support people have no prescribed recourse. The regulation contains no rights
enforcement mechanism for the potential victims of abuse. As Kerri Joffe has
indicated, “The human rights principle of accountability requires that people with
disabilities must have recourse to an independent adjudicative body if they are
not satisfied with the service provider’s response to the complaint”^47.
Unfortunately, despite submissions from ARCH and others about the need for an
independent reviewer or adjudicative body to monitor agencies for potential
abuse, the Social Inclusion Act and its regulations do not provide for such a
body.
Individuals who have been labelled with intellectual disabilities who receive
supports and services and in particular those who receive residential services
fear reprisals for reporting abuse. Family members and others who support
individuals who receive supports and services are often labelled as difficult,
complainers and trouble makers when they alert agencies to their concerns
about abuse. Family members and other support persons have often been
banned from attending the home where the person labelled with the intellectual
disability lives and receives supports or, from the community facility where that
person receives supports. At times, the agencies have threatened to withdraw
supports and services because the agency claims they can no longer deal with
the “difficult” family members or support persons. In some instances when a
family member or support person has been faced with the threat that the person
receiving services will encounter reprisal or withdrawal of services, they have had
success when they have escalated the matter to the Regional Office of the
Ministry of Community and Social Services. In some cases, a third party has
been brought in to do a review of the service provider. In other situations, the
service provider may decide that they will no longer provide services to the
(^47) Joffe, at 118 to 120