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.

URGENT: Disability Support Program

 Back in the mists of time, we briefly discussed a human rights complaint brought against the Province regarding the Disability Support Program.

The case has had a very long and somewhat torturous* history (during which the provincial government repeatedly flipflopped on whether it would appeal any adverse  rulings**), but at the end of the day, it has turned into a ground-breaking human rights decision from Nova Scotia (of all places!).

At any rate, a huge shout out to the Disability Rights Coalition, who spearheaded the whole thing.

For anyone not in the know, back in 2015, a human rights complaint was brought against the Province regarding three intellectually challenged adults who had been locked in a mental institution for (literally) years for no good or defensible reason. Although legitimately admitted at one point, they were trapped there long past when they should have discharged because no "suitable housing" could be found in the community.

Although initially successful for the three individual complainants***, the Commission refused to extend its remedy in a way that might help other individuals subject to the Disability Support Program's residential options.

Eventually, we made it to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal where the claim of systemic discrimination was found to be valid. 

HALLELJUAH

An interim settlement was negotiated, with yet another independent expert report, this time to advise to how the systemic discrimination in the Province's provision of supports and services could be resolved. 

However, unlike other studies and reports over years which were shelved by the government, this one has some teeth. You can read the full report here, but if you would prefer the Executive Summary in "plain language" (I know I would!), I suggest you go here.

All of which had led us here:

... there will be a series of in-person sessions held across the Province for participants and their families/support networks. The sessions will be an opportunity to com together to discuss the content of the technical report and the next steps.

The sessions will take place between May 30 and June 14 in nine communities across the province. Please see below for the schedule. Each session will be two hours and will consist of a brief presentation from People First Nova Scotia (disability self-advocacy organization) reps along with Randy Acker, DSP Director. There will be time for smaller individual and group discussions within the venue to allow people to ask questions and gather the information they need. Light snacks and refreshments will be provided. If participants require additional transportation funding to attend the session, please contact your care coordinator.

The list of dates and locations follow: 

Bridgewater - NSCC - Lunenburg Campus 75 High St Bridgewater, NS B4V 1V8 Tuesday May 30 -- 1:30-3:30 PM or 5:30-7:30 PM 

Yarmouth -YACRO Hub 6 Thurston St. Yarmouth, NS B5A 4K5 Wednesday May 31 -- 1:30-3:30 PM or 5:30-7:30 PM 

Kentville - Kentville Fire Dept 463 Main St Kentville, NS B4N 1K9 Thursday June 1 -- 1:30-3:30 PM or 5:30-7:30 PM

Pugwash - Cumberland Public Libraries - Pugwash Branch 10182 Durham St Pugwash, NS B0K 1L0 Tuesday June 6 -- 1:30-3:30 PM or 5:30-7:30 PM 

New Glasgow - Summer Street Industries 72 Park St. New Glasgow, NS B2H 5B8 Wednesday June 7 -- 1:30-3:30 PM or 5:30-7:30 PM 

Dartmouth - NSCC Ackerley Campus 21 Woodlawn Rd Dartmouth, NS B2W 2R7 Location - Gymnasium Entrance #7 Thursday June 8 PM -- 1:30-3:30 PM 

Halifax - Club Inclusion 2652 Joseph Howe Dr Halifax, NS B3N 1J2 Thursday June -- 8 5:30-7:30 PM 

Whycocomagh - Whycocomagh Waterfront Centre 9650 NS-105 Whycocomagh, NS B0E 3M0 Tuesday June 13 -- 1:30-3:30 PM Sydney - NSCC Marconi Campus – Room B101B 1240 Grand Lake Rd Grand Lake, NS B1P 6J7 Tuesday June 13 – 6:00-8:00 PM Wednesday June 14 -- 10:00-12:00 noon

 

WE SERIOUSLY NEED TO SHOW UP FOR THESE SESSIONS 

~   ~  ~  ~  ~

 * In other words, yes, you messed up and must compensate these individuals but we're not going to touch the bigger problem (lack of adequate housing and community supports) for those with intellectual or developmental challenges. Can't touch that with a ten-foot pole. 

** After several flip flops as to whether or not the government would take these poor people on social assistance to court by two different governments (first Liberal, then Conservatize), the Province just did just that, challenging the monetary compensation ordered. Fortunately, the Disability Rights Coalition cross-appealed the finding of no systemic discrimination.

 ** Cash awards were made to each complainant between $200,000 and $300,000. Unfortunately, two of the adults passed away before the case made it to the Court of Appeal.

In Residential Care Situations, What Are Essential Visitors?

These days when I come across an interesting issue or article in the media, I generally just post on FaceBook, reasoning that at least that way it will receive some attention. You may not know this but legal blogging is  a very labour and time-intensive craft (at least it is if you want to do it right) and many days I find it hard to keep up with both my practice and my life.

Although something may indeed better than nothing, the downside is that it limits how much commentary I can provide on any given issue, so it really isn't the same, is it? 

So just as I would about to add this link on the MMC Legal Services FB page , I stopped, took a deep breath and made the decision bring it here instead. Consider it a small effort at atonement.

I know for a fact that the restrictions on visitation at Dept of Community Services home in Nova Scotia has affected many individuals and their families. Although I don't know for sure exactly how negatively people have been affected here, I do know that Nova Scotia could sorely use something along the lines of this proposed Private Member's Bill in Ontario.

Many, including Taylor, hope that a private-member’s bill introduced in September 2020 could lead to change. The More Than a Visitor Act, proposed by Lisa Gretzky, NDP critic for the Ministry of Community, Children and Social Services, aims to ensure that caregivers of a group-home resident would not be treated “merely as a visitor,” especially in emergency situations. The bill defines a caregiver as an individual who “continuously or occasionally provides significant, unpaid, non-professional support to a person receiving care, support or services,” shares an “emotional bond” with the person who receives care, and is considered by the person receiving care, or their substitute decision-maker, to be a designated caregiver. “A designated caregiver,” the bill reads, “may be a family member, a neighbour, a friend, a support person, an attorney for personal care or property under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 or another similar type of person.”

There's already been one successful human rights decision on this issue in Ontario, in which the Commission found that a child's disability-specific needs were violated when a rigid visitor restriction policy initially allowed for only video calls or drive-by visits and when in-person visits were allowed, they were required to remain six feet apart from residents. Unfortunately, due to a  communications disability, the child could not use words to communicate, instead relying on  touch, hugging, pulling on hands, gestures and other physical displays of expression.

This decision raises (and answers) many complex and timely issues.

Significantly, the Tribunal found that “[h]uman rights protections do not go away in a pandemic”, despite the service provider's argument that the unprecedented nature of the pandemic did not allow space for individual human rights protections or individualized assessment. Although the pandemic raised important and difficult issues, service providers were still required to follow the requirements of the Code. The human rights framework is robust enough to address many contexts – including a pandemic where safety and health considerations require particular attention. 

The next point of interest is Commission's response to the argument that the parents were at fault for failing to try out the alternative methods of communication proposed offered and instead “insisted upon their preferred accommodation.” The Tribunal rejected this, finding that once the parents had made an accommodation request and explained why the alternatives offered were insufficient, it was incumbent upon the Respondent to actually consider their request, as opposed to insisting that their way was the only way. 

Although the duty to accommodate requires the cooperation of both parties cooperative process, the ultimate responsibility for finding and implementing the accommodation solution remains with the respondent.          

The third important finding relates to the effect of government guidance around safety protocols on human rights obligations. The provider asserted that it was required to strictly follow the government guidelines and couldn't deviate from these to accommodate any individual. However, the Tribunal found that such directions were advice and recommendations intended to guide service providers in their decision making. 

This mandated that the service provider implement the government’s guidelines and recommendations with its mind turned to the individual human rights of its residents. The accommodation request must be investigated and an assessment of the actual risk of accommodating the individual must be undertaken. As they had failed to do this, it was unable to demonstrate that accommodating these individual needs would amount to undue hardship.

The ball was in the respondent’s court to consider the applicant’s accommodation request, and seek its own public health advice on that specific request. It did not do so. Instead, it remained steadfast in its approach. Because the respondent did not investigate the applicant’s accommodation request, there is no objective health evidence that it would have caused undue hardship to grant the request in terms of jeopardizing the health and safety of the residents and staff in the applicant’s home. (para 132) 

Although the Tribunal’s decision relied heavily on the individual facts of the case (the child came with particular pressing needs to have meaningful contact with his parents; the group home had only two residents, which was a relatively controlled environment; and the public health authority was supportive of an individualized risk-based assessment informed by the rates of transmission in the region at that time). all of the above were important factors in the Tribunal’s determination. 

I would submit that there is a strong argument to be made that such such accommodations must be guaranteed to  adults as well. There are a myriad of factors to be considered when individuals have developmental disabilities or delays. For example, outdoor visits with strict rules around touching can be very confusing and upsetting for these individuals, no matter their age. 

The definition of "essential visitors" in residential care situations must include parents or other significant individuals and accommodations must be made [to the point of undue hardship] to meet everyone’s needs. The law requires it.

Biased? Who, Me? [Reasonable Apprehension of Bias]

This is a follow-up (or, perhaps more accurately, a follow-on) from my most recent blawg post regarding students with behavioral challenges, in which which I noted that the parent had (unsuccessfully) argued that the Human Rights adjudicator was "biased" due to his previous practice providing legal services to school boards.

You will recall that the parent argued that her son required Applied Behaviour Analysis ("ABA") in order to receive a meaningful education. She was concerned that the adjudicator was predisposed to find that ABA was not education because

• during his legal career, a large part of his practice involved representing school boards in the areas of special education, human rights and litigation;
• in that capacity, he “repeatedly appeared as counsel to school boards seeking to achieve a finding that ABA is incompatible with education of autistic children”;
• the fact that he had argued on behalf of a school board that intensive behavioural intervention ("IBA") therapy was not a special education program or service raised a reasonable apprehension of bias arose with respect to the current situation;
• subsequent to those court cases, he had advised his school board clients that ABA was incompatible with the education of autistic children; and
• in an interim decision, he had placed restrictions on the parent’s evidence which precluded her from giving opinion evidence relating to whether “ABA at Tier 3" was education.

You will note that the correct wording is "a reasonable apprehension of bias", not that an adjudicator or judge is actually biased. The reason for this is two-fold; not only would it be much more difficult for a party to prove that the decision-maker is biased, but even the appearance of bias (to a reasonable observer) is enough to disqualify a decision-maker from hearing the case. I'm sure we're all at least somewhat familiar with the old adage that "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done".

The test for finding a reasonable apprehension of bias is as follows:

. . . the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and rightminded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words of the Court of Appeal, that test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.
[Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC),
p. 94]

Lawyers are ethically bound to make the best possible arguments on behalf of their clients, whether or not they reflect their personal views. Just because a lawyer advocates a certain position does not mean that he or she agrees with it. Further, having existing, even publicly expressed personal views prior to appointment should does not generally lead to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

It more or less makes sense if you think about it: to find otherwise would preclude adjudicators (and judges) from ever hearing cases in which an issue arises or might arise that also arose in a case in which they acted as counsel prior to being appointed.

... True impartiality does not require that the judge have no sympathies or opinions; it requires that the judge nevertheless be free to entertain and act upon different points of view with an open mind.[Canadian Judicial Council, Commentaries on Judicial Conduct (1991), at p.12]

Many, however, have (quite legitimately, I believe) questioned how or why a judge can decide for himself whether or not he or she is biased. Shouldn't it be a different impartial actor in the justice system who makes this decision? I have often asked (or at least thought) the same question myself.

But the fact is that it is very judge whom appears biased to you that will decide whether you are right, whether he or she is biased (or at least appears that way). That's what makes an application for recusal on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias something to be very carefully thought through. Should you be unsuccessful in the bias application, the same individual you challenged will remain the ultimate decision-maker - this is the self-same person you will need to convince of the rightness of your case. And all of us are, after all, only human.

Although there is a right to appeal a judge's decision that there is no reasonable apprehension of bias, I believe it will be a very uphill battle to convince an appeal court overturn the initial judge's findings.

For any wishing to delve deeper into subject, I will send you off here. Happy travels.

Human Rights in Education - When "Meaningful" is "Good Enough"

We've discussed the issue of human rights in education a fair bit, but what of those students whose behavioral challenges really do create an “unacceptable safety risk" to themselves or others?

In September 2019, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint alleging that a school board had discriminated against a Grade 2 student with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and a learning disability.

Shortly after starting school in a French Immersion program a behaviour plan was implemented for the young student, which appeared adequate until Grade 2.

Unfortunately, the behavioural problems escalated, resulting in the school developing several strategies, including assigning two educational assistants. Things deteriorated from there; in addition to eloping from the classroom, he repeatedly threatened and attacked staff and other students, resulting in multiple injuries. In October 2018, he repeatedly hit an educational assistant ("EA"), giving her a concussion and resulting in her being off work for an extended period of time, following which some staff invoked their right to refuse unsafe work and other parents complained about safety risk to their children.

The student was suspended pending investigation of the incident with the EA and subsequently expelled from the French Immersion school only, which decision was upheld following an internal review process on the basis that his continued presence at the school created an “unacceptable safety risk".

The school board developed what they referred to as a “Loop of School” plan, involving a gradual re-introduction to the classroom. It provided for the student to be moved from the French Immersion school to his neighbourhood school, but not only was the mother unwilling to have her son change schools*,  she would not accept any plan that did not include the provision of “Tier 3 ABA,” (ABA provided in a clinical setting), arguing this was necessary to allow her son to access education.

The Human Rights Tribunal found that the family had proven prima facie** discrimination (as the student no loner had meaningful access to education owing to his increasing dysregulation), but rejected the argument that that his dysregulation was caused by the school’s failure to provide ABA in the classroom, given that meaningful access to education had been provided during the first part of Grade 2 and during a period of home instruction immediately following the suspension without implementing an ABA program.

Although school boards are required to offer students with ASD special education programs, including programs using ABA methods “where appropriate,” the Tribunal didn't accept that “Tier 3 ABA” services in a regular classroom setting were necessary for the student to access education.

It also found that that, prior to the student’s expulsion, the Board had accommodated him to the point of "undue hardship** and despite taking various steps to deal with his increasing dysregulation, the student ultimately posed an unacceptable safety risk to staff, students and himself.

Gradual re-introduction to school was a necessary and reasonable component of the Board's plan and although "reasonable programming alternatives" (such as home instruction or a special education class at his neighbourhood school) had been offered to the student during the expulsion, these had been rejected by the mother.

Turning to the conduct of the student’s mother, the Tribunal stated:

In rejecting the Loop of School plan, Ms. Kahn failed in her obligation to co-operate in the accommodation process. In so finding, I note that parents do not have the right to dictate the accommodations which their children will be provided with to access education. While parents do have the right to provide input as part of the accommodation process – which Ms. Kahn did in this case – they must accept reasonable accommodations offered by the school board.

Thus, the Tribunal found that “the applicant failed to engage in the accommodation process in any meaningful way…[and] failed to accept reasonable accommodations offered by the respondent”, resulting in the application being dismissed.

Although largely based on its specific facts, the decision does provide some helpful guidance on the types of accommodations that school boards should be expected to provide to ensure "meaningful access" to education and clearly reminds us that a student seeking accommodation is entitled to "reasonable" – as opposed to "preferred" – accommodations.

So, what do you think? Did the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal "get it right"?

* Apparently, there was a little more going on behind the scenes, as the decision indicates that the family also wanted "childcare expenses" to be covered by the school board.

** You can find an explanation of both these terms in a previous post, "The Law on Human Rights and Employment in Nova Scotia: Part II" (just follow the links).

~  ~  ~

The decision is also interesting for a couple of additional issues discussed (whether the Human Rights adjudicator was "biased" due to his previous practice providing legal services to school boards in the areas of special education” and the effect of specific negative interactions between the mother and school personnel); however, these will be discussed in a separate post.

Canada's Record on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Last month, Canada hosted the United Nations Special Rapporteur [an independent expert who reports to the United Nations Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, and advises on progress, opportunities and challenges encountered in the implementation of the rights of persons with disabilities worldwide] on the rights of persons with disabilities. And she had lots of interest to say.

I'm going to highlight a few areas in this post, those of particular interest to me. However I strongly encourage you to read the entire document. Yes, it's lengthy but definitely worth the time.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Nevertheless during my visit I have noticed that discussions about the rights of persons with disabilities are still framed in terms of social assistance, rather than from a human rights-based approach. ... Therefore, more proactive governmental responses are needed to ensure systemic change and take away from individuals the burden of initiating lengthy and onerous legal procedures to achieve the recognition and enjoyment of their rights.

EDUCATION
I also noted a disconnection between the State’s commitment to inclusion in legislation and policies, and everyday implementation in practice, reflected in long waiting time and lack of services for students with disabilities and their families, putting them under significant emotional and financial pressure. ...

ACCESS TO JUSTICE
I would like to remind the federal, provincial and territorial governments that the obligation to provide procedural accommodation to persons with disabilities in all legal proceeding, as established in article 13 of the CRPD, is distinct from the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation, as the first is not subjected to the test of undue hardship.

In addition, I am very concerned about the overrepresentation of persons with disabilities, particularly those belonging to indigenous or other minority communities, in both prisons and the juvenile justice system. I have also received alarming information that persons with psychosocial disabilities are diverted to mental health courts for minor offences where they are subjected to higher penalties and stricter regimes.

LIVING INDEPENDENTLY in the COMMUNITY
I am extremely concerned about the lack of comprehensive responses to guarantee the access of persons with disabilities to the support they need to live independently in their communities. Whereas legislation, services and programmes vary across provinces and territories, generally access to support is not considered as a right, but rather as a social assistance programme dependent on the availability of services.

... persons with disabilities have limited access to different forms of support (including income support, home support, and respite centers), experiencing long waiting time up to several years. While some pilot projects have shown their potential to transform service provision (e.g., the initiatives to provide personalized direct funding), the overall identification, systematization and scaling-up of such initiatives remain a challenge.

RIGHT to LIFE
I am extremely concerned about the implementation of the legislation on medical assistance in dying from a disability perspective.... I have further received worrisome claims about persons with disabilities in institutions being pressured to seek medical assistance in dying, and practitioners not formally reporting cases involving persons with disabilities. I urge the federal government to investigate these complaints and put into place adequate safeguards to ensure that persons with disabilities do not request assistive dying simply because of the absence of community-based alternatives and palliative care.

Now go read the rest. Trust me.

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.

Spell it With Me Now ... A-C-C-O-M-M-O-D-A-T-I-O-N-S

For your human rights in employment education and entertainment today, I offer a little story about a pizza shop in Utah that had to pay out 'big dough' for failing to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee with Down Syndrome. 

Actually, from my (and perhaps your) point of view, it's even worse than your that - this wasn't just your garden variety failure to accommodate case - this particular employee had "happily did his job for more than five months with 'an independently employed and insured job coach* to assist him'.” 

Or, at least he had until an operating partner of the company saw him working with his coach, and ordered him fired.

Seriously? Some people companies people will never learn.

See, even though individuals with disabilities living in Utah do not have the benefit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or, more particularly, sec. 15 thereof) or any of Canada's federal or provincial human rights legislation, they do (as do all residents of the US) have the benefit of the the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

The ADA is one of America's most comprehensive pieces of civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination and guarantees that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else to participate in the mainstream of American life -- to enjoy employment opportunities, to purchase goods and services, and to participate in State and local government programs and services...

To be protected by the ADA, one must have a disability, which is defined by the ADA as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. The ADA does not specifically name all of the impairments that are covered.

Sound familiar?

However, unlike Canadians, Americans also have the benefit of the US' Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the EEOC"). the organization that enforces the ADA in the employment context; meaning you bring your employment complaint to them and, if they think it is justified, they will sue the employer on your behalf. Making them, kind of, sort of like a human rights commission solely for employment issues.

At any rate, thanks to the fine work of the EEOC, Papa John's has not only 'agreed' to pay that employee damages in the amount of $125,000, but also to “review its equal employment opportunity policies, conduct training for management and human resources employees for its restaurants in Utah, and establish a new recruitment program for individuals with disabilities in Utah.”

The take-away(s) of the story for Papa John's (and all Canadian and American employers) is that

• employers must provide "reasonable accommodations" to persons with disabilities and "engage in an interactive process to determine if an accommodation is reasonable yet not burdensome"; and
• a long-term "independently employed and insured job coach" might just be a "reasonable accommodation" for a person with an intellectual disability.

Or, to put it another way, what he said:

“Employers must understand that they cannot refuse to provide an accommodation to individuals with intellectual disabilities. … Employers should embrace workers like Scott who work with such joy. I want employers to know that their obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation includes allowing a job coach at the workplace, if needed, absent undue hardship.”

* Which subject (that being "an independently employed and insured job coach to assist him") could be the subject of a blawg post all by itself, says she, as she continues to toil away at accessing funding for just such a beast for her own daughter.

Let's Talk Landon Webb Guardianship, Part V

You might recall a post from back in February of this year, where I questioned whether or not that was a good time for a family to pursue legal guardianship, given what was on the horizon with the Landon Webb case. I know many of you are now well aware as to exactly how Landon's case ended.

For several years, in the presentations I have given around the Province, I have repeatedly called for a reform of the Incompetent Persons Act, noting that it is an "all or nothing, one size most definitely does not fit all" sort of deal. Apparently the court agreed.

[22] The Incompetent Persons Act takes an all or nothing approach. It allows for no nuance. It does not allow a court to tailor a guardianship order so that a person subject to that order can retain the ability to make decisions in respect of those areas in which they are capable.

Just to be clear, there were absolutely no surprises here with respect to the court's finding that the legislation, as written, is unconstitutional. Not only did Landon's parents acknowledge and agree that the Act was unconstitutional, but, from almost the beginning of this court challenge, the Department of Justice had taken the position that it would not oppose the constitutional challenge and was committed to reviewing the current Act with a view to improving it. As noted in the Webb decision, that was a "remarkable thing", as governments rarely concede that legislation is unconstitutional. In the words of the court, "It happens only where there is a clear and compelling case, such as this".

Leaving us with the question ... What now?

First, let's take a look at what did not happen; what the decision in the Webb case does not mean. To put it simply, all current guardianship orders under the Incompetent Persons Act remain valid and the decision regarding the constitutionality of the Incompetent Persons Act will not affect my current Guardianship Orders.

Now that we know what didn't happen, let's take a look at what did.

Yes, Landon successfully challenged the constitutionality of the Incompetent Persons Act. To put it simply, on June 28, 2016 (as expected) the court found certain provisions of the legislation unconstitutional, but granted one year for the Act to be updated.As noted above, all orders remain valid during this period.

The government tells us that it is currently researching and consulting, with a view to crafting a new law on substituted decision making. Which shouldn't be too difficult to do, considering the help they previously ignored were given. In fact, you might recall that the Law Reform Commission was kind enough to draft an entirely new piece of legislation for the government in 1995.

Be that as it may,this means that applications can still be brought under the current legislation until either a new law is brought in or the one-year time period has expired (which would be June 27, 2017).In addition, the process of review that always existed under the Incompetent Persons Act (contrary to what some would have you think) is still available.

Now for the really important part for your family:

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.

To Disclose or Not Disclose - Human Rights in the Workplace

I recently listened to an audiotape of a panel presentation entitled "Learning to Accommodate: A Step-By-Step Guide to Accommodating Employees with Learning and Intellectual Disabilities".

All in all, it was good and useful presentation - the Panel consisted of a former member of the CACL, a psychologist who specialized in learning disabilities, a law professor who specialized in labour and human rights issues and two lawyers - one who worked mostly for employers and one whom brought forward court cases on behalf of employees.

They did their best to represent all sides of the issue ... or should I say issues, given that it dealt with both employees with intellectual challenges and those with learning disabilities, two very different situations.

I have posted a couple of times on the issue of human rights in the workplace back in 2008 - 2009, but we haven't looked at the issue since. Before we go on, you might want to go back and read those old posts, just to give you a sense of how the human rights issue are dealt with in an employment context.

The one thing that struck me about this recent prensentation and that I wanted to share with you is the issue of whether an employee is obligated to disclose their disability to an employer, either in the hiring process or as a hired employee. I don't believe I touched on this issue back in 2008-2009 and that's too bad because it really is a very important dilemna that many employees and job-seekers face.

As we discussed previously, pursuant to both the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act, employers are obligated to "accommodate" an employee with a disability. You can read more of exactly what this duty of accommodation requires an employer to do (and not to) here.* But the question for us today is this: How can an employer be expected to accommodate an employee if it is kept in the dark as to the employee's disabilities?

Sure, some disabilities are obvious to the naked eye but many are invisible. And even in those situations where the disability (and accommodations required) are obvious, can we automatically assume that means that all of the employee's needs will always be completely obvious?

In the situation in this video, the employer's discriminaiton is pretty blatant. The woman is in a wheelchair. The drafting table and the material on the shelves are too high for her to reach. It isn't rocket science (or, at least, it shouldn't be). But what if a physically challenged employee is also dealing with other issues that are not so obvious, such as fatigue or depression that effect their employment needs?

The bottom line is this: How can an employer legitimately be expected (and legally required) to accommodate disabilities of which it is unaware?

An employer has a has a duty to investigate the availability of accommodation options only IF it knows or should know of the person's disability and the need for accommodation. If the employer is legitimately unaware of the disability, there simply is no duty to accommodate, although one might arise later IF the disability comes to the employer's attention.

The case law is replete with instances of failed human rights claims where the employer never disclosed any information that would lead the employer to think they had a disability; often, even in cases, where the employer noted difficulties and went out of its way to enquire what it could do or offer the employee to help them meet the demands of the job.

And, really, can we honestly say that it should be any other way? You simply can't be expected (or obligated) to accommodate a disability you are totally unaware of. That is only fair.

I do realize that for many individuals with disabilities the decision as to whether or not to disclose a disability (and the accommodations required) to an employer or potential employer is a very difficult one. There are many factors to consider.

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.

'My Life ... My Death' Controversy

Big news out of the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday - relevant for all of us, whether or not we currently have a disability.

I am speaking, of course, of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision striking down the law against assisted suicide in Canada. Or, at least, that's what the media would tell you happened.

Prior to yesterday, there were two sections of the Criminal Code, which, when combined together, banned assisted suicide.

Sec. 241 prohibited counseling, aiding or abetting anyone to commit suicide

Suicide

Counselling or aiding suicide
241.Every one who aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years

and sec. 14 provided that no one can consent to having someone else end their life.

Consent to death
14. No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.

What the Court did was to strike down these two sections of the Criminal Code only to the extent that they prohibited physician-assisted suicide "for a competent adult person who

1. clearly consents to the termination of life and 
2. has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition". 

So, just to clarify, the law against assisted suicide still stands when it comes to you or I or Joe Blow down the street counseling, aiding or abetting someone (anyone) in committing suicide - this decision only applies to physician-assisted suicide, which fact was implied in some media coverage, but perhaps not clearly stated in all of it.

And, for just a bit more clarity (in case you missed this little tidbit in the ongoing roar), this declaration of invalidity was suspended for 12 months - what that means is all will continue as it was for the next year, giving the government the opportunity to attempt to craft a new law. Of course, the federal government could also decide to do nothing at all (after all, not deciding is a decision in and of itself, isn't it?) in which case, come February 5, 2015, physician-assisted suicide (but only under the circumstances set out above) will be legal in Canada.

In case anyone is wondering why the SCC would approve of physician-assisted suicide today when it didn't, ten years ago, when the case involving Sue Rodriguez was decided (which is a very good question, by the way), the Court explained this inconvenient little inconsistency away by stating that law relating to sec. 7 of the Charter (which protects an individual's right to "life, liberty and security of the person" and is the section of the Charter that the Court used to strike down the relevant Criminal Code sections) has "materially advanced" since the Rodriguez case was decided.

But back to the Carter decision; the Court found that, insofar as the Criminal Code prohibited physician‑assisted dying for competent adults who were suffering from a grievous and irremediable medical condition that caused enduring and intolerable suffering, it deprived these adults of their right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter. How you ask?

Well, the Court reasoned that the prohibition had the effect of forcing some of these people to take their own lives prematurely, for fear that they would be incapable of doing so when they reached the point where suffering was intolerable. The rights to liberty and security of the person (which deal with concerns about autonomy and quality of life), were also engaged as a person’s response to a grievous and irremediable medical condition is a matter critical to their dignity and autonomy. The prohibition denied people in this situation the right to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care and by leaving them to endure intolerable suffering, it impinged on their security of the person.

Further, this infringement was done in a manner that was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The object of the prohibition was not to preserve life whatever the circumstances, but to protect vulnerable persons from being induced to commit suicide at a time of weakness. Since a total ban on assisted suicide clearly helps achieve this object, individuals’ rights were not deprived arbitrarily. However, the prohibition caught people outside the class of protected persons and the limitation on their rights was in at least some cases not connected to the objective, making the prohibition overbroad.

Looking at the question of whether the government was justified in violating these individuals' right under sec. 7, the Court went on to hold that although an absolute prohibition on physician‑assisted dying was rationally connected to the goal of protecting the vulnerable from taking their life in times of weakness, the evidence did not support the contention that a blanket prohibition was necessary in order to substantially meet that objective. The evidence from scientists, medical practitioners and others who are familiar with end‑of‑life decision‑making showed that a permissive regime with properly designed and administered safeguards would be capable of protecting vulnerable people from abuse and error. Vulnerability could be assessed on an individual basis, using the procedures that physicians apply in their assessment of informed consent and decision capacity in the context of medical decision‑making more generally.

As an interesting aside, because the Court found that the prohibition on physician‑assisted dying violated s.7 of the Charter, it did not go on to consider whether it also deprived adults with physical disabilities of their right to equal treatment under s. 15 of the Charter. Any equality arguments around sec.15 of the Charter concerning this issue remain to be dealt with on another day.

And given that the Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the land, that, as they say, is that. Or is it?

Stuttering as a Disability

UPDATE: Apparently we now have some US lawyers agreeing that yes, yes indeed, stuttering can indeed be a disability under the terms of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Good to know. 

What says you? Is stuttering a disability? And, if so, should it be "legally protected"?

It seems to me that this should have a fairly easy common sense answer. And if it doesn't, it should.

Of course, stuttering is a disability from a legal point of view.

Section 10 (1) of the Code defines “disability” as follows:
“because of disability” means for the reason that the person has or has had, or is believed to have or have had,

1. any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, a brain injury, any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of physical co-ordination, blindness or visual impediment, deafness or hearing impediment, muteness or speech impediment, or physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device,

But I think worrying about a potential "widespread backlash against all persons with disabilities" is a bit of fear mongering an over-reaction. Why?

All you need do is check out the comments at the end of the article to find a very common sense response.

Of course it's a disability, but not one that should ever override a common sense BFOQ. [Ed. I believe that is meant to read BFOR - "bona fide occupational requirement" **.] But if a person is denied a position they could handle because a stutter "isn't pretty" then that's discrimination. 

** We've discussed this very same issue many years ago and although I didn't use the commonly-accepted terminology at the time, this is exactly what I was talking about. 

Duty to accommodate meet bona fide occupational requirements.

The duty to accommodate can include things like altering the physical workplace, redefining a job description or altering the work schedule. If a driver's license is a job requirement, for example, and the interviewee doesn't have one, there is a duty on the employer to enquire why, to see if a disability is behind it ie) epilepsy. In which case the employer would have to consider what alternations he might make so that driving would not be necessary or whether he could change the job description to give the driving portion to another employee.

And it's important to realize that it would be a lot harder to accommodate certain disabilities in some jobs than in others. For example, is it possible to accommodate a blind person who seeks to be an editor? In all honesty, even with technology, I don't know. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

What about a person in a wheelchair, with no use of her arms or legs, who dreams of being a firefigher? There might be some job back at the fire station that she could conceivably perform but it would be a little hard to picture her actually out there fighting a fire, wouldn't it?