[1] Information about this project can be found on the LCO’s website at www.lco-cdo.org/en/content/older-adults. The LCO has released an Interim Report with Framework for that Project, and the Final Report and Framework will be released in mid-2012.
[2] All of the LCO’s public documents for this project are available online: www.lco-cdo.org/en/content/persons-disabilities.
[3] This discussion of the merits and limitations of a principles-based approach is indebted to the thoughtful submissions to the LCO’s 2009 Preliminary Consultation from the Ontario Bar Association and ARCH Disability Law Centre.
[4] An overview and classification of the types of laws affecting persons with disabilities may be found in the LCO’s Preliminary Consultation Paper: Approaches to Defining Disability (June 2009), available online at http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/disabilities-threshold-paper.
[5] International policy and legal instruments aimed at advancing the rights of persons with disabilities include: the Declaration of the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons, GA Res. 2856 (XXVI), UN GAOR, 26th Sess., Supp. No. 29, UN Doc. A/8429 (1971) 93; the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, GA Res. 3447 (XXX), UN GAOR, 30th Sess., Supp. No. 34, UN Doc. A/10034 (1975) 88; the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons, GA Res. 37/52, UN GAOR, 37th Sess., Supp. No. 51, UN Doc. A/37/51 (1982); International Labour Organization Convention 159 concerning Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons), 69th Sess. (1983); the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador”, OAS Doc. A-52, 18th Sess. (1988); the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care, GA Res. 46/119, UN GAOR, 46th Sess., Supp. No. 49, UN Doc. A/46/49 (1991) 189; the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, GA Res. 48/96, 48th Sess. (1993); the Declaration of Managua (December 1993); the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the UN World Conference on Human Rights, UN Doc. A/Conf 157/23 (1993); “Situation of Persons with Disabilities in the American Hemisphere”, GA Res. 1249 (XXIII-O/93), 9th Sess.; “Panama Commitment to Persons with Disabilities in the American Hemisphere”, GA Res. 1369 (XXVI-O/96), 6th Sess.; International Year of Disabled Persons, UN Doc. A/RES/36/77 (1981); and the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons With Disabilities, GA Res. 1608, OAS GAOR, 29th Sess. (1999).
[6] United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 13 December 2006, G.A. Res. 61/106 [CRPD].
[7] Canada has not signed the Optional Protocol.
[8] CRPD, Art. 1 note 6.
A. [9] Secretariat of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, United Nations Enable, “Backgrounder: Disability Treaty Closes a Gap in Protecting Human Rights” (United Nations Department of Public Information, May 2008), online: http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=476 [Secretariat].
[10] Secretariat, note above, ch.2, online: http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=225.
1. [11] Canadian Human Rights Commission, “Background Paper on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Article 33”. Online: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/unconvention_conventionnu/page1-eng.aspx.
[12] Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] S.C.J. No. 12. It is important to note that, although the concept of dignity was seen as a central principle in the equality analysis under section 15 in R. v. Kapp, [2008] S.C.J. No. 42, the Court has identified problems with the extreme emphasis on dignity in section 15 as making it more difficult for claimants to prove their claims (para.22). As a result, the principle of dignity will remain part of the analysis in section 15, but may not take on such a predominant role.
[13] Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) note above at para. 51-53.
[14] Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; see also B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315.
[15] New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G.(J.), [1999] 3 SCR 46.
[16] Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-19, s. 1 [Code].
[17] Code, note above, s. 14.
[18] Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate (Toronto: November, 2000) [Policy] at section 4.1. Online: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/Policies/PolicyDisAccom2.
[19] Granovsky v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 703, 2000 SCC 78 [Granovsky] at paras. 56-58. It is important to note that human dignity underlies many Charter guarantees, and that it does not constitute a particular “test” which section 15 applicants must meet: R. v. Kapp, [2008] S.C.J. No. 42.
[20] Battleford and District Cooperative Ltd. v. Gibbs, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 566 [Battleford] dealt with the history of stigma and marginalization affecting persons with mental health disabilities: see paras. 30-31; see also R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933 [Swain] at 994 on this same issue.
[21] Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse v. Montréal (City), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 665, 2000 SCC 27 [Québec] at paras. 77-83.
[22] Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241 [Eaton] at para. 67.
[23] Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624 [Eldridge].
[24] Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. VIA Rail Canada Inc. [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650, 2007 SCC 15 [Via Rail] at para. 162.
[25] British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. B.C. (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868 [BC Council of Human Rights] at paras. 38 – 40, following B.C. (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3 [BCGSEU].
[26] The Government of Canada also releases regular reports on “Advancing the Inclusion of People with Disabilities”. Online: http://www.rhdcc-hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/disability_issues/reports/fdr/2009/page00.shtml. As well, some provinces, such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba have moved towards comprehensive policy frameworks for disability issues.
[27] All provinces participated with the exception of Quebec.
[28] Social Union, In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues (Human Resources Development Canada, 1998) [In Unison]. Online:http://www.socialunion.gc.ca/pwd/unison/unison_e.html.
[29] In Unison, note 28 at 3.
[30] In Unison, note 28 at 4.
[31] In Unison 2000: Persons with Disabilities in Canada (Human Resources Development Canada, 2000) [In Unison 2000]. Online: www.socialunion.gc.ca/pwd/union/unison_e.html.
[32] Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 12. at para. 39.
[33] For a brief history of the treatment of persons with intellectual disabilities in Ontario, see K. Joffe, ARCH Disability Law Centre, “Enforcing the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Ontario’s Development Services System” (Law Commission of Ontario: June 30, 2010) [Joffe] at ss. 12 – 20. Online: www.lco-cdo.org.
[34] Environics Research Group, “Canadian Attitudes Towards Disability Issues, A Qualitative Study: Final Report” (Government of Canada Office of Disability Issues: 2004) at s 9, 32-34.
[35] This point is made in a the research paper prepared by the Income Security Advocacy Centre, “Denial by Design: the Ontario Disability Support Program” (Toronto, 2003). Online: http://www.odspaction.ca/sites/odspaction.ca/files/denialbydesign.pdf.
[36] M. Bach and L. Kerzner, “A New Paradigm for Autonomy and the Right to Legal Capacity” (Law Commission of Ontario: November 2010) [Bach and Kerzner] at 32. Online: www.lco-cdo.org/en/persons-disabilities.
[37] Ontario Disability Support Programs Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25, Sched. B, s. 5(2).
[38] In Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 513, 2006 SCC 14, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Social Benefits Tribunal had the power to declare a provision of the ODSPA inapplicable on the basis that the provision was discri