Court File No: 37551
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL)
B E T W E E N:
S.A.
APPELLANT (Appellant)
AND:
METRO VANCOUVER HOUSING CORPORATION
RESPONDENT (Respondent)
FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada)
Dianne Wintermute Michael Bossin Luke Reid Ashley Turcotte ARCH Disability Law Centre Community Legal Services Ottawa Centre 55 University Avenue, 15th Floor 1 Nicholas Street, Suite 422 Toronto, ON M5J 2H7 Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7 Tel: (416) 482 8255 Tel.: (613) 241-7008 TTY: (416) 482-1254 Fax: (613) 241-8680 Fax: (416) 482 2981 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener, Agent for the Intervener, Council of Canadians with Disabilities Council of Canadians with Disabilities TO: THE REGISTRAR
AND TO: Michael A. Feder Nadia Effendi Patrick D.H. Williams BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP MCCARTHY TÉTRAULT LLP Suite 1300, 100 Queen Street Suite 2400, 745 Thurlow Street Ottawa, ON K1P 1J9 Vancouver, BC V6E 0C5
Tel: (604) 643-5983 Tel.: (613) 237-5160 Fax: (604) 622-5614 Fax: (613) 230-8842 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Appellant Ottawa Agent for the Appellant
AND TO:
Eileen E. Vanderburgh/ Marie-France Major Rachel Schechter SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP ALEXANDER HOLBURN BEAUDIN & 340 Gilmour St., Suite 100 LANG LLP Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 P.O. Box 10057 2700-700 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1B8
Tel: (604) 688-1351 Tel: (613) 695-8855 Fax: (604) 669-7642 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Respondent Ottawa Agent for Respondent
AND TO:
Geoffrey W. White/ Amy Mortimore David Taylor CLARK WILSON LLP CONWAY BAXTER WILSON LLP/s.r.l. 900 – 885 West Georgia Street 400 – 411 Roosevelt Avenue Vancouver, B.C. V6C 3H1 Ottawa, ON K2A 3X9
Tel.: (604) 891-7751 Tel.: (613) 691-0368 Fax: (604) 687-6314 Fax: (613) 688-0271 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener, Ottawa Agent for the Intervener, Disability Alliance BC Society Disability Alliance BC Society AND TO:
Brendon Pooran/ Jennifer Macko Moira S. Dillon POORANLAW PROFESSIONAL SUPREME LAW GROUP CORPORATION 900 – 275 Slater Street 400-1500 Don Mills Road Ottawa, ON K1P 5H9 Toronto, ON M3B 3H4 Tel.: (613) 691-1224 Tel.: (416) 860-7572 Fax: (613) 691-1338 Fax: (416) 860-7577 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Interveners, Agent for the Interveners, Canadian Association for Community Canadian Association for Community Living and People First of Canada Living and People First of Canada
AND TO:
Ewa Krajewska Nadia Effendi BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP 40 King Street West Suite 1300, 100 Queen Street Toronto, ON M5H 3Y4 Ottawa, ON KIP 1J9
Tel.: (416) 367-6244 Tel : (613) 237-5160 Fax: (416) 361-7358 Fax: (613) 230-8842 Email : [email protected] E-mail : [email protected]
Counsel for the Interveners, Agent for the Interveners, Income Security Advocacy Centre Income Security Advocacy Centre and HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic and HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic
AND TO:
Jonathan Eades/ Kate Hamm Pierre Landry ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH NOËL ET ASSOCIÉS, s.e.n.c.r.l COLUMBIA 111 rue Champlain 1001 Douglas Street, 3rd Floor Gatineau, Quebec Legal Services Branch J8X 3R1 Victoria, BC V8W 9J7 Tel. : (819) 771-7393 Tel.: (250) 387-2789 Fax: (819) 771-5397 Fax: (250) 952-3557 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener, Ottawa Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia Attorney General of British Columbia i
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 1
PART II – POINTS IN ISSUE 1
PART III – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT 1
A. Appeal Arises in a Particular Socio-Legal Context 2
B. Absolute Discretionary Trusts Help Meet Disability Related Costs 4
C. Absolute Discretionary Trusts Cannot Be Used In Eligibility Criteria 6
D. Canada Must Honour Its International Obligations 8
PART IV – SUBMISSIONS REGARDING COSTS 9
PART VI – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 11 1
PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. This Appeal arises from a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in S.A. v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 1 (“Appeal Decision”). The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) intervenes in this Appeal. The CCD takes no position on the facts in this Appeal.
PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE
2. The issue in this Appeal is whether assets in which someone has a beneficial interest include absolute discretionary trusts and can therefore be taken into consideration when determining eligibility for a social program.
PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT
3. The CCD respectfully submits that: (A) Context is critical to understand the broader impact of the Appeal Decision on persons with disabilities; (B) The purpose of absolute discretionary trusts is to assist with disability-related expenses; (C)The Appeal Decision unduly restricts eligibility to a variety of social programs for persons with disabilities; and (D) This Court’s determination of assets in which someone has a beneficial interest must conform with Canada’s international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).2
A. Appeal Arises in a Particular Socio-Legal Context
4. Persons with disabilities represent a significant percentage of Canada's population. In 2012, almost 14% of the Canadian population, or 3.8 million individuals, reported
1 S.A. v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 2017 BCCA 2, 410 D.L.R. (4th) 198 [Appeal Decision]. 2 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 30 March 2007, 2515 UNTS 3 at 70, Can TS 2010 No 8 (entered into force 3 May 2008, ratified by Canada 11 March 2010) [CRPD].
2 having a disability that limited their daily activities.3 Forty-nine percent of that group stated that their disability was severe or very severe.4
5. While a number of government programs exist to attempt to remediate the existing social and economic disadvantage of persons with disabilities, full citizenship and inclusion is frequently denied to them. This Honourable Court has observed that the history of persons with disabilities in Canada is largely one of exclusion, marginalization and persistent disadvantage.5 This Court also acknowledged that persons with disabilities experience chronic economic and social barriers. These realities are confirmed in a number of Reports by Statistics Canada.6
6. A source of income for working age poor persons with disabilities is social assistance.7 Income security programs are typically programs of “last resort”.8 Social assistance programs are designed to meet the basic needs of persons with disabilities. By their very nature, social assistance programs cannot address all of the individualized needs of persons with disabilities.
7. Persons with disabilities often require additional supports, services and assistive devices to overcome obstacles and achieve the values of independence, autonomy and
3 Statistics Canada, Canadian Survey on Disability, 2012 (Ottawa: Minister responsible for Statistics Canada, 2015) at 3. The actual number of persons with disabilities is likely higher, since the report did not include persons under 15 years old, those who live in institutions or collective dwellings, or those who live on First Nations reserves. 4 Ibid at 6. 5 Eldridge v British Columbia (AG), [1997] 3 SCR 624 at para 56, 151 DLR (4th) 577. 6 See: Statistics Canada, Insights on Canadian Society – Persons with Disabilities and Employment, by Martin Turcotte, Catalogue No 75-006-X (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 3 December 2014) & Supra note 3 7 Looking into poverty: Income sources of poor people with disabilities in Canada by Cam Crawford, (Toronto: Institute for Research and Development on Inclusion and Society (IRIS) and Council of Canadians with Disabilities, 2013) at 19. 8 Ibid at 14, 36.
3 inclusion in society.9 These supports can be costly and are frequently out of reach for persons with disabilities living in poverty.10
8. The costs of living that persons with disabilities are expected to bear are diverse and unique to each of them. For instance, many persons with disabilities state that they need an assistive device that they do not have.11 Others report that they cannot afford to take medications or will take them less often than prescribed because of cost.12 Living without proper assistive devices or adequate medication can lead to poor health outcomes that drive persons with disabilities into deeper poverty.
9. Cost-related barriers to inclusion in the community flow from the inaccessibility of public transportation and the unpredictability and difficulty in arranging para-transit. These factors significantly limit working outside the home and participation in the community,13 which could lead to isolation and loneliness.
10. Access to emergency health care is also challenging. Having to take a taxi to frequent medical appointments is a luxury few persons with disabilities can afford14 without family or other supports. Hiring personal support workers for the time necessary to attain independence is expensive and out of the reach of many persons with disabilities.15
9 Catalina Devandas-Aguilar, Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNGAOR, 71st Session, UN Doc A/71/314 (2016) at p 7. 10 Mitra, Sophie et al. “Extra costs of living with a disability: A review and agenda for research” (2017) 10:4 Disability and Health Journal 475 at 475. 11 Supra at note 3 at p. 18. 12 Ibid at p. 18. 13 Lucie Dumais & Marie-Noëlle Ducharme, "Les coûts du handicap au Québec : que font les ménages et comment les soutenir équitablement?" (2017) 11:2 European J of Disability Research 99–112 at 107; Note an English Summary of Results is Available at: Dumais, Lucie, Alexandra Prohet & Ducharme Marie-Noëlle. “Review of Extra Costs Linked to Disability”, (March 2015), online: Review of Extra Costs Linked to Disability | Council of Canadians with Disabilities
4
11. The cost of housing is a crucial concern for persons with disabilities. Housing is essential for all people. However, for people with disabilities, location may be critical. Persons with disabilities might need to live close to places where shopping, health care, and other supports and services are available. They may need access to buildings that accommodate assistive devices. These factors can drive up the cost of housing. Appropriate housing is essential and necessary for persons living with a disability.16 Without housing subsidies or other sources of income, barriers to adequate and affordable housing could lead to homelessness.
B. Absolute Discretionary Trusts Help Meet Disability-Related Costs
12. The defining feature of an absolute discretionary trust is that all payments from the trust are totally at the discretion of the trustee. Absolute discretionary trusts play an important role as a vehicle that can assist persons with disabilities17 to meet their additional costs of living. These trusts are arranged by families of persons with disabilities specifically to assist with additional costs not covered by social assistance programs. The purpose of these trusts is to ensure access to social assistance programs for a person with a disability, while also providing for unmet needs or enhancing their quality of life.
13. There is a gap between what persons with disabilities need and what social assistance programs can cover.18 Some social assistance programs address this financial gap by creating income and asset based exceptions in their eligibility criteria. For example, the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), British Columbia’s Employment Assistance for Persons with Disabilities, and Saskatchewan’s Assured Income for Disability (SAID) all contain a number of statutory exemptions that allow recipients to accrue additional income, if that income is directed towards a disability- related expense.19
16 Ibid at p 4-5. 17 Borges v Santos, 2017 ONCJ 651, [2017] OJ 5031. at para 31. 18 Ibid at 2. 19 See: Employment And Assistance For Persons With Disabilities Regulation B.C. Reg. 265/2002 at Schedule B, s. 7(1)(d).; The Saskatchewan Assistance Regulations, 2014,
5
14. Ontario specifically acknowledges the important role that these expenses play in maximizing the independence and autonomy of persons with disabilities. For instance, Policy Directive 5.9 of the Ontario Disability Support Program reiterates the ability of ODSP administration to grant exemptions to someone’s asset or income limits if these are to be used for disability-related expenses. ODSP observes that “[d]isability-related items or services facilitate access, participation and/or enhanced functioning” in a number of different areas including employment and “social, recreational, and/or community activities”.20
15. Because of the limitations of social assistance programs, persons with disabilities may rely on family to help defray the costs of additional expenses.21
16. Families may need to make appropriate arrangements to ensure that persons with disabilities are supported after the death of family members. Absolute discretionary trusts are an established legal tool that allows families to provide additional financial support while preserving their family member’s access to social programs.22 Persons with disabilities may require this additional private support as a result of reduced employment opportunities23, the inadequacy of existing social assistance regimes24 and the persistent disadvantages they face as a result of ongoing disability-related expenses that they are unable to pay for themselves.
RRS c S-8 Reg 12 s. 12(3)(f); General O Reg 222/98, ss 38(1)(1)(v), 43(1)(1)(iii), 43(1)(9)(i). 20 Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Ontario Disability Support Program - Income Support - 5.9 - Disability-Related Items and Services (Social Assistance Policy Directives) (Toronto: Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2017). 21 Supra note 13 at 107. 22 Supra note 17 at para 31. 23 Supra note 6 at 1. 24 Government of Ontario, Income Security: A Roadmap for Change, by Income Security Reform Working Group, First Nations Income Security Reform Working Group & Urban Indigenous Table on Income Security Reform (Ottawa: Government of Ontario, October 2017) at 1; Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Canada, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 72nd Session, UN Doc CRPD/C/CAN/CO/1 (2017) at p 12.
6
17. Understanding the important role that discretionary trusts play in the lives of persons with disabilities cannot be over-estimated. Discretionary trusts are an essential mechanism for reducing disadvantage, maximizing participation, enhancing quality of life and promoting substantive equality for persons with disabilities.
C. Absolute Discretionary Trusts Cannot be Used In Eligibility Criteria
18. The Appeal Decision effectively ignores the primary aspect of an absolute discretionary trust: a trustee has absolute and unfettered discretion to disburse, or not, funds from the trust.25 In coming to the conclusion that the Appellant has a “beneficial interest” in the trust for the purposes of the Asset Ceiling Policy, the Court of Appeal endorsed the trial judge’s analysis that the Appelant’s “interest in the trust … is more than a mere possibility.” 26 This holding disregards the fact that if something is more than a “possibility”, it is a likelihood. A likelihood that you can access the funds in a trust carries with it the implication that persons with disabilities have some form of legal entitlement to the funds; a conclusion that is contrary with the case law.27
19. By misapprehending the absolute discretionary nature of this type of trust, the Appeal Decision suggests that social programs can presume that persons with disabilities have an interest in the trust that can be used for their maintenance. However, the opposite is true.
20. Imbedded in this presumption is the stereotype that persons with disabilities are somehow trying to “cheat” the system. In order to be found eligible for social assistance programs, persons with disabilities must provide a great deal of personal and financial information to bureaucracies. The Appeal Decision requires that persons with disabilities provide information about a trust that they have no access to. If they do not disclose the additional information, persons with disabilities may be viewed as attempting to hide assets so that they can continue to benefit from public largess. This
25 Purtzki v. Saunders, 2016 BCCA 344 at para. 64. 26 Supra note 1 at para 56. 27 Supra note 25 at para 64.
7 stereotype belies the reality that persons with disabilities have legitimate disability- related expenses which are not covered by public programs.
21. Many social programs use asset-based means testing in their eligibility criteria. The precise definition of “asset” in each scheme varies, but some of them contain definitions which could capture absolute discretionary trusts if the Appeal Decision is confirmed.
22. The social assistance program in Nunavut and the Legal Aid Program in Newfoundland and Labrador both define assets as including a “beneficial interest in assets held in trust and available to be used for maintenance”.28
23. Legal Aid Ontario defines assets as including “[a]ny interest in assets held in trust”.29 If an absolute discretionary trust conveys a “beneficial interest”, it could be used to justify a denial of access to the program.
24. The qualifier “available to be used for maintenance” is important. If an asset can be liquidated then it is available income that the recipient can use. A similar example is the value of luxury items. Social Assistance regimes are programs of last resort. If something that can be liquidated or sold, something in which there is a real interest, then the proceeds must be used to support a person with a disability before they are eligible for social assistance. However, where the person with a disability cannot quantify the value an absolute discretionary trust or cannot compel payments from that trust, it is not available to them. Absolute discretionary trusts convey nothing, and the beneficiary is entitled to nothing. Therefore, absolute discretionary trusts cannot be used as part of eligibility criteria for a benefit. For the same reason, they cannot be used to prioritize who gets a benefit.
25. Disqualifying someone based on the presumption that they might get access to future funds is problematic and undermines the purpose of absolute discretionary trusts. These trusts are designed to reduce disadvantage among persons with disabilities. As a
28 Legal Aid Regulations, CNLR 1010/96 at Schedule E s. 1. 29 General, O. Reg. 107/99 at s. 1 & Legal Aid Ontario, Financial Eligibility Test For Legal Aid Certificates Version 1.2 at p 4.
8 matter of policy, eligibility criteria for social programs should not be read to conflict with the purpose of an absolute discretionary trust. They should be interpreted as working in concert for the maximum benefit of a person with a disability. Social welfare programs address some needs, while absolute discretionary trusts address those disability-related needs not covered by limited public resources.
26. The common law has long facilitated this type of cooperation between public and private forms of support, by holding that absolute discretionary trusts convey no beneficial interest.30 Changing the ‘default’ position of the common law on this issue has the potential to disrupt this coordination and marginalize persons with disabilities. The Federal Court of Appeal has in the past reiterated the reluctance of courts to interfere with the functioning of social welfare schemes, which are “a complex web of interwoven provisions. Altering one filament of the web can disrupt related filaments in unexpected ways.”31 This concern is a valid one. Altering the longstanding common law interpretation of absolute discretionary trusts risks disrupting the ‘filaments’ of social welfare schemes.
D. Canada Must Honour its International Obligations
27. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is an international treaty that sets out obligations for countries to meet the basic rights of people with disabilities. The CRPD addresses a range of issues, including equality, accessibility, independence, and participation for persons with disabilities. The CRPD also mandates that States Parties provide adequate poverty reduction and social protection programs to support persons with disabilities.
28. The CRPD is important to the present case, as it has implications about access to programs that meet its objectives. As noted in R. v. Hape, “courts will strive to avoid constructions of domestic law pursuant to which the state would be in violation of its
30 Stoor v. Stoor Estate, 2014 ONSC 5684 at para 7. 31 Miceli-Riggins v. Canada (Attorney General) [2014] 4 FCR 709; 285 CRR (2d) 348 at para 64.
9 international obligations.” As such, Canada’s international obligations should be considered in this court’s analysis of “assets in which you have a beneficial interest.”32
29. Articles 19 and 28 are particularly relevant to this interpretation. Article 19 discusses the right to live independently and be included in the community. This includes the obligation of States Parties to “take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community...”33 Access to a range of programs is essential to fulfilling this obligation.
30. Article 28 mandates that States Parties are to provide an adequate standard of living and social protection. In particular, there is a right to adequate food and housing and to the improvement of living conditions. States Parties must also ensure access to affordable and appropriate services to reduce poverty and assist with disability-related expenses. This includes access to affordable housing.34
31. These articles reveal a clear intention that signatories to the CRPD are to address poverty and economic disadvantage among persons with disabilities by promoting the use of mechanisms which enhance the ability of persons with disabilities to live independently in the community.
32. Canada has been criticized in the past by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the “Committee”) for not ensuring an adequate standard of living for persons with disabilities. In particular, the Committee expressed concern about the insufficient financial support available to them.35 It is widely accepted that social assistance rates remain inadequate for persons with disabilities36 meaning
32 R v Hape, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292 at para 53; Baker v Canada, (Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at para 70. 33 Supra note 2 at Article 19. 34 Supra note 2 at Article 28. 35 Supra note 24 at p 12. 36 Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Canada, UNECOSOCOR, 2016, E/C.12/CAN/CO/6 at 6.
10
that they often cannot meet the full range of disability-related costs or other expenses
they require. Furthermore, the Committee has also recognized the significant
implications that a lack of financial resources has on the autonomy of persons with
disabilities and their right to live independently in the community.37
33. Discretionary trusts are tools that further the rights conveyed by Articles 19 and
28. The price tag of social exclusion and an inadequate cost of living is high. They
perpetuate dependency, stigma, segregation and discrimination. The law must be alive
to the importance of private legal mechanisms which assist States Parties in fulfilling the
rights of persons with disabilities under the CRPD.
34. The Appeal Decision is retrogressive and does not further the goals articulated by
Articles 19 and 28. The CRPD states that measures which would deprive persons with
disabilities of the "full enjoyment of the right to live independently and be included in the
community should be avoided by States Parties. The Appeal Decision would put
Canada in the position of denying access to crucial programs to those who need them.
PART IV - SUBMISSIONS REGARDING COSTS
1. The CCD does not seek any costs and submits that, given the public interest
nature of its intervention, this would not be an appropriate case to award costs against it.
ALL OF WHICH is respectfully submitted this 9th day of April, 2018.
'^f ^ -1 ..-^^*\ -U.^i.vV^-l'.. Luke Reid';L^dC 68881V Dianne Wintermute, LSUC 26043V Counsel for^he Intervener, Counsel for the Intervener, /Council of Canadians with Disabilities Council of Canadians with Disabilities
General Comment No. 5 (2017) on Living Independently and Being Included in the Community, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 72 Session, UN Doc CRPD/C/GC/5 (27 October 2017) at p 16. 38 Supra note 18 at p 10. 11
PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Case Law Paras
Abrahams v. Attorney General of Canada,1983 CanLII 17, Page 10 [1983] 1 SCR 2 (SCC)
Borges v Santos, 2017 ONCJ 651 at para 31, [2017] OJ 5031 31
Baker v Canada, (Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration) 70 [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817
Eldridge v British Columbia (AG), [1997] 3 SCR 624 at para 56 56, 151 DLR (4th) 577.
Gray v. Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program, 9-10 2002 CanLII 7805 (ONCA)
Miceli-Riggins v. Canada (Attorney General) [2014] 4 FCR 64 709; 285 CRR (2d) 348
Purtzki v. Saunders, 2016 BCCA 344 7
R v Hape, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292 53
S.A. v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 2017 BCCA 2, 410 D.L.R. (4th) 198 [Appeal Decision].
Stoor v. Stoor Estate, 2014 ONSC 5684 7
Secondary Sources Pages
Catalina Devandas-Aguilar, Report of the Special Rapporteur 7 of the Human Rights Council on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNGAOR, 71st Session, UN Doc A/71/314 (2016)
Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Canada, 12 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 72nd Session, UN Doc CRPD/C/CAN/CO/1 (2017)
General Comment No. 5 (2017) on Living Independently and 16 Being Included in the Community, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 72nd Session, UN Doc CRPD/C/GC/5 (27 October 2017) 12
Looking into poverty: Income sources of poor people with 14, 19, 36 disabilities in Canada by Cam Crawford, (Toronto: Institute for Research and Development on Inclusion and Society (IRIS) and Council of Canadians with Disabilities, 2013).
Lucie Dumais & Marie-Noëlle Ducharme, "Les coûts du 4-5 handicap au Québec : que font les ménages et comment les soutenir équitablement?" (2017) 11:2 European J of Disability Research 99–112 at 107; Note an English Summary of Results is Available at: Dumais, Lucie, Alexandra Prohet & Ducharme Marie-Noëlle. “Review of Extra Costs Linked to Disability”, (March 2015), online: Review of Extra Costs Linked to Disability | Council of Canadians with Disabilities
Mitra, Sophie et al. “Extra costs of living with a disability: A 475 review and agenda for research” (2017) 10:4 Disability and Health Journal 475 at 475.
Statistics Canada, Insights on Canadian Society – Persons with Disabilities and Employment, by Martin Turcotte, Catalogue No 75-006-X (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 3 December 2014)
Statistics Canada, Canadian Survey on Disability, 2012 3, 6, 18 (Ottawa: Minister responsible for Statistics Canada, 2015).
Legislations/Regulations Section(s)
General, O. Reg. 107/99 s. 1
General O Reg 222/98 1 (EN), 1 (FR)
Dispositions Générales Règl. de l'Ont. 222/98 38(1)(1)(v) (EN), 38(1)(1)(v) (FR),
43(1)(1)(iii) EN), 43(1)(1)(iii) (FR),
43(1)(9)(i) (EN), 43(1)(9)(i) (FR)
13
Employment And Assistance For Persons With Disabilities Schedule B, s. Regulation B.C. Reg. 265/2002 7(1)(d).
The Saskatchewan Assistance Regulations, 2014, RRS c S-8 12(3)(f) Reg 12
Legal Aid Regulations, CNLR 1010/96 Schedule E s. 1
International Treaties Article
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 30 Preamble (EN) March 2007, 2515 UNTS 3 at 70, Can TS 2010 No 8 (entered Art 19, 28 (EN) into force 3 May 2008, ratified by Canada 11 March 2010) [CRPD] Preamble (FR) Convention relative aux droits des personnes handicapées Art 19, 28 (FR)
Government Policy Documents Page
Government of Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Ontario Disability Support Program - Income Support - 5.9 - Disability-Related Items and Services (Social Assistance Policy Directives) (Toronto: Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2017)
Government of Ontario, Income Security: A Roadmap for 1 Change, by Income Security Reform Working Group, First Nations Income Security Reform Working Group & Urban Indigenous Table on Income Security Reform (Ottawa: Government of Ontario, October 2017)
Legal Aid Ontario, Financial Eligibility Test For Legal Aid 4 Certificates Version 1.2
v S.A. METRO VANCOUVER HOUSING CORPORATION
Appellant Respondent (Appellant) (Respondent)
Court File No.: 37551
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL) FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES
Dianne Wintermute Luke Reid ARCH Disability Law Centre 55 University Avenue, 15th Floor Toronto, ON M5J 2H7 Tel: (416) 482 8255 TTY: (416) 482-1254 Fax: (416) 482 2981 Email: [email protected] [email protected]
Counsel for the Proposed Intervener Council of Canadians with Disabilities