"Cherish your visions and your dreams as they are the children of your soul, the blueprints of your ultimate achievements."
~ Napoleon Hill

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Five Minutes of Fame (Literally)

UPDATE: So how come no one has ever pointed out this mistake I've been consistently making? Apparently left = right and right = left. And the sidebar ... that's on the RIGHT-HAND side of the page. Sorry.

A big thank-you to CTV Morning Live for having me on the show this morning. I really appreciated the opportunity to discuss why guardianship (and other options) can be such an important issue for so many families.

If you're new here and have more questions, please scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the Guardianship label in the sidebar to the left. That should give you access to all the posts I have written on the subject.

You will also find labels like "Powers of Attorney" and "Personal Directives" that you might like to check out, too.

If you're interested in my upcoming presentation on Saturday, December 8th, click on the "Upcoming Presentations" tab at the top of the page.

And please feel free to stick around - hopefully, you will find valuable information in both past and future posts.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

A Leap of Faith

It's been eighteen years since I've practiced law.

I stopped practicing in 1994 due to the significant health (to say nothing of other) needs of my oldest daughter. And I've always said I wouldn't go back to practice unless I could have just a "disability" practice.

In other words, not unless I could only take cases involving disability-related issues. But considering that most families with a disabled family member can't afford a lawyer and I figure that it will likely take Nova Scotia a good 20 years to get to the point where the government helps subsidize the cost of legal representation for families ... I just couldn't see it happening.

But for the past year or so, I've been playing around with the idea of doing just that ... going back to the practice of law.

What if I went back to practice? Just on a part-time basis?

What if I could offer people the option of either purchasing the Guardianship Kit or hiring me to bring their guardianship application?

What if I could, not just talk about the Henson Trust, but actually do up Wills for people with the proper wording?
What if ...?

Not only would my fees be significantly lower than the majority of lawyers' but people were already asking if they could hire me to bring guardianship applications and I had to explain that no, I wasn't practicing.

So it was that I've been playing around with this idea for a while now.

I tried to talk myself out of it ... after 18 years of not practicing, just how many hoops would the Barristers' Society make me go through before granting me practicing status again? For a while, that seemed like a good enough reason not to proceed any further.

But eventually I realized that I might just be staring in the face (and yet not seeing) exactly what I have been looking for so hard for quite a while now. This has been my passion for so many years now - how long have I been telling people that if I could find a way to marry law and disability (and get paid for it), I would be truly happy? Trust me, a very long time.

And so it was that eventually, very slowly, light began to dawn on marblehead (that would be me, in case you were wondering) and I made the decision to take the leap and return to practice. 

Now I must admit that the time between making that decision and actually commencing the process  has been a little slow but ... I am happy to inform you that yesterday I mailed my aplication to change to practicing status to the Bar Society.

What now, you ask?



Now I sit and wait to hear back as to what, exactly, I will have to do before I can start practicing again.

Wish me luck. Please.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Breaking News

"Adequate special education, therefore, is not a dispensable luxury."

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its much-awaited decision yesterday in Moore v. BC (the LD case out of BC) and I am pleased to report that the parents were substantially successful. "Substantially" because although the finding of discrimination was upheld against the District (aka the School Bd), it was not upheld against the Province.

But let's take a look at the finding against the District first.

With regard to the issue of whether "special education" is a service that is “customarily available to the public" (and thus protected under the BC human rights legislation) the Court found that "special education is not the service, it is the means by which those students get meaningful access to the general education services available to all students" (emphasis added).

To define the service only as ‘special education’ would relieve both the Province and the District of their duty to ensure that no student is excluded from the benefit of the education system by virtue of their disability and risked descending into the kind of “separate but equal” approach that was so famously discarded in the racial integration case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Further, the court noted that, much as I stated in the previous blawg post, to so find would mean that the District could cut all special needs programs and be immune from a claim of discrimination.

As to what constitutes discrimination in this context, the Court found that discrimination will exist if the evidence demonstrates that the government failed to deliver the mandate and objectives of public education such that a given student is denied meaningful access to the service based on a protected ground.

In this case, prima facie discrimination was found on the basis of the insufficient intensive remediation provided for Jeffrey’s learning disability, which was necessary for him to access the education he was entitled to. It was the combination of the clear recognition of Jeffrey's need for intensive remediation in order to have meaningful access to education, the closing of the intensive program and the fact that the Jeffrey's parents were told that these services could not otherwise be provided by the District that justified the finding that the failure of the District to meet Jeffrey’s educational needs constituted discrimination.

Although the District attempted to argue that the decision to end the program was justified for financial reasons (and just how often have we heard that one in one form or another?), the SCC found that although the fact that the District was facing serious financial constraints was a relevant consideration, accommodation was not a question of “mere efficiency” and disproportionate cuts had been made to special needs programs, while some discretionary programs had been retained, despite their similar cost.

In that regard, the Court agreed with the dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal, that “without undermining the educational value of the [other program], such specialized and discretionary initiatives cannot be compared with the accommodations necessary in order to make the core curriculum accessible to severely learning disabled students”.

More significantly, the District had not undertaken any assessment, financial or otherwise, of what alternatives were or could be reasonably available to accommodate special needs students if the intensive program was ended.
The failure to consider financial alternatives completely undermines what is, in essence, the District’s argument, namely that it was justified in providing no meaningful access to an education for Jeffrey because it had no economic choice. In order to decide that it had no other choice, it had at least to consider what those other choices were.
[para. 52]
Significantly, no discrimination was found on the part of the Province even though the District’s budgetary crisis was created, at least in part, by the Province’s funding shortfalls as the Tribunal had found that it was the District that had failed to properly consider the consequences of closing the intensive program or how to accommodate the affected students.

In the Court's opinion, the evidence about the provincial funding regime was too remote to demonstrate discrimination against Jeffery and there was no particular reason to think that those funding mechanisms could not be retained in some form while still ensuring that SLD students received adequate support. It was found to be entirely legitimate for the Province to choose a block funding mechanism in order to ensure that districts do not have an "incentive" to over-report SLD students, so long as it also complies with its human rights obligations.

I highlight this as one of the possible areas of concern around this decision. Don't get me wrong, as noted, courts far too rarely intervene in cases involving educational policy (deferring to the schools' so-called "experts" is all too common in this area) so this decision is HUGE, but, unfortunately, it doesn't appear like it will yield much ammunition when it comes to the actual funding of special education services.

The source of all public school funding is, of course, the provincial government and the SCC clearly states that "block funding" of special education services is acceptable. Although we may now have an argument to stop any erosion of such ear-marked block funding, the sad fact is we all know that special ed is woefully under-funded and school boards often significantly top up the provincially-allocated special ed funding.

Although not a blanket prohibition on the cutting of special ed services at the Board level, where the decision is extremely valuable is in undercutting any attempt by school boards to take out their legitimate budget woes on special ed programming, at least not unless unless
  • any cuts made to special ed programs are proportionate with cuts in other areas;
  • other discretionary programs are not saved at the expense of special ed programming; and
  • serious consideration has been given to the consequences of cuts to such programming and how students requiring the programs and services will be accommodated.
Commentary is, of course, appearing fast and furious around this decision. And while some of it is, indeed, upsetting, opinions of editorial boards aside, this decision should put lie to the (never legitimate) argument that once you let special needs students through the doors, their programming is as susceptible to cuts as any other.

As an aside, I offer you my absolute favourite line from this decision and one which will, no doubt, be quoted ad nauseum by future disability advocates:
Adequate special education, therefore, is not a dispensable luxury. For those with severe learning disabilities, it is the ramp that provides access to the statutory commitment to education made to all children ...

Monday, November 5, 2012

SCC To Weigh In on Schools' Duty to Accommodate

We're going to be taking a look at a few different human rights issues over the next little while ... mainly because I seem to have collected a number of interesting tidbits on such issues.

So let's start with one of the bigger human rights stories on the legal landscape.

Some of you are no doubt familiar with an education
case out of British Columbia from a few years ago,
Moore v.British Columbia, where a student challenged
both the provincial Ministry of Education and a school board for not providing students with learning disabilities with appropriate accommodations.

From an advocate's point of view, I find this case particularly interesting for two reasons: first, the bases on which the Human Rights Tribunal found both systemic and individual discrimination on the part of both the school board and the Province and, second, the courts' reasoning in overturning that decision (why they decided that no discrimination had, in fact, occurred). And although it might sound like I've just said the same thing twice, they are two very separate issues, as you will see.

Jeffrey Moore had a severe learning disability (SLD) but the very year he was found eligible to attend an intensive program for students with severe learning disabilities, it was cut for financial reasons. The services that were subsequently offered were not comparable to what he would have received in the intensive program and his parents later placed Jeffrey in a private school for students with learning disabilities.

The father brought a discrimination claim to the BC Human Rights Tribunal against the Province (the Ministry of Education) and the school board, alleging both individual and systemic discrimination. The Tribunal found in Jeffrey's favour, finding that both the school board and the Ministry of Education had failed to accommodate his needs in the delivery of educational services.

Individual discrimination had occurred when the school board and the Ministry failed to ensure that Jeffery’s disability needs were appropriately accommodated in the school board by not providing him with sufficiently early or appropriately intensive and effective remediation.

Systemic discrimination by the school board had occurred when services were disproportionately cut to SLD students without analyzing the impact on these students or ensuring that there were sufficient alternative services in place.

Systemic discrimination by the Ministry occurred when it under-funded the actual incidence of SLD students by imposing a cap on funding High Incidence/Low Cost disabled students, when it under-funded the Board resulting in significant cuts to services to SLD students, when it focused its monitoring only on spending and fiscal concerns, and when it failed to ensure that early intervention and a range of services for SLD students was mandatory.

Unfortunately, the Ministry and the Board were successful in their judicial review application and the Court of Appeal (CA) dismissed Mr. Moore`s subsequent appeal.

Here's where it starts to get interesting - unlike the Human Rights Tribunal, which had concluded that the service being provided was “educational programs offered by the Ministry and the [school board]” (in other words, public education services offered generally to the broad public), both levels of court found that services for students with disabilities were “special education”, not general education.

Proceeding on that basis, the courts compared Jeffery with other students who received “special education” and concluded that there was no differential treatment because no student receiving “special education” had access to the services that Jeffrey was seeking for during that period of time. In other words, it would appear that as long as you offer absolutely no "appropriate services" for students with LD, all will be right with the world.

This finding turned on the fact that the BC Human Rights Code provides that a person cannot discriminate against another on the basis of disability when that person is delivering a service that is “customarily available to the public”. Thus, the question became whether students with special needs were entitled to only “special education” services without experiencing discrimination or whether they should have the right to receive general education services without experiencing discrimination. [Can you believe we're even having this conversation?]

[The majority of the CA relied on a 2004 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) that some of you might be familiar with (Auton v. British Columbia), in which the issue was whether the province's failure to fund applied behavioral therapy for autism violated the equality provisions of the Charter. In Auton, the SCC had held that a finding of discrimination under sec. 15(1) of the Charter must relate to a benefit or burden imposed by law - it cannot be based upon discrimination in the provision of services not provided under legislation as to do so is tantamount to dictating to the government what services should be provided.]*

The Moores appealed to the SCC, where the Canadian Association for Community Living (one of the intervenors in the case) argued that to find that students with disabilities were entitled to a separate and different “special education” service would be contrary both to the goals of BC’s Human Rights Code and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, both of which promote inclusive education. CACL also argued that a finding that students with disabilities were entitled to a separate and different “special education” would perpetuate the historical exclusion and disadvantage experienced by such students.

Other questions before the SCC include the use of a comparator group analysis in human rights' duty to accommodate claims and the limits on the scope of remedies that tribunals can order. Unfortunately, we can't go into those issues today, although I will note that what group the person claiming discrimination is compared to (known as comparator group analysis) can and has made a huge difference in whether or not discrimination will be found.

The Moore case was argued in March of this year and disability advocates are anxiously awaiting the SCC's decision in this case, as it should  have a significant impact on future human rights claims. Let's just hope they get it right.

* It should be noted that there was a dissenting opinion in the CA - in fact the majority of the decision (the first 162 paragraphs) is written by the dissenting judge with the majority judgment being a mere 25 paragraphs. Although unfortunately, in this case, size really doesn't matter, anyone with a legal bent might just "enjoy" reading those first 162 paragraphs or at least find them instructive.