[1] As noted in Chapter VI, “Next Steps”, the LCO will be developing simplified materials related to the Framework, and will be applying it to a new project on the law of capacity and guardianship.

[2] Some basic demographic information related to the experience of disability in Ontario is set out in Chapter II.C of this Final Report.

[3] See Law Commission of Ontario, A Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Persons: Advancing Substantive Equality for Older Persons through Law, Policy and Practice (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, April 2012). Online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/content/older-adults [Older Adults Final Report]. All project documents can be found online in this location.

[4] 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].

[5] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. Online: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/ [Charter].

[6] 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].

[7] 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)]. Updated in 2000. Online: http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/socialpolicy/poverty-citizenship/income-security-reform/in-unison-2000 [In Unison (2000)].

[8] Law Commission of Ontario, Preliminary Consultation Paper: Approaches to Defining Disability (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, June 2009). Online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/disabilities/Disabilities%20Threshold%20Paper%20-%20July%202009.pdf [Threshold Paper].

[9] The Commissioned Research Papers can be found on the LCO website at http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/disabilities-call-for-papers.

[10] Law Commission of Ontario, The Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities, Consultation Paper (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, September 2011). Online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/disabilities-consultation-paper.pdf [Disabilities Consultation Paper].

[11] Michael Bach & Lana Kerzner, A New Paradigm for Autonomy and the Right to Legal Capacity (Law Commission of Ontario: November 2010). Online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/disabilities-call-for-papers [Bach & Kerzner].  Margaret Hall, Developing an Anti-Ageist Approach with Law (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, September 2009). Online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/older-adults-lco-funded-papers-margaret-hall [Hall, note 11]. The LCO commenced a project on the law of capacity and guardianship in the summer of 2012.

[12] Information about the Conferences and copies of Conference Papers can be accessed online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/older-adults-conference.

[13] For a more detailed discussion of the relationship between aging, health and impairment, see Older Adults Final Report, note 3, Ch II.C.2.

[14] Michael Oliver, “Societal responses to long term disability” in Gale Whiteneck et al, eds, Ageing with Spinal Cord Injury (New York: Demos Publications, 1993), 253.

[15] Mark Priestley, “Disability and Old Age” in Disability: A Life Course Approach (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003),143 [Priestley].

[16] Priestley, note 15.

[17] Priestley, note 15, 161.

[18] The Ontario Public Service (OPS) Inclusion Lens 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.  For a brief discussion of the Inclusion Lens 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, note 18].

[19] The HEIA is intended for use across the health system. As of fall 2011, all 14 LHINs had received training on HEIA. Training has also been provided to MOHLTC staff. This 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.  The HEIA tool consists of two parts, a template and a workbook:  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]. [HEIA Template & Workbook,  note 19]

[20] Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate, ISBN 0-7794-0687-7 (Toronto, Ontario Human Rights Commission: 2000). Online: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-and-guidelines-disability-and-duty-accommodate [Disability Policy].

[21] Christine Ogaranko, Beverly Froese, & Nicole Chammartin, Mental Health and Human Rights Evaluation Instrument (Winnipeg: Mental Health Commission of Canada, Public Interest Law Centre and Canadian Mental Health Association Winnipeg Region, November 30, 2011) [Mental Health Evaluation Instrument].

[22] Disability Rights Promotion International (DRPI) is a collaborative project to establish a comprehensive, sustainable international system to monitor human rights of people with disabilities. DRPI has designed a template to help monitors collect and analyze disability rights law, policy and program information. The template covers all of the rights guaranteed by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD, see note 4). The template helps monitors to identify gaps in legislation and policy and includes cross-references to provisions of core international human rights treaties, including the CRPD. Information about DRPI and copies of its publications can be obtained online at http://drpi.research.yorku.ca [DPRI].

[23] The LCO’s most recent strategic plan, for January 2012 to December 2016, is available on the LCO website: Law Commission of Ontario, LCO Strategic Plan: Jan 2012-Dec 2016 (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, 19 January 2012), online http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/strategic-plan-2012-2016 [Strategic Plan].

[24] Threshold Paper, note 8.  The OBA highlighted the limitations of using a model-based approach, including the fact that models are constantly being debated, modified and reformulated in academic circles (at p 4) and that it is difficult to come up with a model that will work across all areas and address all situations effectively; ARCH also took the position that a principles-based approach was more beneficial than a model-based approach: See Ontario Bar Association, Working Group on the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities, Submission to the Law Commission of Ontario: Law as it Affects Persons with Disabilities (Ontario Bar Association, 28 August 2009) (Chair: Mark Berlin). Online: http://www.oba.org/en/pdf/OBA_Law_as_it_Affects_Persons_with_Disabilities_Submission.pdf [OBA Submission]; ARCH Disability Law Centre, Submission of ARCH Disability Law Centre to the Law Commission of Ontario: Law as it Affects Persons with Disabilities (Toronto: ARCH Disability Law Centre, 30 September 2009). Online: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=law-it-affects-persons-disabilities [ARCH Submission].

[25] Environics Research Group, Canadian Attitudes Towards Disability Issues, A Qualitative Study: Final Report, prepared for the Government of Canada Office of Disability Issues (2004), 9, 32-34 [Canadian Attitudes].

[26] The Ontario Human Rights Commission recently expressed concern about this issue in Ontario Human Rights Commission, Right at Home: Report on the Consultation on Human Rights and Rental Housing in Ontario (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 28 May 2008) 78-80. Online: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/right-home-report-consultation-human-rights-and-rental-housing-ontario [OHRC, Right at Home]. See also the discussion in Roeher Institute, Disability, Community and Society: Exploring the Links (North York, ON: Roeher Institute, 1996), 57.

[27] OBA Submission, note 24, 23.

[28] This issue was discussed at considerable length in Threshold Paper, note 8. Models of disability include the “biomedical model”, which locates the experience of disability within the impairments of individuals; the “functional model” which focuses on the functional limitations caused by impairments (and thereby includes some consideration of the impact of environment on the experience of disability); the “social model” which locates disability within society rather than the individual, focussing on social and environment barriers to inclusion; the “human rights model”, which recognizes persons with disabilities as a disadvantaged group; the “universalism model” described elsewhere in this Report and many others.

[29] 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, [2000] 1 SCR 665. Online: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2000/2000scc27/2000scc27.html [Mercier]. 

[30] The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning (ICF) includes, as part of its approach to disability, a series of “Contextual Factors” which highlight the role of the environment in the experience of disability. These include the natural environment and human-made changes to the environment, supports and relationships, attitudes, services, systems and policies, and products and technology. For an introduction to the ICF, see World Health Organization, Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002). Online: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/training/icfbeginnersguide.pdf [Common Language].

[31] Various terminology has been used to help identify the broader societal forces that contribute to the experience of disability. The influential decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Mercier referenced the social element in the construction of “disability”. International documents such as the ICF refer to “environmental” barriers. See Mercier, note 29; Common Language, note 30.

[32] As is highlighted in note 28 above, there are a number of “models” of disability which may infl