Disability Law Primer (PDF) - ARCH Disability Law Centre

(coco) #1

Service providers are often unwilling to add an extra hour or so to a client’s services
when a new attendant is assigned to them to allow them time to train that attendant
without it reducing the time available for regular services. When staff changes are
frequent, the imposition on the client can become onerous. Staffing issues can also
mean that recipients are forced to cater their activities to their attendants’ schedules.
Conflicts are also more likely to arise when frequent staff changes mean a client is
unable to develop a relationship of trust with their attendant.



  1. Gender of Attendants


Another quality of service issue that arises is the question of the gender of attendants.
Clients with physical disabilities can feel vulnerable, especially when a client is receiving
service while they are alone in their home. Many women prefer to receive services from
a female attendant. Similarly, some men prefer to receive services from a male
attendant.


There are cases where highly vulnerable women with disabilities are forced to accept
services from a male attendant, even when they make it clear that this prospect causes
them intense distress. Service providers have asserted that union seniority and other
employment rights issues do not allow them to schedule work hours according to
gender. Although there is no specific right to receive services from an attendant of the
same gender, where it can be demonstrated that service from an opposite gender
attendant will create undue stress or fear, it could be argued that a same sex attendant
is a necessary accommodation. Similarly if a client’s cultural or religious observances
prevent them from accepting intimate services from a person of the opposite sex, it can
be argued that the client is entitled to religious or cultural accommodation. From a
human rights perspective, the right to religious accommodation should take precedence
over union seniority, given the nature of the service being provided and the vulnerability
of many recipients.^33 The failure to accommodate a client’s religious observations could


(^33) See Chapter 3 “Human Rights and Disability Law” in this Primer; also see Human Rights Commission
of Ontario, ``Policy on Competing Rights, online:

Free download pdf