Appendix B: Sources for Principles

Appendix B: Sources for Principles2017-03-03T18:35:39+00:00

The LCO looked to a broad range of sources to identify principles for the law and persons with disabilities. The description below outlines the key types of sources and the most foundational documents and processes. However, for reasons of length, not all sources considered can be identified or analyzed here. 

A.    Analyzing the Current Legal Framework
 

One cannot develop principles for an area of the law without first developing an understanding of that area – the issues that it does and does not address, the presuppositions on which it is based, and the approaches used to tackle issues. As a preliminary step therefore, the LCO undertook a review of all Ontario laws that directly reference persons with disabilities, as well as research on laws of general application that may affect persons with disabilities differently or disproportionately. This research formed one of the underpinnings of the LCO’s Preliminary Consultation Paper.[1]

This review identified a number of overarching issues that principles should either take into account or directly address. The following are examples:

  • The lives of persons with disabilities are, for better and for worse, heavily regulated, so that the law is both broad and complex.
  • Due to a tendency to develop laws that are focused on addressing specific issues, the law is fragmented and may be limited in its ability to address persons with disabilities in a holistic fashion; this issue is highlighted by the research that the LCO has undertaken on transition points for persons with disabilities and the law.
  • There is a general tendency in designing laws to emphasize a functional model of disability.
  • The law generally relies on persons with disabilities to navigate complex systems and advocate for themselves.
  • Many laws that are crucial to the well-being of persons with disabilities lack monitoring and accountability mechanisms to ensure that they are operating effectively and as intended.

 

B.    Public Consultations

As described in Chapter I of this Final Report, the LCO carried out public consultations at a number of stages in this project. These public consultations, particularly the extensive community consultations undertaken in the spring and summer of 2010, were crucial to the development of the principles and of the Framework in general. In particular, they assisted the LCO in the following ways: 

  • understanding the lived experience of persons with disabilities with various laws, including identifying common challenges and positive practices within the law,
  • understanding how various groups of persons with disabilities may experience the law differently,
  • identifying the aspirations of persons with disabilities for their lives, and how the law may act as a barrier or a bridge to achieving these aspirations,
  • understanding the challenges that service providers and policy-makers face in designing and implementing policies and practices that are effective in meeting the needs of persons with disabilities within the constraints under which they operate, and,
  • identifying how ableism may operate in both the substance and the implementation of the law.

In short, the consultations informed all aspects of this project.

 

C.    International Documents

Two of the most influential international documents relating to disability are the World Health Organization’s 2001 International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). 

World Health Organization ICF

The ICF is intended to provide a standard framework for the description of health and health-related states and to provide a tool for measuring function in society, regardless of the reason for a person’s impairments.

The ICF advances a “biopsychosocial” model of disability, attempting to synthesize the biomedical and social models of disability. The WHO describes the conceptual approach underlying the ICF as follows:

ICF puts the notions of “health” and “disability” in a new light. It acknowledges that every human being can experience a decrement in health and thereby experience some degree of disability. This is not something that only happens to a minority of humanity. The ICF thus ‘mainstreams’ the experience of disability and recognises it as a universal human experience. By shifting the focus from cause to impact it places all health conditions on an equal footing allowing them to be compared using a common metric – the ruler of health and disability. Furthermore ICF takes into account the social aspects of disability and does not see disability only as a ‘medical’ or ‘biological’ dysfunction. By including Contextual Factors, in which environmental factors are listed ICF allows us to record the impact of the environment on the person’s functioning.[2]

The implications of this shift are explored in more depth in the LCO’s preliminary consultation paper for this project.[3]

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The international legal community has created numerous legal instruments that advance the rights of persons with disabilities.[4] The most recent and encompassing is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).[5]

Most significantly, the CRPD codified the commitment of the international community to recognize the rights of persons with disabilities.  The CRPD was ratified by Canada on March 11, 2010.[6] The purpose of the CRPD is “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity”.[7] It reflects social and human rights models of disability and therefore highlights the need for society to adapt to the specific circumstances and realities of persons with disabilities in order to ensure respect and inclusion. The CRPD does not provide for “new” rights for persons with disabilities, since they are entitled to all the rights accruing to persons under other UN conventions, but recognizes that “without a legally binding treaty that spelled out their rights, persons with disabilities faced being legally ‘invisible’ in their societies and even in the international arena”.[8]

The CRPD details the rights that all persons with disabilities enjoy and outlines the obligations of States Parties to protect those rights. These specific rights include, among others, the right to life, liberty and security of the person; equal recognition before the law and legal capacity; freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse; respect for mental and physical integrity; live in the community; privacy; expression of opinion; education, health and work; an adequate standard of living; and participate in political, public and cultural life. The State’s obligations are to “respect, protect and fulfill” the rights under the CRPD, concepts which are further described in Chapter III of the Final Report.[9]                                                                                   

The CRPD also sets out a number of general principles:

  1. respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons,
  2. non-discrimination,
  3. full and effective participation and inclusion in society,
  4. respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity,
  5. equality of opportunity,
  6. accessibility,
  7. equality between men and women,
  8. respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

Article 33 of the CRPD provides for “national implementation and monitoring”. Furthermore, States Parties are to develop a framework (or strengthen existing ones) “to promote, protect and monitor implementation” of the CRPD that takes into account existing human rights regimes. Monitoring of the CRPD is to involve civil society organizations, especially persons with disabilities.[10]

 

D.    Domestic Laws

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Human Rights Law

As was briefly noted in Chapter II, any discussion of Canadian law and persons with disabilities must begin with a consideration of the rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and their interpretation in the caselaw over the past 30 years. The Charter applies to provincial, federal, territorial and municipal governments and to organizations with a nexus with government, such as bodies that are performing delegated functions (for example, hospitals).[11] It applies to legislation, regulations, municipal by-laws, government action and the executive branch. It does not apply to the private sector; however, the private sector may be influenced by the Charter when its actions are subject to legislation that is challenged under the Charter. The Charter rights most important to the identification of principles for the law as it affects older adults are those set out in sections 7 and 15. 

Section 15(1) of the Charter provides for equality before and under the law, and for equal protection of the law without discrimination on the basis of a number of enumerated grounds, including physical and mental disability, age, sex, race, colour, national and ethnic origin, and religion. Section 15(2) of the Charter shields laws, programs and activities that aim to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged groups or individuals, including those experiencing disadvantage due to their disability, from successful challenge on the ground that they are discriminatory.[12] In interpreting section 15 and the right to equality, the Supreme Court has given central place to the concept of dignity: while the Supreme Court has moved away from the use of dignity as part of a section 15 test, it remains a foundational value underlying the equality analysis.[13] The principle of dignity means that the affected individual or group feels self-respect and self-worth, and is concerned with physical and psychological integrity and empowerment.[14]  

Section 7 of the Charter guarantees the life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived of these except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The right to liberty has been interpreted as including the right to make fundamental personal decisions, as well as freedom from physical constraint and interference with physical freedom.  Liberty includes the right to an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy regarding matters that “can properly be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal such that, by their very nature, they might implicate basic choices going to the core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence.”[15]  Within that sphere, individual choices must be free from state interference.  Security of the person has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada as including an individual’s “psychological integrity”[16] where the interference is sufficiently serious.  

Human rights statutes (in Ontario, the Human Rights Code) also provide a foundation for the identification of principles for the law as it affects persons with disabilities. The purpose of the Ontario Human Rights Code, as expressed in its Preamble, is to recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination. The provisions of the Code are aimed at creating a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person, so that each person feels a part of the community and feels able to contribute to the community.[17]

The Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as of sex, sexual orientation, age, family and marital status, race, ethnicity, place of origin, and several other grounds. Where it is necessary in order to ensure equal treatment without discrimination on the basis of disability, individuals have the right to accommodation up to the point of undue hardship for needs associated with their disability.  These rights extend to the social areas of employment, housing, goods and services, professional and occupational associations, and contracts. Like the Charter, the Code permits special programs to alleviate hardship or economic disadvantage or that are designed to assist individuals or groups to attempt to achieve equal opportunity.[18] 

The OHRC has broad powers to advance the purposes of the Code as expressed in the Preamble. These powers include the ability to develop statements of policy, interpreting the provisions of the Code. The OHRC has developed the Policy and Guidelines on Disability and Duty to Accommodate (2001).That document outlines three principles for consideration in providing equal treatment without discrimination:

  • Respect for dignity: this includes individual self-respect and self-worth, as well as privacy, confidentiality, comfort, autonomy, individuality and self-esteem.
  • Inclusion and participation: this includes ensuring that persons with disabilities are able to access their environment and face the same duties and requirements as everyone else, with dignity and without impediment, and involves inclusive design and the removal of barriers.
  • Individualization: each person with a disability must be considered, assessed and accommodated individually, as each person is unique.
     

The disability-related case law arising under both the Charter and human rights law is rich and complex. Fundamental principles emerging from that case law include:

  • an equality analysis that has as part of its foundation the recognition of the inherent dignity and worth of persons with disabilities,[19]
  • the recognition that laws and policies may reflect stigmas and negative assumptions related to particular disabilities,[20]
  • the recognition that barriers in attitudes and the environment are a key component in the experience of disability, so that the focus of a disability rights analysis must be on dignity, respect and the right to equality rather than solely on biomedical impairments,[21]
  • the necessity of broadening the “mainstream” structures of society to include and respect the differences associated with disability,[22]
  • an emphasis on the right of persons with disabilities to receive equal benefit of services, by design and from the outset, even where special measures are required to ensure this is the case.[23]

Equal access includes consideration of the independence, comfort, dignity, safety and security of persons with disabilities,[24] the right of persons with disabilities to be assessed and accommodated based on their own personal characteristics, rather than assumptions related to their disability.[25]

The Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities Act (AODA)

The AODA is one of the most important and innovative statutes affecting persons with disabilities in Ontario. Developed after several years of concerted advocacy by Ontarians with disabilities, the AODA adopts the broad definition of “disability” used in the Ontario Human Rights Code[26] and creates a comprehensive scheme to develop standards with respect to disability accessibility in a number of specified areas and to require organizations to take proactive steps towards full accessibility in those areas. The purpose of the AODA is to ensure full accessibility for persons with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises by 2025,[27] thereby facilitating the greater inclusion of persons with disabilities in the broader community. The purpose section of the AODA highlights that full accessibility for persons with disabilities will “benefit all Ontarians”.[28]

The AODA takes a progressive implementation approach towards realization of the goal of full accessibility by 2025.  Roughly speaking, the standards set milestones that must be reached every five years or less, to be regularly re-examined and revised as necessary to meet the long-term goal.[29]

The AODA recognizes the importance of the participation and inclusion of persons with disabilities, both in its substance and its processes. It defines a barrier (in part) as “anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or her disability”.[30] The standards development process recognizes the importance of the participation of persons with disabilities in the creation of laws, policies and procedures that affect them, in that it requires the inclusion of persons with disabilities, along with representatives of government and of industry, in the development of the standards.[31]

 

E.     Domestic Policy Documents

Canada and various provinces have, over the years, adopted a number of important policy frameworks surrounding persons with disabilities,[32] many of which are helpful in identifying principles for evaluating laws and policies as they affect persons with disabilities and assessing their evaluation. 

In 1998, the federal, territorial and provincial ministers responsible for social services[33] developed In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues[34] which outlines a blueprint for promoting the integration of persons with disabilities in Canada. This report was also aimed at creating a coordinated approach to delivering services and benefits to persons with disabilities and to promoting inclusion and participation. The report articulates a vision of full citizenship for persons with disabilities in Canada: 

Persons with disabilities participate as full citizens in all aspects of Canadian society. The full participation of persons with disabilities requires the commitment of all segments of society. The realization of this vision will allow persons with disabilities to maximize their independence and enhance their well-being through access to required supports and the elimination of barriers that prevent their full participation.[35]

In Unison aimed to achieve this vision of citizenship for persons with disabilities through the implementation of three building blocks: disability supports, employment and income. It endorsed principles of universal design “by focusing on policies that promote access to generic programs and services for all Canadians, including persons with disabilities.”[36] It emphasizes the values of equality, independence and inclusion.

In 2000, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for social services issued an updated version of In Unison, In Unison 2000. This Report compares the situation for persons with disabilities with that of persons without disabilities and provides examples of effective practices. It is more responsive to the distinct experiences and approaches of First Nations than the 1998 Report was. The Report indicates that the members of the disability community who participated in developing In Unison 2000 believed that “’an access and inclusion lens’ should be applied to all activities of governments, from human resources to the broad range of programs delivered”.[37]   

The Ontario Public Service Inclusion Lens,[38] more fully described in Chapter II of this Report, is a comprehensive analytical tool developed by the OPS Diversity Office to assist OPS staff in considering various dimensions of diversity in developing, implementing or reviewing policies, programs or services. Seventeen dimensions of diversity are identified in this tool, including (both younger and older) age, disability, gender and socio-economic status. 

The Health Equity Impact Assessment Tool was developed by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in collaboration with Ontario’s Local Health Integration Networks as a means of supporting improved health equity and reducing avoidable health disparities between population groups. It provides a step-by-step approach to analyzing how a particular program or policy may affect population groups in different ways. [39] 

The very recently completed Mental Health and Human Rights Evaluation Instrument[40] was developed by the Mental Health Commission of Canada as a means of evaluating laws, policies and practices related to mental health, and is founded on the principles and considerations enunciated in the CRPD.

——————————————————————————–

[1] Law Commission of Ontario, Preliminary Consultation Paper: Approaches to Defining Disability (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, June 2009), online: www.lco-cdo.org.

[2] World Health Organization, Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (Geneva: WHO, 2002) at 3, online: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/training/icfbeginnersguide.pdf [ICF].

[3] Law Commission of Ontario, Preliminary Consultation Paper: Approaches to Defining Disability (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, June 2009) 35-36, online: http://www.lco-cdo.org.

[4] 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), 9thSess; “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).

[5] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 13 December 2006, GA Res 61/106, UNGAOR, 61st Sess, UN Doc A/RES/61/106 (entered into force 3 May 2008, ratified by Canada 11 March 2010), online: http://www.un.org/Docs/asp/ws.asp?m=A/RES/61/106 [CRPD].

[6] Canada has not signed the Optional Protocol, see online: United Nations Treaty Collection http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-15-a&chapter=4&lang=en. The Optional Protocol establishes, for those states parties that ratify it, a complaints procedure that allows for individual complaints to be lodged with the Committee where there is an allegation that a State party has violated its obligations under the CRPD and where the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It also established an inquiry procedure that allows the Committee to initiate its own inquiries where there is information to suggest that a State party has engaged in grave or systematic violations of the CRPD.

[7] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 13 December 2006, GA Res 61/106, UNGAOR, 61st Sess, UN Doc A/RES/61/106, art 1, online: http://www.un.org/Docs/asp/ws.asp?m=A/RES/61/106.

[8] Secretariat of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Backgrounder: Disability Treaty Closes a Gap in Protecting Human Rights (United Nations Department of Public Information, May 2008), online: United Nations Enable http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=476 [Secretariat].

[9] Secretariat of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Backgrounder: Disability Treaty Closes a Gap in Protecting Human Rights (United Nations Department of Public Information, May 2008) ch 2, online: http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=225.

[10] Canadian Human Rights Commission, Background Paper on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Article 33, online: CHRC, http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/unconvention_conventionnu/page1-eng.aspx [CHRC, Article 33].    

[11] See Eldridge v British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 SCR 624, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1997/1997scr3-624/1997scr3-624.html [Eldridge].

[12] For an exploration of the mixed legacy of section 15(2) for persons with disabilities, see ARCH Disability Law Centre, The Sword Becomes the Shield: The Expansion of the Ameliorative Program Defence to Programs that Support Persons with Disabilities by Tess Sheldon (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, June 2010) online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/disabilities-call-for-papers [Sheldon].

[13] Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 SCR 497, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1999/1999scr1-497/1999scr1-497.html [Law]. It is important to note that, although the concept of dignity was seen as a central value in the equality analysis under section 1 in R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, [2008] 2 SCR 483, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2008/2008scc41/2008scc41.html [Kapp],  the Court has identified problems with the extreme emphasis on dignity in section 15 that followed Law 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.

[14] Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 SCR 497 paras 51-53, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1999/1999scr1-497/1999scr1-497.html.

[15] Godbout v Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 SCR 844 para 66, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1997/1997scr3-844/1997scr3-844.html [Godbout]; see also B(R) v Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 SCR 315, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1995/1995scr1-315/1995scr1-315.html [B(R) v Children’s Aid Society].

[16] New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v G(J), [1999] 3 SCR 46, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1999/1999scr3-46/1999scr3-46.html [NB v G(J)].

[17] Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H-19, s 1, online: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h19_e.htm [Code].

[18] Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H-19, s 14, online: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h19_e.htm.

[19] Granovsky v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 2000 SCC 28 paras 56-58, [2000] 1 SCR 703, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2000/2000scc28/2000scc28.html [Granovsky]. 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 SCC 41, [2008] 2 SCR 483, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2008/2008scc41/2008scc41.html [Kapp].

[20] Battleford and District Cooperative Ltd v Gibbs, [1996] 3 SCR 566 paras 30-31, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1996/1996scr3-566/1996scr3-566.html [Battleford], dealt with the history of stigma and marginalization affecting persons with mental health disabilities; on this same issue see also R v Swain, [1991] 1 SCR 933 at 994, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1991/1991scr1-933/1991scr1-933.html [Swain].

[21] Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v Montréal (City); Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v Boisbriand (City), 2000 SCC 27 paras 77-83, [2000] 1 SCR 665, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2000/2000scc27/2000scc27.html [Mercier].

[22] Eaton v Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 SCR 241 para 67, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1997/1997scr1-241/1997scr1-241.html [Eaton].

[23] Eldridge v British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 SCR 624, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1997/1997scr3-624/1997scr3-624.html [Eldridge].

[24] Council of Canadians with Disabilities v VIA Rail Canada Inc, 2007 SCC 15 para 162, [2007] 1 SCR 650, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2007/2007scc15/2007scc15.html [Via Rail].

[25] British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v British Columbia Council of Human Rights, [1999] 3 SCR 868 at paras 38-40, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1999/1999scr3-868/1999scr3-868.html [BC Council of Human Rights], following British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v BCGSEU, [1999] 3 SCR 3, online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1999/1999scr3-3/1999scr3-3.html [Meiorin].

[26] Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, SO 2005, c 11, s 2 online: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05a11_e.htm [AODA]; and Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H-19, s 10, online: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h19_e.htm [Code].

[27] Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, SO 2005, c 11, s 1 online: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05a11_e.htm [AODA].

[28] Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, SO 2005, c 11, s 1 online: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05a11_e.htm [AODA].

[29] Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, SO 2005, c 11, s 9 online: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05a11_e.htm [AODA].

[30] Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, SO 2005, c 11, s 2 online: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05a11_e.htm [AODA].

[31] Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, SO 2005, c 11, s 1 online: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05a11_e.htm [AODA].

[32] The Government of Canada also releases a regular report advancing the inclusion of people with disabilities, see online: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada http://www.rhdcc-hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/disability_issues/reports/index.shtml.   As well, some provinces have moved towards comprehensive policy frameworks for disability issues, including Saskatchewan (see online: Government of Saskatchewan Publications Centre http://www.publications.gov.sk.ca/deplist.cfm?d=17&c=1040) and Manitoba (see online: Manitoba Disabilities Issues Office http://www.gov.mb.ca/dio/citizenship/account.html)

[33] All provinces participated with the exception of Quebec.

[34] Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for Social Services, In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues, Cat No: SP-113-10-98E (Hull, QC: Human Resources Development Canada, 1998), online: http://web.archive.org/web/20090202214940/http://socialunion.gc.ca/pwd/unison/unison_e.html [In Unison (1998)].

[35] Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for Social Services, In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues, Cat No: SP-113-10-98E (Hull, QC: Human Resources Development Canada, 1998) 3, online: http://web.archive.org/web/20090202214940/http://socialunion.gc.ca/pwd/unison/unison_e.html [In Unison (1998)].

[36] Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for Social Services, In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues, Cat No: SP-113-10-98E (Hull, QC: Human Resources Development Canada, 1998) 4, online: http://web.archive.org/web/20090202214940/http://socialunion.gc.ca/pwd/unison/unison_e.html [In Unison (1998)].

[37] Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Social Services (Canada), In Unison 2000: Persons with Disabilities in Canada, cat no MP43-390/2000E-MR (Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada, 2000), online: http://publications.gc.ca/pub?id=101302&sl=0 [In Unison (2000)].

[38] See OPS Diversity Office, 2011 OPS Diversity Annual Report: Toward Inclusion (Toronto: Queen’s Printer, 2011) 14, online: http://www.mgs.gov.on.ca/en/Diversity/STD01_081769.html [Toward Inclusion].

[39] Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Health Equity Impact Assessment Template (Toronto: Queen’s Printer, 2011), online: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/heia/tool.aspx [HEIA Template]; Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Health Equity Impact Assessment Workbook (Toronto: Queen’s Printer, 2011), online: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/heia/tool.aspx [HEIA Workbook].

[40] See “Human Rights Evaluation Project,” online: Mental Health Commission of Canada http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/Pages/Reports.aspx [MHCC, “Evaluation Instrument”]

 

Previous Page Next Page
First Page Last Page
Table of Contents