Rebuilding HOPE Conference Tidbits

I attended the Rebuilding HOPE Conference on March 29, 2025. This was the second conference the 
Province has held as part of the infamous Human Rights Remedy*. 

My plan was (and still is) to post about the content of the Conference but I think we all know my history with planning and posting. 

So as a treat (and to string you along a little ;) I offer this:

... the Honourable Scott Armstrong, Minister of Opportunities and Social Development, spoke at the conference and announced a new $9.3 million investment to support people in three programs: Flex Individualized Funding, Direct Family Support for Children, and Alternative Family Support. These programs are community-based and provide individualized, self-directed, portable funding in line with the remedy. This is an interim step as the Province transitions to permanent, individualized funding for all people with disabilities. The formal announcement is available here. The Minister also had an interview with CTV following the conference - you can watch it here. We have also attached the three presentations made during the conference for your reference.

And with that I bid you adieu until we meet again.

        *With many thanks to the Disability Rights Coalition of Nova Scotia  for getting us this for. It was a long and tortious process but they hung in and that makes them heroes in my book.

       **You can read more about the Province's timeline to implement the Remedy here.

      *** Picture courtesy of Tierra Mallorca 

Experts’ Report: Human Rights Review and Remedy Summary

I've been hearing a lot about the "Human Rights Remedy" from our DCS social worker lately. 

The full title for the process has quite a handle; namely, the "HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW AND REMEDY FOR THE FINDINGS OF SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NOVA SCOTIANS WITH DISABILITIES".

In a previous post giving a broad overview of the changes the Department of Community Services is now legally required to implement within the next five years, I mentioned in passing the expert's report which the government is now legally obligated to follow. 

Compared to the length and complexity of the full report, the summary found here is well-worth the read. It summarizes the six key decisions arising out of the process; namely,

    individual planning and support coordination

    closing institutions

    community-based supports and services

    a program that works in all areas of the province and many professionals work together to                   support local choices

    individualized funding; and

    disability system capacity.

Check it out.

The Continuing Saga of Human Rights in Nova Scotia

In my last post, we discussed the (hopefully) upcoming changes to the Disability Support Program following the ruling of the NS Court of Appeal in the human rights case involving three residents of the NS Hospital.

I gave some of the backstory and talked about the interim agreement reached between the Disability Rights Coalition and the Province.

Believe me, after all these years, I'm as cynical as anyone else when it comes to wholesale changes in how (and if) Nova Scotia delivers services to individuals with disabilities. 

But the one change (and if this doesn't make a difference, I can't see how anything else ever will) in this case is a decision with the force of law behind it.

The NS Court of Appeal agreed with us and the Supreme Court of Canada denied the Province's leave to appeal so .... there's really nowhere else for them to go.

Our family attended one of the in-person sessions held across the Province and it was ... interesting. Kentville was suppose to be the third meeting but ended up being the first and the Province readily admitted that it wasn't prepared for the turnout. 

A few interesting take-aways from the meeting. 

• The Province has 5 years to implement all the changes set out in the Agreement.
• They will need to hire 100 more social workers to make this work.
• The plan is to hire 25 social workers every year.*
• The waiting list that always 'wasn't** will no longer exist.
• Instead your worker will come to you to ask where and how you want to live.

A very astute person in the audience asked what would happen if suitable housing wasn't available (which seems to be the case for a lot of people in the Province, with disabilities or not). The response was something to the effect that if you couldn't find what you were looking for, you would need to wait until you could. I assume that meant you would need to 'settle for something else'  (of your choice) in the interim but you know what they say about the danger of assuming. Although I suppose we can't legitimately ask the Province at this point to figure that (or a lot of other things) out right away.

The sessions are over now so I hope at least some of you attended.

BUT the reason I started this post was ... [drum roll please] ... I actually read the plain language executive summary of the independent expert report today. I found it a little hard to navigate at first - how the heck do I find p. 2 - but it turns out the squiggly little up and down arrows at the bottom of the page did the trick. It's very short and I make no comment on its sweetness but I would suggest we all at least start there.

The full report (which I admit I have not yet read) can be found here.

Very well. Carry on.

*Meaning that it will take 4 years just to get the staff they need.

** I assume most of us have found that depending on who you speak with (and when), there may or may not be a waiting list for services.

Human Rights & Housing in Nova Scotia

You might recall that in 2015, a Human Rights Complaint was brought against the Disability Support program on behalf of three long-term residents of Emerald Hall. Three years later, this complaint is finally being heard by the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission.

If successful, this complaint has the potential to shake up the Disability Support program for all of us, in a very positive way. Why do we need a shake up?

For me, this headline says it all.

My Favourite Time of the Year ... Election Time!

Long time, no speak. My apologies for that.

But look at what I found today ...

Shaping the future of NOVA SCOTIA’S DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM Choice and Inclusion: Implementation Plan

Reading through it, it occurred to me that they design these things so that anyone outside the disability community who happens to stumble across it will flip through it and think, "Good job, guys. Look at us go".

Unfortunately, if you happen to be someone who has actually walked (or wheeled) their way through this world, you might want to take a Valium (or some other nervous system calming agent) before trying to read it.

If I may ... a few examples, perhaps?

Oh look, they are going to take a new approach in providing services. How special.

A New Approach
Nova Scotians with disabilities have the same rights as everyone. We all deserve to live our lives as independently as possible. Each of us has a right to be full participants in society.

That means full social and economic inclusion, and the opportunity to live with dignity and choice. A person-directed, accessible and flexible support system for persons with disabilities will focus on key areas of action: • Increasing community-based living with social and economic inclusion; • Modernizing services and programs based on choice, flexibility and person-directed planning; and, • Reducing reliance on long term larger facilities. 

Too bad that promise was first made four year ago, when this government came to power. You might remember that - it was when the Liberals first adopted the NDP plan in the middle of our last election campaign.

Update the legislation? You mean the Homes for Special Care Act, first passed in the 1970s? That would be awesome, wouldn't it?

Updated Legislation
New legislation to replace the Homes for Special Care Act will ensure a person-directed approach to service delivery and emphasize helping people live in their own homes and communities. The legislation will help establish a range of services, supports and funding, while protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities so they can access government services and programs. 

Too bad that promise was made four year ago, too. And still not a hint of the legislation, let alone the regulations that would have to follow (often where the "meat" of the law lives).*

Should I go on? Just a few more thoughts, I promise.

What exactly are we to "reimagine" these "facilities" as?

Reimagine Residential Facilities
Under a new delivery system, facilities will no longer be used as long term residences. Instead, they may be adapted and reinvented in keeping with the principles of the transformation. The province will no longer fund the expansion of the old model of support which includes Regional Rehabilitation Centres (RRC) and Adult Residential Centres (ARC). This will not happen overnight. As we move away from the old model, there will be a focus on community-based residential living options. 

And when, exactly, will referrals actually stop? Just how long can a "temporary" placement in one of these institutions last?

Sorry, I didn't quite catch that ... how many years was that?

All right, all right. I hear you.

I will leave it to you to peruse the rest at your leisure.

But before you go, anyone interested in a little history on the Roadmap?

Rate Your Government

Yet another survey, this one from CHAG (Community Homes Action Group), formed a few years ago to gather information and provide help for good housing options for people with developmental disabilities.

In June 2013, the Government of Nova Scotia accepted the work of a joint Community-Government Advisory Committee on Transforming the Services to Persons with Disabilities Program (called the Roadmap). Before that, people with developmental disabilities may find it hard to do many things that most people can do easily. These disabilities can make it hard to learn, speak, tell others what you want, work with others and take care of daily needs. Developmental disabilities are present at birth or develop before 18 years of age. People can have more than one disability. 

CHAG wants to know the opinions of people on the status of services for people with development disabilities three years into the Roadmap. Please help us by filling out a short survey.

We are sending the survey to many people to learn Nova Scotians’ thoughts about the Roadmap. CHAG will create a “report card” that we will share with others. We have two goals: 

1. To make people aware of the critical issues facing people with developmental disabilities and their families; and
2. To encourage government to take action on these issues. 

Do you think the Roadmap has helped or not helped people living with developmental disabilities, their loved ones and service providers? Please tell us what you think. 

You do not have to give your name or tell us about yourself. No one will know that you filled-in this survey. Nothing about who you are will be kept with your answers. Please answer as many of the seven survey questions as you can. You can stop at any time. Clicking the link says that you know your answers will be kept private and that you agree to try the survey.

Please complete this survey by December 1, 2016. Make your opinion count!

As a community, I firmly believe that we really need to hold the government's feet to the fire on the issue of the Roadmap.

After all, if not us, then who? Please take the survey.

The Disability Support Puzzle Changes Again

Some of you might recall me posting a little over two years ago when the Dept of Community Services first posted the Disability Supports Services for Persons with Disabilities (SPD) Program Policy online. The document covered both financial eligibility for the programs under the SPD umbrella and the Basic and Special Needs Policy. So good stuff, that.

Or, at least I thought so, until I noticed the other day that we now also have a Level of Support Policy, dated May, 2014, which appears to supplement the 2012 Policy. Which, yes, means I am a little out of date, but, really, if you knew about it, why didn't someone tell me? Personally, I find that it can be awful hard to keep with life these days.

But back to the point and that is this - this Levels of Support Policy appears to be significantly different than the 2012 Policy.

While the Disability Supports Program Policy (2012) mostly concerned itself with general eligibility requirements and SPD DSP support options (aka Places to Live), such as

• Direct Family Support;
• Independent Living;
• Alternative Family Support;
• Residential Care Facilities;
• Group Homes;
• Developmental Residences;
• Small Options Homes;
• Adult Residential Centres and
• Regional Rehabilitation Centres

the new Levels of Support Policy focuses much more on "support planning" and the five "levels of support", along with the requirements for each.

If you're not "in the know", when an individual transitions to the adult system they are re-assessed and given a Levels of Support rating, from One to Five.The Support Levels look something like this:

• Level One - Minimum Support
• Level two - Moderate Support
• Level three - High Support
• Level four - Enriched Support; and
• Level five - Intensive Support

What form of residential support "program support options" are available to that person will depend on what Level of Support they have been assessed as requiring.*

To come up with said Support Level, the assessment looks at

• Activities of Daily Living;
• Instrumental Activities of Daily Living;
• Health Status;
• Medical Conditions;
• Behaviour; and
• Safety

The Levels of Support Policy also deals with other issues, of course, such as

• medical care and behavioral support requirements; 
• acute nursing services; 
• chronic medical conditions; 
• end of life care; 
• behavioral support parameters; and 
• something called "discretionary case management regarding a program option". 

Of course, last, but certainly not least (and never to be forgotten) sits the the appeal process.

Intrigued? Perhaps you best check it out for yourself.

* You might want to consider asking for a copy of the Assessment after it's complete. You will likely be denied, but that's no biggie - just make an application under the Freedom of Information Act. Don't ask me why they make us jump through the hoops, but they usually do. At any rate, I think it's worth having a copy of this (and further reassessments if the Support Level is changed) just in case. Here, this might help.

** For a complete list (with links) of all policy documents under the Disability Supports Program, go here.

Most Valuable Info

Show of hands please. 

Have you ever noticed that the most valuable information ever given to you on this journey has been received from another person in the special needs community and, sadly, not from those that are paid to assist our families? I know that's definitely how it was when my daughters were young and sadly it doesn't seem to have changed any.

Unfortunately, getting information in this matter is always hit and miss. That's the reason I believe that it's ivitally mportant for each of us to share whatever information we come upon that might help others. 

In that vein, I offer you "A Funding Source":

Just wanted to reach out to you all and let you know about a funding source that we stumbled upon that has turned out to be shockingly good. I thought some of you may be interested in this as our kids are all nearing adulthood.

Housing NS has a program called the RRAP (Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program) for landlords. It is not based on your income but on the income of the renter. Their income must be less than $32,000 for your to qualify. The goal is to create long term housing for low income Nova Scotians,($24,000 available) and there are more incentives (additional $16,000 available) to create an accessible space.

Since*** now receives the Disability Support Program monthly allotment from Community Services, we decided to act as his landlords and create an apartment for him in our basement as a transition space for him to practice independent living skills and allow us to bring in more outside help in a way that isn't.  We were going to do this anyway but this program made it possible to do it much better than we could have on our own.

Turns out we were eligible for $40,000 in funding to do this. This is a forgivable loan that we do not have to pay back as long as **** lives with us for 8 years, or if he moves out we would need to rent it to another low income disabled person until the 8 years is up. The range of forgiveness is 8 – 15 years depending on how much of your own money you put into the project over and above the money they give you.

It is a lengthy process and involves loads of paperwork, zoning, building permits, inspections, and the ability to fund the project until they reimburse you once it is complete. You also need to register the money as a mortgage on your house which involves a lawyer. That being said it is well worth it, and we are nearing completion of ****’s apartment right now, which we designed to be accessible for him now and for how things may change in the future. Didn’t want to jinx it until we got the funds but it is all settled now so thought I would spread the word.

I would be pleased to answer any questions any of you might have and guide you through the process that worked for us. 

I must say, it does sound intriguing.

Let's Talk Landon Webb Guardianship ~ Part II

I must admit that this was most definitely not what I had in mind for Part II of this series, as I had have no intention of making any further comment on Landon Webb's personal situation, However, comments such as the below from the editorial in yesterday's Chronicle Herald simply cannot go unanswered.

We are hopeful that the courts will rule that, no matter what Mr. Webb’s disability, he wants to live in society and should have the right to do so. No one should be locked up because he or she is disabled or needs appropriate support in order to live successfully in the community.

Really?

No one should be locked up because he or she is disabled or needs appropriate support in order to live successfully in the community?

I can see thousands of individuals with disabilities and their family members across the province shaking their heads in disbelief ... wondering why in the world this thought had not occurred to them, too.

At any rate, I sincerely hope both the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission and Joe Q. Public can keep that concept in firmly in mind when the human rights complaint brought by three residents of Emerald Hall is heard later this year.

Yes, this is the very same human rights complaint where individuals had been forced to live in a psychiatric hospital for up to 13 years (with no end in sight) for the simple reason that the Department of Community Services either couldn't or wouldn't provide them with placement in the community.

The very same complaint where the investigation conducted on behalf of the Human Rights Commission found that “the existence of discrimination cannot be denied", yet, incredulously  the investigator recommended that the complaint be dismissed. That would have been the end of the matter had the complainants' lawyers not fought on and brought the matter before the Commission for a review, arguing successfully that it should go forward to a hearing.

News Flash #1: Individuals with disabilities who cannot live in the community without support need someone to provide them that support.

News Flash #2: Caregivers don't work for free - someone has to pay them a living wage.

And just who would that "someone" be? For the uninitiated, it would be the provincial government in the form of the Department of Community Service's Disability Support Program.

But what happens if you are forced to rely on a system where the wait list for residential placement currently sits at over 1000 people?

What are individuals with disabilities and their families to do when they want nothing more than to live in the community but simply can't move out of their family home, Emerald Hall or an institution because the Dept of Community Services won't provide the funding for the type of support the person
requires to be successful in the community?

Could there be anything the public could possibly do to help?

Oh, wait. I know. One really helpful move would be to bash an individual's family members for the continuation of institutions in Nova Scotia.

I have yet to meet anyone in the disability community who wants to see their family member housed in an institution. Have you?

* You might have noticed that the sarcasm was a bit thick in this post. That's something I generally work very hard to avoid, but sometimes a person simply has to use whatever tools are at their disposal to make people see that a spade really is a spade.

** Part III will, as promised, will examine take a look at the alternative being presented to guardianship at the moment - supported decision-making.

Time to Shake Things Up

UPDATE: It gives me great pleasure to advise that this complaint will get a hearing before a Board of Inquiry and the Disabiltiy Rights Coalition has been given standing to be added as a party. Kudos to all involved.

Anybody who has been reading here for any amount of time is quite familiar with my an ongoing love affair with the Dept. of Community Services (DCS). Don't believe me? Follow the link.

On that note, I was very pleased to (very) recently learn about the Human Rights Complaint that has been brought forward against the Services for Persons with Disabilities Disability Support program on behalf of three long-term residents of Emerald Hall.

As noted in Beth's story, Emerald Hall is intended to be an acute care in-patient unit serving clients who live with intellectual disabilities as well as complex mental and/or physical health issues. What Beth's story fails to mention is that Emerald Hall is designed to provide only temporary (up to three months) stabilization care for people who are living in the community.

Note this comment from Capital District Health's Capital District Mental Health Program Services page:

Emerald Hall supports adults living with a mental illness and developmental disability who are not able to live in the community either because of a lack of available resources or a need for intense support that is only available in hospital. Many of Emerald Hall’s current clients are long-term residents. As such its occupancy is almost always 100 per cent. However, crisis admission is sometimes available to registered clients.
(Emphasis added)

Long-term residents is one way to put in I guess - some of those "residents" have lived there for 13 years. That's right - 13 years. And that's not because it was considered medically necessary - these residents individuals have been medically discharged from the NS Hospital years ago but continue to reside there because DCS either can't or won't provide them with placement in the community.

"Sad situation, indeed", you say. "But what exactly does this have to do with my family?", you ask.

Good question. Deserves a good answer.

But before we get there, let me point out one more thing.  From the Chronicle Herald article:

A complaint over the province’s failure to provide supportive, community-based housing for people with disabilities has been accepted by the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission.

“There has been an investigation and investigative report prepared,” Donna Franey, executive director of the Dalhousie Legal Aid Service, wrote in an email to the media late Friday.

“The report notes that ‘the existence of discrimination cannot be denied in this situation,’ yet the recommendation to the commission is dismissal of the complaint.”

Riddle me this, please. How is it even possible for a Human Rights Commission investigator to find that "the existence of discrimination cannot be denied in this situation", but then go on to recommend that the complaint be dismissed?

Is it just me or does that sound awfully strange to you too? Fortunately this story is far from over.

But back to you. And me. And your children. And mine.

This complaint, if successful, has the potential to shake up the SPD Disability Support program for all of us, in a very positive way. The crux of the case is the argument that the three complainants were discriminated against by being forced to stay in an institution, where they neither want nor need to be. That DCS discriminated against these individuals by providing assistance for people without disabilities, who are in need, to live in the community while failing for many, many years to take into account and accommodate their differing needs and offer supports for them to live in the community.

Can you imagine being forced to be live in a locked unit in a psychiatric hospital even though you neither wanted nor needed to stay in the hospital, let alone in a locked unit?

Can you imagine being unable to properly develop or receive an education, of being deprived of the chance to work, make and interact with friends and do any of the myriad of other things that you and I take for granted in the community?

How about being exposed to the problems of living in a psychiatric ward, including noise and the risk of violence on a daily basis?

Can you imagine your feelings if you were  repeatedly told that you would be found a home in the community but it never happened?

I can and it makes me shudder.

At this point, we can only hope and pray that reason and the rule of law will preside when the matter goes before the Commission for review and a decision is made on whether to dismiss the case or forward it to a board of inquiry.

The Pros and Cons Power of Guardianship

I've written extensively in the past about the various options open to parents to manage their legal relationship with their adult challenged children.

For some families, a power of attorney and personal directive might be the answer. For other families, it won't. For some families, guardianship will be the only sensible option.

I've also written on some of the reasons why guardianship can be such a useful tool in the right circumstances -  for everything from

• being involved with the adult's medical care and having access to their medical records 

• to managing their assets (finances)  

• to the control it gives in dealing with third parties, such as various government departments and agencies on the adult's behalf.

Although all of the above obviously have great potential to be important in your adult child's life, today I would like to take a closer look at the last item listed above; namely, the control guardianship gives in dealing with third parties, such as various government agencies and departments.

Whether dealing with the Canada Revenue Agency around income tax or issues around the Disability Tax Credit, various financial institutions or financial planners as you manage your child's RDSP or Nova Scotia's own Department of Community Services (DCS) in regard to issues of "work placement" or "placement" of your adult child in a residential care facility, guardianship can be a very useful tool.

But guardianship can be particularly useful with regard to that latter item (dealing with DCS). Not only does having guardianship allow you to direct where your child lives and works, but it will allow you to be involved in ongoing care decisions with respect to such placements.

It's no secret that guardianship has, on more than one occasion, proven very valuable for parents who were initially refused access to information and records concerning their adult child who was living in a residential care facility. Both administrators and social workers often consider concerned parents to be nothing more than “busy bodies”.

However, once a guardianship order is obtained, such parents generally find that both  home administrators and social workers stop trying to do an end run around them. Sometimes, being granted access to information and records is enough. Other times, however, concerned parents with guardianship might decide to move their child to a different living situation where the child will be happier and their ongoing interest and involvement are appreciated and encouraged.

A very powerful tool, no?

And yet, the saga continues.

Batter Up

That would be you and me, folks.

Just another reminder that a series of community meetings* start this week across the Province. A series of community meetings that persons with disabilities, their family members and their friends need to attend.

The meetings follow the government's release of the long awaited Continuing Care/Services for Persons with Disabilities discussion paper, "Putting People First - Working Together to Support Independence and Dignity".

Let's admit it. We're all pretty good at moaning and complaining calling the government out on the pathetic situation facing persons with disabilities in this Province, both in housing and otherwise. And rightfully so.

But the question in my mind is "Will we be just as committed to doing our part to find a solution?".

Criticism is easy; finding solutions is often much more difficult.

So here's your chance, read the discussion paper (which, honestly, doesn't tell really tell those who live this day in and day out anything we didn't already know but at least it acknowledges the problem and appears to want to move forward) and come out to a meeting in your area*.

Bring your spouse, your children, your friends. But, most importantly, bring your self.

As they say - you're either part of the problem or part of the solution. Which will you be?

* A meeting in Digby has now been added.
Thursday, April 4, 3013 ~ 4:00 - 6:00 pm
Annapolis Basin Conference Centre
761 Broadway Ave., Cornwallis Park
Cornwallis Room.

'To Fight the Unbeatable Foe'

UPDATE: Advocacy wins the day. Now, for heaven's sake, please let these ladies live in peace.

To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go 

These were the words that came to my mind today when I read that a ReMax real estate agent is appealing the Town of Bridgewater's decision to change its zoning bylaws to allow LaHave Manor Corp. to open a new group home.

You might recall last Spring when the LeHave Corporation attempted to purchase a property that was ideally-suited for use as a group home by three women that have lived together for over 18 years. It seemed like a great idea until neighbours started complaining and the Town decided that the property couldn't become a group home because it violated zoning bylaws -bylaws that allowed for "low density residential housing", also known as single family dwellings. Apparently, the Town viewed three people living together in the community as an "institution".

But just when we thought saner heads had prevailed and all was well (the Town changed its by-laws to allow the group home to be opened), we now come to find out that Ron Bullen, an agent with RE/MAX South Shore Realty, along with a merry group of fellow real estate agents, has filed an appeal of the Town`s decision with the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.

The reason? Apparently they are afraid that the group home will cause real estate values in the "upscale neighbourhood" to fall.

Seriously?

To right the unrightable wrong
To love pure and chaste from afar
To try when your arms are too weary
To reach the unreachable star

One of the better lines in the article has to belong to local resident Brian Tennyson, who stateed at a public meeting that he's not opposed to the zoning change because it's a "residential-care facility", but because "councillors and staff were manipulated, pressured and intimidated by LaHave Manor Corp".

Hey, you might just be on to something there, Mr. Tennyson. Town Council might just have been intimidated. And some things are, indeed, worthy of intimidation.

Such as the public statements recently made by the Minister of Community Services to the effect that persons with disabilities have the right to live in the community and if you disagree ... well, that's too bad.

Also worthy of intimidation? The fact that you might just be running afoul of the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

"Bridgewater prides itself on being an inclusive community and as such wants to incorporate the intent of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities," the release said. "We acknowledge that the rights of disabled persons are equal to the rights of any other person in our community."

This fight is not, cannot, be over.

Perhaps a few well-placed letters to ReMax letting them know what Nova Scotians think of the actions of their agent in this matter? Perhaps an online petition boycotting ReMax unless this matter is resolved?

And, if anyone knows the names of the other real estate agents involved, I would love to hear them.

Putting People First?

I received an email from NSACL today, with the following information.

The Nova Scotia government has finally released the long awaited Continuing Care/Services for Persons with Disabilities discussion paper. It's entitled "Putting People First - Working Together to Support Independence and Dignity". 

A series of community meetings have been set up by Department of Community Services and parents and self-advocates are encouraged to attend. 

Not only does NSACL strongly encourage you to review the document and attend a local community meeting, but so do I. 

Please. As family members, if they can't make their voices heard on their own, it is up to us to do so for them. Whether that means attending and speaking on their behalf or attending with your family member, speaking yourself and encouraging them to say what they can, we can't miss this opportunity.

And if your family member is relatively high-functioning, you might just want to give the latter a try. I was amazed at how well my daughter did at one of the housing consultations earlier this year. Sitting at a table without me but where she fortuitously knew one other person, she was helped to put together what SHE needed to say and she did a great job. Not only was it incredibly empowering for her but it seemed to make a real impact on the room.

The Discussion Paper : "Putting People First - Working Together to Support Independence and Dignity"

Schedule of Community Meetings

Happy Days

Remember the story I shared with you last month about what happened when the LeHave Corporation tried to purchase a property in Bridgewaer that was ideally-suited for use as a group home, particularly for three individuals that had lived together for over 18 years?

How afer the neighbours started complaining, the Town of Bridgewater decided that the property couldn't become a group home because that was an "institution", which would violate zoning bylaws that allowed for "low density residential housing" aka single family dwellings?

As I told you then, following a groundswell of public support from across the country and the pointed suggestion that the Town's position might well violate Article 9 and Article 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Bridgewater eventually agreed to change its zoning bylaws to allow the new group home to open.

Well, I'm now very pleased to report that Denice Russell, Melisa Knox and Kim Fairbanks, who have lived together as sisters for 18 years have moved into "Compassion House", as the property is now known. Which made my day feel a little bit brighter.

Go read the story and see for yourself.

And then say those nine words slowly, savouring every one of them ... the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Overwhelmed and Underpaid

I am just passing along this email received from the Halifax Association for Community Living.

Because it's a very important issue.

Hi Families and Friends,

One more email before I get out of your hair today! This story is about Toronto, where the waitlist is 8 months for housing. This is our story in NS and even worse. The housing options issue is of monumental proportions with 650 people on the waitlist in Nova Scotia, and a 4 to 5 year wait. The comments on this news story are very telling as well.

You may want to forward this on to your MLA, the premier, the party leaders and the minister of Community services, and share your story as well. I will list the emails for these people:

Percy Paris NDP Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank percy@percyparis.ca

David Wilson NDP Sackville-Cobequid dave@davidawilsonmla.ca

Keith Colwell Liberal Preston colwelkw@gov.ns.ca

Michèle Raymond NDP Halifax Atlantic mhraymondmla@eastlink.ca

Howard Epstein NDP Halifax Chebucto hepstein@ns.aliantzinc.ca

Leonard Preyra NDP Halifax Citadel-Sable Island preyra@eastlink.ca

Diana Whalen Liberal Halifax Clayton Park whalendc@gov.ns.ca

Graham Steele NDP Halifax Fairview graham@grahamsteele.ca

Maureen MacDonald NDP Halifax Needham mmacdonald@navnet.net

Mat Whynott NDP Hammonds Plains - Upper Sackville mat.mla@ns.sympatico.ca

Andrew Younger Liberal Dartmouth East info@andrewyounger.ca

Trevor Zinck Independent Dartmouth North tzinck@ns.aliantzinc.ca

Marilyn More NDP Dartmouth South - Portland Valley marilynmoremla@ns.aliantzinc.ca

Darrell Dexter NDP Cole Harbour ddexter.mla@gmail.com; premier@gov.ns.ca

Becky Kent NDP Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage kentbj@gov.ns.ca

Kelly Regan Liberal Bedford-Birch Cove kelly@kellyregan.ca

Denise Peterson-Rafuse Minister of Community Services DCSMIN@gov.ns.ca

Take care,

Yvette Cherry
Halifax Association for Community Living
Family Support Facilitator
www.halifaxacl.com
463-4752 Ext.2

HACL Mission Statement
“We believe that all people should be accepted as responsible, contributing members of their family and society.”

What's Up Your Sleeve?

It looks like the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities might have been put to good use in Nova Scotia this past week.

I've said before that, in my opinion, the best use of that Convention might be in the moral suasion if offers advocates when dealing with government officials. At all levels of government, apparently.

At least that's the way I read the news that Bridgewater has agreed to change its zoning bylaws to allow LaHave Manor Corp. to open a new group home.

In case you're not familiar with the story, the LeHave Corporation intended to purchase a property that was felt to be ideally-suited for use as a group home (single level, wide hallways, open living room and wheelchair-adapted), particularly for three individuals that have lived together for over 18 years. The plan was for these individuals to move together to this home.

Well, that was the plan until neighbours started complaining and the town of Bridgewater decided that the property couldn't become a group home because it violated zoning bylaws. Zoning bylaws that allow for what's known as "low density residential housing". More commonly known as single family dwellings.

Apparently, the Town viewed three people living together in the community as an "institution". Which means that either the Town of Bridgewater has even less of a concept of what community living means than the Dept. of Community Services or they simply didn't want to upset the sensitivities of their good citizens who are more ... sensitive.

At any rate, what I found most interesting about today's new story was these comments from the Town's press release:

"Bridgewater prides itself on being an inclusive community and as such wants to incorporate the intent of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities," the release said. "We acknowledge that the rights of disabled persons are equal to the rights of any other person in our community."

Which makes me think that, in additional to the groundswell of public support from across the country, someone did some smart advocacy work by pointing out to the good Council that, like all levels of government in Canada, it, too, is bound by Article 9 and Article 28 of the UN Convention.

A handy little document to have up your sleeve, no?

If Only ...

I came across this story a few days ago and it made me really, really wish the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contained wording similar that found in the Americans with Disabilities Act, requiring that people with disabilities be allowed to live in the "most integrated setting" within their communities.

Because if it did, then maybe, just maybe, we could just as easily settle our own class action law suit and rather than assigning dollars to “institutions,” the money would follow the individual to the housing of their choice.

A federal judge on Wednesday approved a settlement to a long-running civil case that will force Illinois to begin moving hundreds of people with developmental and intellectual disabilities into more community-based homes and apartments of their choice.

“I firmly believe that the state of Illinois, the citizens, have been well-served by these efforts,” said U.S. District Judge James Holderman, who congratulated lawyers who have spent months negotiating terms of controversial case.

“I will issue an order promptly,” he said, noting that he had received only two objections out of 21Ö responses filed with the court. “I will announce informally today that my position is that the consent decree should be approved and this should be the law that is followed.”

The settlement in the case filed in 2005 by Stanley Ligasd and other plaintiffs will change the way the state now pays for their care. Rather than assigning dollars to “institutions,” the money would follow the individual to the housing of their of their choice. Institutions are defined in the lawsuit as any private, state-funded facility with nine or more residents.

Unfortunately, though, that's not the case

Leaving us to rely on sec. 15 of the Charter.

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

And although there are numerous examples of people attempting (unfortunately, not all that successfully) to use the equality provisions of the Charter to fund adequate social assistance rates and sec. 7 guarantees to "life, liberty and security of the person" to argue a right to subsidized housing for Canadians, I'm not sure that anyone has yet tried to pair sec. 15 rights with a right for the physically and mentally challenged to live within their own communities, in the homes they would choose.  As opposed to those that are imposed on chosen for them.

Although I'm thinking the wording of sec. 15 will never be found to support such a right; that we would need much more explicit wording, such as that found in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Still, anyone there aware of any Canadian case law in this regard?

Home for the Holidays ~ Practical Applications

Home sweet home.

There's no place like home.

Home is where the heart is.

Home is where you go when you have nowhere else to go.

Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in. ~ Robert Frost

Love begins by taking care of the closest ones - the ones at home. ~ Mother Teresa

The ache for home lives in all of us, the safe place where we can go as we are and not be questioned. ~ Maya Angelou

A house is not a home unless it contains food and fire for the mind as well as the body. ~ Benjamin Franklin

Very wise words, indeed.

Because no matter how you choose to slice it (or quote it), no matter who we are, no matter what our gifts or challenges may be, to truly function to our full potential in the world, we all need a home.  Not just a house, but a home.  A place that's ours and ours alone (or ours to share with loved ones), a place that gives us that sense of peace, belonging and security.

As the parent (or other family member) of a person with a disability, it might well be something you often think about.  What will happen to our loved one when we are no longer able to provide them with a home (or if, for some unforeseen reason, they should lose the home they now have)?  Where will they make their home?  Will it truly feel like a home or will it just be some place to lay their head?

And so it was that a nice article by PLAN entitled "Home Ownership and Taxes" landed in my inbox this evening. The different types of home ownership (direct ownership versus principal residence trusts) are discussed and compared from both a legal and a practical point of view, as are the tax implications involved in a trust situation.

And I'm pleased to note that although PLAN is BC-based, 95% of the article appears applicable to Nova Scotia, thanks to income tax being a federal issue. 

The only caveat I would note would be under the heading "Property Transfer Tax" near the end of the article as the issue of how much (or whether or not you will even pay) what we in Nova Scotia call a deed transfer tax varies not just by the Province but, in our case, by the municipality in which you reside.

And, on a little less legal, but no less necessary note, I leave you with the story of Greg and his family's fight to find him a true home (again courtesy of PLAN).  To remind us all to never, ever give up.

The More Things Change ...

Remember this? And this?
Have you heard the latest?

From the latest edition of Institution Watch:

NOVA SCOTIA
More than a year ago (November 2006) the Nova Scotia government announced that it would be renovating an empty building to create an institution to house 24 people. The news release estimated the cost to be $3 million with annual operating costs also estimated to be $3 million. On December 19, 2007 the tender for construction was awarded at a cost of $4,180,000. The costs for design work are unknown.

There's also a complete look at how other provinces are doing. I can tell you that British Columbia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland are leading the way.

Nova Scotia? As you can see, we're not fairing too well. But check it out for yourself.

So what will it take to make a difference here? Who, if not us, is going to make our government move forward on this? That's forward in the right direction. As opposed to what they apparently think is the right direction.

What are your thoughts and ideas?

Tick tock. Tick tock.

Show of hands?