Skip to main content
COVID-19 information and screening Learn how we’re keeping our campus community safe, healthy and engaged during our gradual return to campus.
Note: The university’s mandatory vaccine directive is now in effect. Learn more about vaccine requirements.
Ontario Tech acknowledges the lands and people of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation.

We are thankful to be welcome on these lands in friendship. The lands we are situated on are covered by the Williams Treaties and are the traditional territory of the Mississaugas, a branch of the greater Anishinaabeg Nation, including Algonquin, Ojibway, Odawa and Pottawatomi. These lands remain home to many Indigenous nations and peoples.

We acknowledge this land out of respect for the Indigenous nations who have cared for Turtle Island, also called North America, from before the arrival of settler peoples until this day. Most importantly, we acknowledge that the history of these lands has been tainted by poor treatment and a lack of friendship with the First Nations who call them home.

This history is something we are all affected by because we are all treaty people in Canada. We all have a shared history to reflect on, and each of us is affected by this history in different ways. Our past defines our present, but if we move forward as friends and allies, then it does not have to define our future.

Learn more about Indigenous Education and Cultural Services

'Insufficient Evidence': Surveillance, Exposure, and the Medicalization of Disability Identity in Ontario Human Rights Law

Morgan Rowe – Associate Lawyer, Raven Law, Ottawa

Published April 20, 2018 by Technologies of Justice.

On January 27, 2018, Morgan Rowe presented a talk entitled 'Insufficient Evidence': Surveillance, Exposure and the Medicalization of Disability Identity in Ontario Human Rights Law. The panel took place during a session on violent custodial logics at the Technologies of Justice Conference, held at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology.

 

 

Rowe presented on human rights and labour law in disability cases, especially in terms of access to human rights in the case of a disability. She described how there has been an increase in legal cases where employers, after many years of accepting a disability, are starting to question the existence of a disability. She explained how talking about and regulating disability is often based on a case of surveillance or voyeurism, and how proving access and dealing with those with disabilities is now a question of both law and medicine. She points out the dehumanization of those with disabilities and how the social model of disability is slowly pushing back on medical and clinical terms in cases involving the rights of a person.
 
She demonstrated the use of 'gatekeepers' (those who can restrict access), and the struggles that can become apparent in proving the need for access. She explained how in both legal and medical fields, people tend to defer to medical experts to deal with definitions instead of defining disability within law. She showed how this can cause problems when a medical condition is hard to diagnose, or when someone is struggling to get their diagnosis. She also highlighted how a large amount of evidence is becoming the standard in many human rights and legal cases, and how this is finally coming to light as disability has come to the forefront.