38-4 The Law and Persons with Disabilities

Persons with Disabilities and the Law – Resources for Research

March 6, 2014 By Alberta Law Libraries

Persons with disabilities come from all walks of life, age groups, cultures, and geographic areas of Canada. An estimated 3.8 million adult Canadians reported being limited in their daily activities due to a disability in 2012; this represents 13.7% of the adult population. [1] Persons with disabilities may face challenges and social barriers that prevent them from participating fully in the community. For example, they may encounter barriers to enjoyment of their equality rights; they may have difficulty securing accommodations at work; or they may experience challenges in accessing the justice system.

If you are interested in learning more about how the justice system is responding to the needs of people with disabilities, Alberta Law Libraries would be an excellent starting point for your research. Persons with disabilities may experience barriers to full and equal access to justice. Law librarians are experts at finding legal information. We can introduce you to the most relevant and trustworthy sources, both on the Internet and in the libraries’ own collections. This article provides examples of some information that can help with research regarding three aspects of the topic: Raising Awareness; Human/Equality Rights; and Access to Justice.

Raising awareness

Two sites aimed at raising awareness of disabilities within the Justice system are FASD and The Justice System and Mental Health and the Law.

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is a non-hereditary, permanent and often non-visible disability that affects adults and children around the world. As a resource for legal professionals and others who want to understand FASD, the FASD Justice Committee developed the FASD and The Justice System website. With case law, background information, and practical tips and strategies for dealing with the unique problems presented by participants in the justice system with FASD, this site is a valuable resource.

Recognizing that the law impacts the lives of persons with mental or psychiatric illnesses, the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) has published information on Mental Health and the Law. The information includes reports produced by and for the MHCC, and related documents, all of which address the experiences of persons with mental illnesses in the court system, with the police, and in other legal situations.

Human rights and equality rights

Human and equality rights are important subjects for research regarding people with disabilities and the law. The right to equality and the duty to accommodate are guaranteed by law in Canada. Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equal benefit and protection before and under the law. It makes it illegal for governments in Canada to discriminate against people with disabilities in their laws and programs. The Canadian Human Rights Act and the Alberta Human Rights Act prohibit discrimination on the grounds of physical or mental disability. Librarians can show you books, websites, and pamphlets that provide general background in this area of law.

To learn more about human and equality rights as they relate to persons with disabilities, a librarian might suggest a visit to the website of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD). It is a national human rights organization of people with disabilities working for an inclusive and accessible Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Act and the Alberta Human Rights Act prohibit discrimination on the grounds of physical or mental disability. Librarians can show you books, websites, and pamphlets that provide general background in this area of law.The CCD has intervened in many test cases, and the website links to not only the cases but also to related court documents such as affidavits and written arguments. Similarly, the Arch Disability Law Centre, a not-for-profit organization that works with individuals with disabilities and the disability community has represented individuals and groups in significant disability-related cases, many at the Supreme Court of Canada.

For more information on human rights in Alberta, you can visit the website of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). It offers useful Information Sheets, including one on Mental or Physical Disabilities and Discrimination. AHRC decisions are available on CanLII and can be searched or browsed.

Under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Alberta Human Rights Act , employers have a legal duty to take reasonable steps to accommodate an employee’s individual needs. To read about persons with mental or psychiatric disabilities and accommodation in employment, librarians might point you to the website Mental Health Works, published by the Canadian Mental Health Association, Ontario.

Access to Justice

Persons with disabilities may experience barriers to full and equal access to justice. Law librarians can show you online resources created by organizations that work to educate lawyers, judges, and others participants in the legal system of how they can accommodate and include people with disabilities. Reach Canada and the ARCH Disability Law Centre are two such organizations.

Reach Canada has published a Handbook on Disabilities for Law Professionals. Aimed at lawyers, judges and others in the legal industry, the handbook is intended to help them execute their duty to accommodate. This resource covers criminal law, contract law, informed consent to medical treatment, administrative law, self-representation, and much more.

ARCH Disability Law Centre has published the Disability Law Primer, a resource intended to increase the legal profession’s capacity to serve people with disabilities. The Primer consists of 10 articles, available in both French and English, on topics such as providing legal services for persons with disabilities, human rights and disability law, capacity to instruct counsel, and more. ARCH offers numerous publications in addition to the Primer.

Alberta Law Libraries can help

If you are interested in learning more about how the justice system is responding to the needs of people with disabilities, Alberta Law Libraries would be an excellent starting point

This article demonstrates some of the online information available with respect to how the justice system is responding to the needs of people with disabilities. Librarians can help you find resources in the libraries’ collections; authoritative books on human rights, the Charter, employment law, criminal law, and more can be located using Alberta Law Libraries’ online catalogue. The library also provides databases for case law and articles searches. The Library offers a number of ways you can get help; contact us for assistance with your research.

Notes:

1. Statistics Canada. Disability in Canada: Initial Findings from the Canadian Survey on Disability (Canadian Survey on Disability, 2012).

Tax Assistance for Persons with Disabilities

March 6, 2014 By Joseph Devaney

According to a 2012 Statistics Canada survey, an estimated 3.8 million adults in Canada are living with a disability. Of those in the survey aged 75 or greater, 42.5% suffered from one or more disabilities that limited their daily activities.

Fortunately, Canada has several tools to assist us in dealing with these challenges from a financial perspective. For many, reductions in tax payable for either the person with the disability or a caregiver are available. In addition, there are several benefits, grants and other support mechanisms offered. This article will provide an overview discussion of the more common opportunities available through the income tax system as well as the Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP). For many, reductions in tax payable for either the person with the disability or a caregiver are available. In addition, there are several benefits, grants and other support mechanisms offered The availability of these opportunities is primarily based on the level of disability and the income of the individual, the caregiver and their respective families. We will discuss these aspects using rates, thresholds, and values for an Alberta resident in the 2014 calendar year.

Opportunities by level of disability

Category 1 – An impairment of physical or mental function that is severe and lasts at least 12 months

The individual must either be markedly restricted in the ability to perform a basic activity of daily living (or significantly restricted in enough activities to be considered markedly restricted in the whole), or would be restricted but for life-sustaining therapy. In order to prove this level of disability, Form T2201 – Disability Tax Credit Certificate, must be completed (indicating these conditions have been met) and signed by a “Qualified Practitioner” (which generally means a doctor qualified to opine on the applicable disability).

To meet the markedly restricted test, it must take the individual an inordinate amount of time (which the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) suggests to usually be three times the normal amount of time), or he/she must be unable to perform one of the activities of daily living all or substantially all of the time (at least 90% of the time). The activities of daily living include: speaking, hearing, walking, elimination, feeding, dressing, and mental functions necessary for everyday life.

To be significantly restricted, a person’s vision or ability to perform a basic activity of daily living must be substantially restricted all or substantially all of the time (at least 90% of the time). To meet the Disability Tax Credit (DTC) test, he or she must be significantly restricted in at least two activities of daily living, or, significantly restricted in vision plus one activity of daily living, to the point where they would be considered markedly restricted in at least one activity of daily living.

The CPP Disability Benefit is a monthly payment available to people who have contributed to the CPP and who are not able to work regularly at any job because of a disability.

Opportunities available and respective maximum dollar values include:

Disability Tax Credit ($2,537/year),
Disability Supplement Tax Credit for minors ($1,710/year),
Child Disability Benefit ($2,650 per year)
Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) (tax on earnings is deferred until payout)
- Canada Disability Savings Grant ($3,500/year up to $70,000 lifetime)
- Canada Disability Savings Bond ( $1,000/year up to $20,000 lifetime)
Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Disability Benefit ($1,236/month)

Of special note, the Disability Tax Credit (DCT) may be transferred to the person on which the individual with the disability is dependent. Certain medical expense claims, such as nursing home costs, can prevent the claim of the DTC.

Most of these items may have their value reduced based on a number of factors. For example, the Disability Supplement Tax Credit is reduced if child care expenses are claimed in respect of the minor, while the Child Disability Benefit, a supplement to the Canada Child Tax Benefit, is reduced by 4% of adjusted family net income exceeding $43,953, assuming one child with a disability in the family.

Access to payments related to an RDSP is phased out based on family income. A deceased person’s RRSP or RRIF may be transferred into an RDSP for a financially dependent child or grandchild. For a minor with a disability, this is the parents’ income as computed for the Canada Child Tax Benefit. Beginning in the year in which the individual with the disability turns 19, access is based on family income of the individual and their spouse. The Canada Disability Savings Bond (BOND) is completely phased out when family income reaches $43,953.

For the Canada Disability Savings Grant (GRANT), the crucial family income number is $87,907. Where the income is less than or equal to this amount, the Government will provide up to $3,500 if at least $1,500 is contributed by others. Where the income is higher, $1,000 will be provided if at least $1,000 is contributed by others. BONDs and GRANTs are available in any year before the year of the beneficiary’s 50^th birthday, subject to the lifetime limit.

To participate as the beneficiary of an RDSP, you must be eligible for the DTC. Contributions to the RDSP are not tax deductible and can be made until the end of the year in which the beneficiary turns 59. Once the RDSP is opened, the GRANT and the BOND can be accumulated within it. The GRANT, the BOND, and the investment income earned in the account are taxable once they are paid out of the plan. A deceased person’s RRSP or RRIF may be transferred into an RDSP for a financially dependent child or grandchild. Likewise, a Registered Education Savings Plan may be transferred to an RDSP if certain conditions are met.

The CPP Disability Benefit is a monthly payment available to people who have contributed to the CPP and who are not able to work regularly at any job because of a disability. To qualify, the disability must be severe and prolonged, CPP contribution requirements must have been met, and the individual must be under the age of 65.

Category 2 – Dependent on someone due to an impairment in physical or mental function

In order to be eligible for these items, the test is not whether the impairment is severe but rather whether there actually is an impairment and whether the individual is dependent on someone. Dependency is determined on a case by case basis but requires the need for regular and consistent provision of the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter and clothing.

Opportunities available and respective potential dollar values include:

Caregiver Amount ($1,710),
Amount for an Infirm Dependent 18 or Older ($1,710)
Family Caregiver Amount ($302)
Disability Supports Deduction (Can deduct all applicable expenditures)

The Caregiver Amount and the Family Caregiver Amount are claimed by individuals that have an impaired dependent. The Caregiver Amount is available for certain related individuals who reside in the same household. The amount for an infirm dependent is available for a broader group of dependents, regardless of where they reside. Both are income-tested, with the Caregiver credit allowing claims for a higher income dependent. The Family Caregiver Amount is basically a top-up credit for those who are claiming another credit for the dependent. Many of these credits were discussed in Law Now issue 37-1 “Credit where Credit is Due”. The Disability Supports Deduction is for expenditures that allow an individual to go to school or earn certain income.

Category 3 – Medical Expenditures

What constitutes a medical expenditure is complex and encompasses several specific inclusions under the Income Tax Act. The more commonly included expenditures are: non-cosmetic services provided by an authorized medical practitioner, travel costs to receive medical services, prescribed drugs, attendant care, nursing home fees, medical assistance devices such as glasses, and home renovation to allow greater mobility, function or access (for those with severe and prolonged mobility impairments).

In general, only expenditures over and above base amounts (base amount varies depending on income level) will be multiplied by 15% (Federal) plus 10% (Alberta) to determine the total tax credit.

A claim may be made with respect to payments made for the individual or on behalf of a spouse, a minor child, a spouse’s minor child, or another prescribed relative who is also considered a dependent.

Some claims require either impairment or eligibility for the disability tax credit and some require making a choice between the claiming the medical credit and the DTC.

In addition to the medical credit itself, the Refundable Medical Expense Supplement, based on the same expenses, can be worth up to $1,152 when family income is between $3,363 and $25,506.

Other Credits and Benefits affected by Disability or Impairment

Where an individual has a disability, and in some cases simply an impairment, several non-disability focused credits and deductions can be affected. For example, with regard to the Child Care Expense Deduction, an individual with a dependent child eligible for the Disability Tax Credit may be afforded an additional $3,000 to $6,000 in potential deductions. Some other items that may be affected include: the Education Amount, the Home Buyer’s Program, the Working Income Tax Benefit, the Child Fitness Tax Credit and the Child Arts Tax Credit.

Conclusion

This is a list of only a few of the financial supports available. Where an individual has a disability, and in some cases simply an impairment, several non-disability focused credits and deductions can be affected. Several of these opportunities can be used simultaneously; however, one benefit or claim may affect the value of another. The individual’s province of residence may also have benefits available, such as Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped in Alberta. As such, a professional should be consulted to determine which combinations of benefits and claims will be most beneficial and whether more complicated planning such as the use of Trusts would be appropriate.

A Progress Report of Disability Rights since the Charter

March 6, 2014 By Marjun Parcasio

In 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms formally enshrined equality rights into the Canadian constitution. Section 15 of the Charter reads:

“every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

For advocates of persons with disabilities, the final wording of this clause was the culmination of an extensive lobbying effort, as earlier drafts omitted to explicitly mention disability. With equality rights achieving greater constitutional status, the courts have faced the challenge of interpreting the provision to meet the modern concerns of disabled persons throughout the country.

For advocates of persons with disabilities, the final wording of this clause was the culmination of an extensive lobbying effort, as earlier drafts omitted to explicitly mention disability.

Although the courts have shown to be receptive to the goal of achieving substantive equality since the advent of the Charter in Canadian law, it is argued that the progress of disability rights in s. 15 jurisprudence has been more tempered in recent years, for reasons we shall see below. The issue warrants further attention and will require the conjoint efforts of both the courts and the legislature to improve the legal state of disabled persons in Canada.

Early Litigation: Building Progress

The first decision of the Supreme Court on s. 15 grounds, Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143, established a foundation upon which later decisions eventually built. The court refused to follow the formal equality approach (through the ‘similarly situated-similarly treated test’) that had pervaded much of the earlier case law and instead adopted a purposive approach to s. 15. In so doing, the Court placed an emphasis on substantive equality under the Charter, where “consideration must be given to the content of the law, to its purpose, and its impact upon those to whom it applies, and also upon those whom it excludes from its application” (per McIntyre J). This judgment provided a conceptual legal framework necessary for future discussions on equality in subsequent years.

Overall, the early case law on disability rights shows a move away from the inherently less accommodating approach of the pre-Charter towards a social model embracing substantive equality.

But in Eaton v Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 SCR 241, where a twelve-year-old girl with cerebral palsy was placed by the school board into a segregated classroom, the Supreme Court allowed the school board’s appeal. It held that there was no starting presumption of integration. Despite the disappointing decision, the Court’s reasoning elucidated an appreciation for the need for the state to provide persons with disabilities reasonable accommodation. The case reflected changing perspectives on the nature of disability rights at the highest level, albeit at a slow pace.

Human rights and disability advocates had much more to celebrate with the landmark and unanimous decision reached by the Supreme Court in Eldridge v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 624. The case concerned deaf individuals who could not communicate with medical professionals because of the lack of interpreters. They succeeded in showing the Court that the governing legislation created adverse effects which amounted to discrimination. Overall, the early case law on disability rights shows a move away from the inherently less accommodating approach of the pre-Charter towards a social model embracing substantive equality.

The Difficulties with s. 15 Jurisprudence

The year 1999 was particularly important for s. 15 jurisprudence and its effects on disability rights. In British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Committee) v BCGSEU (British Columbia Government Service Employees’ Union), [1999] 3 SCR 3, better known as the Meiorin case, the Supreme Court of Canada tackled a major conceptual problem with discrimination. The law, in effect, offered different remedies for direct prima facie discrimination and adverse effect discrimination. This bifurcation was eliminated in Meiorin. Justice McLachlin (as she then was) emphasized that to uphold this distinction was to “[shield] systemic discrimination from scrutiny” and thus to undermine substantive equality.

The law, in effect, offered different remedies for direct prima facie discrimination and adverse effect discrimination. This bifurcation was eliminated in Meiorin.

At the same time, however, new s. 15 criteria arose in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 SCR 497. In Law, the focus was placed on whether a claimant has faced a “loss of dignity”. The Law criteria were strictly applied in Granovsky v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [2000] 1 SCR 703, where the appeal was dismissed because the legislation could not be said to demean the dignity of the individual facing a temporary disability. One commentator said that the approach in Law “leaves much to be desired and marks a retreat from the early promise of substantive equality,” (Malhotra p. 274) and by another as “confusing, unpredictable, overly burdensome and excessively formalistic.” (Ryder, p. 517) Despite the progress seen in the case law, it seems that the s. 15 jurisprudence lacks clarity and puts the robust protection of the rights of disabled persons on uncertain ground.

Conclusions: A Move Towards the Future

… the Supreme Court has been reluctant to accept leave to appeal in s. 15 cases. This trend is troubling and is a cause for concern.

The present record of disability rights is one of cautious optimism. On the one hand, there has been enormous progress in the Supreme Court’s attitude towards Canadians with disabilities. This new social understanding should be lauded and provides strong encouragement for Charter litigation on disability rights in the future.

On the other hand, disability law has evidently faced difficulties since the Law decision. A 2010 study by Ryder and Hashmani of Osgoode Hall published in the Supreme Court Law Review indicates that the Supreme Court has been reluctant to accept leave to appeal in s. 15 cases. (Ryder, p. 518-19) This trend is troubling and is a cause for concern. Open and regular access to the courts is fundamental for Canadians with disabilities, without which the value and protection of the Charter’s equality and non-discrimination provisions substantially diminishes.

Nonetheless, there are some tentative positive signs on the horizon. Ontario was the first Canadian province to establish a legislative regime governing disabled persons with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 32 (current version: Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act, 2005, SO 2005, c 11). This mirrors the activity by other jurisdictions, like the United States’ Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), or the United Kingdom’s Disability Discrimination Act (1995) (now known as the Equality Act (2010)). Similar legislative efforts country-wide should be encouraged.

Ontario was the first Canadian province to establish a legislative regime governing disabled persons with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 32

Moreover, in 2010, Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is a positive step that aligns Canada with the international community in recognizing the importance of accommodation and the protection of persons with disabilities. But Canada’s First Report on the Convention, which the Department of Canadian Heritage indicated was expected in 2012, has yet to be published.

In conclusion, the protection and support for disabled persons does not exist in a legal vacuum. A robust rights regime is certainly one crucial part of the full picture; the challenge lies not only in the provincial human rights tribunals and the courtrooms, but in legislatures and communities. Canada needs good policy that will address social problems which predominantly affect those with disabilities, including poverty, inequality, and inadequate education and health care. In this respect, Canada can and should do more to meet its domestic and international obligations towards persons with disabilities, both in law and public policy terms. Further progress is surely yet to come.

Notes:

1. Ravi Malhotra, “Has the Charter Made a Difference for People with Disabilities? Reflections and Strategies for the 21st Century,” 2012 Supreme Court Law Review 58

2. Bruce Ryder and Taufiq Hashmani, “Managing Charter Equality Rights: The Supreme Court of Canada’s Disposition of Leave to Appeal Applications in Section 15 Cases, 1989-2010,” 2010 Supreme Court Law Review 51

“Meaningful Access”: Students with learning disabilities strive to be included

March 6, 2014 By Melissa Luhtanen J.D.

Jeffrey Moore attended public school, at School District No. 44 (the “District”), from kindergarten to grade three, beginning in 1991. Jeffrey had access to an aide and attended a Learning Assistance Centre; his parents hired a private tutor. By January 1994, in grade 2, Jeffrey had serious headaches; he was under “significant stress”, was making slow progress in school and was behaving immaturely. He underwent a full psycho-educational assessment and was diagnosed with a severe learning disability. A District psychologist referred Jeffrey to the District’s Diagnostic Centre, however funding cuts intervened and the Diagnostic Centre was closed down. The District had no other program to refer Jeffrey to, and therefore, it recommended that he attend a private school that specialized in learning disabilities. The private school was not available until grade 4 and so Jeffrey had to stay at his existing school as he struggled to read and his self-esteem dropped. Jeffrey’s dad, Frederick Moore filed a complaint against the Ministry of Education and the Board of Education in School District No. 44 for failing to provide the learning supports that Jeffrey required. Moore v British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 (“Moore”)

This case is informative about a school board’s responsibility to accommodate students with learning disabilities. A District psychologist referred Jeffrey to the District’s Diagnostic Centre, however funding cuts intervened and the Diagnostic Centre was closed down. In British Columbia it is estimated that three percent of students have a learning disability (Supporting Students with Learning Disabilities: A Guide for Teachers, Sept 2011, BC Ministry of Education). The Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario notes that estimates of children who have a learning disability range from 2% to 10% (Learning Disabilities Statistics). This range is affected by the definition of “learning disability”. There is no definition that is widely accepted and so there is no agreement as to whether certain conditions are included in the category of “learning disability”. Regardless of the numbers, Moore notes that, “adequate special education … is not a dispensable luxury.” [para 5] In fact, Abella, J. says that it is a “ramp” into the legislated commitment to educate all children. [para 5]

Moore was heard under section 8 of the British Columbia Human Right’s Code. The case considered whether the “service” that Jeffrey had been denied was “special education” or “general education”. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the dissent in the Court of Appeal by Rowles, J.A., who said that the service that had been denied was “general education” available to the public. Jeffery had been denied “meaningful access” to that general education which was mandated by legislation. The School Act preamble in British Columbia says that:

The purpose of the British Columbia school system is to enable all learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society and a prosperous and sustainable economy.

This statement is aimed at all learners and not just learners who do not have a learning disability. In the Moore case, the cuts in the District were made disproportionately to special needs programs. Jeffrey had not received sufficient education at an early stage to address his severe learning disability. He had been given some access to support such as an aide and extra tutoring. However, he had not received adequate support given his challenges and the District’s recommendations. The District had recommended that Jeffrey be placed in the Diagnostic Centre for a more intensive program. However, the closure of the program, coupled by no backup plan or assessment as to the effect of the closure, resulted in discrimination.

The Court noted that the stress Jeffrey was experiencing would have improved with assistance for his learning disability. Getting support can bolster a child’s self-confidence and decrease incidents of behavioural problems. In a 2007 study by the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, Putting a Face on Learning Disabilities (PACFOLD) (“2007 Study”), it was found that 14.7% of parents who had children with a learning disability reported that their child had been diagnosed with emotional, psychological or nervous problems. This is in comparison with a reported 1% of parents of children who do not have a disability. Therefore, almost 15 times the amount of children with learning disabilities experience psychological difficulties in school. The frustration of not doing well causes psychological stress that can be addressed through remedial help. The 2007 study reported that 25% of Canadians with a learning disability (aged 22 to 29) did not have a high school certificate. The result of an untreated learning disability has a potentially long-term effect.

In the Moore case, the cuts in the District were made disproportionately to special needs programs. For instance, there was an Outdoor School that was not cut even though it cost the District a similar amount. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Tribunal’s finding that there had been discrimination by the District, based on Jeffrey’s learning disability.

A panel for the Edmonton Regional Learning Consortium (the “Panel”) suggested the following to assist students with learning disabilities and to provide them with “meaningful access” to general education:

early identification of students with special needs;
appropriate assessment of what those needs might be; and
the identification and inclusion of supports necessary to provide a “meaningful” education to a student with special needs.

The Panel noted that schools must focus on having a mechanism to identify students and a process to review requests and to ensure that the school does not dismiss a parent’s request without further investigation. (Moore v. British Columbia (Education): what does it mean for inclusive education in Alberta? Mar 21, 2013 12:13, Webinar)

Jeffrey completed his program at the private school in grade 7 and was reading at a grade 5 level, with math at a grade 7 level. He later completed high school at another private school for children with learning disabilities. Clearly he was able to learn with the right program and supports. Frederick Moore was awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity and the money to pay for Jeffrey’s private school tuition from Grade 4 to 12.

You can learn more about the findings in Moore from The Supreme Court Changes Direction: Disability and Discrimination by Linda McKay-Panos, Law Now January 1, 2013.