The provision of publicly funded benefit programs, services and supports to people with
disabilities has also been found to constitute “services” pursuant to s.1 of the Code.^66
This includes, for example, attendant care services provided to people with physical
disabilities by Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) and other community
organizations; developmental services, supports and funding provided to people with
intellectual disabilities; income support benefits such as Ontario Disability Support
Program (ODSP)^67 ; and others.
Generally, such services, supports and benefits are provided pursuant to statutory
schemes that include eligibility criteria, definitions of disability that are different than the
one set out in the Code, and mechanisms for appealing decisions to administrative
tribunals or other adjudicative bodies. For example, the provision of attendant services
is governed by the Home Care and Community Services Act, which sets out eligibility
criteria for receipt of services. The Health Services Appeal and Review Board has
jurisdiction to adjudicate matters such as the amount of attendant services a person
receives or the termination of a service. Given the availability of such appeal
mechanisms and the Human Rights Tribunal’s jurisdiction to adjudicate only human
rights claims, the Tribunal has been careful in its analysis of applications dealing with
benefits, services and supports. The Tribunal will allow only those applications that
allege discriminatory action or inaction. Applications that allege that the services or
benefits were of poor quality or were not appropriate for the individual will, generally, not
be found to fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. For example, in Barber v. South
East Community Care Access Centre, the allegations included, inter alia, a failure by
the CCAC to conduct an individualized assessment of the applicant to determine the
applicant’s need for services; failure by the CCAC to implement a suitable funding and
service delivery arrangement; failure by the CCAC to adhere to medical orders and
directives; failure by the CCAC to carry through with appropriate discharge plans and
safety protocols; failure by the CCAC to consult with the applicant and her doctors; and
(^66) Zaki, supra note 64 at paras.11, 13.
(^67) Ball v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 HRTO 360 (CanLII) at para 61.