Families for Accountability, Inclusion and Reform

10/03/2026

Parallel situation to ours... Minister Parsa of MCCSS is taking the usual "hands off approach" here. MCCSS continues to fund, but not support nor hold accountable the very systems meant to care for and protect our most vulnerable citizens of society - children and persons with intellectual disabilities. We have been sharing our stories about Ontario group homes. We know many sad stories relating to CAS. The systems are broken. It truly is a sad state of affairs 😪💔🙏.

10/02/2026

BETTY KARL - MAY , 1932 - SEPTEMBER 28, 2026

Today, we remember Betty — a grandmother, a fierce advocate, and a woman who never stopped showing up for the granddaughter she loved. Betty lived in Kitchener, Ontario.

As Betty's family and friends gather today to say goodbye today, those of us at FAIR want to honour not only her life, but the extraordinary love she had for her granddaughter, Lisa and for her daughter Kathy.

Betty was 94 years old. She was terminally ill. She walked with a walker. And still, she advocated.

She wanted something very simple: to spend precious time with her granddaughter.

Yet during the final chapter of her life, there were times when that became unnecessarily difficult.

Betty was denied entrance to Lisa's home. On one occasion, this elderly grandmother stood stooped over her walker on the driveway and was told to leave the property by staff at her daughter's agency.

When staff threatened to call the police, Betty wasn't frightened away.

Her response was simply:

"Let them come."

That was Betty.

She loved Lisa fiercely, and even at 94 years old, she was prepared to stand her ground for her granddaughter.

Transportation that had allowed Lisa to visit her grandmother on Thursday afternoons was also cancelled, despite Betty living only a couple of minutes away and no longer being able to drive herself.

Those Thursday visits weren't a luxury.

They were family.

They were a grandmother and granddaughter spending precious time together — time that we now know could never be replaced.

There is something deeply painful about knowing that a grandmother who understood her time was limited had to fight for something that should have been so ordinary: the ability to see and spend time with the granddaughter she loved.

Betty reminds us why families matter.

Parents matter. Grandparents matter. Siblings matter.

For people with disabilities who may not be able to speak for themselves, family can be their history, their comfort, their connection to the outside world, and sometimes their strongest voice.

Families should never have to fight simply to remain families.

Today is not a day for anger.

It is a day to remember Betty.

To remember her courage.

To remember that little woman standing behind her walker who refused to be intimidated.

To remember a grandmother whose age, illness and physical frailty never diminished the strength of her love.

And most importantly, to remember how deeply she loved Lisa.

Betty, you showed us what a grandmother's love looks like.

You kept showing up.

You kept speaking up.

And you never stopped loving your granddaughter.

Rest peacefully, Betty.

Your fight is over now.

But your love for Lisa — and the example you left for all of us who advocate for our vulnerable loved ones — will not be forgotten.

With love and deepest condolences to Lisa, her mother, and everyone who loved Betty.

— FAIR
Families for Accountability, Inclusion and Reform

09/30/2026

🧡 National Day for Truth and Reconciliation
Today, FAIR joins people across Canada in recognizing the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.
We honour the children who never returned home from residential schools, the Survivors who did, and the families and communities who continue to live with the lasting impacts of these systems.
Reconciliation begins with truth — with listening, learning, acknowledging what happened and understanding that its effects did not end when the residential schools closed.
As an organization built around the values of dignity, inclusion, respect and the right of every person to be heard, FAIR recognizes that these values must extend to everyone.
Today is a day to listen to Indigenous voices, reflect on our shared history and consider the role each of us can play in reconciliation.
Every Child Matters. 🧡

09/30/2026

“Not all men” does not answer concerns about women’s safety, dignity and intimate care.

Women with disabilities face a higher risk of sexual violence. Women who are non-verbal may be unable to tell someone what happened or report mistreatment. Their need for meaningful safeguards must be taken seriously.

When agencies assign men to solo overnight shifts in all-women homes, how are requests for female intimate care being honored? Who provides immediate assistance when a woman needs toileting, washing or a clean pull-up when their Substitute Decision Makers say they don't condone a man doing personal intimate care to their daughters?

Leaving someone waiting in urine or f***s until a female worker arrives is unacceptable. Respecting a request for female care must include having someone available to provide it.

Women with disabilities deserve a say in who touches their bodies. This is their most BASIC human right! Their communication needs must never be treated as permission to disregard their privacy, dignity or care preferences.

FAIR calls on agencies and funders to ensure staffing arrangements provide timely care, respect individual needs and include meaningful safeguards.

Families should not have to fight for these basic standards.

Why are government funded agencies allowing this???

FAIR asks YOU...Would you leave your daughter with a stranger overnight SOLO?

09/26/2026

WHEN AN “ACCOMMODATION” LEAVES A PERSON SITTING IN URINE OR F***S — IS IT REALLY AN ACCOMMODATION?

FAIR wants families to think about this.

A non-verbal woman with profound disabilities requires full assistance with toileting, continence care and personal hygiene.

Her documented preference is for female staff to provide intimate personal care.

Yet a male worker has now been assigned to work alone overnight three nights a week for approximately three months.

Because he does not provide her intimate personal care, what happens when she wakes up wet, needs the toilet, or has had a bowel movement?

Recently, she woke at approximately 5 a.m. covered in f***s.

She waited approximately three hours for a female worker to arrive and clean her.

She is urine incontinent every morning and will need to sit in her urine up to 2 hours until a female can take her to the washroom to clean her. If she wakes up dry she will have to p*e in her pullup and be changed when the female staff comes in 2 hours later.

This isn't a theoretical discussion about gender.

It is about what happens to a vulnerable human being when the staffing arrangement cannot provide the intimate care she needs when she needs it.

She cannot call management.

She cannot file a complaint.

She cannot explain afterward what happened.

She depends entirely on other people to protect her dignity, privacy, hygiene and bodily autonomy.

Families should not have to choose between accepting intimate care they believe is inappropriate for their loved one or having their loved one wait for basic personal care.

If an accommodation results in a non-verbal person waiting hours to be cleaned, we need to ask whether the system is accommodating the person — or accommodating the system.

WHY is this agency allowing this to happen???

FAIR — Families for Accountability, Inclusion and Reform- follow us

Michael Parsa

09/23/2026

📘 FAIR EXPLAINS: DID YOU KNOW?

You have the right to complain about an Ontario developmental service agency.

And there are rules about what the agency must do when you do.
Under Ontario's developmental services framework, MCCSS-funded adult developmental service agencies are required to have written policies and procedures for receiving and addressing complaints and feedback.

Who can make a complaint?

Not just the person receiving services.

A complaint or feedback can come from:
• a person with a developmental disability receiving services�
• someone acting on their behalf�
• a member of the general public

And here's something many families may not know:
Anyone can ask an agency for a copy of its written Complaints and Feedback Policy — and the agency must provide it.

That policy must explain how complaints are received and documented, how matters may be investigated, expected timelines, how the agency responds, who is responsible for handling complaints, and how conflicts of interest will be avoided.

The review process must also be free from coercion, intimidation and bias — before, during and after the review.

But perhaps one of the most important protections is this:
A person who submits a complaint or provides feedback must not be put at risk of having their services or supports negatively impacted or withdrawn because a complaint was made.

The agency must also make the person aware of this protection.

Read that again.

Speaking up about concerns should not put someone's supports at risk.

Agencies are required to receive, document and review all feedback, and to receive, document, review and attempt to resolve complaints, except those they determine to be frivolous or vexatious.

They are also required to review and analyze complaints and feedback annually — both to evaluate whether their complaints process is effective and to consider whether other agency policies or procedures need to change.

But FAIR has another question:

Is the complaint system working as intended?

FAIR has heard from families who believe that after raising concerns or filing complaints, their relationship with an agency changed or they experienced decisions, restrictions or other consequences that they perceived as punitive.

That raises an important accountability question:

If a family believes they have experienced retaliation for speaking up, who independently determines whether that has occurred?

An internal complaints policy is important.

But a complaints system is only truly effective if people feel safe using it — and if there is meaningful, independent accountability when the protections contained in that policy are alleged to have been breached.

This is one reason FAIR continues to advocate for independent oversight and stronger accountability within Ontario's developmental services system.

We want to hear from you.

Have you filed a complaint with an Ontario developmental service agency?
Was it handled according to the agency's complaint policy?
Were you satisfied with the process and outcome?
Or did you feel that you — or the person receiving services — experienced negative consequences after speaking up?

Please reach out to FAIR.
We want to better understand how the complaint process is working across Ontario — including the good experiences as well as the bad.

Because having a complaints policy is important.
Knowing whether it actually protects people is even more important.

FAIR — Changing Systems. Improving Lives.

09/10/2026

WHEN A NON-VERBAL PERSON KEEPS COMING HOME WITH UNEXPLAINED INJURIES — WHO INVESTIGATES?

We are sharing the redacted email below with the family's permission.

This mother has an adult son who is non-verbal, autistic and has a seizure disorder. He lives in an MCCSS-funded developmental services group home.

Because of his needs, he is supposed to be monitored 24 hours a day. His agency is also supposed to conduct and document two full-body scans every day, recording injuries and health concerns.

Yet this young man has repeatedly come home to visit his mother with significant bruises and other injuries that she says were not documented on his body scans and for which she has received no explanation.

When Mom asks what happened, she is repeatedly told:
No one witnessed anything.

Think about that for a moment.

A non-verbal person who requires 24/7 monitoring develops significant injuries.
No one reportedly saw what happened.
The injuries are not always recorded during twice-daily body scans.
And because he cannot speak, he cannot tell his mother what happened to him.

So Mom did what families are told to do.
She raised her concerns with the agency.
She followed the complaint process.
Eventually, she contacted ReportON, Ontario's reporting service for suspected abuse and neglect of adults with developmental disabilities.

MCCSS subsequently conducted an unannounced compliance inspection of her son's residence.
The result?

“The ministry did not find any non-compliances as they relate to the care of your son.”

And then ReportON told her:
“We encourage you to work directly with [the agency] regarding these concerns, as ReportON can no longer continue to respond to your concerns.”

So where exactly is this mother supposed to go now?
WHAT DOES “NO NON-COMPLIANCES” ACTUALLY TELL US?
MCCSS publishes the indicators used in developmental-services compliance inspections:(https://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/documents/en/mcss/developmental/EN_DS_Indicator_List.pdf).

The Ministry's own inspection tool examines things such as policies and procedures, staff and individual records, documentation, serious-occurrence reporting, abuse policies, police reporting, internal investigations and whether required processes were followed.

Those things matter.

But compliance monitoring is not the same thing as independently investigating what happened to an injured person.

An agency can have an abuse policy.

Staff can have completed the required training.

Reports and documentation can exist.

Required procedures can be followed.

An agency can pass a compliance inspection.

And a mother can still be standing there looking at unexplained bruises on the body of her non-verbal son.

The Ministry's Quality Assurance Measures even require agencies to immediately report suspected abuse to police where it may constitute a criminal offence, and prohibit the agency from beginning its own investigation until police have completed theirs (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100299).

Yet this mother's most basic question remains unanswered:

HOW DID HER SON GET THESE INJURIES?

And there is an even bigger question.
Who independently investigates when the existing system doesn't provide the answer?

ReportON is operated by the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services.
That same ministry funds and oversees Ontario's developmental-services system and conducts the compliance inspections of the agencies it funds.

That is oversight.

It is not independent oversight.

Ontario's own ReportON information currently tells the public that they can report actual or suspected abuse or neglect, that they do not have to be certain abuse occurred, and that ReportON will determine whether further action is required to help ensure the person's health, safety and well-being (https://www.ontario.ca/page/report-abuse-and-neglect-adult-developmental-disability).

So what happens when a mother follows the process, the unexplained injuries continue, no one can tell her how they happened — and ReportON tells her it “can no longer continue to respond” to her concerns?

Send her back to the service provider?

She already went there.

That is why families continue to call for independent oversight of Ontario's developmental services sector.

We need somewhere outside both the service agency and the ministry responsible for funding and monitoring the system where serious complaints involving abuse, neglect, unexplained injuries, safety and rights can be independently examined.

An oversight body with the authority to obtain records, examine patterns, investigate conflicting accounts, follow evidence and require accountability.

Because for a person who cannot tell us what happened, unexplained injuries cannot simply become unexplained paperwork.

“Compliant” does not necessarily mean safe.

Compliance is not the same as accountability.

And ministry oversight is not independent oversight.

09/04/2026

09/02/2026

This is a long post, but one we hope you can all relate to and will weigh in on...

SDM? POA? GUARDIANSHIP? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
These terms get used interchangeably all the time.
But in Ontario, they don't mean the same thing.
And for families supporting an adult with a developmental disability, understanding the difference can be incredibly important.

FIRST: WHAT IS A SUBSTITUTE DECISION-MAKER (SDM)?
"Substitute Decision-Maker" is not necessarily a title someone applies for.
It is a broad term for someone who has legal authority to make a particular decision for another person who has been found incapable of making that particular decision.
For health-care treatment decisions, Ontario law establishes a hierarchy of people who may act as the SDM.
That hierarchy begins with:
• Guardian of the person, if authorized to make the decision
• Attorney for personal care, if authorized
• A representative appointed by the Consent and Capacity Board
• Spouse or partner
• Parent or child
• Parent with right of access only
• Brother or sister
• Other relative
• And ultimately, in certain circumstances, the Public Guardian and Trustee

So simply being someone's parent does NOT necessarily mean you automatically have authority over every decision once your child becomes an adult.

POWER OF ATTORNEY
There are two primary types:
Power of Attorney for Personal Care
This can give another person authority to make certain personal-care decisions if the individual becomes incapable of making them.
These can include decisions involving health care, housing/shelter, nutrition, clothing, hygiene and safety.
Continuing Power of Attorney for Property
This deals with financial matters such as money, banking, bills, property and other financial affairs.
But there is something very important families need to understand:
A person must have the required legal capacity to GIVE someone Power of Attorney.
A parent cannot simply obtain POA for an adult child who does not have the capacity required to grant it.
That is one reason POA may not be an option for some adults with profound intellectual disabilities.

GUARDIANSHIP
Guardianship is different.
A private guardian is appointed through a legal process rather than simply being chosen through a Power of Attorney.
There are two main areas:
Guardian of Property
A guardian of property may have authority over financial matters such as income, benefits, bank accounts, bills and property.
Guardian of the Person
A guardian of the person is appointed by the court and may be authorized to make decisions involving health care, nutrition, shelter, clothing, hygiene and safety.
Guardianship does NOT necessarily have to be all-or-nothing. A court can limit the guardian's authority to particular areas in which substitute decision-making is required.

WHAT ABOUT CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS?
Ontario law generally presumes adults are capable unless there are reasonable grounds to believe otherwise.
Capacity is also decision-specific.
A person may be capable of making one kind of decision and incapable of making another.
And capacity can change.
Formal Capacity Assessors are specially trained professionals designated under Ontario's Substitute Decisions Act.
Depending upon the legal process involved, a capacity assessment may be required or may form part of the evidence used to establish incapacity.
These assessments are not necessarily free. Assessors generally establish their own fees, and costs can depend upon the complexity of the assessment, time involved, travel and other factors. Financial assistance may be available in some circumstances.

AND THEN THERE IS THE COST OF GUARDIANSHIP ITSELF.
For families seeking guardianship of the person through the courts, the process can involve lawyers, assessments, court documents and potentially substantial legal costs.
For some families, that cost can be prohibitive.
Think about the reality facing many families in developmental services.
A single mother may have spent decades providing unpaid care to a child with profound disabilities — perhaps sacrificing employment, career advancement, retirement savings and financial security along the way.
Then her child turns 18 and suddenly she may discover that being Mom, knowing that person better than anyone else on earth, does not automatically give her legal authority to make decisions on their behalf.
Obtaining that authority through the courts may cost money she simply doesn't have.
That deserves discussion.

BUT THERE IS ANOTHER SIDE TO THIS CONVERSATION.
Many disability-rights advocates have serious concerns about guardianship, particularly guardianship of the person.
And there is an important reason for that.
Guardianship transfers legal decision-making authority over particular matters from an individual to another person.
Historically, people with disabilities have too often had choices, freedoms and autonomy taken away from them simply because they had a disability.
That history matters.
This is why disability-rights advocates have pushed strongly for supported decision-making and the least restrictive alternatives wherever possible.
Instead of immediately asking:
"Who should make this decision FOR this person?"
we should first ask:
"What support does this person need to participate as fully as possible in making their OWN decision?"

FAIR strongly believes that people with developmental disabilities should be included in decisions affecting their lives to the greatest extent possible.
But we also believe this conversation requires nuance.
People with developmental disabilities are not one homogeneous group.
Some people can make virtually all of their own decisions with appropriate information and support.
Others may need assistance understanding certain complicated decisions.
And some people with profound intellectual disabilities may be unable to understand or appreciate the consequences of some major life decisions even with extensive support.
For a person who is also non-verbal or communicates in highly individualized ways, another difficult question arises:
Who gets to interpret their wishes, behaviours, preferences and best interests when they cannot communicate them clearly themselves?
Family?
A support worker?
Agency management?
A physician?
Government?
The Public Guardian and Trustee?

Who knows that individual well enough to recognize their unique ways of communicating — to understand the difference between yes, no, fear, discomfort, excitement, pain, or simply having a bad day?
And perhaps most importantly:
What happens when the people interpreting those wishes disagree?

This is where safeguards become incredibly important.
Because supported decision-making should never inadvertently become someone else making the decision and simply attributing that decision to the person with the disability.
Nor should guardianship mean ignoring the individual's preferences simply because somebody else has legal authority.
Neither extreme respects the person.
The goal should always be to preserve as much autonomy as possible while ensuring that people who genuinely cannot make particular decisions are protected from harm, coercion, neglect and decisions made by people who may not know them well.

THERE IS NO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL ANSWER.
Presume capacity.
Support decision-making wherever possible.
Listen to the individual — in whatever way that individual communicates.
Respect their wishes, preferences, relationships and autonomy.
Use the least restrictive approach appropriate to that person.
But also recognize the reality of profound intellectual disability and ensure that people who cannot protect their own interests have someone legally empowered — and accountable — to do so.

WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU ON THIS ONE.
Families.
Self-advocates.
Siblings.
Guardians.
Support workers.
Disability-rights advocates.

What has your experience been?

Does Ontario strike the right balance between autonomy and protection?

Is guardianship too restrictive?

Are supported decision-making approaches sufficient for people with profound intellectual disabilities?

Who should interpret the wishes of someone who cannot clearly communicate those wishes themselves — particularly when family and service providers disagree?

And should obtaining appropriate legal decision-making authority be financially out of reach for families who have already spent a lifetime providing unpaid care?

There are deeply held views on all sides of this issue.
Let's talk about them respectfully.
Because ultimately this isn't about giving families more power.
And it isn't about giving agencies more power.
It's about ensuring the person with the disability has the protection, autonomy, voice and support that is right for THEM.