Latest Update – Closure of Debate
by Phyllis Gordon, Executive Director, Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer and Robert Lattanzio, Staff Lawyer
We completed this ARCH Alert yesterday for release today as an update in the Bill 107 debate. It sets out our views, and those of others, about why fundamental reform to Ontario’s human rights system is so important.
However, we have now learned of the Government’s intention to curtail public input through a motion that will be debated in the house tonight. It proposes that the Committee’s clause-by-clause consideration take place on November 29 and that third and final reading may possibly occur on the same day.
ARCH is very distressed about this decision. There are still many groups and individuals who have not had the opportunity to speak to the Committee, despite good faith efforts to review the Bill and prepare a response. Others will not have time to prepare or finalize written submissions that have been solicited by the Attorney General. It now seems that there will be no time for public comment on any new amendments that may be proposed by any party.
ARCH calls for the withdrawal of the closure motion. In this we are joined by Catherine Frazee, whose support for Bill 107 is evident in the report which follows. While we remain committed to the reforms mapped out in Bill 107, we believe that the Bill should proceed on its own merits, and should not be sullied by a process that alienates and excludes the public, including citizens with disabilities.
Why We Support Bill 107
by Phyllis Gordon, Executive Director, Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer and Robert Lattanzio, Staff Lawyer
This comment is to update you on the advancement of human rights reform in Ontario and to urge individuals and organizations to seriously consider supporting this fundamental change to our human rights system. As you may know, the Attorney General has announced proposed amendments to Bill 107, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act. In ARCH’s view, these go a long way to resolving many of the concerns raised by many advocates on all sides of the debate on how to reform Ontario’s human rights system. The amendments are set out in another article in this ARCH Alert entitled, “Attorney General Proposes Amendments to Bill 107”.
On November 15 2006, the Standing Committee on Justice Policy resumed its public hearings on Bill 107 in Toronto. On November 15 and 16 there were a range of presentations of very articulate and heartfelt views. Very regrettably, the amendments were not made available in alternate format when they were first distributed to those present at the hearings. We agree with the forceful critique made by John Rae of the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians that this discriminatory omission was simply not good enough.
Despite this, the ARCH board and staff feel that it is important to support Bill 107. This is the opportunity to create a human rights system in Ontario that works for all persons who have been victims of discrimination.
Why Fundamental Change?
The most fundamental reforms that Bill 107 will bring about are:
- individuals will have direct access to the Tribunal to have their discrimination cases heard;
- they will be supported by an independent legal support centre;
- the Commission, no longer charged with the determination of which cases go to a hearing and which are dismissed, will be free to champion systemic responses to the on-going discrimination that exists in Ontario.
Over the past several years the disability community has articulated a vision of equality that provides for the full inclusion and participation of persons with disabilities. To that end, it advocated for the removal of systemic barriers through standards to be developed under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. With Bill 107, the Ontario Human Rights Commission will also have the capacity to effectively address exclusion. But, our vision of equality also includes the dignity and autonomy of persons with disabilities. In ARCH’s view, the Commission’s gatekeeper role is inherently inconsistent with the provision of dignity or autonomy. The gatekeeper role is fundamentally a patronizing function where the Commission, rather than the person who experiences discrimination, has control over what will happen to the individual’s case and thus, in many instances, their life.
In her submissions to the Standing Committee, former Chief Commissioner and disability rights advocate Catherine Frazee, eloquently articulated why reform is essential. In her words:
1. The greatest problem with our human rights system is neither backlog nor delay -- pernicious though these problems are. The greatest problem with our human rights system is that too many people are left out. I believe that Bill 107 moves us incrementally, but hopefully, toward addressing that problem.
When the primary raison d'être for a human rights system is, at its core, the redress of individual acts of discrimination, it is inevitable that certain individuals will enjoy far greater access to and success with their human rights claims than others. A system such as our present system -- the system that we are seeking to reform -- by its very nature privileges those individuals who have the most robust supports and the most resilient sense of entitlement. People who live in conditions of profound disenfranchisement, people whose experience of the world is shaped by multigenerational poverty, institutionalization, alienation and the degradations of social and physical violence, do not present themselves at the door of a Human Rights Commission, ready to articulate a single complaint. Those in most need of human rights protection, overwhelmingly remain unserved by individual enforcement mechanisms.
2. The task of human rights protection can no longer be reduced to a simple whodunit – a contest of allegation and response. The task of human rights protection requires tools and capacities far beyond fact-finding and conciliation, essential though these processes may be. I believe that Bill 107 will permit our Human Rights Commission to do more of what it does best, and to deploy its expertise and resources where they are most desperately needed.
When members of our community languish and perish in boarding house isolation and despair, when gay and lesbian youth take their own lives in the face of relentless bullying and homophobic hostility, when law enforcement officers respond with lethal force to those who are in mental health crisis, when racialized youth are made to feel like pariahs in their own schools and neighbourhoods, when eugenic motives entrench themselves so deeply in our culture as to imperil present and future generations of people with intellectual and other disabilities – when such atrocities prevail, there is no simple perpetrator of discrimination, no single wrong that can be righted by a human rights complaint.
There is deep inequality, deep injustice of a kind that calls for a new paradigm in human rights enforcement. Bill 107, in my view, offers up the possibility of a Human Rights Commission focused upon the larger task, a Commission that is outspoken and respected, a Commission of clear conviction and moral authority, a Commission equipped to intervene with sophisticated methods of policy analysis and advocacy, a Commission that will lead in shaping public opinion and public policy.
The Alternative View
Many of you may have read the press release or seen the television spots about a “Blueprint for Human Rights Reform” distributed by David Lepofsky (Crown Law Office – Criminal Appeals and Human Rights Reform Representative of the AODA Alliance), Margaret Parsons (Executive Director of the African Canadian Legal Clinic) and Avvy Go (Clinic Director of the Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic). In ARCH’s view, this “Blueprint” does not advance the goals of full inclusion or the vision of dignity or autonomy for persons with disabilities and for others who are marginalized and experience discrimination. The proposals made in the “Blueprint” would effectively maintain the current system for enforcing human rights and call for more money to be put into this broken system.
Many of the changes that the “Blueprint” proposes such as setting deadlines for parties and mandating a fast track for certain cases already exist in the system that is severely backlogged. In ARCH’s opinion, fast-tracking and process deadlines would not solve the fundamental and structural problems with the current system. If the government were to adopt the proposals set out in the “Blueprint”, the Commissioners, who are appointed by the government, would still have the power to dismiss complaints. The complainant will continue to have no control over the evidence the Commission reviews in making the decision to dismiss the case.
The “Blueprint” proposes that you could have a 30 minute oral hearing if you disagree with the decision to dismiss your claim, however, you would not be able to introduce any evidence at this mini hearing. You will be totally dependant upon whatever evidence the staff investigator decided to include in his or her report. Thus, you would still have no control over the telling of your story. The 30 minute limit is arbitrary and does not appreciate how intense the pressure to perform would be on a complainant unfamiliar with such processes or self-advocacy. Nor does it recognize that individuals and their experiences differ, this “one size fits all” approach is highly inappropriate in a human rights determination environment, potentially amounting to a discriminatory process itself. It certainly does not remedy the current “behind closed doors” decision-making where Commissioners deliberate upon up to a hundred cases at a meeting.
The Supreme Court of Canada has described human rights legislation as often being the “final refuge of the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised” and the “last protection of the most vulnerable members of society”. But the Supreme Court has recently recognized that “this refuge can be rendered meaningless by placing barriers in front of it. Human rights remedies must be accessible in order to be effective”.
We find it very difficult to understand the persistent promotion of a system which refers only 6% of the claims filed by victims of discrimination to the Tribunal for the opportunity to tell their story and request their remedy. We urge you to read the summaries of the presentations that were made to the Standing Committee on 15 and 16 November at the end of this ARCH Alert. In particular, we urge you to read the stories of Rahamat Razack and Stephanie Payne who complained of racial discrimination. The delay and the opposition they met from the Commission throughout the process are extremely troubling. The human rights advocates who support Bill 107 each know of countless similar stories where the process leaves complainants discouraged and alienated. We also know how critical an effective process is for the safety of women who are sexually harassed.
By contrast, there are other processes where human rights considerations are not left unheard. Labour arbitration boards determine discrimination grievances in the context of collective agreements, and some union constitutions explicitly grant their members the autonomy to control their own grievance process. The Social Benefits Tribunal and the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal are able to consider human rights matters related to the issue before them. These and other administrative tribunals do not have an intermediate body which triages cases and which tosses cases before the hearing. However, a person with a disability who is asserting discrimination unrelated to such an associated claim, such as denial of access to the local medical clinic, could have the complaint dismissed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission prior to any hearing which could lead to a remedy.
The “Blueprint” recommends that the Human Rights Commission retain its duty to investigate, and to prosecute where evidence warrants. Before endorsing these aspects of the proposal, it is important to understand the purpose of the investigation and the role of the Commission’s lawyers at a hearing. The purpose of the investigation is not to compile the best evidence to support the claim made by the victim of discrimination. Rather, the staff investigator gathers only the information that he or she feels is needed from the claimant and the responding party to determine whether to refer a case to the Tribunal. We have been advised of several instances where the Commission’s investigator did not contact the victim’s witnesses or gather all the facts that the victims felt were important to understand the claim. The investigation done by the Commission is one over which the complainant has no control.
It must also be understood that Commission staff do not represent the complainant through the claim process or even when the case is referred to a Tribunal hearing. ARCH has often received calls through our summary advice and referral service from claimants who must decide on settlement offers and are on their own in making this decision. The Commission’s own website states that “The Commission, the respondent and the complainant are each separate parties before the Tribunal. The Commission is responsible for presenting evidence about the complaint to the Tribunal, although the complainant has the right to make separate submissions. The Commission does not represent the complainant or the respondent at the Tribunal. The respondent and the complainant may each retain their own legal counsel.
You may have heard some opponents to Bill 107 say that there should be public prosecutors of human rights violations just like in the criminal justice system. However, in the criminal justice system the object of prosecution is to punish the offender and not to find a remedy for the victim. In the criminal justice system, if a victim wishes to seek a personal remedy she may be able to seek that remedy at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or by filing a claim in civil court, even when the criminal prosecution was unsuccessful.
Under Bill 107 and with the publicly funded legal support centre, the centre could represent claimants throughout the claim process. Since the centre would represent the victim of discrimination, the victim would have a great deal more control over the investigation process. The interests of the victim would be the interests that are pursued through direct access to a Tribunal hearing, with public support.
As noted by Catherine Frazee in her submission quoted earlier, there are many very marginalized people for whom human rights currently have no meaning. They may be completely unaware of their rights to seek redress for the discrimination they have experienced. Sometimes experienced advocates regularly advise about the pitfalls with filing complaints, given the expected delays and predictable dismissal of their case. They point out that the mediation and investigation process is stressful and disempowering and that there are few options in settlement negotiations because so few complaints are ever referred to the Tribunal for a hearing.[1] A properly resourced legal support centre could work to reach those who are unaware of their rights and bring their claims forward.
To return to the big picture, when the Commission is no longer bogged down with its neutral gatekeeper role, it will be able to champion the values and implementation of a discrimination-free society. As Chief Commissioner, Barbara Hall, stated in her submission to the Standing Committee, “We know from polling, from anecdotal stories, even intuitively, that many more people experience discrimination than those who make it to the Commission; many more than could ever hope to obtain justice in an individual case by case process… The Commission needs to focus its energy on making social change happen if we are going to achieve a culture of human rights.”
We ask you to make the most of this present opportunity for change. The opportunity may not arise again for many years. You can write or phone your Member of Provincial Parliament or ask to present a submission to the Standing Committee on social Justice about your own experience at the Commission or your views about what should happen.
Announcement of Amendments
At the beginning of last week’s committee hearings in Toronto, the Attorney General announced some much welcomed amendments to Bill 107, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act. ARCH was very pleased to hear the announced amendments because they address many of the changes to Bill 107 that many human rights advocate groups have been urging the government to make. The government’s amendments are not in final language at this point but the following are the key changes:
Legal Support Centre
- The Minister would establish a Human Rights Legal Support Centre that is funded by the Attorney General to provide a range of services including information, support, advice, assistance and legal representation.
- The services would be available, where needed, across the province.
- Any person who is, has been, or may be an applicant seeking a remedy at the Tribunal would be eligible for the Centre’s services.
Commission
- Persons appointed to the Commission must have experience, expertise, interest in and sensitivity to human rights and be representative of the diversity of Ontario’s population.
- The Commission would make an annual report to the legislature, rather than reporting through the Attorney General.
- Commission will have with public inquiry powers, including:
power of entry
power to examine records, documents or things etc.
power to question any person
power to require assistance in compiling information
power to enforce compliance
- The Commission could bring an application if it is of the opinion that the application is in the public interest.
- The Commission would have the right to intervene in any proceeding before the Tribunal, subject to the Tribunal’s rules.
Tribunal
- The Tribunal would be able to make rules of practice and procedure, including alternatives to traditional adversarial or adjudicative procedures where the Tribunal is of the opinion that the rules will facilitate fair, just and expeditious resolutions on the merits of the matters before it.
- An application that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal could not be finally disposed of without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions unless the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of an application.
- The limitation period to file a complaint would be extended to one year from the date of the incident.
- The section regarding fees that the Tribunal could charge has been eliminated from the Bill.
These amendments go a long way to addressing many of the problematic aspects of the earlier version of Bill 107. ARCH is generally supportive of the amendments and we are particularly pleased to see the development regarding the Legal Support Centre. As the amendments are not yet in final language it is not possible to provide an in-depth analysis at this time.
We also continue to join with others in the call for more funding of the human rights system.
For a more thorough analysis of Bill 107 and to read the amendments to Bill 107 that ARCH has recommended, you may wish to read the August 2006 edition of ARCH Alert that is posted on the ARCH website at
http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/publications/archAlert/2006/11_aug03/index.asp.
An Open Letter to Progressive Organizations
Submitted to ARCH Alert by a group of advocates that support Bill 107. The group is circulating this open letter to members of the public that support Bill 107 and soliciting signatures from individuals. To sign on to the Open Letter go to www.humanrightsreform.ca and follow the link to the email address.
Dear Friends,
We are writing because, like you, we care about human rights enforcement in Ontario and have worked hard in our professional and personal lives fighting for equality on behalf of persons with disabilities, racialized groups, gays, lesbians, transgendered people, women fleeing violence, First Nations and Aboriginal people, the poor, religious minorities, employees, and others. We have advocated on behalf of equality rights through trade unions, community organizations, and as lawyers. Many of us have attempted to pursue equality through the present human rights system, but have found it a frustrating and often fruitless endeavour.
We, along with many others in the progressive community, support reform of Ontario’s human rights enforcement system; many of us have advocated actively for reform for more than a decade. We have told governments that the present system does not work and must be changed, both because it is underfunded and because it is structurally flawed. Our assessment was shared by the Cornish Task Force and the LaForest Report, and it has been reflected in the recommendations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that has, since 1998, called on Ontario to give human rights claimants the right to a hearing.
This spring, the Ontario government listened. It introduced Bill 107 to reform the backlogged system and give those who have experienced discrimination the ability to pursue their complaints directly before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. It announced that there would be public funding for legal representation for claimants and an increase in funding to the system as a whole. The Commission would become a public advocate for human rights, not a gatekeeper controlling access to a hearing. The Tribunal would have an explicit duty to consider public interest remedies in every case.
This would be an enhanced public enforcement system, not privatization. Whereas 95% of claims are currently dealt with behind closed doors at the Commission, Bill 107 would allow claimants to have early access to an open hearing.
Certainly the legislation was not perfect when tabled for first reading, but the Government has announced amendments that respond to our initial concerns and the concerns of those opposing the bill and the Commission, including:
- The new legal support centre for claimants is now entrenched in the legislation;
- The Commission will now have the power to undertake investigation and inquiries;
- The Commission now will have a much broader right to launch applications before the Tribunal and will be able to intervene in any Tribunal application;
- There will be no Tribunal application fees;
- There is new language requiring that persons appointed to the Commission and Tribunal have real experience, expertise and sensitivity to human rights issues;
- The time period for filing complaints is doubled;
- Claims will not be vulnerable to early dismissal at the Tribunal: the threshold for a hearing is now lower than under the original bill and much lower than under the current Code;
- The Commission and Tribunal will have enhanced independence from Government and will no longer be required to report through the Attorney General.
We think that these amendments should heal the rift in the equality-rights community and allow us to come together in support of the new legislation. As you will realize, we were very disappointed when, from the day the government announced that human rights reform, some of our friends in equality-seeking communities announced their opposition to change. While we have the greatest of respect for their work on behalf of equality over the years, we believe that the continuing efforts to stop Bill 107 may be successful and if so, will deal a major blow to the prospects for equality rights reform in Ontario for many years.
We discuss below some of the misunderstandings that we believe have undercut support for Bill 107. We also discuss some of the problems that we see with the “Blueprint” that was announced last week by David Lepofsky, Margaret Parsons and Avvy Go as an alternative to Bill 107.
But most importantly, we are writing now to ask the many people who support this bill to speak up, in your communities and unions, before it is too late. And we are writing to ask those of you who have been undecided or swayed by the opposition, to think again before you allow Bill 107 to die.
Misinformation about Bill 107
First, this is not an instance of the government acting on its own, without consultation. Yes, the government would have been wise to consult more broadly early in its term, but when it introduced the legislation, it did so in response to the efforts of individuals and organizations that advocate for equality rights, including those listed as signatories to this letter.
Second, opponents of the legislation have suggested that human rights claimants will lose their “right” to an investigation of their complaint. This has given the mistaken impression that under the current system, the Commission investigates complaints to help a claimant prepare for a hearing. This is wrong. Investigations take place so the Commission can decide which cases go forward to the Tribunal. In 3 out of every 4 cases that are investigated (and are not settled, abandoned or withdrawn), the Commission relies on the investigation to dismiss the complaint without a hearing.
And many claimants do not need an investigation to prove discrimination. In fact, the “Blueprint” recognizes this by suggesting that claimants should now be able to refuse an investigation. But where investigation is needed, Bill 107 provides the means to get it done: by the legal support centre for individuals; by the Commission when it intervenes and in public interest cases; and by the strong authority given to the Tribunal to order respondents to disclose and produce information or risk adverse findings against them.
It is also wrong to suggest that Bill 107 will mean that claimants will, for the first time, have to retain their own lawyers at their own expense. In fact, right now it is difficult for a claimant to be successfully persuade the Commission to give them a hearing unless they retain their own lawyer. The opponents of Bill 107 acknowledge this when their “Blueprint” calls for funded lawyers to become available to claimants during the Commission process. Representation is necessary now, but few people are able to get publicly-funded legal support through Legal Aid. So Bill 107 will improve the situation by establishing a new legal support centre to provide publicly-funded legal assistance.
Third, many opponents of the bill have made an analogy between the criminal justice system and the human rights system. They say that, just as the police prosecute crimes, the Commission should continue to decide when human rights violations will be prosecuted. This too is wrong. Unlike our criminal justice system, the human rights system is not about punishment. Rather, it is about compensating those who have had their rights violated and moving forward to prevent future discrimination. Currently, when the Human Rights Commission decides that a case will not go forward to the Tribunal, the victim of discrimination has no ability to seek compensation. This is patronizing and it is not like what happens in the criminal justice system, where a decision by the Crown not to prosecute does not remove the victim’s right to seek compensation on their own, either through the civil courts or at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In criminal law, a person’s right to pursue their own claim for compensation is not controlled by a government agency. But that is what happens under the Code, and this is what will change for the better under Bill 107.
Why the “Blueprint” will not Fix Human Rights in Ontario
We have examined the Blueprint that has recently been put forward by opponents of Bill 107. The Blueprint retains the right of the Commission to dismiss complaints without a hearing on the merits of the complaint. Under the Blueprint, the Commission will still control the right of claimants to go to a hearing at the Tribunal. We strongly believe that the Blueprint would not be a step forward and urge you not to support it.
First, as a matter of political strategy, we believe that the “Blueprint” is a mistake. Telling the government to go back to the drawing board now will not lead to a positive response.
The result will be that our communities will be stuck with the current system, which we all agree is dysfunctional, for a very long time.
Equally important, this is not a proposal for true reform. The Commission will remain able, at its discretion, to block access to a hearing. A government body will continue to decide when human rights claimants can pursue their cases in an open hearing.
We also note that the proposal for reform does not support some of the most important amendments in the new legislation, such as removal of the current $10,000 cap on damages for mental distress and the provisions permitting individuals to ask for damages for human rights violations in a related court case. If Bill 107 is defeated, these important gains for equality-seekers will be lost.
Many of us are most often in the position of opposing government for doing things that we believe are harmful to vulnerable groups. This is a more familiar role for us. However, we strongly believe that when a government listens to us, when it puts forward progressive reforms that respond to our longstanding campaign over many years, we must voice our support loudly and strongly. Otherwise, we will not be listened to the next time and we will never succeed in making change.
We urge all our friends in the progressive community to support Bill 107. We cannot expect this government, or any future government, to take up the cause of human rights reform for a very long time if Bill 107 is abandoned. Support change. Hold the government’s feet to the fire to make sure the new system works and is properly funded. We will be failing the communities we serve if we lose this important opportunity.
Signed to date by:
Catherine Frazee, Professor of Distinction, School of Disability Studies, Ryerson University; former Chief Commissioner, OHRC
Raj Anand, Lawyer and former Chief Commissioner, OHRC
The Honourable Claire L’Heureux-Dube, Retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada
Phyllis Gordon, ARCH Disability Law Centre
Consuelo Rubio, Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples
Carol Phillips, Assistant to President, Canadian Auto Workers
EGALE Canada ("Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere)
Theresa Claxton, Ontario Association of Patient Councils Lana Frado, Executive Director, Sound Times (Psychiatric Survivor Support Initiative)
David Reville, Adjunct Professor, School of Disability Studies, Ryerson University
Dr. Kathryn Church, Associate Professor, Ryerson University School of Disability Studies
Gabrielle Hrynkiw, Housing Programme Co-ordinator, Jessie’s Centre for Teenagers
Lorne Sossin, Associate Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Ruth Carey, HIV and AIDS Legal Clinic
Dr. Melanie Panitch, Director of School of Disability Studies, Ryerson
Chantal Tie, Human Rights Lawyer, South Ottawa Legal Clinic
Bruce Porter, Director, Social Rights Advocacy Centre
John Fraser, Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA)
Mary Truemner, Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario; CERA Board Member
Kathy Laird, Legal Director, Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO)
Cindy Wilkey, Income Security Legal Clinic
John Bagnall, Albion Neighbourhood Services
Marcia Cummings, Blind Consumer
Monica Ackermann, Disability Accommodation Consultant
David A. Wright, Lawyer
Barrie Chercover, Lawyer
Kim Bernhardt, Lawyer
Geri Sanson, Lawyer
Mark Hart, Lawyer
Yola Grant, Lawyer
Susan Ursel, Lawyer
Joshua S. Phillips, Lawyer
Grace Vaccarelli, Lawyer (ACTO)
Andrea Wobick, Lawyer
Terri Hilborn, Lawyer
Simon Blackstone, Lawyer
Natasha DeMenna, Lawyer
Dijana Simonovic, Lawyer
Graeme Norton, Lawyer
Sandi Bell, Equity Advisor, Person with a Disability
Al Sunisloe
Manjusi Welikala
Dr. Geoffrey Reaume, Assistant Professor, Critical Disability Studies, York University
John Feld, Transportation Action Now
Community and Social Justice Organizations Supporting Human Rights Reform and Bill 107 with Proposed Amendments
Jessie’s Centre for Teenagers
Springtide (Ending Violence Against Women)
At^lohsa Native Family Healing Services Inc.
EGALE Canada ("Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere”)
Bulimia Anorexia Nervosa Association
Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children, UWO
Ontario Association of Social Workers
Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children (University of Western Ont)
Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres
Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation
METRAC (Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children)
Sexual Assault Centre (Hamilton & Area)
Chatham Kent Women’s Centre (Women’s Shelter)
Guelph Wellington Women in Crisis (Sexual Assault Centre and Women’s Shelter)
Sexual Assault Centre for Quinte & District
Sexual Assault/Rape Crisis Centre of Peel
Sexual Assault Survivors’ Centre Sarnia-Lambton
Timmins and Area Women in Crisis
Toronto Rape Crisis Centre/Multicultural Women Against Rape
Woman Abuse Council of Toronto
Women’s Sexual Assault Centre Renfrew County
Chatham Kent Sexual Assault Crisis Centre
Oshawa Durham Rape Crisis Centre
Sexual Assault Centre for Quinte and District
Faye Peterson Transition House (Thunder Bay)
Sexual Assault Centre of Brant
Sexual Assault Centre London
Kitchener-Waterloo Sexual Assault Support Centre
ARCH Disability Law Centre
Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario
Algoma Community Legal Clinic
Brampton Community Legal Services
Centre for Spanish Speaking People
Chatham-Kent Legal Clinic
Clinique juridique francophone de l’Est de Ottawa
Clinique juridique communautaire Timmins-Temiscamingue
Clinique juridique Grand Nord (Kapuskasing)
Community Legal Services of Niagara South
Community Legal Assistance Sarnia
Community Legal Clinic – Brant, Haldimand, Norfolk
Community Legal Clinic - Simcoe, Haliburton, Kawartha Lakes
Community Legal Clinic of York Region
Downsview Community Legal Clinic
Dundurn Community Legal Services Hamilton
Durham Community Legal Clinic Oshawa
East Toronto Community Legal Services
Elgin Oxford Legal Clinic
Elliot Lake and Northshore Community Legal Clinic
Georgina Community Legal Services
Grey-Bruce Community Legal Clinic
Hamilton Mountain Legal and Community Services
HIV/AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario
Huron Perth Community Legal Clinic
Income Security Advocacy Centre
Industrial Accident Victims Group of Ontario
Justice for Children and Youth
Keewaytinok Native Legal Services (James Bay)
Kenora Community Legal Services
Kensington-Bellwoods Community Legal Clinic
Kingston Community Legal Clinic
Kinna-aweya Legal Clinic (Thunder Bay)
Lake Country Community Legal Clinic (Bracebridge)
Legal Clinic of Guelph and Wellington County
Manitoulin Legal Clinic
McQuesten Legal and Community Services
Mississauga Community Legal Services
Neighbourhood Legal Services Toronto
Neighbourhood Legal Services London Middlesex
Niagara North Community Legal Assistance
Nipissing Community Legal Clinic
North Peel and Dufferin Community Legal Services
Peterborough Community Legal Centre
Rainy River District Community Legal Clinic
Renfrew County Legal Clinic
Rexdale Community Legal Clinic
Scarborough Community Legal Services
South Etobicoke Community Legal Services
South Ottawa Legal Clinic
Sudbury Community Legal Services
Waterloo Region Community Legal Services
West Scarborough Community Legal Services
West Toronto Community Legal Services
West End Legal Services (Ottawa)
York Community Services
Attorney General Proposes Amendments to Bill 107
On 15 November, the first day of Toronto hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, the Attorney General, Michael Bryant introduced the following amendments to Bill 107, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act.
The amendments were contained in a document released by the Attorney General’s office. We have reproduced the amendments as they appeared in that document.
Proposed Amendments to Enhance the Commission’s Independence
Current language of section in Bill 107:
The Commission
27. (2) The Commission shall be composed of such persons as are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Proposed Amendment:
Amend to add appointment criteria:
(a) experience, expertise, interest in and sensitivity to human rights;
(b) representative of the diversity of Ontario’s population
Current language of section in Bill 107:
Annual report
31.2 (1) The Commission shall make a report to the Minister no later than June 30 in each year upon the affairs of the Commission during the year ending on March 31 of that year.
Proposed Amendment:
Amend to provide that:
The Commission would make an annual report to the people.
Current language of section in Bill 107:
Report tabled in Assembly
(2) The Minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council who shall cause the report to be laid before the Assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session.
Proposed Amendment:
Amend to provide that:
The Commission would deliver the report to the Speaker who would lay the report before the Assembly.
Current language of section in Bill 107:
Human Rights Reports
No provision in Bill 107
Proposed Amendment:
Amend to provide that:
The Commission would be able to make any other reports respecting human rights as it considers appropriate and could present such reports to the public or any other person it considers appropriate
Proposed Amendments to Strengthen the Commission’s Investigative and Public Interest Powers
Current language of section in Bill 107:
Public Inquiry
No provision in Bill 107
Proposed Amendment:
Amend to provide Commission with public inquiry powers, including:
power of entry
power to examine records, documents or things etc.
power to question any person
power to require assistance in compiling information
power to enforce compliance
Current language of section in Bill 107:
Application by Commission
36. (1) The Commission may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 43 if the Commission is of the opinion that,
(a) there are infringements of rights under Part I that are of a systemic nature and that the Commission has not been able to adequately address under Part III;
(b) an order under section 43 could address the systemic issues; and
(c) it would be in the public interest to make an application under this subsection.
Proposed Amendment:
Amend to remove paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and to provide that:
The Commission could bring an application if it is of the opinion that the application is in the public interest.
Current language of section in Bill 107:
Intervention by Commission
No provision in Bill 107.
Proposed Amendment:
Amend to provide that:
The Commission would have the right to intervene in any proceeding before the Tribunal, subject to the Tribunal’s rules.
Proposed Amendments to Promote Greater Fairness at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Current language of section in Bill 107:
Rules governing practice and procedure
34. (1) The Tribunal may make rules governing the practice and procedure before it.
Disposition of applications
37. (1) The Tribunal shall dispose of an application under this Part through a hearing or through any alternative dispute resolution mechanism provided for in the Tribunal rules.
(2) The Tribunal shall adopt the most expeditious method of disposing of an application on the merits.
Proposed Amendment:
Amend to provide that:
The Tribunal would be able to make rules of practice and procedure, including alternatives to traditional adversarial or adjudicative procedures where the Tribunal is of the opinion that the rules will facilitate fair, just and expeditious resolutions on the merits of the matters before it.
An application that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal could not be finally disposed of without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions.
Current language of section in Bill 107:
Dismissal of proceeding without hearing
41. (1) The Tribunal may dismiss a proceeding, in whole or in part, without a hearing, if,
(a) the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith;
(b) the proceeding relates to matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal;
(c) some aspect of the statutory requirements for bringing the proceeding has not been met;
(d) the application is made under section 35 and the facts alleged in the application, even if true, do not disclose an infringement of a right of the applicant under Part I;
(e) the application is made under section 36 and the facts alleged in the application, even if true, do not disclose infringements of a right under Part I that are of a systemic nature;
(f) the application is made under subsection 45.1 (3) and the facts alleged in the application, even if true, do not disclose a contravention of a settlement; or
(g) the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of an application.
Proposed Amendment:
Delete all paragraphs except paragraph (g).
Current language of section in Bill 107:
Fees
45.2 Subject to the approval of the Minister, the Tribunal may establish and charge fees for expenses incurred by the Tribunal in connection with a proceeding under this Part.
Proposed Amendment:
Delete provision.
Proposed Amendments to Entrench a Range of Legal Support Services
Current language of section in Bill 107:
Legal and other services
46.1 (1) The Minister may enter into agreements with prescribed persons or entities for the purposes of providing legal services and such other services as may be prescribed to applicants or other parties to a proceeding before the Tribunal.
(2) An agreement under subsection (1) may provide for the payment for the services by the Ministry.
Proposed Amendment:
Amend to provide that:
The Minister would establish a Human Rights Legal Support Centre to provide a range of services including information, support, advice, assistance and legal representation.
The Minister would fund the Legal Support Centre.
The services would be available, where needed, across the province.
Any person who is, has been, or may be an applicant seeking a remedy at the Tribunal would be eligible for the Centre’s services.
Summary of Submissions Made on Bill 107 on 15 and 16 November 2006
by Phyllis Gordon, Executive Director and Laurie Letheren, Staff Lawyer
The Standing Committee on Justice Policy held its first Toronto hearings on Bill 107, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act on 15 and 16 November 2006. A representative from ARCH attended the hearings on each of these days to listen to the submissions of the various individuals and groups who appeared before the Standing Committee. The following are brief summaries of these submissions. We were able to obtain the full written submissions of some of the presenters; however, because the recordings of the committee proceedings have not yet been published in Hansard, we are relying on the notes we took at the hearings in producing the summaries of the remaining presenters.
15 November 2006
Ministry of the Attorney General, Statement by the Minister, The Honourable Michael Bryant, MPP
As we indicated in the article,” Attorney General Proposes Amendments to Bill 107” contained in this edition of ARCH Alert, the government has published some proposed amendments to Bill 107. In the Backgrounder released by the Attorney General’s Office at the time he made the announcement on the amendments states that the “Key proposed amendments to the bill would enhance the Commission’s independence, strengthen its investigative and public interest powers, promote greater fairness in the tribunal process, and entrench a range of available legal supports”.
B’nai Brith Canada - League for Human Rights, presented by Toni Silberman, Past Chair, League for Human Rights and Anita Bromberg, Legal Counsel
In her opening statement, Ms. Silberman objected to the introduction of the amendments to Bill 107 at this point and asked that B’nai Brith Canada be given the opportunity to return to the committee to comment on the amendments. B’nai Brith Canada does not support Bill 107 and the direct access model for the human rights process. They feel that the Ontario human rights system has been chronically under funded. They submit that because 75% of cases are settled at the Commission, there is no need for all claimants to have access to a hearing of their case. B’nai Brith Canada recommends that the current system be maintained; increased funding be put into the current system; an administrative audit of the Human Rights Commission be completed; complainants should have the right to elect to go through the Commission process or go directly to the Human Rights Tribunal to file their complaints; and that the public enforcement powers of the Commission be strengthened.
Association of Human Rights Lawyers, presented by Mark Hart
The Association of Human Rights Lawyers supports Bill 107. Mr. Hart stated that the amendments that were announced by the Attorney General were welcomed as they addressed many of the Association’s concerns that with Bill 107 as it was first drafted. Mr. Hart stated that in the opinion of the Association the biggest problem with the current system is that the Commission has the veto power over which complaints are referred to a hearing. He stated that as a result of this veto power, only about 6% of cases will ever have a hearing into whether discrimination has occurred. He stated that allowing the Commission to have complete control over the investigation process and then having the Commission hold “behind closed doors” meetings about which cases would be referred to a hearing leaves those who have experienced human rights violations feeling revictimized and demoralized.
In addition, the Association feels that the Commission is in a conflicting role as an advocate for human rights for all Ontarians while also having the role of the neutral decision maker for individual complaints. It recommends that all complainants be allowed the right to have direct access to a hearing at the Tribunal so that the Commission can have the resources to fulfill its advocacy mandate. In addition, properly funded legal services for all complainants must be legislated.
Ontario Human Rights Commission presented, by Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner
Ms. Hall opened her presentation by stating that although there may be disagreement on how to change the current human rights system in Ontario, it is important to remember that each group or individual who speaks to the Committee on Bill 107 is interested in building a better more effective human rights system. Ms. Hall emphasized the need to take this opportunity to make changes to the current human rights system since such an opportunity may not arise again for many years.
Ms. Hall indicated that the Commission has worked with the Attorney General’s office over the past several months, recommending changes and amendments to Bill 107. She stated that the Commission applauds the progress made. The Commission agrees that individual cases must be dealt with fairly, quickly and effectively and the Commission believes that the system must change to allow that to happen.
The Commission also believes that the current system that is primarily focused on individual complaints “ignores broader issues that cry out for attention”. She stated that many more people experience discrimination than ever make it to the Commission to file a complaint. She stated that the way to reduce the need for individual complaints is to effect genuine social change. The Commission needs to focus its energy on making social change happen if we are going to achieve a culture of human rights. The Commission welcomed the Government’s vision of a strengthened Commission, based on international principles, more focused on prevention and systemic issues, inside a re-balanced system for enforcing and promoting human rights”. Ms. Hall stated that the Commission will work together with the Tribunal and the Legal Services Centre towards a system that effectively enforces and promotes human rights.
Raj Anand, Former Chief Commissioner and Tribunal Member, Ontario Human Rights Commission
Mr. Anand spoke about his experiences as the former Chief Commission, as a Human Rights Tribunal member and as representative of both complainants and respondents in human rights cases. In explaining the process that Commissioners would have to go through to determine which cases would be referred to the Tribunal, he described a room full of Commissioners, a pile of cases and very brief amounts of time to review each case file before making decisions on referrals.
In Mr. Anand’s opinion, putting more money into the current system would not resolve its fundamentals problems Mr. Anand told the committee members that when he was the Chief Commission he convinced the government to increase funding to the Commission by 50% and said that even that amount of increased funding did little to resolve the problems at the Commission. Mr. Anand stated that the legislation that determines how the current system is to handle complaints of discrimination is an obstacle to complainants receiving a fair and just remedy. He stated that the current system results in duplication of time and paperwork. In his opinion, delay is the single most debilitating factor for those who are seeking justice. As a result of the delay, many complainants abandon their claims and respondents make settlement offers of small sums of money in order to end the process.
CARP, Canada’s Association for the Fifty-Plus, presented by Bill Gleberzon, Director, Government Relations
Canada’s Association for the Fifty-Plus [“CARP”] does not support Bill 107. CARP has asked the Premier to put Bill 107 on hold in order to engage in a full public consultation on reforming Ontario’s human rights system. CARP believes that the Commission should retain its investigation and prosecution powers. CARP does not think the proposed system will be more efficient in handling complaints and is concerned that the backlog of cases will just be transferred to the Tribunal. CARP feels that by potentially gutting the province’s Human Rights Commission, the depth of their reports and their capacity to act on their findings could be seriously eroded.
Council for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario, presented by Tom Warner, Richard Hulder, Arti Mehta and Nick Mulé
The Council for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario supports Bill 107 as they feel that it is the best possible way to eradicate the problems with the current system. They feel that the current system is inadequate at addressing discrimination and that reforming the system is long overdue. In the opinion of the Council, more money should not be put into the current system.
One of the group’s presenters stated that he was a former Commissioner. He stated that the process of determining which cases are referred to a hearing is unjust and unfair. He recalled being faced with a large number of cases and having only a few minutes to spend on each case before having to decide which complainants would be given the opportunity to have their cases heard by the Tribunal.
The Council stated that much about the initiative that the government has taken in reforming the current system is commendable. The Council supports the new role of the Commission as the promoter and educator of human rights. In supporting direct access to a Tribunal hearing, they stated that the government must make assurances that there will be a properly funded, regionally accessible legal support centre to ensure that all complainants can get to a hearing.
16 November 2006
The following is a brief summary of the presenters on November 16. Catherine Frazee was the first speaker, whose presentation is referred to in our article, “Why We Support Bill 107”, above.
Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC), presented by Cindy Wilkey
ISAC is a specialty legal clinic funded through Legal Aid Ontario which has a province-wide mandate to engage in law reform work on income security issues using community organizing, policy development and test case litigation. ISAC spoke in support of Bill 107 as it will create a significant new opportunity for low-income Ontarians and legal clinics such as ISAC to use the human rights enforcement system to promote equality.
ISAC expects that the new roles established by Bill 107 will enable the Commission to increase its public policy and advocacy work, including the use of its investigation capacity to support needed systemic research and litigation. ISAC believes that the changes will enable both the Commission and anti-poverty advocates a greater opportunity to deal with core issues including social and economic rights and the enforcement of international human rights through domestic processes.
ISAC made the following specific recommendations of interest. They supported the view of ARCH and others that the Anti-Racism and Disability Rights Secretariats set out in Bill 107 be removed and that their mandates be folded into the general mandate for the commission. She also highlighted the need to review the adequacy of financial resources for the Legal Supports Centre, because of the difficulty of anticipating at the present time the demands that will be placed on the legal support centre. ISAC also supports the position, as does ARCH, that there should be authority for third parties to bring applications to the Tribunal – because groups like ISAC often have clients who are too marginalized or too vulnerable to file claims She suggests that third parties who can demonstrate an interest in the subject matter of a complaint be allowed to make an application to the Tribunal.
Mr. Rahamat Razack
Mr. Rahamat Razack spoke with much openness and courage about his lengthy struggle with the Commission in his efforts to have his case referred to a hearing at the Tribunal. Mr. Razack worked at the Workers Safety and Insurance Board and told of his experience of racial harassment and discrimination as an employee there. He ultimately left his position because he could not tolerate the environment. The events occurred several years ago but he has been engaged in legal struggles ever since. He talked about the impact this has had on himself and his family, and how costly his fight has been.
There is no doubt that Mr. Razack’s case illustrates how a direct access model would have made much of his costly litigation unnecessary. ARCH also notes that for each of these lengthy legal battles that take place about whether or not a case should be referred to the Tribunal, there is great emotional and financial cost to the person who has experienced the discrimination. Likewise, there is an unnecessary expenditure of public funds to oppose the individual’s right to a hearing.
Ms. Stephnie Payne
Ms. Stephnie Payne addressed the Committee eloquently setting out the ordeal she has experienced in pursuit of her human rights complaint. Ms. Payne is an African Canadian woman. Her many contributions to Canadian life include years devoted to community work, especially with youth and young adults in the Jane-Finch community. She is currently working on renewal projects for the African Canadian Community and is a school board trustee.
Ms.Payne also demonstrated resolve and courage as she set out the painful experience she has had at the Commission over the years. What is particularly revealing about her case is what can happen behind closed doors. Very briefly, Ms. Payne filed a complaint of discrimination in employment on the basis of race and gender and reprisal with the Commission on August 2, 1994. The first investigation into her case resulted in a report that recommended her complaint be referred to the Tribunal for a full hearing. However, the Commission then required further investigation which again recommended the complaint be sent to the Tribunal. Much to her shock, Ms. Payne later received the decision of the Commissioners that the complaint would not be referred to the Tribunal and this decision was maintained on reconsideration.
After her complaint was dismissed again, Ms. Payne’s lawyer brought an application to the courts to have the decision reviewed and sought to find out what had happened at the Commission meetings in her case. The Commission fought this for two years until the Court of Appeal ordered the Commission to attend to a witness examination to answer questions as to what facts, arguments and considerations were presented to the Commissioners when they decided not to request a Tribunal in her case.
Ms. Payne stated that she came to the Commission with the hope of obtaining a remedy for her experience of racism. Instead, after ten years of battling with the Commission, she felt that Commission’s entire handling of her complaint was so unfair as to make a mockery of her lived experience of racism and that of other African Canadians in this province. She is certain that she would never have gotten through the process or stood up to it without a lawyer. Even though her lawyer provided a great deal of the work for free, it was still an incredibly costly and painful event. As with many other complainants, Ms. Payne found the emotional harm from the process itself was devastating.
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, presented by Michael Gottheil, Chair of the Tribunal
Mr. Gottheil did not take policy positions with respect to the Bill, but rather talked of the many ideas that his Tribunal has regarding how best to provide fair hearings and a fair process, without leading to great delays. He intends to undertake a broad consultation with the public about process matters after Bill 107 is enacted. Currently, he and his team are reviewing models for the delivery of expeditious and fair hearing processes. We urge ARCH Alert readers to refer to Hansard for greater detail of his presentation.
Sanson & Hart, Barristers and Solicitors, presented by Ms. Geri Sanson
Ms. Geri Sanson of made a presentation on behalf of a very large number of autonomous women’s equality rights organizations from around the Province and individual women’s advocates who have come together in support of Bill 107. These organizations include many rape crisis centres and women’s’ shelters.
In their view, the right of direct access to a hearing is a fundamental equality rights issue for women. Women have already waited far too long for this right. Bill 107 must provide adequate access to legal and other supports available to all claimants across Ontario.
These advocates also strongly support a vibrant Human Rights Commission that will have the ability to be a strong public advocate of human rights and is empowered to act to eliminate broader societal systemic discrimination.
Ms. Sanson pointed out a study that showed that seventy per cent of women who make formal sexual harassment complaints are no longer at that work place. She also made submissions about the urgency for quick access to the tribunal for women and timely remedies, particularly given how serious unchecked sexual harassment can be. She stated that she and the other women who have come together to support Bill 107 know of far too many serious consequences to women, including death, which might never have occurred had the victims had access to an effective and fast process to address the sexual harassment.
Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO), presented by Kathy Laird
ACTO is a legal clinic that does human rights advocacy on housing issues in a variety of legal, political and policy forums, including before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Ms. Laird also indicated that she was speaking on behalf of the 55 community legal clinics that support Bill 107 and filed materials with the Committee that spoke to that support. With respect to these clinics she advised the Committee that each clinic operates under the direction of a community board of directors that is representative of their communities. Boards are typically comprised of active community spokespeople, as well as people who are members of the disadvantaged communities that are served by the clinics, and are protected by the Code.
Ms. Laird also pointed out the urgency for speed of deliberations for poor people. While a middle class person may be able to wait for a complaint to wind its way through the Commission in the current process, this is not so for low-income individuals whose lives have been affected. If they have to wait for justice, they will have already lost the opportunity to rent the apartment, lost the job opportunity or lost the job, lost their housing, and been forced to move on with their lives.
Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, presented by Mr. John Rae
John Rae began his presentation pointing out how unfair and demeaning it was that the Attorney General had neglected to provide his proposed amendments of Bill 107 in alternate format. He passionately highlighted how such omissions lead to indignation and a loss of trust. Mr. Rae asked for a public apology from the Attorney General regarding this significant omission. He also repeated the view held by some that more consultation is needed prior to going ahead with Bill 107.
Mr. Rae believes it essential that the government release a business plan about the legal resource centre prior to expecting support for the amendment. He reminded the Committee that in the past the Ontarians with Disabilities Committee had relied on assurances that matters would be solved during implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and it is his view that this was a mistake, one which he is not ready to repeat. Mr. Rae also pointed out that each of the political parties has starved the Commission of funds over the years and that an influx of funding is essential. He recommended an audit of the Commission as the next step of action. He supported the call for third party complaints and for greater independence of the Commission by its reporting directly to the legislature. He believes that along with some more adamant attention to timelines, there is enough in the Blueprint of the AODA Alliance to have the beginnings to fix the current system.
Catherine Frazee Speaks on Human Rights Reform
Phyllis Gordon, Executive Director, and Heidi Lazar-Meyn, Staff Lawyer and Editor, ARCH Alert
In the last issue of ARCH Alert we said that we would outline in this issue why ARCH’s experience in human rights has led us to believe that reform is necessary. We have decided to wait for the Government’s proposals before undertaking a detailed analysis. However, we believe that a significant contribution that ARCH Alert can make at this point is to feature the insights and experience of Catherine Frazee on this important topic. We are very appreciative that Ms. Frazee was willing to speak to us about human rights issues for this special issue of ARCH Alert.
Ms. Frazee is Co-director, Ryerson RBC Institute for Disability Studies Research and Education. She was Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission from 1989 to 1992, and a part-time Commissioner from 1985 to 1989. As the Ryerson website states, she also is “a committed activist who has lectured and published extensively in Canada and abroad on issues related to disability rights, disability culture and the disability experience.”
Given Ms. Frazee’s experience, we felt that ARCH Alert’s readers would learn a great deal from her opinion about the important issues that need to be addressed in any reform of the Ontario human rights system. She spoke with us on 3 April 2006:
HL: First of all, I am very glad to meet you. Could you tell us a little about your experience and background in human rights?
CF: From 1989 to 1992, I was the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Prior to that, for at least four years, I was a part-time Commissioner. So I was first appointed to the Commission about 1985.
The appointment of Commissioners is as mysterious to me as a former Commissioner as it is to members of the public. I was sitting at my desk, and I got a phone call, completely and utterly unexpected. I knew nothing about the Ontario Commission. I was working for Imperial Oil at the time, in a technical field, completely unrelated to human rights work. And I had a disability.
I have no idea why I was singled out, but it seemed like it might be kind of an interesting assignment, and it changed my life in profound ways. I did that for four years and became completely impassioned about human rights, and the importance of human rights work.
And then in 1989 the Commission found itself in need of an Acting Chief Commissioner and I got another one of those phone calls asking me to take it on for a three-month period while they tried to recruit a full-time Commissioner. This was then extended for another three-month period. Midway through that period I was encouraged to apply for the full-time job. And I did. I guess the rest is history.
I worked very intensely in the field for those three years as Chief Commissioner. It was a time of tremendous learning. After that, I left the Commission, and went to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. I served as a Vice Chair there, adjudicating workers’ compensation complaints for four to five years, before leaving the field of administrative law and moving into freelance consulting, where I continued to do mediation on human rights cases. But more recently I moved into teaching. So it was an intense involvement in the early 1990's and an ongoing interest in the field, but I have less direct involvement at the moment.
HL: What do you think are the strengths of the Ontario human rights system as it's presently set up?
CF: The first thing that comes to mind—it may be somewhat surprising because it's outside the formal system—I think the greatest strength about human rights in Ontario, and human rights in Canada is the degree of public interest and engagement in questions of human rights. I think the great strength of human rights in our country comes, quite frankly, from organizations like the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, ARCH, the Disabled Women's Network, et cetera, in the field of disability and beyond. Human rights is very much a part of our public discourse, it's one of the things that we talk about when we get together around the water cooler. That's one of the greatest things about human rights in this era.
Having said that and realizing that you're probably asking me for something more particular about the actual institution, I think that our human rights laws are quite strong, and offer quite a bit of potential for addressing human rights violations. In other words, I think that when cases actually move forward to the adjudicative stage, both at the Tribunal and on appeal in our courts, I think we often get good decisions. I think the law is crafted, and jurisprudence has evolved, in a way that gets us to equality and human rights in broad terms, that recognizes the overriding importance of human rights protections and that is flexible enough and fluid enough to allow for new understandings, new theoretical approaches, new insights about human rights and discrimination. So we have a legal framework that has supported the building of a human rights culture, and of a deeper and deeper understanding of discrimination.
I think that we've had some great champions of human rights, many of whom have had terms of office in our Human Rights Commission in Ontario. People like my successor Fran Endicott, who was an outstanding leader in human rights, Rosemary
Brown, Keith Norton, and now Barbara Hall —we've had some very fine people at the helm. From my own experience working inside the Human Rights Commission, one of its greatest strengths is the people on the inside -- staff in policy, in law and in investigation, as well as in more managerial functions. People are passionate about human rights, passionate and intelligent. Passion and intelligence, I think, are probably the greatest strengths of the system, which of course, are the strengths the people bring to it.
HL: And of course, there’s the other side of the coin: what are the weaknesses of the system?
CF: Where to begin? The system is overburdened and under-resourced. It always has been. I'm not saying anything new, nor am I saying anything distinctive about the Ontario system. This is pretty much, from my observation, a global phenomenon.
I mentioned earlier that our understanding of discrimination evolves, and it certainly has evolved in my lifetime. I think our human rights system was designed at a time when we only understood discrimination in individual terms. And I think even our understanding of the public nature of the harm committed by discrimination was far more limited than it is now.
In other words, now I think we can take for granted an understanding that discrimination harms not just the individual victim, but that it harms the community–a tear in the social fabric. Also, that discrimination is rarely a simple act or gesture, but often a part of a much more complex pattern. Policy, structure, culture, attitude and aspect: it's multi-layered, it's multi-factorial. A system that presumes that you can address such a complex problem by a one-by-one case approach is fundamentally flawed. The system, essentially, is designed to respond to a different kind of problem, not to the complex social problem that discrimination really is.
I think that's its greatest weakness, and the cause of the problems that we see currently manifested in our human rights system—I'll talk about Ontario, but anything I say about Ontario, you can substitute another provincial name or federal jurisdiction, probably throughout the world. Our system is overburdened, it's backlogged, it's slow, it's reactive, it's conflicted in terms of its mission and priorities. All of these things, I think, flow from that single problem of design. When it was first designed it probably was just fine, but it's not any more.
HL: That leads me into another question: What do you think is the Commission's most important role?
CF: In my own view, the Commission’s most important role is the role that it's never been able to perform adequately, and that is its role as a champion of human rights. I think that you can't be a champion when you're tied up with answering the phone, or answering the door, which is constantly ringing and constantly being knocked on.
You can't be a champion unless you have a big-picture view, a big mission, and a team of big thinkers who are prepared to put themselves out there in leading-edge ways. Articulating, saying things that are hard to say, challenging some of the powers that be, and leading the way, really demonstrating leadership in terms of our culture and our approach to human rights. So, specifically what I mean by this, what I think is one role of a human rights champion is to be very strategic in setting priorities for complaint initiation. I think that the capacity to initiate strategic complaints is probably the most important role that a Commission has to be able to perform.
I'm going to digress for a minute, but I will come back to the shopping list here. When I was at the Human Rights Commission, we were suffering from under-resourcing as the Commission has continued to suffer. But I think that when I was there the backlog was at its most acute. The government finally responded with some emergency, one-time resources to help us get through our overwhelming caseload.
But we were energized and ready and wanting to do something proactive about human rights in Ontario. During those three years we initiated two complaints and they were enormously demanding in terms of the Commission’s resources.
I think that they were fairly important complaints, obviously. One was against a number of employment agencies that we had reason to believe were laundering discriminatory job requests. And the other was against a university, on the basis of discrimination against disabled students. A real effort, a giant case that we hoped would mobilize the entire university community about the recognition of the needs of disabled students and the necessity to respond to those needs.
The nature of those cases isn't important, what's important is that the Human Rights Commission should be doing that considerably more. It's not really anything to brag about that we initiated two complaints in three years. In fact, it's a bit embarrassing that it's all that we were able to do. But believe me, it is all that we were able to do. We had to re-deploy some of our most senior investigators, some of our most senior policy people. You have to amass a tremendous amount of your best resources, because if you're going to initiate a complaint you’d better be ready to do it well. We had a swat team of people with cell phones, making a surprise entry into the employment agency. It’s no big deal now when you talk about cell phones, but cell phones were not a common thing back in 1989. This was a big deal. We had to have the tools for our investigators to get in there before any important documents got shredded.
PG: You mentioned earlier about being the champion. How does the “gatekeeper” function, so called, fit with being a champion?
CF: It's completely contradictory. This is the most fundamental problem with our Human Rights Commission, and it's the reason why nobody trusts the Human Rights Commission to be a champion. Because you're not a champion if in a high percentage of the cases that come to you, you look at people who believe that they have been victims of discrimination, you look at them and you say, no, you haven't been a victim of discrimination, no, your case isn't worthy of our attention.
Editor’s note: Over the past six years, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has referred 58 to 150 complaints a year for hearing, with 1 unusual complaint that includes about 200 individual complainants. In a typical year, the Commission dismisses two-thirds to four-fifths of the complaints that it investigates, and that are not otherwise settled or resolved. The dismissal decisions are made behind closed doors. Four to seven percent of the approximately 1,800 to 2,400 complaints filed each year actually are referred to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario for a hearing. [see OHRC annual reports for 1999-2005]
So if it is the job of the Commission to constantly tell people that their case is not meritorious, that they don't have a human rights claim, those people are not going to believe that the Commission is their champion, are they? The Commission is being asked to do the impossible. You cannot be performing the role of turning people away and still claim to be a human rights champion. It's entirely inconsistent. It sets up a dynamic that is doomed to failure.
The other thing that needs to be considered is to ask about why Human Rights Commissions were designed to be gatekeepers in the first place. Certainly there are some who would say that governments originally formulated Human Rights Commissions not to champion human rights, but to put a lid on complaints about the violation of rights, to settle the potential uprising of disenfranchised majority populations. We call them minority, but you put them all together and we're not talking minority, and the people in power know that. I think that's an interesting and possibly very valid observation about why Human Rights Commissions were established and assigned a gatekeeper role in the first place.
So you can't be a gatekeeper and a champion and what we need is a champion. I mentioned systemic initiation, or strategic initiation, of complaints as one of the things that a champion does. The other things that are proposed in human rights reform are equally consistent with that idea of a champion, and those are the monitoring, watchdog functions, monitoring government, monitoring legislation, monitoring social practices, articulating policy. Intervening in individual cases to articulate the broader public interest is also an appropriate role for a champion.
Again, an example from my own time at the Commission. The work on this project preceded my arrival, I'm not taking credit for it, but to just speak from life experience. It was the Human Rights Commission’s articulation of the duty to accommodate in a comprehensive policy paper that really, I think, moved forward the understanding of what equality is for disabled people in this province. And it's really important that a Commission, a group of people who have that passion and those conceptual strengths that I spoke of earlier, are crafting policy statements, are putting the flesh on the bones of human rights law so that the Human Rights Tribunal and other tribunals and courts will pick up and work with those interpretations. Also, there is a need for the Commission to really promote human rights education, so that employers, governments and others will have access to a better understanding of what is meant by human rights.
Policy development, watchdog, public education, advocacy — these are jobs of a champion. Turning people away is not the job of a champion.
HL: Looking at the way that the system works now, there are questions about the goals of the present investigation process.
I'm not going to analyze the current process because I'm no longer working inside the human rights enforcement system. But when I was inside, it was certainly true that the Commission was under enormous pressure to manage its caseload. This is essentially a bureaucratic pressure. This isn't a pressure that has anything to do with eliminating discrimination but a pressure to be on top of workload. It’s absolutely inevitable that investigators are going to feel that pressure. They have heavy caseloads themselves and they're not going to be able to give their full attention to any single case, ever.
These are professionals. These are people who are really committed to human rights and it's uncomfortable, and unsatisfying for them too, not to be able to have the time that they need to deal with a case adequately and quickly. But there is pressure on them to complete the investigation, especially a delayed investigation. There are constraints around how much time can go into an investigation, and at the end of the day, you have to make a judgment based on what you have done. You have to make a call whether there is sufficient evidence to recommend that the case go forward to a Board of Inquiry.
Editor’s note: When Ms. Frazee was a member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, complaints were referred to a Board of Inquiry for hearing. The Board of Inquiry was not a permanent Tribunal; members were appointed when needed.
A permanent human rights Tribunal, also called the Board of Inquiry, was established in 1995. On 26 November 2002, the name of the Board of Inquiry was changed to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
In the present system, there is a tendency to emphasize individual issues, rather than systemic issues, because the systemic issues are going to expand the complexity of the case enormously. So it’s often not in the interest of the Commission, as an over-burdened investigatory agency, to identify a systemic element to a case. It is always quicker to deal with a complaint in a narrow way, especially when the performance of the organization is being assessed in terms of timelines and productivity. In the present system, there is constantly a tension between doing the most thorough investigation, and doing the greatest number of investigations in a minimum amount of time.
Investigators give it their best shot in an impossible situation. The decision the Commission must make is whether or not there is enough evidence to warrant referral to a hearing before the Tribunal. So if the investigator has been told from the beginning, you've got to get every bit of evidence that's out there, then that would be one message to an investigator. But if the message is different—do the best within the time that you have for this case, and get on to the next case, because justice delayed is justice denied—that is a fundamentally different kind of message. This is the problem when an investigator finds him or herself working on behalf of the Commission in its role as gatekeeper.
PG: Is the goal of the investigation to advise the Commissioners whether or not the case should be taken further?
CF: Absolutely. And investigators are told that they must be neutral in an investigation. They are not going in as an advocate for the complainant.
In an investigative role the Commission has to be neutral. Otherwise, it's not perceived to be fair. They are investigating, not for the complainant, but for the Commission.
In this role the Commission is not a champion. It is an administrative agency. So this neutral investigation is presented to the Commissioners, who are then to make a judgment about whether the case goes forward or not. They make that determination as neutral decision-makers, not as human rights champions.
HL: Along the same lines, the Commission lawyers represent the public interest. Could you explain for ARCH Alert what that means?
CF: It’s complicated. Discrimination is a hybrid matter. It almost invariably involves individuals in a particular situation that is relevant to their lives, and it therefore has a private component to it. Between me, the disabled woman, and you, the shopkeeper who refuses to install a ramp outside his store, it's a private matter.
But it's not just a private matter. It's a public matter because discrimination has public significance. It has ramifications for all disabled people, and for non-disabled people as well, whether or not that shopkeeper has a ramp in front of his shop. It also has implications for the community of shopkeepers, and the larger community of schools and architects and engineers, and it goes on from there. So a simple, private matter has enormous public implications.
The Commission, in the relatively few cases that do proceed to a formal determination, has the role of advancing the public interest. So the Commission goes into the Tribunal, not representing the individual person, but representing the public interest.
Now this is where it gets tricky. The individual, who has been, after all, the victim of discrimination, often can also have his or her interests met through the Commission's public interest argument. But where the public and the private interests are in conflict, the individual actually needs his or her own representative. Anecdotally, many people who were successful at a Board of Inquiry had their own representative. The Commission was beside them, not arguing against them, but arguing a case that speaks to different issues.
There is not always a public interest element. That's why I think a reformed Commission should have an option to participate in some hearings and not in others, to be strategic about the use of its resources. But the individual's interests ought to, in my opinion, be represented by someone who is answerable to him or her.
When the Commission is acting as counsel, the complainant doesn't instruct counsel, the Commission instructs counsel. That seems to me a very disempowering thing when someone, who has experienced discrimination, finally gets their “day in court”, and can't be in charge of how their case is represented. So currently, there is a problem about how clients’ personal and direct interests are represented at Tribunals.
HL: How do unrepresented complainants fare in the present system, in your experience?
CF: I can't give a definitive answer to this question. However, my impression is that complainants who have some significant support, or an advocate who may be either their lawyer or a community organization or legal worker, do better. The unrepresented client at the Tribunal, with the Commission arguing the case, could feel like an observer in the unfolding of their destiny. It simply is not that emancipatory moment that the Tribunal is supposed to represent—win or lose. It’s supposed to be a moment of declaration of one’s experience in a rights-hearing system. I don't think it feels that way when you are unrepresented.
PG: If the Commission is in a conflicted role if it acts both as a neutral gatekeeper as well as a champion, what kind of system would you recommend be considered to provide counsel for complainants?
CF: I would argue that it should be separate from the Commission. There are a lot of people currently employed at the Commission who would be very good at that role and I hope they could move to whatever is created. My experience at the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, as it was called then, would incline me to say that the “Office of Human Rights Advisor” is a model that needs to be seriously considered.
Editor’s note: The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal now is called the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (“WSIAT”). The model to which Ms. Frazee refers is the Office of the Worker Adviser (“OWA”).
OWA, an independent agency of the Ontario Ministry of Labour, “provides free services to non-unionized injured workers and their survivors in workplace insurance matters.” These services include giving advice on workplace insurance and the appeals process, and assisting with appeals to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the WSIAT. OWA represents some, but not all, of the people who file appeals, depending on the issue in their case.
Complainants need a place or an Office with expertise in human rights jurisprudence and where people have a clear orientation to the equality-seeking claims of the complainant. I think that our legal aid system is well-equipped, provided that eligibility criteria are relaxed so that people can get certificates, and provided that clinics are well-resourced to do some of this work. Clinics like ARCH and the African Canadian Legal Clinic and other organizations like the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA) that have real expertise in this area, have to be players in the design of the support mechanism for complainants. So I would recommend some meshing of legal aid, community support and a specialized Human Rights Advocacy Office.
PG: We also need to address the provincial nature of the OHRC, and how claimants around the province can be supported.
CF: The Commission has become more and more centralized over the years. When I was at the Commission we had eight or nine regional offices, but since then the Commission has been centralized and there are no investigative offices anywhere except for Toronto. I understand why the Commission had to do it but it was not a step forward.
If you look at the Cornish Report, Mary Cornish was proposing what she called “Centres for Equality” around the province.
Editor’s Note: “Achieving Equality: A Report on Human Rights Reform”, is usually called the “Cornish Report”. Mary Cornish is the human rights lawyer who was the chair of the Ontario Human Rights Code Review Task Force that issued this report in 1992.
We in the community should be lobbying for such centres, and considering the various forms and shapes these facilities can take if you decentralize. As well, there needs to be something that is tailored to the distinct cultural needs of aboriginal communities.
HL: What do you think would make the system more efficient?
CF: If you look at all the submissions and documents circulating right now, both pro reform and not pro reform, they've all got a number of the same ideas about reform. Certainly, I believe that getting rid of the Commission's gatekeeping role makes the Commission more efficient because it eliminates the need for the Commission to make decisions on so many different levels.
Not every case requires a full investigation. For example, a case about there being no ramp at a movie theatre would require data from the respondent, if it is claiming an undue hardship defence. The case should not require an investigation. What would be required is an articulation of the documents that the adjudicator needs to see.
I think that a much more flexible approach to investigation is important. Cases being heard together—autism cases are an example, where 200 cases were joined.
Also, the most efficient thing we can do is to bring people around to voluntary compliance. Everything we do in the policy and public education domain contributes to the efficiency of the system. Strategic cases are efficient because one case, which is Commission-initiated and thoroughly investigated, prepares a comprehensive analysis of the systemic issues, proceeds to the Human Rights Tribunal is fully adjudicated and decided. The other ducks start to fall in line quickly with that kind of attention. So I think that proactive work is ultimately efficient when it comes to human rights.
HL: And what can be done to get fairer resolutions to human rights complaints?
CF: One thing that comes to mind is the whole question of mediation. A lot of cases currently get "resolved" in an early mediation process. However, if we take a more fulsome view of what happens in those resolutions, if you are a complainant and you know that the Commission dismisses most of the cases that move forward, you also know that your choice is to take this settlement offer or not. If you don’t accept the settlement, the likelihood is that your case will be dismissed. Many people feel pressured to take the settlement because of this.
Those cases that settle in early mediation, before any investigation takes place, are not necessarily “resolutions”. I would call them cases that just went away with some degree of resignation on the part of the complainant. They are often not really resolved in the sense that, by and large, the human rights concern is not being addressed.
However, when you look at settlement at the Tribunal level, things are different. When folks are at the door of the Tribunal, waiting to go into a hearing with full knowledge of what the investigation has uncovered, those cases seem to settle with a better resolution because at that point there is more of a parity between the parties. The respondents are no longer stonewalling. They can see the evidence and predict the way it is going to play out. They are more likely to settle generously when the next step is the Tribunal hearing. It ups the stakes a little.
I predict that, as more mediation activity takes place at the Tribunal, we will get more resolutions that really are resolutions. Still, the difficulty in mediation is whether you can adequately address the public interest question in a mediated settlement. Sometimes you can, if the Commission is there as a party to the mediation process, which is certainly a possible scenario, but there is a difficult trade-off between the private and public interests.
PG: In talking to other legal clinic advocates, we have learned that mediation works fairly well for their clients. In particular, this is the experience at Aboriginal Legal Services. So it may be that mediation works in some contexts and not others.
CF: That's true. For example, in my experience, it was not always appropriate to use mediation if it was a sexual harassment case or something of that nature. On the other hand, other cases may be very well suited to that. For example, in some of the education placement cases the parents may want an early resolution if it means their child gets back into school right away.
PG: Can you comment on refining the hearing process?
CF: Based on my experience when I was at the Commission—and I think it has continued, if not become worse—the Tribunal has to find a way to deal with procedural matters that so disrupt the hearing. The Tribunal needs to have some sort of procedural guidelines so that pre-hearing matters are dealt with efficiently in a way that isn't disruptive and can't be manipulated as a delay tactic. Certainly the Ontario Labour Relations Board has been able to rein in counsel and develop a culture of efficient and speedy hearings.
At the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal—it was Ron Ellis that was in charge, an incredible mentor—we used an inquisitorial approach in the hearings. Adjudicators were very active in asking questions. We would ask as many questions as counsel did.
I think it greatly improves not only your decision but also your sense of fairness because even when both parties are represented, they are not necessarily represented equally well. Often in workers’ compensation, we heard unrepresented clients and we were able to achieve a balance that you can't achieve if you are passively receiving whatever information is presented by counsel, and nothing else.
The idea of the tribunals is that they are not courts and the Tribunal experience should not look and feel like a court. It should be a formal process but it shouldn't be an overly legalized process. You don't actually have to have lawyers arguing at the tribunals, you can have community legal workers and other advisors. Many of the investigators that I remember working with at the Human Rights Commission would make very good advocates or representatives.
PG: When you worked at the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, Ron Ellis had a “leading case” strategy at the Tribunal. Maybe you can talk about that briefly as an idea for people to be thinking about.
CF: It is a really important idea. The Tribunal’s cases were screened and our most experienced or skilled adjudicators were assigned to the cases that were significant, precedent-setting cases or cases that represent the cutting-edge questions in workers’ compensation, things like chronic pain, and stress as a work-related injury. Ron Ellis would often take the cases himself. He would hear them and prepare a magnificent decision. These were decisions that would educate the entire Tribunal and that would provide an important contribution to the Tribunal's jurisprudence and the knowledge and depth of the adjudicator team.
HL: Is there anything that you would like to add?
CF: We have a great deal of turmoil right now in our own community, and in our larger equality-seeking communities. I think that a lot of the energy is very good. This is a very good moment of civic engagement and ARCH and others are in a very good position to educate stakeholders in this debate.
It seems to me that at some point we may need to mediate among the many differing views within our own community. We need to come together. I don't feel, for all of the debate, that we are actually that far apart in what it is that we are seeking.
I hope that, rather than backing away from the proposals for reform of the Ontario human rights system, we will see this as an opportunity and will rise to the challenge to come together. We need to advise the government on what can happen next, rather then sending them back to the drafting table. I differ from some of the perspectives I've read and some of the positions that have been articulated, but these are differences of detail, not differences in fundamental principles. And I think we need to make that message clear.
PG: One fundamental principle is whether the Commissioners themselves should retain the veto power over whether a complaint goes to a hearing at the Tribunal. Some of the currently circulating positions that I have read state that the Commission should not retain this veto power, but others are saying that they should.
CF: We are going to have to hammer it out. We have been waiting at least 15 years since the Cornish Report. Citizens of Ontario have been saying the system isn't working. Rights claimants have been saying that they want the right to a hearing. Dismissal of a claim without a hearing is not something that we see in any other area of administrative justice. The La Forest Report recommended removal of the Commission’s hearing veto at the Federal level. It is time for a fundamental change in the enforcement structure; we need a model that will be empowering to claimants.
Editor’s note: “Promoting Equality: A New Vision” is usually called the “La Forest Report”. The Honourable Gérard La Forest, a retired Supreme Court of Canada judge, was the chair of the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel that issued this report in 2000.
There is an indication in this government's announcement that they are ready to act. I think that we mustn't miss that opportunity to hold them accountable and to move into the next generation of human rights enforcement.
I think we have all learned from British Columbia that their approach to reform the human rights system is not the way we want to go. If that is what the government of Ontario has in mind, I shall be the first to protest loudly and clearly. But from the statement said the Attorney General has made about this reform, I'm inclined to believe that we have an opportunity to influence a change that will be significantly better than the regressive changes that occurred in B.C.
Editor’s note: The government of British Columbia changed its human rights system in 2002, eliminating the B.C. Human Rights Commission. The B.C. Commission used to investigate complaints, address systemic discrimination, and engage in public education and consultation.
Persons now file complaints of discrimination directly with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. The new B.C. system has been criticized for failing to adequately provide the services that used to be the responsibility of the B.C. Commission, and especially for moving the “gatekeeper” function to the B.C. Tribunal. The Ontario government has specifically stated that it does not intend to follow the British Columbia model.
I think that this is our opportunity to say, “Great, you are ready to act? So are we. Let’s show you how to do it,” rather than “No, we mustn't do anything yet.” I think we'll lose our opportunity if we back away. I think the government will back away if we don't grab them by the scruff of the neck and say, “We’re ready to talk.” Let’s take the opportunity and let the government know that we are ready.
HL: On behalf of ARCH Alert, thank you for a thought-provoking and informative interview.
ARCH ALERT is published by ARCH Disability Law Centre. It is distributed free via e-mail, fax, or mail to ARCH member groups, community legal clinics, and others with an interest in disability issues. ARCH is a non-profit community legal clinic, which defends and promotes the equality rights of persons with disabilities through litigation, law/policy reform and legal education. ARCH is governed by a Board of Directors elected by representatives of member groups reflecting the disability community. The goal of ARCH ALERT is to provide concise information, so that people are aware of important developments and resources. Articles may be copied or reprinted to share with others provided that they are reproduced in their entirety and that the appropriate credit is given. We encourage those who receive it to assist with distribution of information in this way. We do ask that both Word and Text Formats are distributed to ensure accessibility. Charitable Reg. #118777994RR01. Editor: Laurie Letheren Production & Circulation: Theresa Sciberras
We welcome your comments and questions, as well as submissions. We will endeavour to include all information of general interest to the community of persons with disabilities and their organizations, but reserve the right to edit or reject material if necessary. We will advise you if your submission is to be edited or rejected. Please assist us in your submissions by being brief and factual. Please address communications regarding ARCH ALERT to: Theresa Sciberras, Administrative Assistant, ARCH Disability Law Centre, 425 Bloor St. E., Suite 110, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3R5, fax: 416-482-2981, TTY: 416-482-1254, e-mail: scibert@lao.on.ca Website: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/
This page is
disabled access W3C WCAG - A compliant
