Policy Brief: Urgent Solutions to Protect Ontario’s Adults and Seniors with Disabilities and their Caregivers in Group Homes Prepared by: * Survivors of Group Homes * Group Home Advocates * Families for Advocacy, Inclusion, and Reform (FAIR) * Ontario Disability Coalition * Disability Justice Network of Ontario * Accessible Housing Network Endorsed by: * BenLaw * Ecohesian * Empowering Ability * ODSP Action Coalition * People for Personalized Funding * Seniors for Social Action Ontario * Toronto Disability Pride March * The Special Friends Network * A Growing List of Individual Supporters Table of Contents: Part 1: Introduction 2 Part 2: Policy Frameworks for Adults & Seniors 3 Key Issues 3 Voices of Concern 4 Part 3: Proposed Solutions for Adults and Seniors 5 1. Direct Funding for Families 5 2. Develop and Pass the Ontario Supported Decisions Act 6 3. Interim, Independent Oversight of MCCSS Developmental Disability Transfer Payment Agencies 6 4. Social Assistance Transformation 8 5. Cultural Change across Developmental and Related Services 9 Summary of Immediate Actions 9 Part 4: Long-Term Recommendations 10 Part 5: Conclusion 11 Appendix 1: Glossary of Key Terms 12 Appendix 2: References 16 ________________ Part 1: Introduction Ontario is facing a critical crisis in the care of people labelled with intellectual and developmental disabilities, driven by systemic institutionalization of our communities and abuse in government-funded institutions. Thousands of vulnerable individuals in group homes, host family settings, and intensive support residences funded by the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services (MCCSS) and accessed through Developmental Services Ontario (DSO), experience neglect, exploitation, physical harm, and death. Over 62,800 people are currently on the DSO waitlist for housing and services, while those in care endure underfunded, under-monitored, and abusive environments.[1] Despite the work to transform Developmental Services through Journey to Belonging, access to individualized funding remains restricted, and conditions within group homes continue to reflect many characteristics of residential institutions, such as isolation, surveillance, abuse and neglect. We also note that our perspectives are in line with the United Nations’ Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Canada, along with 183 other states and parties, have accepted the legal obligation contained in the CRPD. Article 16.1 of the Convention relates that “States party to the agreement shall take all appropriate measures to protect all persons with disabilities from all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse including their gender based aspect” and particularly reflects needs for person-led care, deinstitutionalization, and our continued presence actively in our communities. The recent Concluding Observations on Canada’s Implementation of the CRPD and its recommendations further correspond to our lived experience. The United Nations has fully recognized the need to: * Implement a coordinated deinstitutionalization strategy across federal, provincial, and territorial governments with timelines and targets, and applicable across all institutional settings, such as nursing homes, group homes, specialized long-term care facilities and psychiatric institutions; * Establish comprehensive distinctions-based Indigenous policies and plans to urgently address the lack of accessible housing and community supports within Indigenous communities and for non-status and off-reserve Indigenous persons with disabilities; * Develop a nationally consistent, rights-based legislative and policy framework for the provision of community-based supports and services at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels, including accessible housing, home support and personal assistance that respects self-direction and individual control, and that removes wait lists and co-payments for self-managed funding programs and allow for portability throughout the State Party.[2] We believe that the following recommendations and reflections can bring Ontario's policy responses in line with CRPD targets. We also believe that this work furthers the long struggle for deinstitutionalization in our Province that was marked by the closure of Regional Centres and other institutional settings. Widespread systemic neglect and violence has persisted through the development of group homes. Despite billions of dollars in public investment, there is no meaningful accountability for service delivery, including in instances of severe harm to individuals with disabilities.[3] We know that many in this Province believe that Ontario could be a leader in service provision for our communities, and while Ontario currently falls short of that ideal—there is an opportunity to lead. While this Policy Brief is focused on Adults and Seniors, many of these recommendations also apply to disabled children. This coalition will be submitting a further policy brief focused on additional recommendations focused on the specific systems impacting disabled children in the very near future. We will also be expanding our circle over time to create additional culturally specific policy briefs to further the dialogue on these issues and reflect further lived experience of Black, First Nations, Inuit, Métis, and racialized disabled adults, seniors, and children. This brief sets a wide basis for reform but is certainly not the final word on these issues. Part 2: Policy Frameworks for Adults & Seniors Key Policy Issues * Institutional Abuse and Neglect: Abuse is rampant in Ontario’s publicly funded group homes, according to data from serious occurrence reports, families and media reports.[4] * Ineffective Reporting Systems: Existing reporting mechanisms like ReportON lack the necessary accountability mechanisms to effectively identify and address abuse and neglect.[5] * Tolerance for Abuse: Group homes do not have zero-tolerance policies for abuse, which allows for abuse to continue unchecked in developmental services.[6] * Gap in Resources to Implement Individualized Funding: Current individualized funding mechanisms (passport, income supports, etc.), when compared to the cost-of-living across the Province, limit the housing and care possibilities for adults labelled with developmental disabilities. * Lack of Transparency in Funding Allocation: Non-transparent allocation processes to Transfer Payment Agencies (TPAs), Outside Paid Resources (OPRs), and other agencies lead to resource mismanagement and misuse, which in turn leads to inadequate care.[7] * Concentration of Power in Agencies: Disabled people and their families have reported different levels of accountability with Transfer Payment Agencies and outside paid resources. To encourage accountability, transparency, and a community-first direction for these agencies, their corporate governance must remain open to and led by our communities. We believe there must be requirements for open Community Memberships for all agencies that receive Ministry funding and are incorporated under the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 (ONCA), Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, 2009 (CNCA) or related legislation. * Exclusion of Families and Legal Authorities: Families and legal guardians are systematically ignored and excluded from care decisions, contrary to the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992. At the same time, families face physical, emotional, and financial pressure to start this increased care and advocacy. In other jurisdictions, these issues have been addressed through implementing supported decision-making, as with New Brunswick’s recent Supported Decision-Making and Representation Act, 2022.[8] Voices of Concern * Medical Neglect: Families, the Ombudsman, and various media outlets have identified untreated medical conditions as a major area of concern. In one case, a young man in Hamilton was refused medical treatment for a week by his care service provider despite his legal authority's intervention.[9] In other instances, individuals have been evicted following medical treatment. * Physical Abuse: Serious Occurrence Reports show ongoing problems with physical abuse in group homes. Additionally, documented experiences of residents exhibiting unexplained injuries suggest a much broader systemic problem than official reports indicate. Despite family complaints and Quality Assurance Measures, care providers consistently fail to address these incidents or provide adequate information.[10] * Legal Abuse: The legal system is being used to undermine people’s rights to home, family, care, and support. Too many developmental service agencies use expensive legal tools to reinforce institutionalization. These tools—from evictions of hospitalized residents to restrictive communication/visitation protocols and no-trespass orders—are weaponized against families when they speak up for their loved ones living in care. * Safety Risks: Care providers are responsible for the intimate, personal care of residents. Residents and their supporters should be able to ensure that care is provided by workers who are best suited to this work—those who align with their needs and beliefs to “ensure culturally appropriate, gender and age specific individualized supports”[11] and who are appropriately trained to carry out this work. This requires providing opportunities for residents to choose the staff who will attend to the most intimate aspects of their daily lives. For instance, aligning gendered work with same gender providers—it may not be appropriate to solely or predominantly staff an agency with men in a women’s group home. Similarly, it is crucial that residents are given choice in who they are sharing a bedroom with. Part 3: Proposed Solutions for Adults and Seniors 1. Direct Funding for Families * Proposal: Families and funding recipients need an entitlement-based system of support. We desire a system built to empower individuals and families by providing families with direct, portable, consistent, and transparent funding. Coupled with this is the need to extend the model of family-managed home care into developmental services to expand Passport funding and care services, which put disabled people in the driver's seat to decide their own care solutions. This would allow adults labelled with I/DD to move into homes of their choosing, utilizing community-created, safer, community-based homes. * Rationale: Families and disabled people themselves are best positioned to ensure their safety and well-being. Direct funding enables families and/or disabled people to choose appropriate care options and reduce dependence on potentially abusive institutions.[12] * Action Needed: The Ministry must create a person-centred funding model where resources follow the individual, allowing for choice and flexibility in care options. 2. Develop and Pass the Ontario Supported Decisions Act * Proposal: Ensure that disabled people and the chosen support people needed to make decisions are included in any care decisions, including service agreements, health information sharing, and financial management. As such, we need to replace the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992[13] with new legislation that has stronger safeguards and ensures that disabled people are protected against interference in these obligations. * Rationale: We all need support to make decisions about our health, housing, and finances. Developmental service agencies need to provide the right resources. By bringing in new legislation, we can end group home policies and protocols (e.g. policies around trespass, visitation, and communication) which currently interfere with the obligation to include individuals with disabilities and chosen support people in decision-making and, in turn, violate the rights of disabled people and lead to neglect and mismanagement of care.[14] * Action Needed: * First, pass new legislation in the vein of New Brunswick’s recent Supported Decision-Making and Representation Act, 2022.[15] * Following this, enact a systematic review of written group home policies and protocols and their impact on the implementation and enforcement of the Ontario Supported Decisions Act. * Embed this new Ontario Supported Decisions Act within the Quality Assurance Measures and audit guidelines related to disability housing supports. * Further, in these measures, ensure that all organizational policies for congregate living settings must be published and publicly accessible. 3. Interim, Independent Oversight of all MCCSS Developmental Disability Funded Agencies (Brokers, TPAs, OPRs) * Proposal: Until the models of transformation of direct funding we have discussed above are fully implemented and in accordance with the jury recommendations of the Guy Mitchell Inquest: We recommend the establishment of an independent oversight body—developed through the values, guidance, and governance of disabled people with lived experience—to monitor all services, including developmental services, in residential facilities, and day programs including group homes, host family homes, and intensive treatment residences to enforce the SIPDDA[16] and the Quality Assurance Measures to ensure quality care, transparency, and fiscal accountability. * Rationale: While we desire full transformation of these systems, we know that this process will take some time and we need to keep our communities alive now. The current lack of oversight allows abuses to go unchecked. Current policies on "Abuse Reporting" and the "Complaint Process" are fundamentally flawed, as complaints of abuse and mistreatment are handled internally, with no independent oversight to safeguard people labelled with I/DD in government-funded services. An independent body would ensure compliance with laws and appropriate use of public funds.[17] This body will be responsible for implementing mandatory abuse prevention training to protect individuals who live in institutions, group homes and intensive support residences, as well as for families and volunteers. * Action Needed: * Create an interim, independent, publicly-funded office with legislative capacity to oversee, fine, and hold fully accountable Developmental Services Ontario Agencies—including Transfer Payment Agencies (TPAs), Outside Paid Resources (OPRs), and other agencies funded by the Ministry for this purpose—directly enforce the SIPDDA, and report directly to the Legislature, investigating cases of abuse, supporting the privacy of victims of abuse, and ensuring compliance with Ontario laws. * Requirement for Open, Community Membership for Agencies that are DSO TPA or as a regulation for all agencies that receive Ministry funding and are incorporated under the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 (ONCA), Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, 2009 (CNCA) or related legislation. * Develop comprehensive training on identifying, preventing, and reporting abuse for those labelled with IDD, and their families. * Institute mandatory reporting for all cases of abuse or neglect that are suspected to have occurred within Developmental Services Ontario Transfer Payment Agencies. 4. Social Assistance Transformation * Proposal: In addition to the above, we know that disabled communities and our families need to be able to not just fund “just care”, but ensure that all our other needs are met from transportation to housing to the food we put on our tables. As such, we need a robust social assistance system (Ontario Disability Support Program and Ontario Works) in Ontario that matches the cost of rent, increasing grocery prices, and all the other parts of life that allow us to thrive in our communities. Moreover, this is particularly important at a time of wider social and economic uncertainty due to the threat of tariffs from the United States—we have to have the ability to sustain ourselves, our families, and our communities in the face of this uncertainty. * Rationale: To understand the full scope of the actions that need to be taken around social assistance, we would refer the Minister and Ministry officials to ODSP Action Coalition’s 2025 Pre-Budget Submission[18] and previous submissions. The depth of systemic poverty in our communities is stark and compounds on the issues we are presenting elsewhere in this brief. We would also, however, note that these issues also pertain to those of us in congregate settings and would additionally call for increased institutional allowances to match those found in this submission. Research by Kendal David and Megan Linton[19] illustrates with stark clarity that the issues highlighted for wider social assistance programs are worsened further through the system of institutional allowances. * Action Needed: * Immediately double ODSP and OW rates, continue to commit to consistent future increases, and increase institutional allowances to an equivalent dollar value; * Ensure social assistance rates are kept in line with cost of living, including housing rental rates; and, to support the impact of these changes: * Implement full rent control, as described by the Fair Rent Ontario campaign. * Scrap the 2018 Rent Control Exemption for new builds; * End Vacancy Decontrol; and * Eliminate Above Guideline Rent Increases. 5. Creating Cultural Change across Developmental and Related Services * Proposal: The only way to adequately address all of the issues within developmental services is to make a profound cultural change, which would involve the creation and maintenance of individualized, and portable funding. Current programs such as passports, ODSP, and institutional allowances do not provide adequate funding to support disabled people to thrive in community. * Rationale: We know that Ontario has frequently sought to improve services and care for people labelled with intellectual or developmental disabilities. This has taken place through the closure of wide-scale institutions, and programs like Journey to Belonging. Yet, the provision and quality of care has continued to be a significant challenge in Ontario. The continuity of challenges suggests the need to break from congregate models of care and funding, and a move towards truly individualized services and funding that recognize the whole person, and their unique needs in terms of housing, supports, and community. Recognition of the whole person is antithetical to the current practice of dividing people by diagnosis, presumed capacity or other attributes. In spite of successive governments’ intentions, in our lived experience, the group home system is part of a wider set of systems impacted by ableism, ageism, racism, and other forms of systemic marginalization found elsewhere in our society. We also know that there is a need to ensure these systems are coordinated to these ends—no matter which Ministry, body of government, or agency foots the bill to ensure just, quality, consistent, and barrier-free care. There is no justification for cross-Ministerial and other agency barriers that set disabled people’s health, welfare, and wellbeing behind the needs and divisions of government. We need a full transformation from a model that is system and organization-first and towards one which is community and family-first. This transformation requires a movement away from organizational models of funding, and an expansion of individualized funding and housing navigators. * Action Needed: * Coordinate between MCCSS and other Ministries (like Health) to ensure common and coordinated standards, criteria, and funding to build barrier-free care. * Align these standards with international norms focused on the needs and beliefs of care recipients to “ensure culturally appropriate, gender and age specific individualised supports”.[20] * Mandate, in keeping with a community and family-first model centered in transparency, comprehensive data collection on service needs, waitlists, and outcomes to enable evidence-based policy development. * Follow-up and implement the recommendations of existing reports, such as the outstanding items from the 60 recommendations from Nowhere to Turn: Investigation into the Ministry of Community and Social Services’ response to situations of crisis involving adults with developmental disabilities from the Ontario Ombudsman.[21] Summary of Immediate Actions 1. Provide Direct Individualized Funding: Provide families or people labelled with IDD transparent funding to care for their family members outside of group homes, ensuring accountability for the proper use of funds. 2. Establish a Province-wide agency to walk alongside us; for supporting families and individual funding: We would strongly suggest this agency be developed from frameworks devised by Durham Association for Family Resources and Support (DAFRS) and in policies developed in the Province of Nova Scotia.[22] 3. Development of an Ontario Supported Decisions Act: An act that recognizes all Ontarians have decision-making capacity; all Ontarians look to others for support in decision-making; and that people labelled with intellectual disability need to have access and support to hold committed, unpaid relationships in their lives in order to do this. This act must ensure that health, justice, and housing decisions provide opportunities to engage support. 4. Establish an Independent Oversight Body: Establish an interim, independent oversight agency to monitor developmental services, enforce compliance with laws, and prevent abuse. 5. Increase Social Assistance Rates: Immediately double ODSP/OW rates, continue to commit to consistent future increases, and increase institutional allowances to an equivalent dollar value. Follow this with additional steps in legislation to maximize the impact of these changes. 6. Improve Publicly Accessible Data: Residents and their supporters need publicly available data on medication errors, disaggregated information on causes of deaths, including illness outbreaks, choking, and further data regarding use of trespass orders, evictions, against group home residents and their communities. This data should be reported by the Ministry and required to also be made available through all MCCSS Developmental Disability Funded Agencies’ Annual Reports. 7. Address Safety Risks: Residents and their supporters should be able to ensure that care is provided by workers who align with their needs and beliefs to “ensure culturally appropriate, gender and age specific individualised supports”.[23]Individual choice of care providers must be protected. These short-term recommendations can all be taken or begun immediately. However, we know that in order to truly create a safe, abuse-free Ontario, several longer-term goals must be achieved to fully address systemic ableism and models that congregate disabled people. As such, we recommend the following longer term recommendations. Part 4: Long-Term Recommendations * Rebuild Reporting and Oversight Structures: It is time to expand current reporting systems and implement additional accountability systems. ReportON is a strong first step, however, it requires additional structures: * Design and empower structures outside MCCSS: Establish structures that are empowered to take meaningful oversight actions outside of the structures of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, such as the Ombudsman. * Require clear structures for agency complaints: In the current paradigm, CEOs, Executive Directors, and agency leadership have too much power to make decisions about abuse, coercion, or neglect. Introducing a standardized process to raise complaints across all developmental services agencies will enable accountability, consistency, and equity of outcomes. Such a step will address persistent patterns of abuse and mentality of passing the buck on who is responsible. * Create Consistent Quality Assurance Systems embedded in the Quality Assurance Measures. Currently, the SIPDDA (2009) mandates transfer-payment-agencies follow Quality Assurance Measures. The policy directives pertaining to complaints and feedback concentrate power in the management structure. Decisions pertaining to the safety of residents must be made by the Advocates, an agency outside of the influence of the Ministry or the Residence. These measures should apply to all agencies or providers, regardless of their status as a TPA or otherwise. * Redesign Developmental Services Ontario (DSO): Restructure DSO roles and responsibilities to prioritize client safety and service accountability. To prioritize planning individually for a person to have a good life in their community of choice, with a home of their own, or when shared, chosen to be shared and likely with people of shared interests and compatible personalities rather than disability as the commonality. This planning function needs to be learned, supported and functioning outside of the DSO. * Restructure ODSP and OW: In addition to increasing rates substantially, as described earlier, replace rate structures with a single flat-rate for all and all components in a single amount, regardless of living arrangements. Allow disabled people to marry and live together without being penalized. Part 5: Conclusion As we close this brief, we want to remind all Members of Provincial Parliament, Ministry officials, and the wider Ontario public: the time for change is now and we cannot wait. Recently, this government sought a new mandate to take action saying it needed to protect Ontario—well, now action is needed to actually protect Ontario’s disabled adults and seniors. The Ontario government must act swiftly to protect individuals with disabilities from abuse, neglect, and systemic discrimination. The Ontario government must take action to support us and our caregivers/legal authorities, all of us who are often overburdened and burned out by the barriers present in our system. By implementing these proactive solutions, Ontario can foster a safer, more just environment where people with disabilities and their families are empowered, respected, and supported. Together, we can make an Ontario where people with disabilities, our families, and our communities can receive just care, stay in our communities, and thrive in the places we call home. Without action, however, we will continue to be faced with abuse, neglect, and violence which keeps not just us, but our whole communities in a cycle of loss and injustice. We can end this cycle together—end this crisis in the care of people labelled with intellectual and developmental disabilities—if you will come to the table with us and move forward on these critical issues for all Ontarians. ________________ Appendix 1: Glossary of Key Terms Abuse (Group Homes): Physical, emotional, sexual, or financial mistreatment of residents in care facilities, often stemming from systemic neglect and inadequate oversight. Developmental Services Ontario (DSO): The provincial agency responsible for coordinating access to services for individuals with developmental disabilities, including housing and support programs. Direct Funding: Financial assistance provided directly to individuals or families, enabling them to manage care services independently rather than relying on institutions. Group Home: A residential facility providing care for individuals with developmental or intellectual disabilities. These homes are often underfunded and under-monitored, leading to reports of systemic abuse and neglect. Host Family Setting: A care arrangement where individuals with disabilities live with a family in the community. While intended to offer personalized support, this model has also faced reports of neglect and abuse due to insufficient oversight. Lack of Accountability: A systemic issue in which care facilities and organizations are responsible for managing and addressing reports of abuse or neglect internally. Reports to MPPs, Community Living Ontario and other organizations are often funneled back to the organization’s CEO or leadership, requiring self-management with no independent oversight. This lack of external review creates a conflict of interest, enables abuses to go unchecked, and fails to provide transparency or justice for individuals with disabilities and their families. Institutional Abuse: Widespread mistreatment, neglect, and exploitation of residents within government-funded care facilities, including group homes and intensive support residences. Intensive Support Residence: A type of care facility for individuals with significant needs requiring 24/7 supervision. Reports highlight issues of neglect and abuse in these environments. Legal Abuse: The misuse of legal systems, tools, and policies to undermine the rights and well-being of individuals with disabilities and their families. This includes the inappropriate use of trespass orders, eviction notices, and court systems to restrict access to loved ones or services, prevent families or legal authorities from advocating for care, and isolate individuals from their support networks. Legal abuse exacerbates systemic neglect and denies individuals their fundamental rights to safety, dignity, and familial connection. Legal Authorities: Individuals or entities legally designated to make decisions on behalf of someone who cannot do so independently, including substitute decision-makers, legal guardians, or those holding power of attorney. Legal authorities ensure the rights and best interests of vulnerable individuals are upheld in care and service arrangements. Medical Neglect: Failure to provide appropriate medical care to individuals in care settings, resulting in untreated or worsening medical conditions. ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program): A provincial social assistance program designed to provide income and employment support to individuals with disabilities in Ontario. While intended to meet basic needs, current ODSP rates are widely criticized as grossly inadequate, leaving recipients well below the poverty line and perpetuating cycles of poverty. The program's restrictive income and asset limits, combined with its failure to reflect the rising cost of living, force individuals and families into precarious living conditions. Advocates argue that the system is dehumanizing, punitive, and in urgent need of reform to ensure disabled individuals can live with dignity and security. Portable Funding: A funding model allowing individuals to take their allocated resources to a service provider of their choice, promoting flexibility and personal empowerment. ReportON: A hotline for reporting abuse or neglect within care facilities, criticized for lacking enforcement power and independent oversight. SIPDDA (Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act): Ontario legislation aimed at promoting the social inclusion and rights of individuals with developmental disabilities. Critics argue its enforcement is inconsistent. Substitute Decisions Act (SDA): Ontario legislation that governs decision-making for individuals who cannot make certain decisions independently, empowering legal guardians and families to advocate for care and support. Systemic Discrimination and Ableism: Embedded biases and practices within institutions, policies, and societal systems that disadvantage people with disabilities. In group homes, this manifests as underfunding, lack of proper accommodations, exclusion of individuals and their families from decision-making, and tolerance for neglect and abuse. These systemic issues perpetuate the marginalization of disabled individuals, denying them equal access to safety, dignity, and opportunities for meaningful participation in their communities. Systemic ableism amplifies other forms of discrimination such as racism, sexism, and classism, which can further marginalize disabled people. Transfer Payment Agency (TPA): Transfer Payment Agencies (TPA’s) are funded by the Ministry of Children Community and Social Services (MCCSS) and other Ministries. These are agencies that can support disabled people and families with different funding opportunities (Passport funding, Family Managed Home Care) and are provided funding from the Province. They can provide programming, support workers and arrange to pay up front for services you may like under the specific program guidelines. Zero-Tolerance Policy (Abuse): A policy prohibiting any form of abuse, ensuring swift and appropriate consequences for offenders. Advocates call for such policies to be mandated in all group homes and care facilities. ________________ Appendix 2: References * Azzopardi, C., Cohen, E., Pépin, K., Netten, K., Birken, C., & Madigan, S. (2021). Child Welfare System Involvement Among Children With Medical Complexity. Child Maltreatment. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595211029713 * Callan, I. (2023). ‘The system has fallen apart’: A child dies every 3 days under Ontario’s care network. Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/10735101/ontario-child-care-system-deaths/ * Colker, R. (2015). Blaming Mothers: A Disability Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2604972 * Earle, K., & Spagnuolo, N. (2017). Freeing Our People Updates: The Long Road to Deinstitutionalization. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. https://policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/freeing-our-people-updates-long-road-deinstitutionalization * Joffe, K. (2010). Enforcing the Rights of People with Disabilities in Ontario’s Developmental Services System (The Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities). Law Commission of Ontario lco-cdo.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/disabilities_joffe.pdf * Linton, M. (n.d.). “Group Homes and Deinstitutionalization” Invisible Institutions Podcast. https://invisibleinstitutions.com/invisible-institutions-podcast-episode-6 * Luke's Place. (2021). Women’s Experience with CAS. https://lukesplace.ca/womens-experience-with-cas/ * ODSP Action Coalition (2025). “2025 Ontario Pre-Budget Submission”. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_jBoeOKJxgSGCZ1w6woJP7u9NTVIAf7N/view * David, K & Linton, M. (2023). “‘Allowances’ trap institutionalized Canadians in deep poverty”, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/allowances-trap-institutionalized-canadians-in-deep-poverty/ * Scott, E. (2022). Identifying and Challenging Mother Blaming in Canadian Child Protection. University of the Fraser Valley. * Seguin, J. (2023). Is Advocating a Crime? Trust Everyone, Trust No One. * Special Needs Jungle. (2022). Parent blaming to Avoid Professional Accountability is a Human Rights Issue. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/parent-blaming-avoid-professional-accountability-human-rights-issue/ * Wright, R. (2023). Empowerment of Parent Carers is a Fallacy When Healthcare Doesn’t Listen. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1824 * Dr. Viscardis, K. PhD (2019), 3-minute Huronia https://youtu.be/VFiPxIALs_A * Ontario Advocacy Act, S.O. 1992 (1996). https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/92a26 * Substitute Decisions Act, S.O. 1992 (2025). https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/92s30 * Supported Decision-Making and Representation Act, SNB 2022, c 60 (2025). https://laws.gnb.ca/en/document/as/2022,%20c.60 * Gord, K. and Cole, A. (2022). “Celebrating Seventy Years of Community Living Part Ten: The Right to Make One’s Own Decisions”. https://communitylivingontario.ca/celebrating-seventy-years-of-community-living-part-nine-the-right-to-make-ones-own-decisions/ * Kerri, J. (2010). “Enforcing the Rights of People with Disabilities in Ontario’s Developmental Services System”, Prepared for the Law Commission of Ontario’s “The Law as it Affects Persons with Disabilities”. https://www.lco-cdo.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/disabilities_joffe.pdf. * Disability Justice Network of Ontario, ODSP Action Coalition and Toronto Disability Pride March (February 2025). “Open Letter and Policy Platform”. https://endausterity.ca/ * United Nations (March 2025), “Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of Canada”. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD%2FC%2FCAN%2FCO%2F2-3&Lang=en ________________ [1] Community Living Ontario, 2024 [2] Ibid. [3] Linton, 2023 [4] Callan, 2021, Global News; further reporting from 2021 to present. [5] Seguin, 2023 [6] Invisible Institutions Podcast, 2021; Joffe, 2010. [7] Auditor General of Ontario, 2023 [8] Ibid. [9] Seguin, 2023 [10] Wright, 2023. [11] To further these ideas, please see the Concluding Observations on Canada’s Implementation of the UN Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lsuy7zzKlw-FGRgG_DteI4q8v4OkQ3Ie/edit [12] Earle & Spagnuolo, 2019. [13] Substitute Decisions Act, 1992; [14] Substitute Decisions Act, 1992; Gord and Cole, 2022. [15] Ibid. [16] Ibid. [17] Joffe, 2010 [18] Ibid. [19] David and Linton, 2023. [20] To further these ideas, please see the Concluding Observations on Canada’s Implementation of the UN Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. [21] Ibid [22] For more on Nova Scotia’s solutions see the remedy in Disability Rights Coalition v Province of Nova Scotia: https://humanrights.novascotia.ca/remedy [23] To further these ideas, please see the Concluding Observations on Canada’s Implementation of the UN Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.