[*] The authors wish to acknowledge a number of individuals and associations who provided background and assistance in the development of this project:  Mary Marrone (Income Security Advocacy Centre and the ODSP Action Coalition, Joan Gilmour, Marcia Rioux, Ryan Peck (HIV and AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario) and theround table participants from Community Living York South and the Centre for Independent Living Toronto.



[1] Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), Defining Disability: A Complex Issue (Ottawa: Office of Disability Issues, 2003) at 2 notes that it may be neither possible nor desirable to develop a uniform definition of disability as various programs serve a different purpose and restrict eligibility accordingly. See also Social Development Canada, Advancing the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, 2004 (Ottawa: Social Development Canada, 2004) at 12.


[2] See Law Commission of Ontario, The Law as it Affects Persons with Disabilities: Background Paper (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, 2010) at 7 in which the following six principles are adopted, on preliminary basis:  1. Respect for the dignity and worth of persons with disabilities; 2. Autonomy and independence; 3. Inclusion and participation; 4. Equality and non-discrimination; 5. Recognition that humans vary infinitely along a spectrum of abilities and that society must accommodate these variances into its mainstream; and 6. Respect for the diversity among persons with disabilities in the experience of disability. (hereinafter “the principles”). [Law Commission of Ontario (2010)]

[3] The Ontario Disability Support Plan is established and governed by the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25, Schedule B [ODSPA]

[4] Law Commission of Ontario (2010), note 2.

[5] An extensive review of this shift in conceptualization and its impact on legal definitions of disability is found in Law Commission of Ontario, The Law as it Affects Persons with Disabilities: Preliminary Consultation Paper: Approaches to Defining Disability (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, 2009) [Law Commission of Ontario (2009)].

[6] See generally Mike Oliver, Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice (London:  Macmillan, 1996); Marcia Rioux, “On Second Thought: Constructing Knowledge, Law, Disability and Inequality” in S.Herr, L. Gostin and H. Koh,eds., The Human Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities:  Different but Equal (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2003) 287 [Rioux (2003)]; Colin Barnes and  Geoffrey Mercer, “Disability, Work and Welfare: Challenging the Social Exclusion of Disabled People” (2005) 19 Work Employment and Society 527 [Barnes and Mercer]; Colin Barnes, Geof Mercer & Tom Shakespeare, Exploring Disability: A Sociological Introduction (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1999). 

[7] Rioux (2003), note 6 at 290. 

[8] Michael J. Prince Absent Citizens: Disability Politics and Policy in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009)at 16 [Prince (2009)].

[9] Barnes and Mercer, note 6; Rioux (2003), note 6.

[10] Rioux (2003), note 6; Law Commission of Ontario (2009), note 5 divides the social model into the ‘social approach’ and the ‘human rights approach’. 

[11]  Catherine Frazee, Joan Gilmour and Roxanne Mykitiuk “Now you See Her, Now you Don’t: How Law Shapes Disabled Women’s Experience of the Exposure, Surveillance and Assessment in the Clinical Encounter” in Dianne Pothier and Richard Devlin, eds., Critical Disability Theory: Essays in Philosophy, Politics and Law (Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press, 2006) 129 [Frazee, Gilmour and  Mykitiuk]; Sally French, “Disability Impairment or Something in Between?” in John Swain, Vic Finkelstein, Sally French and Mike Oliver, Disabling Barriers – Enabling Environments (London, Sage, 1993) 17; Carol Thomas, “How is Disability Understood? An Examination of Sociological Approaches” (2004) 19 Disability and Society 225.

[12] Joan Gilmour, “Retrenchment not Reform Using Law and Policy to Restrict the Entitlement of Women with Disabilities to Social Assistance” in S. Gavigan and D. Chunn,eds., The Legal Tender of Gender: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Welfare Law, State Policies and the Regulation of Women’s Poverty (Oxford: Hart Publishing, in press) [Gilmour in press];  Frazee, Gilmour and  Mykitiuk, note 11.

[13] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 30 March 2007, U.N. Doc. A/61/611, (entered into force 3 May, 2008) [ CRPD]

[14] CPRD, note 13 at Preamble.

[15] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c.11.

[16] Human Rights Code. R.S.O.1990, c. H.19 [Human Rights Code]

[17] CRPD, note 13 at Preamble.

[18] Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Social Services, Canada, In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues, (Hull, Quebec: Human Resources Development Canada, 2000) [In Unison].

[19] In Unison, note 18. 

[20] CRPD, note 13 at Article 3.

[21] Law Commission of Ontario (2010), note 2 at 4. Note that in its report released in June, 2010, ,  “Recommendations for an Ontario Income Security Review”, the Social Assistance Review Advisory Council  identified a number of similar principles  that it recommends serve as the  outcomes for the measurement of  performance of the province’s income system:
            1. Autonomy, responsibility and dignity of recipients
            2. Income for all Ontarians that at least meets a liveable income standard
             3. Human capacity development and its optimal employment to contribute to the economic
                 prosperity of Ontarians
             4. Public and fiscal sustainability
             5. Fairness, equity and transparency
             6. Empowerment of recipients to improve their economic circumstances.
See Social Assistance Review Advisory Council, “Recommendations for an Ontario Income Security Review: Report of the Ontario Social Assistance Review Advisory Council” (May 2010), online: Ministry of Community and Social Services,<http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/documents/en/mcss/publications/social/sarac%20report/SARAC%20Report%20-%20FINAL.pdf> at 18 [Social Assistance Review Advisory Council].

[22] R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483at para. 21, McLachlin C.J. and Abella, J. [Kapp]

[23] Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624 at para. 54, La Forest J. [Eldridge].

[24] Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 at 171, McIntyre J. [Andrews]. Note that McIntyre J. dissented, in part, but not on this issue.

[25] Michael Prince, “A National Strategy for Disability Supports: Where is the Government of Canada in this Social Project?”, Presentation for the Seminar Series School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences L.D. Acton Building, Queen’s University (March 10, 2005), online:  University of Victoria, <http://web.uvic.ca/spp/documents/nationalstratdisa.pdf> at 4 [Prince (2005)].

[26] Prince (2005), note 25 at 4.

27 Shier et al., “Barriers to Employment as Experienced by Disabled People: a qualitative analysis in Calgary and Regina, Canada” (2006) 21 Disability & Society 2 [Shier et al.]; Lyn Jongbloed, “Disability Policy in Canada: an Overview” (2003) 13 Journal of Disability Policy Studies 203 [Jongbloed (2003)]; V.A. Crooks & V. Chouinard, “Because they have all the power and I have none: state restructuring of income and employment supports and disabled women’s lives in Ontario, Canada” (2005) 20 Disability & Society 19 [Crooks & Chouinard (2005)].

[28] Jongbloed (2003), note 27 at 204; see also Gilmour (in press), note 12 and Shier et al., note 27.

[29] Prince (2009), note 8 at 16.

[30] Gilmour (in press), note 12; Crooks & Chouinard (2005), note 27, at 20 argue that governments have engaged in an “actively deliberate political retreat from prior commitments to developing more socially and spatially just societies; societies which protect everyone’s rights and well-being at least at some minimally collectively acceptable level.” 


[31] Falkiner v. Director, Income Maintenance Branch, Ministry of Community and Social Services & Attorney General of Ontario [2002], 50 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. granted, [2004] SCCB 130, the Attorney General of Ontario withdrew its appeal. Case cited in Gilmour (in press), note 12.

[32] Prince (2005), note 25 at 3.


[33] Prince (2005), note 25 at 3.


[34] Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241, Lamer C.J.C at para. 67. 


[35] Gilmour (in press), note 12 at 201, speaking about In Unison, note 18.

[36] Rick August, Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Passive Disability Policy in Canada
(April 2009), online: Caledon Institute <http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/763ENG.pdf>, who argues that passive cash transfers reinforce unemployability [August].  See also Shier et al., note 27 for a discussion of internalized “inabilities.”

[37] Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313 at 368, Dickson C.J.C. Dickson C.J.C writes in dissent but not on this issue.

[38] Crooks & Chouinard (2005), note 27 at 24. These authors argue, for example, that ODSP is not a benevolent attempt by the government to recognize abilities of persons with disabilities but rather a means of reducing welfare roles thus providing evidence of continuing attitudinal barriers. 

[39] See Kapp, note 22, in which the Supreme Court of Canada reviews its decisions in Andrews, note 24and Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497.


[40] Andrews, note 24, at 165.

[41] Eldridge note 23, at para. 79: “reasonable accommodation” referring to the obligation to take steps to the point of “undue hardship.”


[42] See also the other examples cited by LaForest J. in Eldridge, note 23 :  Re Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and Canadian Odeon Theatres Ltd. (1985), 18 D.L.R. (4th) 93 (Sask. C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1985] 1 S.C.R. vi. The S.C.A. found that the failure of a theatre to provide a disabled person a choice of place from which to view a film comparable to that offered to the general public was discriminatory;  Howard v. University of British Columbia (1993), 18 C.H.R.R. D/353 held that the university was obligated to provide a deaf student with a sign language interpreter for his classes: “[W]ithout interpreters”, the Human Rights Council held, at p. D/358, “the complainant did not have meaningful access to the service”; Centre de la communauté sourde du Montréal métropolitain inc. v. Régie du logement, [1996] R.J.Q. 1776, where the Quebec Tribunal des droits de la personne determined that a rent review tribunal must accommodate a deaf litigant by providing sign language interpretation.


[43] Marcia Rioux, “Towards a Concept of Equality of Well-Being: Overcoming the Social and Legal Construction of Inequality” (1994) 7 Can. J.L. & Juris. 127 at para. 50.

[44] Further examples of equality, specifically within the context of ODSP are discussed below, in the application of the Rights-Outcome Lens to ODSP.

[45] Council of Canadians with Disabilities, “As a Matter of Fact: Poverty and Disability in Canada,” (2010),online: Council of Canadians with Disabilities  <http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/socialpolicy/poverty-citizenship/poverty-disability-canada>.

[46] Gilmour (in press), note 12 at 191.

[47] Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 657 at para. 46, McLachlin C.J.C.

[48] Andrews, note 24at 169.

[49] Caledon Institute, “The Disability Income System in Canada: Options for Reform” (2003), online: Caledon Institute <http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/1-895796-72-5.pdf> at 8 [Caledon Institute].

[50] Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montréal (City), 2008 SCC 48, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 698; Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Boisbriand (City), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 665.

[51] World Health Organization, “Disabilities,” (2010),  online: World Health Organization <http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/>.

[52] Burt Perrin, “Lessons Learned From Evaluation of Disability Policy and Programs” (Human Resources Development Canada Evaluation and Data Development Branch, 1999), online: Disability Policy in Canada, <http://www.disabilitypolicy.ca/groups/employment/edocs.php> at 2-3 [Perrin].
[53] Harry Beatty, “Comprehensive Disability Compensation in Ontario,” (1991) 7 Journal of Law and Social Policy 100 at 118.

[54] Granovsky v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 703 at paras. 28-29.

[55] Lyn Jongbloed, “Disability Income: the experiences of women with multiple sclerosis,” (October 1998) Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, online: OTWorks 
<http://www.otworks.ca/pdf/MSJongbloed98.pdf> [Jongbloed (1998)]

[56] National Alliance on Mental Illness Multicultural Action Centre, “Facts about Stigma and Mental Illness in Diverse Communities,” online: National Alliance on Mental Illness <http://www.nami.org/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentFileID=5148> [National Alliance on Mental Illness Multicultural Action Centre].

[57] Both eligibility criteria based on the definition of “disability” and financial circumstances are reviewed in detail below.

[58] Gilmour (in press), note 12 discusses two initiatives at the federal level where transfer payments for social programs generally were reduced. She also addresses the constitutional division of powers on the provision of social programs.

[59] Tanya Hyland, A Critical Analysis of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act and Social Citizenship Rights in Ontario (Ottawa: Institute of Political Economy, Carleton University, 2001),online: DAWN Ontario <http://dawn.thot.net/odsp2.html> quoting Janet Ecker, then Minister of Community and Social Services, in a speech given June 2, 1998 [Hyland].

[60] Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 513 at para. 3 [Tranchemontagne S.C.C.]

[61] See generally Hyland, note 59; Gilmour (in press), note 12 and Joan Gilmour & Dianne Martin, “Women’s Poverty, Women’s Health: the Role of Access to Justice” (2003)  in P. Van Esterik, ed., Head, Heart and Hand: Partnerships for Women’s Health in Canadian Environments (Toronto: National Network  on Environments and Women’s Health, York University, 2001). 

[62] Ball v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 H.R.T.O. 360 (CanLII) at para. 71.  See also Tranchemontagne S.C.C., note 60.

[63] ODSPA, note 3 at Section 4

[64]  Gray v. Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program, (2002) 59 O.R. (3d) 364 (C.A.) at para. 15 [Gray]

[65] Provincial regimes vary, however British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, New Brunswick, North West Territories and Nunavut all require a “severe” impairment as does the Canada Pension Plan criteria. See John Stapleton & Anne Tweddle, “Navigating the Maze: Improving Coordination and Integration of Disability Income and Employment Policies and Programs for People living with HIV/AIDS” (Toronto: Canadian Working Group on HIV and Rehabilitation, 2008) online: Canadian Working Group on HIV and Rehabilitation <http://www.hivandrehab.ca/EN/episodic_disabilities/documents/NavigatingtheMazeFinal.pdf> [Stapleton & Tweddle]


[66] See other legislative regimes in other Canadian jurisdictions, note 65.

[67] August, note 36 at 4 argues that social assistance programs tend to separate persons with disabilities from others, leading to the treatment of disability as “a discrete concept” rather than one that is the natural experience of all people, over the course of their lives.

[68] Centre for Addictions and Mental Health, Barriers to ODSP: Experiences of People with Mental Health and Addictions. (Toronto: Centre for Addictions and Mental Health, 2003),online: Centre for Addictions and Mental Health, <http://www.camh.net/Public_policy/Public_policy_papers/barrierstoodsp.html> [Centre for Addiction and Mental Health].

[69] Gray, note 64 at para. 27.

[70] Gray, note 64  at paras. 13-15.  See also Ontario (Disability Support Program) v. Crane, (2006) 83 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.), which adopted the analysis under the Insurance Act as described in Meyer v. Bright (1993), 15 O.R. (3d) 129 (C.A.).

[71] Sandiford v. Ontario (Ministry of Community, Family and Children’s Services), [2005] 195 O.A.C. 143 (S.C.D.C.) at para. 20 [Sandiford]

[72] See Ball v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 H.R.T.O. 360 (CanLII) at para. 93 for a discussion about the difficulties in using “categorical” and medical definitions of disabilities to include some while excluding others.


[73] Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program) v. Gallier (2000) O.J. No. 4541(Div. Ct.), leave to appeal to O.C.A.refused,,M26675 (7 June 2001) [Gallier]; Gray, note 64.

[74] ODSPA, note 3 at s.5(2).

[75] Ontario Disability Support Program v. Tranchemontange, (2009) 95 O.R. (3d) 327 (Ont.S.C.D.C.) [Tranchemontagne Ont. S.C.D.C.]

[76] Tranchemontagne Ont. S.C.D.C., note 75 at para.69.

[77] Tranchemontagne Ont. S.C.D.C., note 75.
[78] Tiina Kaigas, External Review of the Ontario Disability Support Program (2008) [unpublished] at 17-18 [Kaigas].

[79] Ernie Lightman et al., “Not Disabled Enough: Episodic disabilities and the Ontario Disability Support Program” (2009) 29 Disability Studies Quarterly 3 [Lightman et al.]

[80] John Fraser, Cynthia Wilkey & JoAnne Frenschowski, Denial by design… The Ontario Disability Support Program, (Toronto: Income Security Advocacy Centre, 2003), online: Income Security Advocacy Centre <http://www.incomesecurity.org/documents/DenialByDesignfinal.pdf>at 19 [Fraser, Wilkey & Frenschowski].

[81] Harry Beatty, Possible Improvements to the Ontario Disability Support Programme: a Scoping Exercise, (Toronto: Modernizing Income Security for Working-Age Adults Project, 2005), online: St. Christopher’s House <http://www.stchrishouse.org/get-involved/community-dev/modernizing-income-work-adults/MISWAA%20Commisioned%20Papers/>.

[82] Lynn Cockburn et al., “Work and Psychiatric Disability in Canadian Disability Policy” (2006) 32 Canadian Public Policy 2, (discuss the difficulty of defining mental health in Canadian disability materials.)

[83] Income Security Advocacy Centre, “Disability Adjudication Summaries Review,” (2008) [unpublished] [Income Security Advocacy Centre].

[84] For further discussion of mental health and ODSP see Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, note 68.

[85] Income Security Advocacy Centre, note 83.

[86] Lightman et al., note 79.

[87] Gray, note 64.

[88] Jongbloed (1998), note 55. 

[89] Many studies have noted the disproportionate impact on women, in particular.  See generally, Jongbloed (1998), note 55; Crooks & Chouinard (2005), note 27; Gilmour & Martin, note 61 and Gilmour (in press), note 12.  Given differential impacts of types of disabilities on cultural and ethnic groups, further study on these factors is also warranted.

[90] See for example National Alliance on Mental Illness Multicultural Action Centre, note 56.

[91] Family Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-2.


[92] Gilmour (in press), note 12 at 203. See also Frazee, Gilmour & Mykitiuk, note 11. 

[93] Gallier, note 73 stated that it was necessary to consider the person within his or her own context to understand how the substantial impairment may cause restrictions.

[94] At the federal level, the Employment Equity Act, S.C. 1995, c. 44 seeks to reintegrate persons with disabilities into employment by acknowledging that those individuals should have the same opportunity for full participation.  Underlying employment equity legislation is the realization that persons with disabilities face barriers in pre-employment conditions and employment environments and despite more than twenty-five years of efforts to reduce those barriers, persons with disabilities continue to be employed at levels below workforce availability.


[95] Melodie Mayson, Nancy Vander Plaats & Dianne Wintermute, Ontario Disability Support Program: Disability Determination and Appeals to the Social Benefits Tribunal (Toronto: Neighbourhood Legal Services, 2005) [Mayson, Vander Plaats & Wintermute].


[96] Ken Battle & Sherri Torjman, Social Policy That Works: An Agenda, (Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy, 2002), online: Caledon Institute of Social Policy  <http://www.caledoninst.org/PDF/553820304.pdf> describe the ways in which persons with disabilities, who may be able to perform job functions, are excluded from work due to environmental, attitudinal and social barriers [Battle & Torjman]


[97] Human Rights Code, note 16 at s. 5(1) (prohibition against direct discrimination on the basis of disability); s. 11(1) (prohibition against indirect discrimination); s. 17(2) (requirement of ‘reasonable accommodation’ in employment). 

[98] Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c.11 [AODA]

[99] Battle & Torjman, note 96 note the different labour market and impact on persons with disabilities and the failure of social assistance programs to recognize reality of work.

[100] Caledon Institute, note 49 at 10 and the other studies cited in that report.

[101] ODSPA, note 3,s. 4(1)(c).  Regulations define the medical professionals able to verify this information and include physicians, social workers and others.

[102] Sandiford, note 71; Ginter v. Director, Employment and Income Assistance, 2003 MBCA 36, 173 Man. R. (2d) 104; D. Matthews, Report to the Honourable Sandra Pupatello, Minister of Community and Social Services: Review of Employment Assistance Programs under Ontario Works and ODSP, (Toronto: Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2004) online: Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services <http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/NR/MCFCS/OW/Report/EmploymentAssistanceProgram.pdf>.

[103] See generally Frazee, Gilmour & Mykitiuk, note 11 and Jongbloed (1998), note 55

[104] Frazee,Gilmour & Mykitiuk, note 11.

[105] Frazee,Gilmour & Mykitiuk, note 11 at 240. Also see Jongbloed (1998), note 55.

[106] Frazee,Gilmour & Mykitiuk, note 11 at 241.

[107] Jongbloed (1998), note 55.  See also: V. A. Crooks & V. Chouinard, “An embodied geography of disablement: Chronically ill women’s struggles for enabling places in spaces of health care and daily life” (2006) 12 Health & Place 345; Lightman et al., note 79.

[108] Frazee, Gilmour & Mykitiuk, note 11 at 243.

[109] ODSPA, note 3 s. 1.

[110] Gilmour (in press), note 12.

[111] Gilmour (in press), note 12; Hyland, note 59.

[112] Crooks & Chouinard (2005), note 27 at 21.

[113] Stapleton & Tweddle, note 65.

[114] Fraser, Wilkey & Frenschowski, note 80 at 3.

[115] Ontario, ODSP Branch, “ODSP Directive 2.3, Who is Eligible: Spouse” (November, 2006), online: Ministry of Community and Social Services Ontario online: <http://www.accesson.ca/en/mcss/programs/social/directives/directives/ODSPDirectives/income_support/2_3_ODSP_ISDirectives.aspx>.

[116] The authors recognize that the definition of the benefit unit presents many complex issues surrounding economic dependency and relationship dynamics.  The discussion is meant to draw attention to such issues; however, a comprehensive analysis is beyond the scope of this paper.

[117] See generally In Unison, note 18 and Fraser, Wilkey & Frenschowski, note 80. 

[118] See In Unison, note 18.

[119] See O. Reg. 222/98 under the ODSPA, note 3 at s. 30 and 31.

[120] Canadian Council on Social Development, Stats & Facts, online: Canadian Council on Social Development <http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/economic_security/poverty/lico_06.htm>, (last accessed: July 21, 2010).

[121] Centre for Independent Living Toronto, “ODSP and the Extended Health Benefit: to pay for drugs and other medical costs”, (May, 2006) 2 Prime Timers Focus 2. online: Centre for Independent Living Toronto <http://www.cilt.ca/Documents%20of%20the%20CILT%20Website/PTF_02_02.txt>, (last accessed July 21, 2010.

[122] Up to $600.  See O. Reg 222/98 under the ODSPA, note 3 at s.38(2). 

[123] Up to $300.  See O. Reg 222/98 under the ODSPA, note 3 at s. 38(1)(v).  

[124] O. Reg 222/98 under the ODSPA, note 3 at s.43(1)(9) and 43(1)(13).

[125] O. Reg 222/98 under the ODSPA, note 3 at s. 30 and 31.

[126] O. Reg 222/98 under the ODSPA, note 3 at s. 41(1) and 42. 

[127] O. Reg 222/98 under the ODSPA, note 3 at s. 27(1).

[128] O. Reg 222/98 under the ODSPA, note 3 at s. 28(1) and 28(6).

[129] Note that government contributions are based on the beneficiary’s family income and age of the beneficiary.  For further information, please contact Human Resources and Skills Development Canada – <http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/disability_issues/disability_savings/index.shtml.

[130] O. Reg 222/98 under the ODSPA, note 3 at s. 28(1)(26.1).

[131] ODSP. Action Coalition, Telling Our Stories: Disability Should Not Equal Poverty (July 2010) online: ODSP Action Coalition <http://www.odspaction.ca/story/telling-our-stories-disability-should-not-equal-poverty-report-released> at 40.

[132] Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429 at paras. 81-82, McLachlin C.J.C. [Gosselin]

[133] Gosselin note 132at para. 311, Arbour J. citing Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927.

[134] For further information, refer to the standards and diversity lenses established by the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario and the Ontario Public Service Diversity Office. Also, please see David Lepofsky and Randal Graham, “Universal Design in Legislative Drafting – How to Ensure that Legislation is Barrier-Free for People with Disabilities,”  online: Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children <http://www.crvawc.ca/documents/Universal%20design%20in%20drafting%20barrier%20free%20legislation%20for%20people%20with%20disabilities.pdf>.


[135] Fraser, Wilkey & Frenschowski, note 80; Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, note 68; Gilmour (in press), note 12; Gilmour & Martin, note 61; Mayson, Vander Plaats & Wintermute, note 95.

[136] AODA note 98.


[137] Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.32 [Ontarians with Disabilities Act].


[138] Ontarians with Disabilities Act, note 137.


[139] Kaigas, note 78 at 4.

[140] Ontario, Ombudsman, Losing the Waiting Game.  Investigation into Unreasonable Delay at the Ministry of Community and Social Services’ Ontario Disability Support Program’s Disability Adjudication Unit. (Toronto: Ontario, Ombudsman, 2006), online: Ontario Ombudsman<http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/media/3289/losing_the_waiting_game_20060531.pdf>.

[141] Ontario, Office of the Auditor General, Annual Report (Ontario: Queen’s Printer, 2009),online: Ontario, Office of the Auditor General <http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_2009_en.htm> at 227.  The report notes that more than 55% of appeals to the S.B.T on the question of “disability” were successful.  A Ministry report placed the success rate at closer to 80% when taking into account unsuccessful appeals resulting from the applicant’s non-attendance at hearing.

[142] Kaigas, note 78.

[143] See Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Support for Survival: barriers to income security for people living with HIV/AIDS and directions for reform (Toronto: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 2005); Income Security Advocacy Centre, note 83. 

[144] Gilmour & Martin, note 61. 

[145] Social Assistance Review Advisory Council, note 21.

[146] Social Assistance Review Advisory Council, note 21 at ii and iii.

[147] Perrin, note 52 at 13.


First Page 
Table of Contents