Closing arguments heard at N.S. inquiry as people with disabilities allege housing discrimination

Beth MacLean, the woman at the centre of a human rights case dealing with persons with disabilities and their attempts to move out of institutions, pauses while testifying at an inquiry in Halifax on Tuesday, March 6, 2018. Darren Calabrese/The Canadian Press

A lengthy inquiry which is considering whether the Nova Scotia government violated human rights by housing people with disabilities in a hospital for over a decade is hearing closing arguments Tuesday.

Beth MacLean and Joseph Delaney have testified the Department of Community Services violated the province’s Human Rights Act by forcing them to remain at the Emerald Hall psychiatric ward in Halifax even though they had been medically discharged.

READ MORE: Nova Scotia inquiry told no safe home for N.S. woman with intellectual disability

The human rights complaint, laid in 2014, argued they should have been provided housing in a “small options” home after psychiatrists medically discharged them.

Small-options homes are small housing units, with usually three or four residents, where day-to-day support is provided to people with intellectual disabilities.

Story continues below advertisement

In their closing submissions, the applicants and counsel for the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission wrote that inquiry chairman Walter Thompson has enough evidence to find that discrimination against people with disabilities occurred.

WATCH: Evidence underway in Nova Scotia human rights inquiry

Click to play video: 'Evidence underway in Nova Scotia human rights inquiry' Evidence underway in Nova Scotia human rights inquiry
Evidence underway in Nova Scotia human rights inquiry – Feb 13, 2018

The province’s lawyers have written that problems like waiting lists and the lack of suitable homes may not be “ideal,” but do not constitute discrimination.

If Thompson rules in favour of the applicants, the case would still go to a second set of hearings, where the province can argue that the discrimination is defensible under existing laws.

Sponsored content