Law Times

lAw Times • April 11, 2011 ing revelations that brought the issue surprisingly close to the government itself. During the last Parliament, Crime at the PMO T he federal government's crime agenda is on the table once again follow- The Hill By Richard Cleroux crime was one of the biggest issues. MPs spent more time talking about it than Afghan- istan, jobs, the economy or the G8 and G20 summits. For weeks on end, Prime Min- ister Stephen Harper's ministers spoke about little else. Instead, they went on about crime in the streets, making communities safer, putting more people in jail, longer sentences, clamping down on par- ole, more unregistered guns, and new and bigger prisons. And then the election campaign began and Harper discovered jobs and the economy. Suddenly, crime disappeared from the picture. But last week, crime pops up as if out of nowhere and, in all places, in Harper's own offi ce. We discovered a fi ve-time fraudster, one of those serial criminals Harper is always rail- ing about. Bruce Carson had been working in Harper's offi ce from 2005 to 2008 as a senior policy adviser and occasional interim chief of staff with a full security clearance that had him handling some of the most con- fi dential fi les. Carson was so good at fi xing things that they called him the Mechanic around the offi ce. Th e story reads like a TV script with a veteran fraudster turned political staff er handling sensitive matters. He then goes steady with a beautiful former part-time escort trying to nail down government contracts for a water company. Who would believe it? But Carson was there despite his fi ve convictions for fraud as well as a bankruptcy. Th e Law Society of Upper Canada had even disbarred him for good measure. Now they're all saying they never knew about all of that. But somebody must have known. Somebody must read the papers. How did Carson get a secur- ity clearance? Harper says his security ad- viser should have told him about Carson's past. So it was his fault. As a result, we now have a scape- goat — the security chief, al- though we learned last week it was a low-level bureaucrat who clearded Carson. In the meantime, Harper says the RCMP was called in right away to investigate. Th e security chief at the time was William Elliott, whom Harper later appointed as com- missioner of the RCMP. So the RCMP investigation should be no problem. Elliott will be investigating himself. Th at should take care of the problem. Meanwhile, out on the cam- paign trail, the Mounties, who might have been more useful snooping around Harper's offi ce rooting out convicted fraudsters, were busy helping the prime minister's campaign organizers screen young women and boot them out of public election ral- lies. Th ey caught one person red-handed who had gone to a Liberal rally and had her photo taken with that party's leader, Michael Ignatieff . She put it up on her Facebook page. Th e RCMP booted her out of the rally. We all know about young uni- versity graduates who lose their fi rst jobs when their employ- ers fi nd photos showing them drinking beer out of funnels. But it's much more serious to attend a Liberal rally and get your picture taken beside Ignati- eff . As a crime, it's just one level below shaking Ignatieff 's hand in public. As the story develops, it turns out that Mounties have been helping Conservative event or- ganizers sort out the saved from the damned at Harper election rallies across the country. It seems they had nothing better to do. Elliott would be proud of them if he wasn't too busy these days investigating himself. One guy in Guelph, Ont., got the boot for having a bumper sticker that read, "Don't blame me. I voted NDP." Th e Moun- ties spotted it as he drove into the parking lot. Another young woman was recognized as a known environ- mentalist given her membership with the sinister Sierra youth club at her school. She was probably planning to grow tulips or some- thing. We wouldn't want to have her attending a Harper speech. It's too bad she wasn't a serial fraudster. She could have gotten a good government job in Ottawa. So far, there have been no hecklers at the Harper rallies. Have you wondered why? It must be because he's so popular. Th e notion that the RCMP work hand in glove to help pol- iticians in power with more than just their physical protection has been around for a while But public memories are short. Exactly who was "Sgt. Pepper" Hugh Stewart protecting when he was pepper-spraying kids in Vancouver more than a decade ago? Former prime minister Jean Chrétien, of course. Th at's great. Now Harper can say the Liberals did the same thing. And that always makes things all right. Th e case is closed. Elliott doesn't even have to fi nish investigating himself. Richard Cleroux is a freelance re- porter and columnist on Parlia- ment Hill. His e-mail address is richardcleroux@rogers.com. intended to create a barrier-free Ontario through the creation of a compliance-based rather than complaints-oriented system. Th e act shifts the burden from people with dis- abilities to complain to Ontario's public and private organizations that provide goods and services to comply. Th e defi nition of disability in the act is T very broad and mirrors that of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Disability includes not only any degree of physical disability, infi r- mity, malformation or disfi gurement but also mental impairment or developmental disability, learning disability or mental disorder. In addition, the defi ni- tion of barrier is extremely wide. A barrier means anything that prevents people from fully participating in all aspects of society be- cause of their disability, including a physical, architectural, information, communications, attitudinal or technological barrier as well as a policy or practice. Th e act creates fi ve accessibility standards in the areas of customer service, information and communication, employment, transpor- tation, and built environment. As has been well publicized, Ontario's private sector will have to comply with the customer service standard by Jan. 1, 2012. Th e customer service standard is the only one enacted to date. It applies to every per- son or organization that provides goods or services to members of the public or other third parties and has at least one employee in Ontario. It will be interesting to see what the Ontario government decides in terms of how the act and the customer service stan- dard will apply to federally regulated entities, if at all. It may well be that federally regulated organizations are subject to the act and the obligations of the customer service standard in particular because there's no federal legisla- tion that occupies that fi eld. Even provincially regulated entities can be confused about whether the customer service standard applies. What many organizations seem to ignore is the extension to other third parties, which means the customer service standard does not apply only to organiza- tions engaging in retail sales. It is clear that retail establishments are the true focus of the customer service standard, but the regulation has been drafted so broadly that even manu- facturers who rarely see clients on site must comply with it. What does compliance mean? Th e public perception is that the customer service stan- dard will completely revamp how goods and services are delivered to Ontarians. Th is is not so. What it requires is that organizations do the following: • Implement policies, practices, and pro- cedures addressing how the organization provides goods and services to people with disabilities. Th ey must ensure those policies, practices, and procedures are consistent with the principles of dignity, independence, integrated provision of ser- vices, and equal opportunity. • Communicate with customers in a man- ner that takes into account a person's dis- ability. • Create a feedback process for customers and make information about it available. • Ensure that the organization's policies, practices, and procedures address the use www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT PAGE 7 Ontario businesses worried about new accessibility rules BY ELLEN SWAN For Law Times he Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the accessibil- ity standards it contemplates are of assistive devices by people with disabil- ities. • Ensure that the organization's policies, practices, and procedures allow the use of service animals. • Ensure that the organization's policies, practices, and procedures allow the use of support people. • Train employees, contractors, volunteers, and agents. • Provide notice of temporary disruptions in facilities or services for people with dis- abilities. In addition, organizations with 20 or Speaker's Corner more employees must ensure that their poli- cies, practices, and pro- cedures are available in accessible formats and produce them upon re- quest in a manner taking into account a person's disability. Th ey must also report to the Ministry of Community and Social Services through an online ques- tionnaire. Th e broader public sector, which was re- quired to comply with the customer service standard on Jan. 1, 2010, has not dramatically revamped how it provides goods and services to Ontarians. According to representatives of some of those entities already complying with the customer service standard, by far the most daunting and involved aspect was meeting the obligation to train all employees, contractors, volunteers, and agents. It may very well be that when representa- tives of private sector organizations draft their accessibility policies as required by the cus- tomer service standard, they may realize that it is in fact quite diffi cult for people with disabil- ities to access their goods and services. Such a conclusion may very well drive that organiza- tion to revamp how it delivers its goods and services to Ontarians. Still, it will not be the obligations of the customer service standard that strictly require such revamping. Moreover, organizations may already be re- quired to revise how their goods and services are made available to people with disabilities. Ontario's existing regulations prohibit dis- crimination in the provision of services. For example, s. 1 of the Human Rights Code pro- vides that "every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods, and facilities without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orienta- tion, age, marital status, family status or dis- ability." Th ere is case law under this section in which organizations have been required to make premises accessible to people with dis- abilities, an obligation that was imposed be- fore compliance with the new act and the cus- tomer service standard was required. None of this is to say that the obligations of the customer service standard are not onerous. Indeed, organizations will need to be diligent in ensuring that they are in com- pliance by Jan. 1. Of particular signifi cance is the train- ing requirement. Organizations with a large number of employees, contractors, volunteers or agents will have to spend a considerable amount of time training them. Th e other four standards contemplated by the act, which have been published in draft form but not yet enacted as regulations, will hopefully result in the elimination of all bar- riers that prevent the full participation of people with disabilities in Ontario society. Th e customer service standard is a step in that direction. Ellen Swan is an associate at Davis LLP who practises labour and employment law.

• Cover
• Great Businessman
• Election Special
• Focus On Class Actions