of Appeal.  The Court found that the age restriction did not have a logical connection with admission to the program and that Mr. Roberts was discriminated against on the basis of age, a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

Human Rights Complaints against the Ministry of Transportation, City of Hamilton and DARTS (Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario) 

ARCH and Hamilton Mountain Legal and Community Services represented complainants at the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The complainants alleged that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, the City of Hamilton (City), and the Disabled and Aged Regional Transit System (DARTS) discriminated against them by not providing comparable services to those provided to users of conventional public transit. As part of the 2004 settlement, the City agreed to make a number of changes to its para-transit services. 

Tranchemontagne and Werbeski v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program) (2004), 72 O.R. (3d) 457 (Court of Appeal for Ontario)

In 2004, ARCH intervened on behalf of the Empowerment Council of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in this case before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.  The issue was based on the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, which allows for enhanced social assistance benefits to be paid to persons with disabilities. However, the Act excludes persons whose disability is addiction.  When these men were denied benefits for this reason, they appealed and relied on the provision of the Human Rights Code that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability.  The issue in the case was whether the Social Benefits Tribunal was allowed to apply the Human Rights Code, and ARCH argued that it could.   The Court of Appeal agreed, but dismissed the appeal because it thought the issue should be determined by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.  The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.  ARCH has received leave to intervene from the Supreme Court.

Black v. Community Care Access Centre Ottawa-Carlton and Health Services Appeal and Review Board  (Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court)

In 2005, ARCH started a judicial review in the Divisional Court in Ottawa on behalf of Ian Black.  Mr. Black relies on homecare services, which he must arrange through the local Community Care Access Centre (CCAC).  The CCAC dramatically reduced the hours of care which Mr. Black would receive because of their own budgetary issues, and Mr. Black challenged that decision.  The Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) found that it was wrong to reduce his hours for budgetary reasons.  However, HSARB it allowed the CCAC to put Mr. Black on the waiting list for those services, even when the CCAC admitted that meant that he would probably never receive them.  That decision will be reviewed by the Court in 2006.

ARCH’s LAW REFORM WORK
As a community legal clinic, ARCH engages in law reform activities, which often are conducted with other disability groups, members of the community and legal clinics. Law reform involves legal analysis, writing and working in coalitions. We comment on the impact of current and proposed laws and practices from a disability perspective.

ARCH’s Law Reform activities include initiatives in the following areas of law:

1.	Human rights
2.	Primary, secondary and post-secondary education
3.	Taxation
4.	Employment
5.	Housing
6.	Services for adults with developmental disabilities 
7.	Telecommunications
8.	Transportation, including para-transit services
9.	Film classification
10.	Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)
11.	Disabled Person Parking Permit
12.	Policing
13.	Homecare services

ARCH has also made submissions to boards and committees, the most recent ones include:

1.	Ontario’s Standing Committee on Social Policy 
2.	Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
3.	Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
4.	Canadian Human Rights Commission
5.	Ontario Human Rights Commission
6.	Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
7.	Committee on the Accessibility to the Justice System for Persons with Disabilities
8.	Ministry of Community and Social Services 
9.	Ministry of Education
10.	Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
11.	LeSage Review of Police Complaints System

The Ontario Human Rights Code and Disability

As one of ARCH’s first major law reform efforts, ARCH was instrumentally involved with the Human Rights Coalition, successfully advocating for the inclusion of “handicap” (as it was then called) as an enumerated ground in the Human Rights Code in 1981.  

The Abella Report: Access to Legal Services by the Disabled, 1983

In 1982, ARCH met with the Honourable Roy McMurtry, Attorney General of Ontario to discuss difficulties in obtaining legal services for persons with disabilities as well as the lack of legal expertise in this area by the legal community. In response the Minister established a study to review the accessibility of legal services in Ontario.  ARCH played a major role in assisting Judge Rosalie Abella (as she then was) to develop her report, Access to Legal Services by the Disabled. In September 1983, a study was complete with one hundred recommendations.  Her report played a pivotal role in opening up the legal system to people with disabilities through improved laws, more accessible courts and a more responsive legal aid system.   At page 37 of the Report, she stated:

ARCH deserves to be strengthened and encouraged in its work.  It has provided exceptional leadership in a new and difficult area of the law, and will undoubtedly constitute a cornerstone for the future development of the delivery of legal services of the handicapped in Ontario. 

The  Right To Vote for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities

Through tireless law reform efforts and litigation, persons with intellectual disabilities were granted the right to vote in 1984. Martyn Humm, an avid follower of political news, was a resident of Rideau Regional Centre and had been diagnosed with cerebral palsy. His physician had certified him as incapable of managing his financial affairs. At that time, the Canada Elections Act stated that, “Every person who is restrained of his liberty of movement or deprived of the management of property by reason of mental disease” was not qualified to vote.  ARCH launched a Charter application, arguing that this provision violated Mr. Humm’s section 3 right to vote, and that in any event, Mr. Humm did not “suffer” from a “mental disease” (for the purposes of the Canada Elections Act).  Before the case was argued, the Chief Electoral Officer found that cerebral palsy was not a “mental disease” for the purposes of the Federal Elections Act and consequently Mr. Humm and all other residents of the Rideau Regional Centre were permitted to vote.   

In 1984, the province of Ontario removed restrictions to persons with disabilities from the Ontario Election Act after hearing submissions from consumers and advocates, including ARCH.  Also, the clause in the Canada Elections Act disqualifying certain persons with a “mental disease” from voting was successfully challenged in the 1988 federal election by the Canadian Disability Rights Council. That section disqualified people who either had their liberty restrained or were deprived of the management of their own property by reason of “mental disease”. The Federal Court found that the section imposed, in a sense, an arbitrary test of mental competency that was both too wide and too narrow, catching some who should not be within its ambit, and arguably not catching others who should be. Thus while some limitation of the right to vote in section 3 of the Charter might be justifiable on the basis of mental incapacity, this one was not.  The federal government did not appeal the decision.  Bill C - 114, which received Royal Assent in May 1993, removed the disqualification for persons limited as a result of  “mental disease”.
The Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA) and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)

ARCH was legal counsel to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee from 1997 to 2000 through ARCH lawyers David Baker and Patti Bregman. Efforts continued following the adoption of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act in 2001 to get a stronger and more effective statute, which led to the recent passing of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Along with many other groups, ARCH made oral and written submissions to the Standing Committee on Social Policy which were well received. 

Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission 

ARCH has become active at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the federal agency that makes the decisions regulating our telecommunications industry. ARCH’s submissions at several proceedings before the CRTC are available on our website.

Recently, a Telecommunications Policy Review Panel was established by the Minister of Industry. By the end of 2005, the panel has been asked to come up with a comprehensive, modern telecommunications framework that will be beneficial to both the industry and consumers.  ARCH has sought to ensure that the CRTC, industry, and now the Panel take into consideration an equality rights analysis in their decision-making process, and that they consider it their legal obligation to provide a fully accessible telephone service. 
SUMMARY ADVICE

ARCH provides legal information, summary advice, and legal and non-legal referrals to persons with disabilities in Ontario. This service is mostly provided over the telephone. This service also is extended to lawyers calling on behalf of clients with disabilities who wish to discuss the disability implications in the case at issue. 

Among the areas on which ARCH provides summary advice are:

1.	Abuse
2.	Attendant Services
3.	Capacity
4.	Disability-Specific Funding
5.	Education
6.	Employment 
7.	Homecare
8.	Human Rights
9.	Mental Health
10. Disabled Person Parking Permit
11. Privacy
12. Policing
13. Taxation
14. Transportation

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ARCH's staff and board are engaged in working with committees and coalitions, including:  

1.	Legal Aid Ontario Accessibility Committee
2.	Law Society of Upper Canada Equity Advisory Committee
3.	Ontario Coalition for Inclusive Education 
4.	Inter-provincial Working Group on Housing
5.	ODSP Action Coalition
6.	Mental Health Legal Committee
ARCH also collaborates with other partners, including community and specialty legal clinics.  For example, ARCH collaborated with ACE: Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and CLEO: Community Legal Education Ontario in the development of the Home Care Complaints and Appeals pamphlet and the Home Care Bill of Rights pamphlet. ARCH also collaborates with disability organizations, for example, ARCH co-hosted a provincial summit that brought together representative of stakeholders in education to discuss strategies and approaches to ensuring that high quality education is available to all children with disabilities accessing the public school system. ARCH’s partners for this project were the Canadian Association for Community Living, Community Living Ontario, and the Ontario Coalition for Inclusive Education. 

PUBLIC AND CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

ARCH provides public legal education to persons with disabilities regarding legal rights and new developments in the law. We provide education directed to the public to promote the views, interests and rights of persons with disabilities. We provide disability law education to advocates and lawyers. We give presentations, workshops and seminars and produce written materials, including our newsletter ARCH Alert. 

Over the years, ARCH has presented at numerous conferences and workshops, and more recently, delivered presentations on legal issues relating to disability at the following:

1.	Lecture on Crime Prevention and Independent Living, National Safety Symposium Sponsored by Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres (CAILC);
2.	Lecture on Human Rights in Canada, University of Ontario Institute of Technology;
3.	Lecture/discussion with George Brown students who have been consumers of psychiatric services on human rights, especially in the context of employment;
4.	Lecture to Toronto District School Board Career Advisory Awareness Services program;
5.	Lecture/discussion with youth in YWCA “Youth ARE” program regarding human rights, employment and disclosure of disabilities;
6.	Lecture/discussion on Supportive Housing at Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario; and
7.	Lectures at Community Living Ontario's 50th Annual General Meeting.
Tax Tips in ARCH*Type and ARCH Alert 

There are few certainties in life; one is income tax. For ARCH Alert and ARCH*Type subscribers, ARCH’s Tax Tips, have also become a yearly expectation. Helpful hints specific to the needs of persons with disabilities are compiled and released during tax season. 

Institutional Outreach

ARCH began a special project, Institutional Outreach, pioneered by Pat Worth and Harry Beatty from 1986-88, which involved visiting developmental services facilities/institutions and providing information and education to residents about their rights and freedom to make choices. This project culminated in a unique conference, among the first of its kind, on the impact of institutionalization.  Almost half of the participants at the event were people living in institutions.
Issues Relating to Abuse of Persons with Disabilities

Throughout its 25-year existence, ARCH has been involved with the issue of abuse of persons with disabilities through various projects and public awareness initiatives. Most recently, ARCH with the assistance of an advisory committee made up of community and legal members, has undertaken the project of developing a series of Fact Sheets about abuse of persons with disabilities. You will find the text of several of the Fact Sheets on our website, while others are still in the development stage.    In addition, ARCH co-hosted a panel presentation with the Law Society of Upper Canada – the room was filled to capacity.

A Disability Law Primer

In 2003, with the support of the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Law Foundation of Ontario, and Pro Bono Law Ontario, ARCH produced “A Disability Law Primer: A Continuing Legal Education Program for Ontario Lawyers”.  The fundamentals of the solicitor-client relationship do not change because the client has a disability. Despite this, it seems that lawyers worry a lot about whether to, or how to, represent clients with disabilities. One of the aims for this project was to provide resources to lawyers in the hopes of relieving the worries and fears that many lawyers seem to have about representing persons with disabilities - worries which in themselves can amount to barriers for persons with disabilities. The unease that lawyers may have can arise out of a lack of familiarity with persons with disabilities, or with the law regarding disability. Our goal was to provide specific legal information that is pertinent to the lives of persons with disabilities so that providing them with representation will become an ordinary aspect of practicing law, as a matter of course. ARCH prepared thorough information on several topics dealing with government programs or laws, as they affect disability. In conjunction with the written materials, ARCH staff provided lectures on the legal issues raised in the materials in Toronto, Ottawa, Kingston, Sault Ste. Marie, and Welland. 

AT TEN YEARS…

“ARCH has made a significant contribution to the disability rights movement in Ontario. It has served as a focal point for the movement.

When the movement was just starting, the consumer and advocacy groups were filled with unfocussed energy. But more than energy was required in the pursuit of equality. Concrete action is what was needed. ARCH has strongly positioned itself as a catalyst and leader in the movement.

When I think of ARCH, I think of it as the focal point to which consumers, advocates and their organizations turn for leadership and empowerment, that is, for positive action.

ARCH has been very effective in providing litigation under a number of statutes, including human rights legislation and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the latter field especially, there is potential for people with disabilities to score victories. But it is only potential until and unless there is a force, such as ARCH, to pursue these goals.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and ARCH have had a very productive relationship. We have looked upon ARCH as an important partner and consultant on developing some of our systemic strategies and priorities. In the development of the Accommodation Guidelines, for instance, we received substantial and high-quality input.”  

Catherine Frazee 
past Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission 
Excerpt from ARCH*Type (October-November 1990) “Celebrating 10 Years”

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION AND PRO BONO WORK AT ARCH

ARCH's work is made possible by the unfailing efforts of volunteers from a variety of backgrounds. For instance, volunteers from the community support ARCH's work in many ways, including with research, assisting in the Resource Centre, and help with  special events. The assistance from volunteers from the legal profession and law students is invaluable. This includes working on research projects, accepting referrals from ARCH, and accepting cases on a pro bono basis. ARCH is greatly appreciative of the generous support of the Blake, Cassels and Graydon LLP articling student program. Currently, invaluable litigation support is provided by Stikeman Elliott LLP, Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP and Palliare Roland LLP. In the late 90’s, this effort was led by the Dickson Circle. Bryan Finlay from Weir Foulds LLP was the founding Chair of the Dickson Circle, an association of litigators across Canada who act for free on behalf of clients with disabilities in significant public interest cases. In 1997, he approached the former Supreme Court Justice, the Honourable Brian Dickson, who became Honourary Chair.  For several years, the Dickson Circle provided test-case litigation support to ARCH.

HONOURARY MEMBERS OF ARCH

1984	Roy McMurtry
1985	Rosalie Abella
1986	Jean Chretien
1987	Emmett Hall
1990	Stanley Knowles
1991	Ian Scott
1993	Brian Dickson
1995	Catherine Frazee
1998	Gerard LaForest

ARCH*TYPE AND ARCH ALERT

ARCH Alert is an electronic newsletter produced by ARCH. It is distributed free, primarily via e-mail, or by fax and mail to the Legal Aid clinic system, individuals in the community, ARCH's member groups, community organizations, private bar lawyers, federal MPs, media, and the Ontario government at all levels. There are approximately 2,800 people receiving each issue directly and many more indirectly. 

ARCH*Type is no longer in print but was issued between 1981 and 2000 by paid subscription. Throughout the years, ARCH*Type had as many as 3000 subscribers in a given year.  It was distributed by mail to government, media, MPPs, community organizations, ARCH member groups, individuals, private bar lawyers, and government.

“ARCH has always kept people with disabilities, their families, caregivers, and the legal community in Ontario informed on issues of concern.  ARCH publications – ARCH*Type (no longer published) and ARCH Alert - provide timely, thoughtful, and informative news and analysis of legal and social problems related to disability.  Nowhere else can you find information on such matters as income tax, family law, and immigration. ARCH publications are written in plain language, not legalese. They are accessible in many formats. Other media, including the daily press, rely on them to learn about key developments.”

- John Feld, past Editor of ARCH*Type 

“Being the editor of ARCH Alert is a serious responsibility.  My goal is to give our readers information about cases, legislation and law reform projects that are important to the disability community, in a way that they understand and in time for it to be useful.  When consumers, member organizations, students, government employees and even Members of Provincial Parliament tell us that they rely on ARCH Alert, we are happy to know that we are carrying on a proud tradition.”

- Heidi Lazar-Meyn, present Editor of ARCH Alert

RESOURCE CENTRE

For more than twenty years, ARCH has collected information in the form of books and reports on many disability-related topics. We have a wealth of information dealing with human rights, employment, social assistance and accessibility, among other areas of interest to persons with disabilities. The online catalogue can be found at http://www.archlegalclinic.ca/search/index.asp.  ARCH's library is available for use by the general public Monday through Friday between the hours of 10:00 am and 4:00 pm.

The reference centre is fully accessible to persons with disabilities, and includes computers with adaptive technology that can be used by persons with visual or motor impairments. The reference collection includes more than 3,000 printed books and materials in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, electronic documents in PDF and HTML formats, and audiocassettes. 
A MESSAGE FROM THE MINISTER OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

ARCH
Celebrating 25 Years of Community Service
October 6, 2005

On behalf of the Government of Ontario, I would like to extend my best wishes to everyone at ARCH on the occasion of its 25th Anniversary Celebration.
Since 1980, ARCH and its member organizations have been instrumental in defending and advancing equality rights for those living with disabilities.

As Ontario moves toward full accessibility for persons with disabilities, our government will work hard to set the standards for our combined vision of a barrier-free Ontario. We will continue to provide vital funding and supports to assist individuals to stay in their homes and become productive members of the community.

Congratulations to all of ARCH’s staff, members, volunteers and board of directors on your impressive commitment and monumental efforts!

Sandra Pupatello
Minister of Community and Social Services

A MESSAGE FROM LEGAL AID ONTARIO

On behalf of Legal Aid Ontario, I congratulate ARCH: A Legal Resource Centre for Persons with Disabilities, on their 25-year anniversary of defending and advancing the equality rights of persons with disabilities. ARCH has done and continues to do an excellent job in ensuring the provision of high-quality clinic law services to low-income members with disabilities in the community.

Janet Leiper, Chair
Legal Aid Ontario

A MESSAGE FROM THE COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES (CCD)

To All Past and Present Board Members and Staff of ARCH

Congratulations and thank you for the outstanding contribution over the past 25 years.  The work of ARCH has been critically important to the national disability rights community and in many instances the expertise and skill embodied in ARCH has made it possible for Canadians with disabilities to achieve greater equality.  CCD, as Canada’s largest cross-disability advocacy association of persons with disabilities, has utilized the specialized knowledge and skills of ARCH to help us advance the rights of Canadians with disabilities through law reform, litigation and research.  Truly ARCH has been there to support us when we have needed them.  CCD’s record before the courts is impressive, and in cases such as Bhinder, Andrews, Chesters, Granovsky, Grismer, Lovelace, Rodriguez, Auton and many others, ARCH has acted as legal counsel to CCD.  The 25th Anniversary of ARCH is a milestone worthy of celebration.

CCD thanks you for your past work and looks forward to continued collaboration to advance the rights of Canadians with disabilities. 
Sincerely,
			
Marie White						 
National Chairperson	
Laurie Beachell
National Coordinator

ARCH AT THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

1.	Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) – Decision Pending.  ARCH intervened on behalf of the Canadian Association for Community Living and Ethno-Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario.

“On behalf of our clients, ARCH examined the discriminatory history behind immigration legislation. We argued that the values of dignity, accommodation and inclusion contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in international human rights principles are important tools for statutory interpretation and that these values should infuse the legislation.”
-	Dianne Wintermute, former staff lawyer, ARCH Alert (March 2005)

2.	Nova Scotia (Minister of Health) v. J.J., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 177. ARCH intervened on behalf of the Canadian Association for Community Living and People First of Canada.

“The significance of independent judicial review of state action when a vulnerable adult has been deprived, at the instigation of the state, of the right to function autonomously, cannot be overstated. […] The legislation must, therefore, be interpreted in a way which acknowledges the intrusiveness of the determination and offers muscular protection from state intervention incompatible with the adult’s welfare.”
-	Justice Abella at paragraph 23 of the decision

3.	Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 657.  ARCH, with co-counsel at Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish LLP, intervened on behalf of the Canadian Association for Community Living and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

"The intervention explore(d) [...] the equality guarantee in the Charter.  An argument [was] made that the denial of government-funded disability-related supports, services, benefits, and ameliorative mechanisms that are successful in promoting social inclusion, equal citizenship, and participation of persons with disabilities violates section 15 of the Charter."
-	Dianne Wintermute, former staff lawyer, ARCH Alert (April 2004)

4.	Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 381. ARCH intervened on behalf of the Canadian Association for Community Living, the Canadian Hearing Society, and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered whether it should revisit the “undue hardship” test used to determine when a violation of the Charter can be upheld as being justifiable under section 1 of the Charter. ARCH identified this issue as having a potentially negative impact on the hard-won gains achieved by persons with disabilities in Eldridge. The Supreme Court rejected the test proposed by the Court of Appeal but the Court did weaken the existing test when it allowed alleged budgetary restraints to justify a violation of equality rights.

5.	Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Laseur, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504. ARCH intervened on behalf of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups.

“More clearly than ever before, the Court stated that the Charter right to equality for persons with disabilities entails a right to be accommodated on an individualized basis. […] [T]he decision represents […] a significant development in our understanding of what the Charter right to equality means for injured workers and other persons with disabilities.”					
-	Bill Holder, former staff lawyer, ARCH Alert (November 2003)

6.	Lovelace v. Ontario, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950. ARCH intervened on behalf of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

Lovelace is the leading decision by the Supreme Court on section 15(2) of the Charter, which deals with affirmative action programs or special programs. The application of section 15(2) to special programs which rely on differential treatment to achieve equality is of great importance to persons with disabilities because of the nature and extent of the disadvantage and discrimination they encounter in their lives. ARCH’s intervention related to the circumstances under which distinctions within a special program are discriminatory and must therefore be justified under section 1 of the Charter.

7.	British Columbia (Super. of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights),[1999] 3 S.C.R. 868 [Grismer]. ARCH intervened on behalf of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

Mr. Grismer had homonymous hemianopsia, a condition which eliminated most of his left side peripheral vision in both eyes.  His driver’s licence was cancelled as his vision no longer met the Superintendent of Motor Vehicle’s standard of a minimum field of vision. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the refusal to permit Mr. Grismer to try to demonstrate that his disability could be accommodated without jeopardizing the Superintendent’s goal of reasonable road safety amounted to discrimination.

8.	Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. ARCH intervened on behalf of the Canadian Mental Health Association.

Mr. Winko challenged the validity of the section of the Criminal Code, where a Review Board may consider the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused and the reintegration of the accused into society.  The Court found that the scheme of the legislation was not overbroad. It ensured that the accused's liberty would be limited no more than was necessary to protect public safety. The section did not infringe section 15(1) of the Charter.

ARCH also intervened on behalf of the Canadian Mental Health Association in the companion appeals where the same issue was raised: R. v. LePage, Bese v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), and Orlowski v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute).

9.	Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241. ARCH represented the Eaton family, and began doing so when the case reached the Special Education Tribunal. 

Emily Eaton was a young girl with physical and intellectual disabilities.  She was placed in a special education class. The Supreme Court had to determine whether placement in a special education class and the process of doing so without parental consent infringed the child's equality Charter rights. 

“Exclusion from the mainstream of society results from the construction of a society based solely on ‘mainstream’ attributes to which disabled persons will never be able to gain access.  Whether it is the impossibility of success at a written test for a blind person, or the need for ramp access to a library, the discrimination does not lie in the attribution of untrue characteristics to the disabled individual.  The blind person cannot see and the person in a wheelchair needs a ramp.  Rather, it is the failure to make reasonable accommodation, to fine-tune society so that its structures and assumptions do not result in the relegation and banishment of disabled persons from participation, which results in discrimination against them. […] It is recognition of the actual characteristics, and reasonable accommodation of these characteristics which is the central purpose of section 15(1) in relation to disability.”
-	Justice Sopinka at paragraph 67 of the decision

10.	Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624. ARCH intervened on behalf of the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the Canadian Hearing Society and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities

In this seminal case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that where sign language interpreters are necessary for effective communication in the delivery of medical services, the failure to provide them constitutes a Charter violation.

“This decision sends a strong message to governments that they cannot avoid their Charter obligations by privatizing the delivery of services and that they have a positive obligation to remove barriers which prevent people with disabilities from fully enjoying the same government programs and services enjoyed by the general public.” 
-	Patti Bregman, former staff lawyer, ARCH*Type (November - December 1997)

11.	Battlefords and District Co-operative Ltd. v. Gibbs, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 566. ARCH intervened on behalf of the Canadian Mental Health Association.

After exhausting sick leave benefits, Mr. Gibbs received insurance benefits providing income replacement for disabled employees.  The benefits were to end after two years in the case of mental disability unless the employee was in an institution, even where the employee was permanently unable to work.  Had this been a case of physical disability, the policy allowed for benefits to continue until the age of 65.  The Supreme Court reaffirmed that human rights legislation is fundamental and quasi-constitutional and should be interpreted in a broad and purposive manner. Mr. Gibbs was denied a benefit because of his mental disability.  Therefore, the insurance plan was discriminatory and contravened the Ontario Human Rights Code.

12.	Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519.  ARCH intervened on behalf of Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped.

Ms. Rodriguez had been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and her condition was deteriorating rapidly.  She wanted to control the circumstances, timing and manner of her death but by the time that she would no longer be able to enjoy her life she would not be able to end it without help.  She wanted a Court order allowing a medical practitioner to set up a means to end her life at a time of her choosing. COPOH [now CCD] retained ARCH to intervene in support of Ms. Rodriguez’s right to be accommodated should she desire to exercise her right to end her own life. The court denied her request.

“Taking one’s own life is not a crime in Canada. But it is not an option which is open to somebody who, because of disability, is unable to commit suicide without some assistance.” 

-	Anne Molloy, former staff lawyer (now Justice of the Superior Court of Ontario), ARCH*Type, January 1994

13.	Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872.  ARCH intervened on behalf of the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped.

A male prison inmate challenged the constitutionality of frisk searching and patrolling of cells in male prisons by female guards.  Although female prison inmates are not subject to cross-gender frisk searches, equality under section 15(1) of the Charter does not necessarily impose identical treatment.  In fact, different treatment can be called for in order to promote equality.  

14.	Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970. ARCH intervened on behalf of Disabled People for Employment Equity and Persons United for Self Help in Ontario (P.U.S.H.) Ontario.

The decision considered the extent of the employer’s “duty to accommodate”. The Supreme Court found that an employer must take reasonable measures short of undue hardship to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and practices and that private arrangements, by contract or collective agreement, must give way to the requirements of the Human Rights Act.  A union shares the joint responsibility to seek to accommodate the employee.  Both are equally liable if nothing is done. The complainant also has a duty to assist in securing an appropriate accommodation. 

15.	Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236.  ARCH intervened on behalf of the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped and The Quebec Multi Ethnic Association for the Integration of Handicapped People.

The issue in this case was whether the Canadian Council of Churches, a public interest litigant, should be granted status to proceed with an action.  The Court outlined the factors to consider when a public interest group is seeking standing, which are: is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation; has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected or a genuine interest in the law’s validity; and is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the Court. The Appeal was dismissed. 

16.	Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143. ARCH intervened on behalf of Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped.

"It is clear that the purpose of section 15 is to ensure equality in the formulation and application of the law. The promotion of equality entails the promotion of a society in which all are secure in the knowledge that they are recognized at law as human beings equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration. […] Discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society because it epitomizes the worst effects of the denial of equality, and discrimination reinforced by law is particularly repugnant. The worst oppression will result from discriminatory measures having the force of law. It is against this evil that section 15 provides a guarantee."
-	Justice McIntyre (dissenting in part) at pages 171-172 of the decision 

17.	Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561. ARCH intervened on behalf of the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded.

“[W]here discrimination has taken place, it is the responsibility of the respondent to prove it has accommodated the person[.] [… W]here the respondent seeks to relieve itself of the duty to accommodate, it must establish that to do so would impose an ‘undue hardship’.”
-	David Baker, past Executive Director, ARCH*Type (October-November 1990)

18.	Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536. ARCH intervened on behalf of the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded and Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped.

“While no right can be regarded as absolute, a natural corollary to the recognition of a right must be the social acceptance of a general duty to respect and to act within reason to protect it. In any society the rights of one will inevitably come into conflict with the rights of others. It is obvious then that all rights must be limited in the interest of preserving a social structure in which each right may receive protection without undue interference with others. This will be especially important where special relationships exist, in the case at bar the relationship of employer and employee. In this case, consistent with the provisions and intent of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the employee's right requires reasonable steps towards an accommodation by the employer.”
-	Justice McIntyre at paragraph 22 of the decision

ARCH – A NEW LOGO AND A NEW NAME

At ARCH’s Annual General Meeting on October 6, 2005, ARCH members will vote on a proposed new name, ARCH Disability Law Centre. If the name is passed, a new logo will be adopted by ARCH.

 THANK YOU!

The production of this document would not have been possible without the extraordinary hard work and dedication of ARCH staff and ARCH volunteers. Thanks to Angie Wynn and Joanna Leong, our volunteer law students, for taking on the daunting task of starting this project and seeing it through.  We also owe a great deal of thanks to everyone who volunteered their time with ARCH’s 25th Anniversary Committee, and to everyone who contributed in this book.  

A very special thank you to John Feld and Harry Beatty, for their time, energy and extraordinary insight in the review of preliminary drafts of this document.  

In addition, ARCH thanks CIBC for its generous donation to support ARCH’s Annual General Meeting celebrating its 25th year.