Accommodation at work: Fostering a welcoming and compliant work environment for people with disabilities

ACCOMODATION AT WORK

Julie: Okay, well it looks like our numbers are evening out. So good afternoon, or to our friends in Calgary and British Columbia, good morning and welcome. My name is Julie Wilson. I'm one of Gowling WLGs Legal Resources and Innovation Warriors and I'm also a member of the firm's Diversity and Inclusion council and Service Chair of the Communications Working Group for the council. Many of you may be wondering why Neena Gupta is not with us today, and for those of you who don't know Neena, she's a partner and brilliant employee lawyer with Gowling WLG. Unfortunately Neena was called into court on an urgent matter today so she's kindly asked me to introduce our speakers today. But before we get started, just a few housekeeping items. For those who need to record Professional Development Hours, today's program is eligible for up 2 hours of EDI Professionalism Credit, in Ontario, and for up to 2 hours of Professional Responsibility Credit in British Columbia. If you have any questions throughout the presentation, and we hope you do, please use the Q&A button which should be located at the bottom of your screen. The chat function is available as well but for questions please use the Q&A button. If you're wondering whether the presentation will be distributed the answer is yes. All attendees will receive a copy of the presentation and the program is being recorded and that will be posted on our website. So why are we here today? We're here today to learn how to foster a welcoming and compliant work environment for people with disabilities. 

It gives me great pleasure to introduce Lila Refaie and Kerri Joffe, from the Advocacy Research Centre for Disabilities, or ARCH. Lila is a bilingual intake lawyer and Student Program Lead at ARCH where she provides legal services to persons with disabilities across Ontario. Throughout her career Lila has practiced in poverty law and briefly in family and immigration law. She has appeared before several tribunals and courts. Lila also delivers public legal education and presentations to members of the legal profession on a variety of topics. A fun fact about Lila, in her free time she enjoys creating latch hook rugs. I find that very interesting, Lila. It's so unique. 

Joining Lila, Kerri is a human rights lawyer at ARCH who has been involved in disability rights litigation at various tribunals and courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada. Kerri has presented law form and policy submissions to many government bodies and the United Nations Committee on the rights of persons with disabilities. She has authored law reform reports for the Law Commission of Ontario and the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Government of Canada. Kerri has delivered extensive public legal education and throughout her career has worked on housing rights, social assistance programs, immigration and refugee issues and human trafficking. A fun fact about Kerri, a few years ago Kerri participated in an icy winter dip in the lake with a local polar bear club. I must admit, Kerri, you are very brave. So with that, I will now turn it over to Lila and Kerri, and I'm definitely looking forward to what comes next. 

Lila: Thank you, Julie, for that great introduction and welcome, everybody. Just before we begin, we just want to give everyone a brief roadmap of what we will be talking about today. So we will start off from the beginning to just explain to everybody who ARCH is and what kind of services that we provide. Just to give you a sense of what we do. We'll get into just brief comments on appropriate language and disability rights and different approaches when it comes to understanding disability. Following that we will get into general principles on accessibility and human rights legislation with a focus in Ontario laws as well as speak about how to provide and what is accessible legal services. We'll also talk about what could be best practices in terms of accessibility. We'll then speak to you about the Accessible Canada Act and the Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. 

So to start off, essentially ARCH is a specialty legal aid clinic that advances and defends the equality of rights of persons with disabilities in Ontario. We do represent, exclusively, persons with disabilities in Ontario and also do represent organizations that represent persons with disabilities. ARCH is governed by a volunteer board of directors and our bylaws actually ensure that the majority of the directors of the board identifies as having a disability. Also, just to let you know, we are primarily funded by Legal Aid Ontario.

In terms of the types of services and the work that we do, ARCH is involved in various different categories. The first category of type of work that we do is provide free and confidential summary advice and referrals to persons with disabilities, directly. I should note as well we provide this advice and referrals to persons with disabilities in Ontario, specifically. We also do provide representation and individuals, persons with disabilities, and organizations that are disability related, specifically in test cases. We also provide public legal education geared directly to persons with disabilities, and also do some continuing legal education to members of the legal profession, and also administrative tribunals on accessibility. ARCH also does a lot of work in law reform and as well as community development. I should also note that we also provide some case consults to lawyers and paralegals, who practice in Ontario, about any disability related issues that may come up in their case. Again, within the areas of practice that we specialize in, which I will speak to shortly. As well, since we consult with lawyers and paralegals in Ontario, we can only speak to cases that are happening in Ontario as well. 

The areas of practice that we specialize in, essentially, they are listed here on the slide which includes accessibility laws, attendant or PSW services. PSW referring to personal support workers. Education law, as it relates to disability. Transportation law as well including Municipal transportation, Provincial transportation or Federal transportation, as it related to disability as well. We also practice, more specifically, in discrimination and human rights with a focus on work place accommodations. In that term we really focus on advising or assisting employees with disabilities as long as they are not part of a union. We also provide advice on discrimination and human rights in elementary or secondary education as well as post-secondary education. We also do a focus on service animals in terms of people's rights to use service animals. Finally, another area of practice that we focus on, is decision making rights. More particularly supportive decision making, advising persons with disabilities who wish to remove guardianship and advising if a person with disabilities is having issues or wants to remove the public guardian trustee from their care. 

There are two dominant sociological type of models of understanding when we think of understanding disability. These two models are the medical model and the social model. So I will speak briefly about both of them so that you can understand the difference. The medical model of understanding disability puts more of a focus on the person as being the problem that needs to be fixed or cured. There's a stronger emphasis on clinical and medical diagnosis of the disability and the medical understanding puts forward that medical, psychological, rehabilitative services and treatment are the answers to disability. Whereas the social model of understanding puts more of a focus on society's reactions or inactions, built environment and attitudes that promote discrimination, exclusion, ableism as those are being the barriers. Barriers in society are what prevents persons with disabilities from being included and from participating in society. The social model of understanding really promotes that ending discrimination, segregation and removing barriers as a whole is really the answer. ARCH uses a social model of understanding in its work and the idea of removing barriers, as a whole, and promoting this type of model is relevant for both service providers, or in the service context, as it is in employment context. It really goes to society, whether it's a service provider or employer, to take proactive steps to remove barriers at the get go that would create, what we call a more disabling environment, for employees or clients with disabilities and ensuring inclusivity for them. This is, kind of in other words is, really the definition of what this model is trying to create which is a universal design, essentially, or inclusive design is another way to put it. So universal design is all about, again, removing barriers in society as a whole and ensuring that whatever environment is geared to, not only certain people in society but will be inclusive to all persons in society, regardless if they have a disability or don't have a disability. This model of understanding, the social model of understanding, has been many times recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, even. To give you examples, such as in Eldridge v. British Columbia and in Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education where the Supreme Court of Canada has directly accepted and recognized that a universal design and a social model of understanding is the way to really eliminate discrimination and remove barriers for persons with disabilities. I could give you an example of what that could look like in a work place environment example. In the sense of some persons with disabilities may have multiple chemical sensitivity, for example, and while they could request to you to be accommodated on an individual basis, universal design and a social model would rather dictate that it would be best for you to not necessarily wait for an individual request for accommodation, going case by case, but rather to implement from the get go a scent free policy, in that environment or in that work place. That way you eliminate the barrier that may be presented for some persons with disabilities to be able to access your service or access the office in some way or another. Essentially by making sure there is a policy where everyone abides by that to remain scent free in that environment. 

I'm going to speak a little bit now about different types of language and approach, in terms of what would be considered appropriate language and inappropriate language, particularly under the social model. Before I go through the list that we have here on the slide I just want to make a couple of comments. Essentially, the first thing to remember is that language is constantly evolving, and constantly changes to reflect any change of conception of disability in society, and can also change regarding different persons with disabilities that may use different kind of language to describe their own disability. The reason that we're talking about this, about what's appropriate and inappropriate and the importance of using appropriate language, is that it really helps to signal to your clients with disabilities, or persons with disabilities, that you are aware of the potential existence of ableism and you're aware of disability related issues. The other comment I want to make is that a bit related to what I said a bit earlier, is that while we have a list here of what would be considered appropriate language, it is important to note that some persons with disabilities may have different language that they use to describe their own disability. If they use a different type of language then it's important to mirror the language that they are using to refer to their own disability. One final note before we go through the list is really to remember that persons with disabilities will likely use whatever language is deemed comfortable for them. 

The list that we have here is just some very few examples of what ARCH has heard from our communities as being appropriate/inappropriate, and, again, I really want to stress that it could potentially change and has changed over the years and it could again change so it's not a rule of thumb, necessarily, for the future. So one thing, for example, using the word handicap may be deemed more of inappropriate term whereas we'd rather use the term disability. Another example, it would be more appropriate to use wheelchair user over wheelchair bound or confined to a wheelchair. Mentally retarded is an inappropriate term whereas it would be more appropriate to use person labelled with an intellectual or developmental disability. In terms of mental health, it's more appropriate to use the expressions, for example, a person with a mental health disability, psychiatric consumer survivor, instead of saying mentally ill or crazy. Our final example, it's more appropriate to use terms like culturally deaf, deaf, deafened or hard of hearing or person with a hearing disability instead of saying the deaf and dumb and things like that. 

So I'm going to now turn to more general principles about accessibility in more broader terms. Again, I do want to just remind everyone that while we are doing a focus on Ontario laws, I understand there are people that are here that may be from different Provinces, General principles may be just as relevant in other context but always ensure that you review your Provincial legislation related to accessibility or human rights. The first thing I wanted to talk about is accessible legal services. So what is that? Essentially, as lawyers we are legal service providers, so we provide a service. Because of that we have to ensure that our services that we provide to the public are accessible and that we also abide by our obligations under the human rights code, which we will talk about today. But before we get into all the details of the legislation I just want to give you a brief overview or examples of what is accessibility in legal services. Accessible legal services basically means that you are ensuring that your services are inclusive and that includes being inclusive at every single stage of the process of the file or the relationship with the client. For example, that would mean not denying any legal service to persons with disabilities because they have a disability. Any initial contact with your office, or meetings between you and the client, would also be made in an accessible manner. Any documents that are available for the client, they'd be made available in accessible format. It also means ensuring that your office policies ensure that it is an inclusive office and that these policies strive for having universal design. Finally, it could also include a possibility or considerations of any potential procedural accommodation needs that your client may have that are related to their disability. As I'm going through this list, yes they are related to legal service providers, but a lot of these are also applied to an employment context. As an employee of a firm office policies include ensuring inclusivity in the office. Procedural accommodations for the employee may also be necessary to look into or to consider and any documents within the office should also be available in accessible formats. 

In Ontario, specifically, there are three different pieces of legislation or rules that apply to accessibility, specifically in terms of lawyers and legal service providers. The first one is the Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act, or AODA for short. The Ontario Human Rights Code and the Law Society of Ontario's Rules of Professional Conduct. Just in terms, specifically to the Rules of Professional Conduct, there is a specific commentary to Rule 2.1(1) which states, in sum, that lawyers have special responsibilities to ensure that they recognize the diversity of the Ontario community and protect the dignity of individuals and respect human rights laws enforce in Ontario. So I will speak to both the AODA and the Human Rights Code just to give you a sense of specifically what each of those Acts actually speak to and what they mean for your obligations. 

First off, the AODA, when it was enacted it stated a goal that its purpose is to achieve accessibilities for Ontarians with disabilities and good services facilities, accommodation, employment, building structures and premises and gave itself a goal for this to be achieved by January 1st, 2025, which is coming up quite quickly. As part of the AODA there are a number of different standards which outlines very specific requirements in each area that service providers, employers and other people will need to abide by to ensure that all these areas are accessible for Ontarians with disabilities. Specifically, I could speak very briefly about two specific standards, which are included in the AODA, which is the customer service standard and the employment standards, which is the most relevant for today's presentation. The customer service standard essentially has many, many requirements, that I won't go through all of them today just because of the essence of time, but I do encourage everyone to read it. But essentially it does provide certain things that service providers have to abide by to ensure that their services are accessible. Some of those include having a policy that outlines several different measures that the service provider will take to ensure that their services are accessible. That includes measures related to the use of assisted devices, related to service animals and support persons, the manner in which persons with disabilities can communicate with them which takes into account their disability, and also their policy should include procedures related to any training on staff about accessibilities and about their policy related to service to persons with disabilities. Also a mechanism for the public to provide feedback on your services which would include as well accessible manners for which that feedback can be provided. Accessibility of policies needs to be made available to the public. 

In terms of the Employment Standards, a lot of it is similar, in a sense that their employers, under the AODA, have to have a process that ensures that any employees with disabilities can request accommodations and how they can request accommodations. They also need to ensure that their policies on this subject would include any process related to building a written accommodation plan for their employee with disability, and if there's any return to work process when the employee themselves have been absent, due to their disability and needs accommodations to return. But the other requirements as well that the Employment Standards gives to employers is that employers have to have an obligation to inform any candidates of the availability of any accommodations during the recruitment process and they also need to inform employees about the accommodation policy that's in place in the place of employment. As well any changes that's made to these policies. Further, the Employment Standard does speak to the fact that the employers have to make sure that any information that's provided to employees are available in alternative formats that would be accessible to employees with disabilities. So these are just very, very general requirements. There are many more but it's just important to know that these exist and that this is a requirement from the AODA. 

I spoke a bit about the accessibility policies that is required under the customer service standards. I just want to give a few more notes about that, which some of this I've already covered, but just there are somethings that I want to just specify even further. These policies should be in place with the goal of providing different ways that respect the independent and dignity of persons with disabilities when they are accessing your service. It's important to also note that the goal of these policies is to ensure that services for persons with disabilities are integrated with the provision of service to others and that persons with disabilities have an equal opportunity to use your services to that of other people. I did go a bit briefly over some specific requirements about this. I won't spend too much time on this slide but it's just to again stress the importance of what you need to include in any accessibility policy that you create under the AODA. So there are several things that you need to ensure that's there. Such as the use of assisted devices, allowing clients to attend with service animals or persons, alternative ways that people can communicate with you as a service provider, that takes into account their disability and, of course, staff training as well. 

I'm now going to turn over to the other piece of legislation which is Ontario's Human Rights Code. Just as a manner of introduction, section 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code states that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities without discrimination because of race and place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability. We focus on the protected ground of disability. So section 1 is really about services and the provision of services without discrimination. In terms of employment, in the employment context, it would be section 5 of the Human Rights Code which states, essentially the same or similar to this section, whereas every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of any of the protected grounds. So essentially both these sections, in the context of employment or services, they protect persons with disabilities, among other grounds against any discrimination in those contexts. There are also, where not going to spend any time on them but just so people are aware, there are also other social areas that are also protected against discrimination as well. But we're going to really focus today on employment and services. 

What is discrimination under the Human Rights Code? Generally it means being treated differently because of your disability and a different treatment has a negative impact on the person. That could be either through direct discrimination, which is discrimination that's clear from the facts from the events, for example a lawyer refusing services to a person because they have a disability which is very clear, or for example a lawyer refusing to provide an ASL interpreter to a client who is deaf. So those would be examples of direct discrimination. The other type of discrimination, which is more what we call indirect discrimination or adverse affect discrimination, and that is when a standard role or policy that seems to apply to everyone equally but has an actual larger negative effect on some groups or on some persons with disabilities. For example, a law firm or a sole practitioner may have a policy that no animals are allowed in the office. While on its face it may seem that it's not discriminatory. It applies equally to everybody, however, the negative effect would be if a client with a disability or an employee with a disability who use a service animal, they would be adversely impacted by this policy in the sense that they may view that as a barrier to either access your legal service or work there. So that would be an example of what would be an adverse affect discrimination. 

Persons with disability who encounter any barriers or discrimination can request that the service provider, legal service providers for example, accommodate their disabilities so that they can access their service. This also applies for an employee with a disability who has barriers or faces discrimination at work. They can request their employer to accommodate their disability. Accommodation basically means steps that must be taken to prevent or avoid discrimination and allow for full participation or equal access to the service or in the work place. Essentially, if you provide services you have a legal obligation to accommodate your clients with disabilities. That goes as well with the same as if you are an employer you have a legal obligation to accommodate employees with disabilities. The only limit about the duty to accommodate would be if the accommodation requested would cause undue hardship. When we speak about undue hardship it is a high bar to reach and the Code defines undue hardship essentially as unaffordable cost of the accommodation, considering any outside source of funding, or that it would jeopardize health and safety of others. So it's not necessarily any type of hardship that would discharge someone from their duty to accommodate the person with disability. It really has to be undue. 

In terms of when a person requests accommodations, generally speaking the person with disability has the responsibility to make their need for accommodation known to the service provider or employer. However, there is an additional duty on legal service providers to inquire. So really that's a duty to inquire. Essentially what a duty to inquire is means that if you suspect or believe that there's a reason that a person, your client for example with disability, may require some accommodations during the course of the services that you're providing to them or as well in terms of the litigation process, for example, then you have a duty to inquire with them about whether or not they have accommodation needs, or not. 

As part of, whether it's after you've inquired with them or they've explicitly told you that they need accommodations, then there would be the start of the accommodation process that would begin. As part of that process it's important that everyone involved, so the person with disability and the service provider or employer, really work together and collaborate together to try to find what is the appropriate accommodation that should be implemented for the person with disability. So the person has an obligation to participate in that process with you but they don't have the responsibility to find the solution. As well it's important to note that there is no obligation to have a perfect solution neither but really it's important to determine what is the appropriate accommodation to meet their needs so that they can access the service that you're providing. Another important note to remember is that if there's any cost related to the accommodation that's being provided, the service provider, or in the case of employment the employer, are the ones that are responsible for bearing those costs and it's not on the person with disability to pay for the accommodation. 

There are some ways that you're probably already accommodating the needs of your clients with disabilities. That includes ensuring that any meeting places are physically accessible for your clients. Providing written materials in alternative formats for people with vision disabilities, for example. You may already be providing longer appointments or several short appointments to allow your client to absorb the information that you're providing to them. You may also already be giving clients with cognitive or motion disabilities more time to consider their legal options and make a decision. You may also be already using clear language when you're providing them with legal advice in terms of avoiding any legalese or stuff like that. 

I'm now going to turn to essentially what are best practices that you can put in place already to ensure that your services are being provided in an accessible manner for clients with disabilities, and as well, to ensure that you're providing successful legal services, essentially. To start off, it's really a great practice and a responsibility on your part to accept the request for accommodation in good faith. It's also important that you take an active role in ensuring the range of possible accommodation solutions are identified and investigated during the accommodation process, and while you're trying to figure out what is the appropriate accommodation that would meet their needs, and that you provide accommodation requests in a timely manner. So these three first tips are equally important both as a legal service provider, but they also apply very strongly in terms of employment context, so when an employee with disability requests for accommodations. 

Other types of best practices you can already implement, as related to accessible formats of different documents or different information, that you provide to persons with disabilities. It's always best practice, in the same way as providing accommodations in a timely manner, to provide accessible formats and communication supports when requested in a timely way. That could include alternative formats of different documents and that you don't charge the person with disability for their request to get a more accessible format of a document. Just as it is for any types of accommodation it's very important to consult with the person with disability to identify what the suitable format or support for them. Even if there are several people with the same disability does not necessarily mean that they all have the same needs related to accessible formats or communication supports. So any disability related needs is very much individualized. Just need to be open to different types of accessible formats or supports and it's important from the start to consult with them and ask them what is suitable for them. As it is important for the public to be made aware of any accessibility policies that you have, it's also very good practice to notify the public that you have accessible formats and communication supports available to them. That way, by putting it forward before someone has to ask, a lot of times persons with disabilities may be more comfortable with asking if you've already indicated that you're open and that you have these ready for them if they need. 

Just a couple more general tips. It's always great practice in your physical office to know where elevators, ramps and accessible washrooms are located, in case someone asks for any of those, so you have the information handy. It's good practice to avoid any clutter in the office. Keep doors fully open or closed. This we've talked a lot about earlier in our presentation but I just want to reiterate that adopting a scent free environment in the office is a really great practice, especially in terms of universal design, and ensuring that you have meeting space that has enough room for people with mobility devices or other physical disabilities. Finally, also good to remember if a client or an employee with a disability uses a service animal and they come to the office with a service animal, to remember that service animals are working. It's important to respect that they are working and that they have a job to do towards the person with disability. It's good practice to also ask the client with disability if they want help before you assist with them. Offering to read written information out loud can be a very good practice as well. Particularly for persons with sight loss or vision disabilities, verbally offering your arm to them before assisting, is also good practice which goes back to the point of asking clients if they need help, or if they want help, before you assist. The last point that I want to make on best practices is that to start to use plain language when speaking with clients with disabilities. This goes a little bit to what we spoke a bit earlier about related to clear language, but plain language we're talking more about minimizing abbreviations, omitting the use of an unnecessary words, using a more active voice, using the word 'must' if you're speaking to a requirement, and if there's any more specialized language that you need to use, any legalese words that you absolutely need to use, then it's good practice to explain that to the client before or after you use the words so that they can understand what you're talking about in a more plain language way. 

Very, very quickly just wanted to speak to a few common concerns that we hear a lot from lawyers and people practicing, in terms of providing accessible legal services, and want to give a few suggestions for that. In terms of, from the start, there is common concerns that come up, in contact with the client or scheduling appointments with the client, it's good practice to offer any alternative methods for the initial contact. If a person needs a different way to contact your office for disability related reasons such as, normally they would contact you by phone, if there is other ways for them to contact you such as email or TTY or other ways, then to put it out there and offer it and vice versa. If it's by email, usually that is the initial contact, then to offer other different methods of contact. When clients contact you it's good practice to be prepared with any information that you may have on the accessible routes to your physical office if they need an accessible route. When you're scheduling appointments to just, from the beginning, just directly ask the client, or potential clients, if they need any accommodations for the appointment. That could meet, at least partly, your duty to inquire at that moment. You can prepare, if there's any accommodations, you have time to implement the accommodations before the appointment. Another common concern that we hear from legal service providers is the use of email communication as an accommodation. Won't go into too much detail just because of time, but I just wanted to mention a few things to keep in mind, to ensure that while you're fulfilling your duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code you also have to make sure that you're also fulfilling any obligations that you have under the Rules of Professional Conduct, such as having confidentiality disclaimers in an email to a client, ensuring that any documents that are being sent or exchanged with the client by email could be password protected, ensuring that they are in read only or PDF format. So those are just several different types of things to consider. The other thing I wanted to note about email communication is if a person requests written communication such as email as an accommodation, it should kind of like ring a bell in your minds that you may need to inquire with the client as to whether or not they may need accommodations in other aspects of the litigation process, or other sections that are involved within the file or the legal matter that you're assisting them with. The duty to accommodate is not limited to just contact with you. It can also extend to other stages in the file including is there any accommodations that may be needed for a hearing, for example. Or settlement conferences, for example. So those are things that you just need to keep in mind, that those may be something to think about. 

The final concern, I'm running a bit overtime, but the final concern that I really want to speak about, or common concern, is the use of support persons. There may be times where a person with disability would bring a support person with them, to either meet with you or during any of the processes that's involved in their file, and that could be either to help them feel comfortable, other times it may be to help them with communication or mobility or personal care, medical needs or just to help them to access your service. So it's important to note that the person with disability, that is your client must consent, still, to have the support person with them during the meeting. Where obviously there would likely be confidential information that is discussed and some of things that may happen during the meeting, with the support person and the person with disability, is that the support person may help communicate the information that either the person with disability is giving you, or vice versa. They may help communicate the information you're giving to the person with disability, or may help to clarify some things about the decision that the person with disability has to make, and they may ask questions to help clarify some information so that the person with disability can better understand. However, regardless of how the support person is involved, there is a reason that they're there, the person with disability is still making their own decision. So it's important to continue to communicate directly with the person with disability because they are your client. Having a support person present does not constitute a waiver of any solicitor/client privilege that you have with your client. In terms of getting consent from the person with disability to include this support person, it's good practice to speak to your client before the meeting or before having the support person there, to make sure that they're comfortable with them being there during the meeting that you're having. Because the support person can be either a paid professional, but it could also be a family member or friend, and maybe the client is not necessarily comfortable after speaking to you. So you just need to make sure that they are aware and they consent to have that support person present. The other thing to remember is that during the meeting to continuously check in with the client if they're still comfortable with having the support person continuing to be part of the meeting. It's good practice to have the support person sign a confidentiality agreement, just to protect your client's privacy interests. But also you should be aware of any potential conflicts that the support person may bring. Either conflicts of interest or other types of conflicts and make sure that whenever the support person is there, if there is potential conflict, that they don't take over what you need to represent, which is your client's interest. 

Essentially, just in conclusion, if someone's having difficulty accessing your services, your legal services, first thing to do, consult with them directly. There may be times where you it's appropriate to consult with relevant agencies, or to consult with your manager, but what's important is to talk to the person with disability to try to figure out ways to accommodate them. Point also though, review any human rights considerations and obligations that you have, including whether or not the person's requesting accommodation, whether you've inquired appropriately what is the nature of the accommodation that's requested, and etcetera. There's a lot of different types of human rights consideration that you should keep in mind. So there are resource materials on the Ontario Human Rights Commission website that's geared specifically towards service providers, to support them in developing human rights best practices and approaches, and ARCH also has several resource materials available on our website, specifically to lawyers and paralegals, to help them with determining or how to provide accessible legal services. We have put in the links at the end of this PowerPoint to those resources. 

Just before we get into the questions, just general tips to remember. Always ensure that your clients know that you're open to accommodating any disability related needs that they have. Periodically check in with them to see if their accommodation needs have changed or if there's new accommodation needs that came up. As well, if there are any accommodations that your client may need at any stage of the litigation process contained with the file, that you work with them to arrange appropriately for when you get to that stage. A couple of things to remember is that the Human Rights Tribunal states very specifically that unless it's absolutely necessary clients are not obligated to disclose their medical diagnosis to you, in terms of when they're asking for accommodations. The only exception is if it's absolutely necessary to determine the accommodation or implement the accommodation. Also, just a reminder, persons with disabilities do not have the legal obligation to bear the cost of any the disability related accommodations that's being provided. Finally, just remember the person with disability is the expert on their disability and accommodation needs. Consult with them. Always defer to them about what their needs are and how you can best accommodate them. 

Just to start off the Q&A, or before we start the Q&A, I did prepare a scenario for you to reflect on and maybe we could start off the discussions on that. I will read through the scenario and then we'll launch a quick poll to gauge the audience's initial thoughts. 

Mona is a long time client of your office. In past discussions she disclosed to you that she has multiple sclerosis. She walks with a cane and sometimes needs a wheelchair. On several occasions she informed you that she often experiences extreme fatigue, lack of coordination, weakness, impaired sensation, vision problems, cognitive impairment and mood changes. You notice at times that Mona doesn't fully engage in your conversations with her over the phone. You need to schedule a meeting with Mona to discuss an update on her case and review important documents with her. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic you schedule a virtual meeting via Zoom. On the date of the meeting she signs into Zoom meeting at the appointed time and informs you that today is not a great day for her. My question to all, and we'll send a poll about this, is do you think that you can still meet with Mona? 

Okay. I think we have the results. So, it seems to be a strong sense that people think the answer is no. If anyone wants to discuss I think it would be great if someone would want to say any comments from the camp that answered yes, first, to explain why they think that you can still meet with the client. 

Audience: The reason I answered yes was that you don't know yet what not a great day for her means for her. There is perhaps room for dialogue about how she's feeling, and what the impact is for her that day, before you decide to reschedule. 

Lila: Okay. Thank you. I believe there was another person that said. 

Audience: I said yes as well because along the same lines. It may not be because she's having a bad day at that time but could you maybe reschedule and ask about when we could reschedule rather than just saying no automatically. 

Lila: Okay. Okay. Thanks. So maybe we could get a couple of people, or one person or two, from the no camp. Would be interested for your thoughts as well. 

Audience: I said no but it was for the same reason that they said yes ... ... Now I'm wondering if most of the people who said no probably had the exact same answer. 

Lila: Okay. Okay, no, that's great. Maybe I could give you also my thoughts as well. So essentially, someone did mention this, it's not necessarily whether they're saying it's not a great day doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have capacity, or that they can't meet with you that day, or need to be rescheduled, what is the important thing to remember is that because she's informing you that today's not a great day to really inquire with her, at the start of the meeting, what that means. What does not being a great day mean? Does it mean that she wants to reschedule or maybe it means that there's some specific accommodations that she would require on this specific day or meeting, so that she can fully participate in the meeting with you. From your perspective as a legal service provider, it's not necessarily automatically, no we can't meet with her at all, or neither that we have to automatically reschedule. It's really an indication to you that you need to talk this through with her to figure out what's going on and at that point discuss with her if there is any accommodation needs that she may need during the meeting. That could include, and just giving some examples here, but that could include maybe she can still meet with you but would need the information that you're providing, or a summary of the discussions in writing, after the meeting from you so that she can, again, process the information or take more time to process the information that you're providing to her. Or maybe that means that you would have to discuss whatever you need to discuss with her or review the documents with her and use more plain language then what she needed before. So this is kind of an example of potentially having new accommodation needs that come up that may not have been present before. Or maybe if this meeting is related to making a decision on a certain part of the case, maybe Mona, what she would need is more time to review the documents that you're providing to her or the new documents in her case. Or even more time to process the information that you're providing to her, whether or not she needs a summary in writing, following the meeting. So, of course, these are just very different examples and it may also include a potential of that maybe she ask to reschedule the meeting to another day. But really goes back to the point of having that discussion with her. Inquiring about what does that mean, that it's not a great day and whether or not she needs any accommodations for the meeting or wants to reschedule, and that we cannot make decisions on her behalf about what she needs or how she wants to proceed, given whether or not today is a great day, but really that to consult with her about what she would want as an accommodation, if she needs accommodations. Whether it's a summary at the end of the meeting, in writing. Whether it's more time to review the documents on her own before making a decision on her case. Whether it's rescheduling or maybe it's not disability related and maybe she doesn't need accommodations but all this extra information you would only know after really fulfilling your duty to inquire, with Mona, at the beginning of the meeting regarding what she needs. 

So thank you so much for everyone for their thoughts about this and open to opening the discussion if anyone has further questions about this or other questions, happy to answer them. 

Julie: Lila, I think there were some individuals who answered no but they actually meant, and I think you touched on this and some of the others touched on this too, but they said no, meaning not that particular day but they would ask Mona if there was a new date or time that would work better for them. 

Lila: HmHmm. Yeah, absolutely. I understand that that may be more of a maybe type of answer but, for sure. Like I said earlier essentially, whether or not there's a need to reschedule, or whether or not Mona wants to reschedule the appointment, I think that is an important question to ask her but does not necessarily mean at the very start that you just end the meeting. I think that's the point I was trying to get across. That a duty to inquire would include, at the beginning of the meeting when she informs you that today's not a great day, to talk through, okay why is it not a great day? What can I do or what do you need in terms of next steps right now? Do you want to meet today, to continue the meeting today, and as we're meeting do you need any another accommodations that we could put in place for today's meeting? Or is the accommodation that you need is to reschedule to a later time? So it's not necessarily, maybe my question was a bit too general too large, but it's not necessarily to say that you can't meet her at all on the scheduled day. It's just depending on what the conversation would be. As you're logging into Zoom she tells you that and it's different to just end the meeting there versus let's talk about this. Let's see what's going on and if there's any accommodation needs I should provide so that we can either continue with the meeting or reschedule or if I could provide any accommodations for you, either following the meeting or during the meeting so that we can still meet. Is that clearer? 

Julie: Yeah, I think that's fantastic. We have another question too and it's do employers have a duty to inquire into a need for accommodation similar to legal service providers? 

Lila: So they do. Short answer is yes. Employers and service providers, for the most part, of course there are certain details that may be a bit different, but for the most part the duty to accommodate is applicable to employers just as they are to service providers, and then that includes a duty to inquire if an employee with disability may need accommodations in their employment but have not specifically asked it. A lot of times this may come up in performance measures, evaluation, whereas the AODA actually does explicitly say that employers have to consider any disability related needs when they're evaluating a performance of an employee. So definitely the duty to inquire is part of a duty to accommodate and just as service providers have that need to inquire, so do employers do as well. I should actually mention, which I don't think I have in my presentation but I should mention that, and this applies to both employers and legal service providers, during the accommodation process and providing accommodations and during the duty to inquire, it's important to keep in mind that any information or discussions that you're having with the person with disability about their accommodation needs or disability related needs, has to be kept strictly confidential. They do have privacy rights with regards to what their accommodation needs are. I hope that answers the question.

Julie: We have another individual I think who has raised their hand. 

Lila: Sure. If the person that raised their hand they could. 

Julie: Oops. Maybe not. But there are a couple of other questions. What are some concerns you have about accessibility now that court and tribunal services are all virtual? 

Lila: There are definitely several concerns that are coming up and some of those concerns are really, as courts and tribunals are holding their hearings in a virtual manner now, there is a concern that maybe some accommodations in the hearing or the litigation process may not be fully implemented. Or there may be a lack of properly accommodating a party with disability. The other concern is the actual format of these virtual process, both in terms of documents or pleadings or applications being only available online, that does place some barriers to persons with disabilities in terms of the format of those documents or of those processes not being necessarily in accessible manner for persons with disabilities. So those are just some of the general concerns that we are starting to see with a virtual court and tribunal system that needs to be addressed, for sure. 

Julie: Thank, Lila, and there's one more question. If an organization has fulfilled its obligations under the AODA standards, is it still necessary to comply with the Human Rights Code? 

Lila: So, short answer is, absolutely. The AODA and the Human Rights Code are two different pieces of legislation. They're meant to compliment each other. Not meant to override one another. So the AODA was not implement or enacted to replace the Human Rights Code and vice versa. Both the AODA and the Human Rights Code both address completely different legal responsibilities that we have as service providers or that employers have. The AODA refers more generally to the accessibility and removal of barriers in general. Whereas the Human Rights Code is really about ensuring that no one's being discriminated against and speaks to the importance of the duty to accommodate persons with disabilities on their individual needs. So they're meant to compliment each other and not replace each other. Even if you are compliant with the AODA you still need to be compliant with the Human Rights Code and your obligations under the Code as well. 

Julie: That is good to know. Thanks, Lila. I believe that's it for the questions. 

Lila: Okay, great. So I guess I'll turn it now to my colleague, Kerri, who will start off with the next part of our presentation. 

Kerri: Great, thank you very much, Lila. I think the answer to your last question about the need to comply both with your obligations under the AODA accessibility legislation and the Human Rights Code is a great segue into my part of the presentation, which is really talking about the Accessible Canada Act, which is a Federal legislation. Federal accessibility legislation. But quiet similar in some respects to the AODA and some of the things that you discussed over the last hour. So the Accessible Canada Act came into force in July 2019, and it's purpose is to create a Canada without barriers by January 1st, 2040, which may feel like a long time from now but I think is actually not that far away. The way that the Accessible Canada Act proposes to do this is to identify, remove and prevent barriers in a number of areas within Federal jurisdiction. So those areas include employment, the built environment, information and communication technologies, communication which is clear in the legislation that that refers to something different than information and communication technologies, and procurement and the design and delivery of programs and services and Federal transportation as well. Could you grab the next slide, Lila? Thank you. 

So as I said the Act applies within Federal jurisdiction and so I've listed here, not all of the entities to which it applies, but this is a number of them just to give you a sense of the scope of the legislation. So it applies to Federally regulated transportation providers. That includes airlines, ferries, inter-Provincial buses, trains and the terminals that serve them. It applies to broadcasting and telecommunications operators. Federally regulated organizations and businesses. So banks, grain elevators and mills, uranium mining and processing, atomic energy plants. It also applies to the Government of Canada services, programs, departments and agencies. Federal courts and tribunals. Federal Crown Corporations such as Canada Post and the National Gallery and also Canadian Forces and the RCMP. Note here is that the government said that the Act applies to First Nations Band Councils as well because they are considered to be operating and undertaking that falls within Federal jurisdiction, but given the particular context and varied nuance situation of accessibility within First Nations jurisdictions, the government agreed to exempt the application of the Act and the accessibility regulations to First Nations Band Councils for the first 5 years. There are a few projects currently underway which I think are trying to figure out how the Act should apply within the particular context of Indigenous communities. Can we go to the next slide? 

So how will the Act identify and prevent barriers in all these areas and Federal jurisdiction? It empowers the Government of Canada and the Canadian Transportation Agency and the CRTC to create new accessibility regulations. Those regulations will be developed through the usual processes, and once passed those regulations will create new legally binding obligations on all of those entities that I just discussed that the Act applies to, to actually take proactive steps to identify and remove and prevent barriers in the areas under the legislation. The Government of Canada and the Canadian Transportation Agency follow essentially the same process to develop regulations, and that is the Cabinet directive on regulations, and that process incorporates two public consultation periods during regulatory development. The first is before the text of the regulation is developed where the government or the Canadian Transportation Agency will consult with the public, including people with disabilities and industry on the broad regulatory concepts and goals, and then the second point in the regulatory development process is after the text of the regulation has been drafted and published in the Canada Gazette, the public then has an opportunity to provide input, and I'll talk a little bit more about the various states at which some of the regulations are at in that process in a couple of slides. The CRTC also will develop regulations around accessibility but the CRTC follows a slightly different process to do that. In addition to regulations, the Act also empowers the Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization, which has now changed its name to Accessibility Standards Canada, to create new accessibility standards. Can we go to the next slide? Thanks.

Each of those agencies, the Government of Canada, the CRTC and the Canadian Transportation Agency is empowered to create regulations within its sphere of competency and those regulations will address three different types of issues, or areas, under the Act. The Canadian Transportation Agency will create a new accessibility regulation for Federally regulated transportation providers, which will set requirements about how those providers have to make their services accessible for people with disabilities. They will also create regulations around accessibility plans, progress reports and feedback mechanisms that Federal transportation providers need to create to identify, remove and prevent barriers in their services. The Agency will also create regulations around how to enforce those previous two regulations with transportation providers. Similarly, the CRTC also is empowered to create new accessibility regulations for broadcasting and telecommunications providers like television, radio, internet providers and telephone companies about how to ensure that their services are fully accessible for people with disabilities, and they will also create regulations about how those broadcasting and telecom providers need to create new accessibility plans, progress reports and feedback mechanisms for people to give feedback about how well they're doing and implementing their accessibility obligations. As well, the CRTC is also empowered to create regulations around enforcement of those other two regulations. Then finally, the Government of Canada also has powers under the legislation to create new accessibility requirements for the other Federally regulated entities that are not transportation providers or telecom and broadcasting providers. It can also create accessibility regulations that apply to certain aspects of transportation and telecommunications and broadcasting, for example, employment, some aspects of the built environment and some elements of communication in respect to those issues. Then similar to the Canadian Transportation Agency and the CRTC will also create regulations around accessibility plans, reporting requirements and feedback mechanisms for those entities and regulations that speak to enforcement. Can we go to the next slide? Thank you.

To give you a sense of the regulations that have already been developed and those that are currently in development, the transportation for persons with disabilities regulation is a regulation that was developed by the Canadian Transportation Agency. That regulation, it speaks to accessibility and Federal transportation for large transportation providers like airlines, railways, inter-Provincial buses and ferries. It actually wasn't developed within the Accessible Canada Act framework but the Agency has said that it will use its powers under the Accessible Canada Act to enforce this regulation. The regulations that are presently in the process of being developed, the first is Guidelines on Accessible Transportation, which apply to small and medium transportation providers. So the Canadian Transportation Agency is presently consulting on those guidelines. Those are not regulations. They're guidelines but they will form the basis for regulations about accessible transportation for small and medium providers, which we expect in 2022. The other regulations that are presently in development are the Accessible Transportation Planning and Reporting Requirements. Those are requirements that were developed by the Canadian Transportation Agency, and recently published in Canada Gazette 1, and they speak to requirements around what transportation providers need to do to develop accessibility plans, update those plans regularly and also develop feedback mechanisms for people to give them feedback about how well they're implementing their accessibility goals. We anticipate that that regulation will be final by the end of summer, 2021. Other regulations in development are the Technical regulations for administrative and monetary penalties and accessibility planning and reporting requirements that have been developed by the Government of Canada, and those apply to Federal Government departments, the Canadian Forces, Federal Agencies and Crown Corporations, and provide various dates and requirements by which those entities would need to publish their accessibility plans, update those plans and develop their feedback processes. That regulation also speaks to enforcement provisions of the Act and it classifies violations of the new accessibility requirements as minor, serious or very serious, and then according to which classification a violation would fall under, that's how the regulation determines what kind of monetary penalty could be imposed for non-compliance. Just for interest, the range of those penalties is starting at $250.00 for a minor first time violation and all the way up to $250,000.00 for very serious fourth or subsequent violation. Next slide, please. Thank you. 

As I said, the Act also empowers the Accessibility Standards Canada to create accessibility standards. So different than regulations. Standards are actually non-binding guidelines on accessibility, and those would be developed by committees that are struck by Accessibility Standards Canada, and could be recommended to the Minister to be made into regulations. I think that's an important and sort of interesting aspect to the legislation because those standards, even if they're not made into binding regulations, really could still be put into the public and could still be used as the guidelines for best practices on accessibility by the various Federal entities that are regulated by the legislation. Next slide, please.

The standards will address all of the areas in the Accessible Canada Act. Employment, the built environment, information and communication technology, communication programs and services, transportation and procurement and Accessibility Standards Canada has made it clear that the first standards to be developed, those would be standards for outdoor spaces, plain language, emergency exits and employment. Those were decided upon based on a priority setting exercise that was done. Next slide. 

There also is a complaint mechanism available under the Accessible Canada Act. It is a new process for individuals who've been adversely impacted, or affected, to complain about contraventions of the accessibility regulations that I just discussed previously. Those complaints will be made to the Accessibility Commissioner, which is a new position that's been created within the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and that Commissioner will be empowered to investigate complaints, issue orders for corrective measures that need to be taken to correct a violation, and could also issue an order for financial compensation to the individual who's been adversely affected. Important to note that these complaints will apply to certain areas within the Accessible Canada Act and there are other complaint mechanisms that are already available to the Canadian Transportation Agency and the CRTC within the scope of their powers, in terms of accessible transportation, broadcasting and telecommunications, but the ACA did broaden some of the scope of the availability of those already existing complaint mechanisms and also the types of remedies that those other agencies could award. Another important thing I think to note here is that complaints to the Accessibility Commissioner, although the Accessibility Commissioner is a post within the Canadian Human Rights Commission, those complaints do not replace the existing complaint process to the Canadian Human Rights Commission in respect of discrimination or complaints of violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. So those complaints are still available, presently, and will continue to operate alongside these new accessibility complaints. Last slide. Thank you. 

So I wanted to give you just a couple of highlights about the Accessible Canada Act from a disability rights perspective. A few years ago when the Federal Government announced its intention to develop this legislation, there really was a lot of excitement in disability communities, and I wanted to highlight for you some of the key provisions that disability communities were able to advocate for as they ACA was being developed and as it worked its way through the Parliamentary process. There was a lot of very active lobbying of government for amendments to the legislation to really try to make it as strong and robust as possible and to ensure that it really has a real impact for people with disabilities in their day to day lives. The two hard won amendments that disability communities were able to achieve, are both in the principle section of the Act, and that's section 6. Section 6 of the Act says, "This Act is to be carried out in recognition of, and in accordance with the following principles," it lists a number of principles and one of those includes the principle that laws, policies, programs, services and structures must take into account the disabilities of persons, the different ways that persons interact with their environments and the multiple and intersecting forms of marginalization and discrimination that they face. So that provision was really important for disability communities to get in the Act. Something that reflects intersectionality and multiple different forms of discrimination. The other piece, the other principle that was important was the last one that's under section 6, which says that, "The development and revision of accessibility standards and regulations must be done with the objective of achieving the highest of level of accessibility for persons with disabilities." I think those principles really speak to the spirit and intent of the legislation and the aspirations that people with disabilities for what this legislation can really achieve. It was important for people that that principle section remain not just nice words, but was actually implemented, and so there are sections of the legislation that require regulated and seize to take into account those principles when they develop their accessibility plans. That's something that I think disability communities can hold regulated and seize to account and also that lawyers can urge their clients to really take seriously when they develop these accessibility plans. 

I'm just noticing the time so I think I'll stop there and see if there are any questions or comments from people. 

Julie: So, Kerri, we do have a couple of questions and one has to do with Federal contractors, and how and if that will apply, the Accessible Canada Act, will apply to Federal contractors? 

Kerri: That is a good question. I don't know the answer to that. If anybody else in the crowd knows please feel free to chime in. 

Julie: Okay, while we're thinking about that one, there's another question. Are there any more details about how regulated entities should consult with people with disabilities when they develop their accessibility plans? 

Kerri: Yeah, that's a great question. As the question points out, there is an obligation for regulated entities to consult with people with disabilities when they develop their accessibility plans and when they revise and update their accessibility plans. The regulations that I was speaking about earlier that are currently in development do give some requirements about what needs to go into a plan. But there's really not a lot of detail around the consultation piece. There are a few kind of like best practices or ideas that I can share, based on ARCHs work and our project that we actually currently have about what is meaningful participation of people with disabilities look like in the context of this legislation. I think a key piece here is to ensure that the consultation is really meaningful, not just like a check box, and part of that is ensuring that you have a range of diverse perspectives. We know that disability communities are very heterogeneous, going back to that point in the principle section of the Act around intersectional discrimination and experiences. It's really important to make sure that your consulting with people who bring a broad array of experiences around disabilities and intersectional experiences. I think it's also important to think about whether the consultation allows for meaningful engagement. So opportunities for people to understand and share how the accessibility plan could impact their lives. What are some of key barriers that they think it should address and how this could really make a difference? Then another piece that I think is really important around consultation is responsivity. Is there some transparency and accountability for how the information that's received from participants in the consultation? How is that actually being used by the organization? How does it influence the development of their plan and what kind of communication is there to the group that was consulted with about what impact the information they gave actually had on the development of the plan? As I said, these are some of our ideas. None of this is actually mandated in the draft regulations. I think a lot of it will come down to best practices and possibly guidelines. 

Julie: I think, for the most part, this question I think you have answered this, Kerri, but if there was anything else you wanted to add about the consultation requirement under the ACA and what substantive requirements there are about consultation with people with disabilities?

Kerri: Yeah, so I just spoke to that. So the Act requires consultation. The regulations that are currently being developed do say a little bit more about that but really there's not a lot of very specific details that are required. Like I said, there are a lot of best practices that are out there, but I think it will be up to regulated entities to determine how they're going to implement those, and hopefully there are lawyers to encourage them to really take a really robust approach to consultation and kind of really think about how to do consultation in a real meaningful way. 

Julie: Fantastic. Thanks, Kerri. I don't see any other questions right now. 

Kerri: Okay, great. I think we can go on then to the last part of our presentation which is talking about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I'm going to call it the CRPD for short because that's a bit of a mouthful. Because we're short on time I'll just talk briefly about the UN Convention. So this is an international human rights treaty that provides for rights and freedoms for persons with disabilities. It has 30 articles in it that provide specific rights to people with disabilities and those rights run the whole range of sort of all areas of life that you could imagine. I just listed some examples there. Living independently and being part of the community. Access to education. Access to boating and participation in political life. Accommodations and employment and really, like I said, it extends to most areas of life. Next slide, please. 

So Canada ratified the CRPD in 2010 and ratification is the act by which the Federal Executives, the Government of Canada, agrees to be bound by the provisions, the rights and freedoms, in the CRPD. Canada did ratify the CRPD with a reservation and interpreted declaration to one of the articles and I can speak a little bit more about that if people are interested in that, in the questions. Canada also acceded to the CRPD optional protocol in 2018. The optional protocol is actually a separate agreement to the CRPD and it provides for two ways that people in Canada can bring complaints about CRPD violations to the United Nations. One of those ways is in an individual mechanism called communication and that's an allegation that Canada has violated an individuals, or a group of individuals, CRPD rights and that mechanism is only available after people have exhausted all of their domestic legal remedies. The other mechanism under the optional protocol is request for systemic inquires. So that's where you would write to the UN and ask that they launch an investigation into an alleged situation of grave or systematic violations of CRPD rights in Canada. If the UN accepts they would do that investigation and then issue a finding and recommendations about that. It's the UN Committee on the rights of persons with disabilities that deals with both of those mechanisms. Important to note that both of those mechanisms lead to recommendations to Canada about steps it can take to better implement the CRPD or to stop the violation if there's a finding that a violation has occurred. But there's no black letter enforcement of those recommendations in the way that that would be possible in the domestic context. Next slide, please. Thank you. 

Part of ratifying or signing onto the CRPD is that the UN has this oversight role to oversee Canada's implementation of the CRPD. So there's sort of a process that exists at the UN where Canada files a country report explaining how it's implementing various provisions of the CRPD, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission files similar kinds of reports, and people with disabilities and disabled persons organizations also file their own reports. The UN then reviews all of that information and issues its findings and concluding observations which really are a set of recommendations to Canada on where is Canada doing well in implementing the Convention Rights and where does it need to take additional steps. The other mechanism at the UN for overseeing the CRPD is the special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities. The special rapporteur actually has a mandate related to the UN's sustainable development goals but the CRPD is very closely connected with those goals, and so the special rapporteur really has a position to raise awareness about the sustainable development goals and the CRPD, and turn to dialogue with government and can also do country reports. There was a country report by the special rapporteur in 2018 about Canada. Again, making a number of findings about how the CRPD is implemented in Canada and recommendations for enhancing and improving that implementation. Anybody wants a copy of that report I'm happy to share a link after today. Great, can we go to the last slide? Thank you. 

So, very quickly, the CRPD in Canadian law. The CRPD has not been wholly incorporated into Canadian domestic law. Meaning there's no statute, Federally or at the Provincial or Territorial level, that says Canada's adopting and incorporating the CRPD in its entirety into our domestic law. That's important because if a treaty has been ratified by Canada, so ratified at the international level but not yet fully incorporated into our domestic law, then its not enforceable in the same way as domestic law is in our Country. That's not to say that the CRPD has no impact in Canadian law. It is still used in court and tribunal decisions, and it's really used most often in terms of the presumption of conformity, a common law presumption which is that Parliament intended to legislate in a manner consistent with Canada's international human rights obligations, and so the provisions of those international human rights treaties that Canada has ratified can be a useful guide to help interpret and apply the provisions of domestic law. So that's how the CRPD is usually used. I will say that despite sort of the second class, I suppose, nature of the CRPD as an international instrument in Canadian law, even though we have that happening at the court and tribunal level, there is still a responsibility on the Federal and Provincial and Territorial Governments to implement the provisions of the Convention as a result of their ratification of the Convention. So I think I'll stop there. There's a ton more that we could talk about the CRPD but I'll just stop there and see if anybody has any questions or comments they'd like to make. Either about the CRPD or anything else that Lila and I have discussed today in our presentation. 

Okay. I'm not sure there are. Are there any questions? I don't see any.

Julie: There aren't and I think people are just being respectful of your time because we are at the top of the hour. On behalf of Gowling WLG I just want to thank you for this really informative and interesting presentation and for sharing your time with us like this. I would also like to thank all of our clients who attended. We are very pleased to have you and hope you enjoyed the presentation and learned a lot from it as I certainly have. So thank you all. Thank you all who attended and have a safe and lovely afternoon.