Eugenics and Disability Prepared by ARCH 1601 Close Modal× 1601 Elizabethan Poor Law Breakdown of the medieval social structure Charity gradually replaced with a compulsory land tax levied at parish level Impotent poor (people who can't work - "lame, impotent, old, blind") were to be cared for in almshouse or a poorhouse Able-bodied poor were to be set to work Idle poor and vagrants were to be sent to a house of correction or even prison Pauper children would become apprentices Beggar being whipped out of the parish. Author unknown. About the 1834 amendment to Poor Law, imposing harsher conditions to fix the problem of idleness. (Source) Thomas Rowlandson, A Select Vestry, 1806. (Source) Mid-1800s Close Modal× Mid-1800s Mass immigration programs Settlers encouraged to immigrate from England and Scotland Even in early stages persons with disabilities were singled out in particular and prevented from immigrating to Canada Irish emigrants wait with their few belongings to board ship for North America. Millions were forced to leave by famine. From Illustrated London News, 1851 1839 Close Modal× 1839 Ontario passes An Act to Authorise the Erection of an Asylum within this Province for the Reception of Insane and Lunatic Persons (first on mental health disabilities) The Provincial Lunatic Asylum at 999 Queen St. West, currently redeveloped to CAMH’s building. (Source) (Source) On Kersten, L. (2014, March 13). Ontario passes “An Act to Authorise the Erection of an Asylum within this Province for the Reception of Insane and Lunatic Person.”. Retrieved April 25, 2019, from (Source) 1869 Close Modal× 1869 Francis Galton publishes Hereditary Genius 1873 Close Modal× 1873 British Columbia passes the Insane Asylums Act. 1897 Close Modal× 1897 British Columbia passes the Hospital for the Insane Act 1907 Close Modal× 1907 Alberta passes an Act Respecting Insane Persons Outlines how persons deemed “insane and dangerous to the community” were to be managed 1909 Close Modal× 1909 United Farmers of Alberta is created (United Farm Women of Alberta as auxiliary in 1915), which later lobbies for Sterilization laws Officers of the United Farmers of Alberta and the United Farm Women of Alberta. (ca 1916-1919). Glenbow Archives (PA-2270-3). Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Retrieved from (Source) 1910 Close Modal× 1910 Passing of Immigration Act Gives the federal government the power to deny entry and to deport immigrants belonging to “prohibited classes”: “feeble-minded”, “afflicted with any loathsome disease”, “dumb, blind, or otherwise physically defective”. Immigration Act, 1910. (Source) 1912 Close Modal× 1912 Ontario passes House of Refuge Act (Source) 1916 Close Modal× 1916 Alberta passes the Lunatics' Estates Act AB Bill 35: An Act to Appoint an Administrator of Lunatics' Estates, 1916. (Source) 1918 Close Modal× 1918 Canadian National Committee for Mental Hygiene (CNCMH) (Source) 1919 Close Modal× 1919 Alberta passes The Mothers' Allowance Act (shows financial/societal repercussions of eugenic policies) 1921 Close Modal× 1921 Second International Eugenics Conference 1923 Close Modal× 1923 Alberta amends the 1919 Mental Defectives Act to include the distinction between “mentally defective” and other terms such as “mentally incompetent”, which ultimately transferred the issue from the Department of Education to the Department of Public Health 1924 Close Modal× 1924 Alberta renames the Insanity Act of 1907 to Mental Diseases Act. The words “insane” and “insanity” are essentially wiped out of mental health legislation. 1928 Close Modal× 1928 Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act (RSA 1970, c 341 - repealed in 1972) 1932 amendment allows physicians to direct sexual sterilization without consent Eugenics Board becomes responsible for estimated 2,834 sterilizations of which 89% were done without consent (of those 77% done to First Nations People) The 1928 Act of Alberta was amended a number of times. The initial Act governed any inmate from a mental hospital. If the Board of Governors of such an institution was unanimously of the opinion that “… the patient might safely be discharged if the danger of procreation with its attendant risk of multiplication of the evil by transmission of the disability to progeny were eliminated…”, the Board could direct sterilization. Consent of the person was required if the Board considered the person capable or, if not the consent of his/her spouse, parent, or guardian and if none of those existed, of an appointed provincial Minister. - R.S.A. 1955, c. 311. 1930 Close Modal× 1930 Eugenics Society of Canada 1932 Close Modal× 1932 Third International Eugenics Conference 1933 Close Modal× 1933 Manitoba passes Mental Deficiency Act Classifies individuals into 3 classes of defectives: idiots, imbeciles and morons Passed without sterilization clause 1933 Close Modal× 1933 British Columbia Sexual Sterilization Act (RSBC 1960, c 353 - repealed in 1973) Approves sterilization of individuals living in designated state institutions deemed to have undesirable traits Establishes a Board of Eugenics to approve sterilization (Source) 1937 Close Modal× 1937 Alberta amends the Sexual Sterilization Act to specify conditions, procedures, and liabilities for sterilization, and to introduce new terminology Alberta passes an Act respecting the Mentally Incompetent Persons and their Estates, outlining a process for the state to take possession of the estate of persons declared “unsound in mind” 1938 Close Modal× 1938 The Eugenics Society of Canada sponsored eight radio addresses. The radio series, called The Future of the Race. 1964 Close Modal× 1964 Alberta passes the Mentally Disordered Act For the first time detention or institutionalization is justified with the disabled person's interests, in addition to and sequentially ahead of the public interest electroshock therapy or shock treatment. (Source) 1965 Close Modal× 1965 British Columbia introduces the Mental Health Act 1966 Close Modal× 1966 Dr. Bernard L. Diamond summarizes scientific arguments against non-consensual sterilization in 1960 when he serves as special consultant to the American Psychiatric Association Report on Mental Health Legislation in British Columbia: "All laws providing for the sterilization of the mentally ill or defective which have in their basis the concept of inheritability of mental illness and mental deficiency are open to serious question as to their scientific validity and their social desirability. (…) Present day psychiatry, although still vitally interested in the possible genetic factors in mental illness and mental deficiency, avoids the sweeping generalizations so prevalent in the past, Genetic has evolved into a much more precise science and very significant work is being done on the inheritance of mental illness. Nevertheless, this is a field of great conflict: there has been much learned in recent years of the impact of environment on child development (…). In short, the present state of our scientific knowledge does not justify the widespread use of the sterilization procedures in mentally ill or mentally deficient persons." Ferster, Elyce Zenoff, Eliminate the Unfit – Is Sterilization the Answer?, Ohio State Law Journal, 27, 1966 1970 Close Modal× 1970 Ontario passes the Blind Persons’ Rights Act First province to guarantee blind persons the right to be accompanied by a guide dog in all public places (Source) Helen Keller, American author, political activist, and lecturer, with her dog in the 1960s. She becomes the first deaf-blind person to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree. 1972 Close Modal× 1972 Alberta repeals the Sexual Sterilization Act and amends the Mentally Disordered Act 1973 Close Modal× 1973 British Columbia repeals the Sexual Sterilization Act 1974 Close Modal× 1974 Nova Scotia amends its Human Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination against the “physically handicapped” Ontario Developmental Services transfers responsibility for developmental disabilities services from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Community and Social Services 1977 Close Modal× 1977 Canadian Human Rights Act Creates CHRC and CHRT Prohibits discrimination on grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability, and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted 1979 Close Modal× 1979 "In the context of our general knowledge about the groups of people (women, children, mentally handicapped) to whom protective laws apply and the subjective nature of such categorization in the case of mental handicap, it is critical that great care be taken to specify clearly the basis and need for protection. The stigma imposed on such persons by their characterization as “persons in need of protection” is emphasised by the implication that such persons lack some quality of humanity that precludes them from the general rules of treatment usually accorded other members of society. This has important implications in law and particularly in criminal law. As a group they are warranted protection which affects their ability to determine their sexual and reproductive behaviour. (…) In the zeal of the law to protect, what has occurred is protection “against” rather than protection “for” such categories of persons. The laws have been founded on unsound, unscientific views that have resulted in treatment based on group rather than individual characteristics." Law Reform Commission of Canada, Sterilization : implications for mentally retarded and mentally ill persons, 1979, p. 121 1980 Close Modal× 1980 Bill 82 - Ontario Education Act amended to obligate school boards to provide education to students with disabilities. 1981 Close Modal× 1981 ARCH and the Human Rights Coalition argue to include “handicap” as an enumerated ground in the HR Code 1981 Close Modal× 1981 Fighting for accessible transportation Pat Danforth at Supreme Court of Canada, fighting for accessible transportation, 1981. (Source) 1982 Close Modal× 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms passes 1984 Close Modal× 1984 ON removes restrictions to persons with disabilities from the ON Election Act after ARCH submissions along with other organizations (Source) Image from TO Star Archives 1985 Close Modal× 1985 "(…) there are really two substantial issues to be resolved. The first is raised by the question: who can legally consent to the sterilization of one who, through age and/or disability, is incapable of providing the required personal consent? The second concerns the standards to be met before such substituted consent can be given. Although forced by practical necessity to bring this application, the petitioner takes the position that parents have the absolute right to decide what is best for their children. (…) I am satisfied that such a submission cannot prevail. One cannot speak of the rights of parents without at the same time recognizing that the role of parenthood is characterized more by its obligations than by its rights. (…) Parental rights, although immune to other sources of outside interference, have, since antiquity, been subject to the power of the Court to intervene for the benefit of the child." - K. v. The Public Trustee, 1985, Supreme Court of British Columbia at paras 14-17 (Source) 1986 Close Modal× 1986 E (Mrs) v. Eve, 2 SCR 388 Supreme Court of Canada recognizes that sterilization procedures should not be conducted without patient’s consent, even if requested by their family 1988 Close Modal× 1988 Multiculturalism Act 1989 Close Modal× 1989 Life in the Institution is exposed in ARCHtype by Peter Park. 1996 Close Modal× 1996 Muir v. The Queen in Right of Alberta Leilani Muir, who was institutionalized and sterilized as a teenager, successfully sues the Alberta government after she learned years later that she was unable to have children. Muir v. The Queen in Right of Alberta was a landmark case in Canada. “The defendant's actions were unlawful, offensive and outrageous.” 1997 Close Modal× 1997 Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education. ARCH argues the placement of children in special education class without parental consent infringes the child’s equality Charter rights. The Supreme Court of Canada does not find a right to inclusion in education. The Institutional Confinement and Sexual Sterilization Compensation Act passes. 1997 Close Modal× 1997 "A person's right of self-determination is an important philosophical and legal principle. A person can be capable of making a basic decision and not capable of making a complex decision. Dr. Molloy, the director of the Geriatric Research Group and Memory Centre and associate professor of geriatrics at McMaster University, said: Different aspects of daily living and decision-making are now viewed separately. The ability to manage finances, consent to treatment, stand trial, manage personal care, make personal care or health decisions, all require separate decision- making capabilities and assessments. The courts have recognized these varying levels of capacity. Birkert L.J. said there "can be no doubt there are degrees of capacity": Park v. Park, [1953] 2 All E.R. 1411 at p. 1434, [1954] P. 112 (C.A.)." - Calvert (litigation guardian of) v. Calvert, 1997 CanLII 12096 (ON SC), at paras 54-55 1998 Close Modal× 1998 British Columbia introduces new plan for the development of mental health services 2001 Close Modal× 2001 Ontario passes Ontarians with Disabilities Act ARCH offers legal counsel to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee 2004 Close Modal× 2004 Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General). ARCH intervenes on behalf of CACL and CCD to explore the equality guarantee in the Charter and its violation by the denial of government-funded disability-related supports and other mechanisms that promote social inclusion, equal citizenship and participation of persons with disabilities. 2005 Close Modal× 2005 Ontario passes Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Hilewitz v. Canada at the Supreme Court of Canada. ARCH represented interveners the discriminatory history behind immigration legislation and argued for the valued of dignity, inclusion and accommodation Francine Arsenault, Gerry MacDonald and Laurie Beachell at CCD's Diary Read-a-thon for AODA. (Source) 2005 Close Modal× 2005 "The significance of independent judicial review of state action when a vulnerable adult has been deprived, at the instigation of the state, of the right to function autonomously, cannot be overstated. The court’s statutorily assigned supervisory role emerges from the adult’s vulnerability. The corollary of a judicial determination that an adult is in need of protection is a corresponding limitation on that adult’s autonomous decision making and liberty. It is the function of the court to monitor the scope of that limitation. The legislation must, therefore, be interpreted in a way which acknowledges the intrusiveness of the determination and offers muscular protection from state intervention incompatible with the adult’s welfare. Section 9(3)(c) should not be applied in a way that frustrates that responsibility." - Nova Scotia (Minister of Health) v. J.J., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 177, 2005 SCC 12, at para 23 2007 Close Modal× 2007 Canada signs the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is ratified in 2010. "Article 12 Equal recognition before the law States Parties reaffirm that persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law. States Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life. States Parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity. States Parties shall ensure that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human rights law. Such safeguards shall ensure that measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and preferences of the person, are free of conflict of interest and undue influence, are proportional and tailored to the person’s circumstances, apply for the shortest time possible and are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body. The safeguards shall be proportional to the degree to which such measures affect the person’s rights and interests." - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Source) 2013 Close Modal× 2013 Apology issued by the Government of Ontario after the Settlement Agreement is signed for the Class Action in which ARCH represented survivors of three government institutions. Apology December 9th 2013 PDF Premier Apology
Close Modal× 1601 Elizabethan Poor Law Breakdown of the medieval social structure Charity gradually replaced with a compulsory land tax levied at parish level Impotent poor (people who can't work - "lame, impotent, old, blind") were to be cared for in almshouse or a poorhouse Able-bodied poor were to be set to work Idle poor and vagrants were to be sent to a house of correction or even prison Pauper children would become apprentices Beggar being whipped out of the parish. Author unknown. About the 1834 amendment to Poor Law, imposing harsher conditions to fix the problem of idleness. (Source) Thomas Rowlandson, A Select Vestry, 1806. (Source)
Close Modal× Mid-1800s Mass immigration programs Settlers encouraged to immigrate from England and Scotland Even in early stages persons with disabilities were singled out in particular and prevented from immigrating to Canada Irish emigrants wait with their few belongings to board ship for North America. Millions were forced to leave by famine. From Illustrated London News, 1851
Close Modal× 1839 Ontario passes An Act to Authorise the Erection of an Asylum within this Province for the Reception of Insane and Lunatic Persons (first on mental health disabilities) The Provincial Lunatic Asylum at 999 Queen St. West, currently redeveloped to CAMH’s building. (Source) (Source) On Kersten, L. (2014, March 13). Ontario passes “An Act to Authorise the Erection of an Asylum within this Province for the Reception of Insane and Lunatic Person.”. Retrieved April 25, 2019, from (Source)
Close Modal× 1907 Alberta passes an Act Respecting Insane Persons Outlines how persons deemed “insane and dangerous to the community” were to be managed
Close Modal× 1909 United Farmers of Alberta is created (United Farm Women of Alberta as auxiliary in 1915), which later lobbies for Sterilization laws Officers of the United Farmers of Alberta and the United Farm Women of Alberta. (ca 1916-1919). Glenbow Archives (PA-2270-3). Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Retrieved from (Source)
Close Modal× 1910 Passing of Immigration Act Gives the federal government the power to deny entry and to deport immigrants belonging to “prohibited classes”: “feeble-minded”, “afflicted with any loathsome disease”, “dumb, blind, or otherwise physically defective”. Immigration Act, 1910. (Source)
Close Modal× 1916 Alberta passes the Lunatics' Estates Act AB Bill 35: An Act to Appoint an Administrator of Lunatics' Estates, 1916. (Source)
Close Modal× 1919 Alberta passes The Mothers' Allowance Act (shows financial/societal repercussions of eugenic policies)
Close Modal× 1923 Alberta amends the 1919 Mental Defectives Act to include the distinction between “mentally defective” and other terms such as “mentally incompetent”, which ultimately transferred the issue from the Department of Education to the Department of Public Health
Close Modal× 1924 Alberta renames the Insanity Act of 1907 to Mental Diseases Act. The words “insane” and “insanity” are essentially wiped out of mental health legislation.
Close Modal× 1928 Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act (RSA 1970, c 341 - repealed in 1972) 1932 amendment allows physicians to direct sexual sterilization without consent Eugenics Board becomes responsible for estimated 2,834 sterilizations of which 89% were done without consent (of those 77% done to First Nations People) The 1928 Act of Alberta was amended a number of times. The initial Act governed any inmate from a mental hospital. If the Board of Governors of such an institution was unanimously of the opinion that “… the patient might safely be discharged if the danger of procreation with its attendant risk of multiplication of the evil by transmission of the disability to progeny were eliminated…”, the Board could direct sterilization. Consent of the person was required if the Board considered the person capable or, if not the consent of his/her spouse, parent, or guardian and if none of those existed, of an appointed provincial Minister. - R.S.A. 1955, c. 311.
Close Modal× 1933 Manitoba passes Mental Deficiency Act Classifies individuals into 3 classes of defectives: idiots, imbeciles and morons Passed without sterilization clause
Close Modal× 1933 British Columbia Sexual Sterilization Act (RSBC 1960, c 353 - repealed in 1973) Approves sterilization of individuals living in designated state institutions deemed to have undesirable traits Establishes a Board of Eugenics to approve sterilization (Source)
Close Modal× 1937 Alberta amends the Sexual Sterilization Act to specify conditions, procedures, and liabilities for sterilization, and to introduce new terminology Alberta passes an Act respecting the Mentally Incompetent Persons and their Estates, outlining a process for the state to take possession of the estate of persons declared “unsound in mind”
Close Modal× 1938 The Eugenics Society of Canada sponsored eight radio addresses. The radio series, called The Future of the Race.
Close Modal× 1964 Alberta passes the Mentally Disordered Act For the first time detention or institutionalization is justified with the disabled person's interests, in addition to and sequentially ahead of the public interest electroshock therapy or shock treatment. (Source)
Close Modal× 1966 Dr. Bernard L. Diamond summarizes scientific arguments against non-consensual sterilization in 1960 when he serves as special consultant to the American Psychiatric Association Report on Mental Health Legislation in British Columbia: "All laws providing for the sterilization of the mentally ill or defective which have in their basis the concept of inheritability of mental illness and mental deficiency are open to serious question as to their scientific validity and their social desirability. (…) Present day psychiatry, although still vitally interested in the possible genetic factors in mental illness and mental deficiency, avoids the sweeping generalizations so prevalent in the past, Genetic has evolved into a much more precise science and very significant work is being done on the inheritance of mental illness. Nevertheless, this is a field of great conflict: there has been much learned in recent years of the impact of environment on child development (…). In short, the present state of our scientific knowledge does not justify the widespread use of the sterilization procedures in mentally ill or mentally deficient persons." Ferster, Elyce Zenoff, Eliminate the Unfit – Is Sterilization the Answer?, Ohio State Law Journal, 27, 1966
Close Modal× 1970 Ontario passes the Blind Persons’ Rights Act First province to guarantee blind persons the right to be accompanied by a guide dog in all public places (Source) Helen Keller, American author, political activist, and lecturer, with her dog in the 1960s. She becomes the first deaf-blind person to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree.
Close Modal× 1972 Alberta repeals the Sexual Sterilization Act and amends the Mentally Disordered Act
Close Modal× 1974 Nova Scotia amends its Human Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination against the “physically handicapped” Ontario Developmental Services transfers responsibility for developmental disabilities services from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Community and Social Services
Close Modal× 1977 Canadian Human Rights Act Creates CHRC and CHRT Prohibits discrimination on grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability, and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted
Close Modal× 1979 "In the context of our general knowledge about the groups of people (women, children, mentally handicapped) to whom protective laws apply and the subjective nature of such categorization in the case of mental handicap, it is critical that great care be taken to specify clearly the basis and need for protection. The stigma imposed on such persons by their characterization as “persons in need of protection” is emphasised by the implication that such persons lack some quality of humanity that precludes them from the general rules of treatment usually accorded other members of society. This has important implications in law and particularly in criminal law. As a group they are warranted protection which affects their ability to determine their sexual and reproductive behaviour. (…) In the zeal of the law to protect, what has occurred is protection “against” rather than protection “for” such categories of persons. The laws have been founded on unsound, unscientific views that have resulted in treatment based on group rather than individual characteristics." Law Reform Commission of Canada, Sterilization : implications for mentally retarded and mentally ill persons, 1979, p. 121
Close Modal× 1980 Bill 82 - Ontario Education Act amended to obligate school boards to provide education to students with disabilities.
Close Modal× 1981 ARCH and the Human Rights Coalition argue to include “handicap” as an enumerated ground in the HR Code
Close Modal× 1981 Fighting for accessible transportation Pat Danforth at Supreme Court of Canada, fighting for accessible transportation, 1981. (Source)
Close Modal× 1984 ON removes restrictions to persons with disabilities from the ON Election Act after ARCH submissions along with other organizations (Source) Image from TO Star Archives
Close Modal× 1985 "(…) there are really two substantial issues to be resolved. The first is raised by the question: who can legally consent to the sterilization of one who, through age and/or disability, is incapable of providing the required personal consent? The second concerns the standards to be met before such substituted consent can be given. Although forced by practical necessity to bring this application, the petitioner takes the position that parents have the absolute right to decide what is best for their children. (…) I am satisfied that such a submission cannot prevail. One cannot speak of the rights of parents without at the same time recognizing that the role of parenthood is characterized more by its obligations than by its rights. (…) Parental rights, although immune to other sources of outside interference, have, since antiquity, been subject to the power of the Court to intervene for the benefit of the child." - K. v. The Public Trustee, 1985, Supreme Court of British Columbia at paras 14-17 (Source)
Close Modal× 1986 E (Mrs) v. Eve, 2 SCR 388 Supreme Court of Canada recognizes that sterilization procedures should not be conducted without patient’s consent, even if requested by their family
Close Modal× 1996 Muir v. The Queen in Right of Alberta Leilani Muir, who was institutionalized and sterilized as a teenager, successfully sues the Alberta government after she learned years later that she was unable to have children. Muir v. The Queen in Right of Alberta was a landmark case in Canada. “The defendant's actions were unlawful, offensive and outrageous.”
Close Modal× 1997 Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education. ARCH argues the placement of children in special education class without parental consent infringes the child’s equality Charter rights. The Supreme Court of Canada does not find a right to inclusion in education. The Institutional Confinement and Sexual Sterilization Compensation Act passes.
Close Modal× 1997 "A person's right of self-determination is an important philosophical and legal principle. A person can be capable of making a basic decision and not capable of making a complex decision. Dr. Molloy, the director of the Geriatric Research Group and Memory Centre and associate professor of geriatrics at McMaster University, said: Different aspects of daily living and decision-making are now viewed separately. The ability to manage finances, consent to treatment, stand trial, manage personal care, make personal care or health decisions, all require separate decision- making capabilities and assessments. The courts have recognized these varying levels of capacity. Birkert L.J. said there "can be no doubt there are degrees of capacity": Park v. Park, [1953] 2 All E.R. 1411 at p. 1434, [1954] P. 112 (C.A.)." - Calvert (litigation guardian of) v. Calvert, 1997 CanLII 12096 (ON SC), at paras 54-55
Close Modal× 2001 Ontario passes Ontarians with Disabilities Act ARCH offers legal counsel to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee
Close Modal× 2004 Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General). ARCH intervenes on behalf of CACL and CCD to explore the equality guarantee in the Charter and its violation by the denial of government-funded disability-related supports and other mechanisms that promote social inclusion, equal citizenship and participation of persons with disabilities.
Close Modal× 2005 Ontario passes Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Hilewitz v. Canada at the Supreme Court of Canada. ARCH represented interveners the discriminatory history behind immigration legislation and argued for the valued of dignity, inclusion and accommodation Francine Arsenault, Gerry MacDonald and Laurie Beachell at CCD's Diary Read-a-thon for AODA. (Source)
Close Modal× 2005 "The significance of independent judicial review of state action when a vulnerable adult has been deprived, at the instigation of the state, of the right to function autonomously, cannot be overstated. The court’s statutorily assigned supervisory role emerges from the adult’s vulnerability. The corollary of a judicial determination that an adult is in need of protection is a corresponding limitation on that adult’s autonomous decision making and liberty. It is the function of the court to monitor the scope of that limitation. The legislation must, therefore, be interpreted in a way which acknowledges the intrusiveness of the determination and offers muscular protection from state intervention incompatible with the adult’s welfare. Section 9(3)(c) should not be applied in a way that frustrates that responsibility." - Nova Scotia (Minister of Health) v. J.J., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 177, 2005 SCC 12, at para 23
Close Modal× 2007 Canada signs the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is ratified in 2010. "Article 12 Equal recognition before the law States Parties reaffirm that persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law. States Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life. States Parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity. States Parties shall ensure that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human rights law. Such safeguards shall ensure that measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and preferences of the person, are free of conflict of interest and undue influence, are proportional and tailored to the person’s circumstances, apply for the shortest time possible and are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body. The safeguards shall be proportional to the degree to which such measures affect the person’s rights and interests." - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Source)
Close Modal× 2013 Apology issued by the Government of Ontario after the Settlement Agreement is signed for the Class Action in which ARCH represented survivors of three government institutions. Apology December 9th 2013 PDF Premier Apology