Relationships, Sexuality, and Intimacy: A Rights-Based Guide for Adults with Developmental Disabilities in Ontario

If you’re supporting an adult with a developmental disability in Ontario, questions about friendship, dating, love, and intimacy can feel uncertain — for the adult, and for you. The starting point is simpler than it sometimes seems: your family member has the same right to relationships and sexual expression as anyone else, and good support widens their choices rather than narrowing them. This guide explains the rights, the history behind the discomfort, how consent and capacity actually work in Canadian law, and the practical things families and providers can do — with every fact sourced.

The short version

• Adults with developmental disabilities have the same rights to friendship, dating, romance, sexual expression, marriage, and family as everyone else — rights affirmed by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which Canada ratified on 11 March 2010. Yet these rights are still routinely denied in practice through silence, restrictive policies, and the lingering assumption that this population is asexual or child-like.
• That assumption has a documented, harmful history in Canada: eugenics-era involuntary sterilization under Alberta’s Sexual Sterilization Act (1928–1972) and British Columbia’s Sexual Sterilization Act (1933–1973), the wrongful sterilization of Leilani Muir (who won her lawsuit against Alberta in 1996), and the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1986 decision in Re Eve barring non-therapeutic sterilization of a person unable to consent.
• Capacity to consent to sexual activity is decision-specific and separate from financial or medical capacity. Canadian law (R. v. J.A., 2011; R. v. G.F., 2021) requires a conscious, operating mind and a person capable of understanding the physical act, its sexual nature, the identity of the partner, and the choice to refuse. Incapacity is not the same as inexperience.
• Good relationship-and-sexuality support is protective, not merely permissive. Adults with intellectual disabilities face sexual abuse at far higher rates than the general population, and accessible, plain-language sex education reduces vulnerability while enabling wellbeing.
• The real friction is between stated rights and lived opportunity — staff and family discomfort, over-restrictive organizational policies, and lack of privacy are where authority actually lives. Enabling policy, dignity of risk, education, and privacy are the practical levers families and providers control.

What every family should know

1. The right is settled; the practice lags. Sexuality is a recognized human right for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), grounded in CRPD Articles 23 (home and family) and 25 (sexual and reproductive health). The barrier is rarely the law itself — it is attitudes, discomfort, and policy. See Rights, Accessibility, and Anti-Discrimination Law for Adults with Developmental Disabilities in Ontario.
2. History explains the discomfort. Canada’s eugenic sterilization laws and the “eternal child” myth are not distant abstractions — they shaped institutions many living adults passed through, and their residue survives in overprotective attitudes today.
3. Sexual-consent capacity has its own legal and clinical test, separate from guardianship or medical/financial capacity. It is a low but real threshold, assessed individually, and the default is a presumption of capacity.
4. Education is protection. Denying sex education does not keep adults “safe”; it increases vulnerability to abuse and deprives them of wellbeing. Waterloo Region has a concrete Canadian example — SHORE Centre’s Sex-Ability program.
5. Organizational policy should enable, not forbid. A good agency policy affirms rights, protects privacy, sets out consent and safeguarding expectations, trains staff to separate personal values from their support role, and applies dignity of risk.
6. LGBTQ+ adults with IDD face double marginalization and need explicit, affirming support.
7. Partnering has downstream effects on ODSP eligibility and raises parenting questions — both should be flagged early, not used as reasons to discourage relationships.

The right, and the history of its denial

Adults with developmental disabilities have the same rights to relationships, intimacy, and sexual expression as anyone else. This is affirmed internationally by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which Canada signed in 2007 and ratified on 11 March 2010. CRPD Article 23 protects the right to home and family — including the right to marry, found a family, and retain fertility on an equal basis with others — and expressly prohibits compulsory sterilization. Article 25 guarantees the same range and quality of sexual and reproductive health services as are provided to others.

These rights exist against a long history of denial. For much of the twentieth century, people with intellectual disabilities were treated as asexual or as perpetual children — a framing the pioneering educator Ann Craft challenged four decades ago by articulating a set of sexual rights, including the right to be seen as an adult, to have relationships, to learn about sexuality, and to be protected from abuse.

The most severe expression of this denial in Canada was eugenic sterilization:

• Alberta’s Sexual Sterilization Act (1928–1972). Administered by a four-member Eugenics Board, the Act led to the sterilization of 2,832 people (of roughly 4,800 cases the Board considered). A 1937 amendment removed the requirement of consent for those deemed “mentally defective,” making virtually every institutional inmate vulnerable. It was repealed in 1972 by Peter Lougheed’s government.
• British Columbia’s Sexual Sterilization Act (1933–1973). Narrower in scope than Alberta’s; historian Angus McLaren estimated a few hundred people were sterilized. As The Globe and Mail (“Sterilization in the 20th century”) notes, records were destroyed, so figures are estimates: “there is speculation that at least 200 to 400 people were sterilized.” Repealed in 1973. Per CBC News (22 December 2005), “the B.C. Supreme Court … approved financial settlements totalling $450,000 for nine elderly women who were forcibly sterilized at Riverview psychiatric hospital between 1940 and 1968,” with individual awards “ranging from $25,000 to $100,000 plus their legal costs.”
• Leilani Muir. Admitted as a child to the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives in Red Deer, Muir was sterilized in 1959 without her knowledge, ostensibly during an appendectomy. Later IQ testing showed she was of normal intelligence. In Muir v. Alberta (1996), the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (Veit J.) ruled in her favour, awarding $740,780 in damages plus $230,000 in legal costs, finding the sterilization “so high-handed” and undertaken “in an atmosphere that so little respected Ms. Muir’s human dignity that the community’s, and the court’s, sense of decency is offended.” Her case opened the door to further claims. Per the Government of Alberta’s 2 November 1999 news release, the Stratton Agreement settled about 250 cases for roughly $82 million, “bringing the total amount paid to claimants to approximately $142 million”; over 600 cases had been resolved between January 1996 and June 1999.
• Re Eve (E. (Mrs.) v. Eve, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388). The Supreme Court of Canada held that a court, under its parens patriae power, may never authorize non-therapeutic sterilization of a person incapable of consenting — sterilization for therapeutic reasons could be authorized, but “social” or contraceptive sterilization could not. This landmark decision remains the governing authority on substitute-consent to sterilization in Canada.

This history matters today because the same instinct — to manage the sexuality of people with disabilities “for their own good,” through control rather than support — persists in softer forms: refusing sex education, forbidding relationships in group settings, denying privacy, or treating any adult sexual interest as a problem to be suppressed.

The full spectrum of relationships

Relationships run a full spectrum, and adults with IDD have the right to choose among them: friendship, companionship, dating, romantic partnership, sexual relationships, cohabitation, long-term partnership, and marriage. People with IDD want meaningful relationships and desire intimacy just as their non-disabled peers do. Support should widen the range of available options — including simply the opportunity to meet people, form friendships, and choose a partner — not narrow it to what a service system finds convenient. Many adults will want companionship and romance without sexual activity; others will want the full range. The point is that this is theirs to choose. A good day program understands that belonging and connection are part of a full life, not extras. See Social Inclusion and Belonging for Adults with Developmental Disabilities in Ontario.

Sexual health and education

The denial of accessible sex education to this population is well documented. When education is offered at all, it often focuses narrowly on danger and prohibition rather than healthy relationships, pleasure, identity, and communication. People with intellectual disabilities are frequently absent from mainstream health and physical-education curricula, and they may learn at a different pace, requiring adapted, repeated, plain-language, and activity-based instruction.

This matters for two reasons: wellbeing and protection. Research consistently finds that adults with intellectual disabilities are significantly less knowledgeable about sex and more vulnerable to abuse — and, per Murphy & O’Callaghan (Psychological Medicine, 2004), that those who had sex education and higher sexual knowledge scored better on measures of both knowledge and the ability to distinguish abusive from consenting relationships. In other words, education is a safeguarding intervention, not a risk.

Canadian and Ontario examples:

• SHORE Centre “Sex-Ability” (Waterloo Region). SHORE Centre (formerly Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region), based in Kitchener, developed “Sex-Ability,” a sexual-health program for people with developmental disabilities delivered as weekly workshops, plus parallel education for parents, caregivers, and support staff. Topics include relationships and dating, staying safe online, informed decision-making, and consent and boundaries. It is delivered in partnership with Extend-A-Family. SHORE’s programming follows the Public Health Agency of Canada / SIECCAN Canadian Guidelines for Sexual Health Education and the Information-Motivation-Behaviour (IMB) model. Per CBC News (7 September 2017), the province gave SHORE Centre “$33,600 over the next 12 months” via the Ontario Trillium Foundation’s Seed Investment Stream; SHORE’s sexual-health education manager Stacey Jacobs noted “the abuse rates for people with developmental disabilities is much, much higher than the general population.”
• SIECCAN (Sex Information and Education Council of Canada). A national charitable organization established in 1964; publisher of the Canadian Guidelines for Sexual Health Education (2019). SIECCAN has produced simpler-language info sheets on sexual health and disability and received federal funding to develop sexual-health toolkits for autistic and physically disabled youth.
• Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights maintains a “Sex, Sexual Health and Disability” hub affirming that people with disabilities are sexual beings with a right to bodily autonomy.
• AIDE Canada offers a Healthy Relationships and Sexuality collection, including the Healthy Relationships, Sexuality and Autism (HRSA) program for teens and adults 19+.
• Dave Hingsburger’s “Ring of Safety.” A widely used Canadian framework (Hingsburger was a Canadian consultant and author) that identifies avenues of self-protection — beginning with good sex education (proper names for body parts, understanding that sexuality is healthy) and including privacy awareness and the ability to say “no” / non-comply. His related works include Just Say Know! and I Openers.

Good education is comprehensive, sex-positive, plain-language, activity-based, repeated over time, and adapted to the individual’s communication; it addresses relationships, boundaries, consent, online safety, anatomy, contraception, STIs, and identity. Learning to say yes and no clearly is also the foundation of Self-Advocacy for Adults with Developmental Disabilities in Ontario: A Plain-Language Guide.

Consent and capacity — the centrepiece

Sexual-consent capacity is decision-specific. A person may have capacity to consent to sexual activity while needing a substitute decision-maker for finances, or vice versa. The starting point is a presumption of capacity, and IQ alone is never adequate justification to restrict the right to sexual expression.

The Canadian criminal-law framework. Consent to sexual activity in Canada is defined in the Criminal Code (s. 273.1) as the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question. Two Supreme Court of Canada decisions define the outer contours:

• R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 440. The Court (per McLachlin C.J.) held that consent requires “a conscious, operating mind throughout the sexual activity” — an individual “must be conscious throughout the sexual activity in order to provide the requisite consent.” Consent cannot be given in advance to acts performed while unconscious, and it can be revoked at any time. This establishes that consent must be ongoing and contemporaneous.
• R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20. The Court held that capacity to consent is a precondition to consent — the two are “inextricably linked.” Capacity to consent to sexual activity requires that the person be capable of understanding four things: (i) the physical act; (ii) that the act is sexual in nature; (iii) the specific identity of the partner(s); and (iv) that they have the choice to refuse to participate. Incapacity precludes consent (rather than “vitiating” otherwise valid consent).

The threshold set by G.F. is relatively low — it is knowledge- and understanding-based, not a test of wisdom, coherence, or good judgment about partner choice. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R. v. Owston, 2023 SKCA 101, confirmed that a trial judge erred by adding a requirement that the complainant be able to make a “rational decision”; limitations in comprehension or reasoning do not, by themselves, establish incapacity. (Note a tension: in the US case State v. Wallace, 561 P.3d 602 (Or. 2024), the Oregon Supreme Court held consent requires more than mere awareness that an act is sexual — it requires “an exercise of judgment, including consideration of the potential personal and social consequences of sexual activity.” This is US law and reflects a somewhat higher and different bar than the Canadian G.F. formulation; it is included as a comparative illustration, not Canadian authority.)

Protection built into the Criminal Code. Section 153.1 creates the offence of “sexual exploitation of a person with a disability”: a person in a position of trust or authority toward, or in a relationship of dependency with, a person with a mental or physical disability who counsels or incites sexual touching without that person’s consent commits an indictable offence (liable to up to 10 years). This is directly relevant to staff and caregivers, for whom power imbalance is legally salient.

How capacity to consent is assessed in clinical and forensic practice. In Canada there is no single statutory test or standardized federal protocol for assessing capacity to consent to sexual activity; practice relies on clinical judgment applied to the legal framework, and assessments must be individualized. The widely cited clinical framework, articulated by Michael Lyden (“Assessment of Sexual Consent Capacity,” Sexuality and Disability, 2007), rests on three elements adapted from consent-to-treatment doctrine: knowledge (basic sexual knowledge and knowledge of consequences), rationality/reasoning (understanding and appraising consequences), and voluntariness (deciding freely, without coercion, and the ability to refuse or resist). The empirical basis includes Kennedy & Niederbuhl’s survey of 305 psychologists (“Establishing criteria for sexual consent capacity,” American Journal on Mental Retardation, 2001), which identified basic sexual knowledge, knowledge of the consequences of sexual behaviour, and self-protection abilities as integral.

Named assessment tools. Ontario clinicians have contributed centrally to this field:

• SSKAAT-R (Socio-Sexual Knowledge and Attitudes Assessment Tool–Revised), by Dorothy Griffiths (Brock University) and Yona Lunsky (CAMH / University of Toronto), published 2003. A criterion-based assessment of sexual knowledge and attitudes designed for adults with intellectual disabilities, including a “Healthy Boundaries” section. It measures knowledge and attitudes rather than rendering a legal consent determination.
• SCEA (Sexual Consent and Education Assessment), by Carrie Kennedy — the most consent-specific tool, with knowledge and skills scales covering the nature of sexual conduct, consequences, and the ability to exercise choice and resist coercion.
• ASK (Assessment of Sexual Knowledge) (Butler et al., 2004, Australian) and the foundational functional-approach study by Murphy & O’Callaghan (“Capacity of adults with intellectual disabilities to consent to sexual relationships,” Psychological Medicine, 2004).

Named Ontario clinical leaders include Dr. Dorothy Griffiths (Brock University), Dr. Yona Lunsky (Director, Azrieli Adult Neurodevelopmental Centre, CAMH), and Dr. J. Paul Fedoroff (Sexual Behaviours Clinic, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Care Centre). Canadian legal scholars Janine Benedet and Isabel Grant (UBC) argue for a “situational” approach to incapacity rather than an all-or-nothing measure. Ontario institutional resources include the Child and Parent Resource Institute (CPRI) Sexual Behaviours Team and Community Living / ARCH Disability Law Centre’s “Respecting Rights” initiative.

Incapacity versus inexperience. A person who is naïve, has never received sex education, or makes choices others disagree with is not thereby incapable. The clinical and ethical error to avoid runs in both directions: over-restricting a consenting adult (paternalism) and failing to protect someone who genuinely cannot consent. Because individuals with mild intellectual disability may present as more capable than they are (the “cloak of competence,” Edgerton, 1993), and because they may also be underestimated, assessment must be careful, individualized, and — crucially — paired with education, since capacity can often be built through teaching rather than merely measured.

Supporting relationships in practice

The single biggest determinant of whether an adult with IDD can exercise their relationship rights is the attitude of the staff and family around them. Research on support workers repeatedly finds ambivalence — recognizing intimacy as a human need while hedging it with “question marks.”

Practical levers:

• Privacy. Opportunity requires private space, uninterrupted time, the ability to have overnight guests, and freedom from constant supervision. Without privacy, the right is theoretical.
• Opportunity. Actively support community participation, social events, and access to places where people meet — not just structured “programs.”
• Staff and family attitudes. Direct-support professional codes of ethics (for example, the OPWDD Code of Ethics) require staff to separate their own beliefs about relationships and sexuality from those of the people they support, and to remove themselves and seek a colleague’s help when they cannot. Refraining from judgment and stereotyping is a professional obligation.
• Dignity of risk. Adults have the right to take reasonable risks in relationships as in the rest of life; safety is not the only value. In practice this means not using “risk” as an automatic veto on relationships.

What a good organizational sexuality and relationships policy contains:

• An explicit affirmation that people supported have the right to relationships, intimacy, and sexual expression.
• A statement that support is rights-based and that staff must separate personal values from their role.
• Clear guidance on privacy (private space, overnight guests, knocking, personal devices).
• Guidance on consent and capacity, including when and how to seek assessment and education.
• Safeguarding provisions integrated with, not opposed to, rights — including recognition of s. 153.1 power dynamics and mandatory-reporting duties.
• A commitment to provide or arrange accessible sex education.
• Procedures for staff to seek support and consultation when values conflict.
• Attention to LGBTQ+ inclusion.

Foundational Canadian work by Dave Hingsburger and Sandra Tough (“Healthy sexuality: Attitudes, systems, and policies,” 2002) emphasizes that attitudes, systems, and policies must align — a permissive attitude undermined by a prohibitive system produces the worst outcomes.

Protection without control

The risk this population faces is real and elevated. NPR’s “Abused and Betrayed” investigation (Joseph Shapiro, 8 January 2018), citing unpublished U.S. Department of Justice data, found that people with intellectual disabilities “are the victims of sexual assaults at rates more than seven times those for people without disabilities” — and among women with intellectual disabilities, “about 12 times the rate.” A systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies (Tomsa et al., “Prevalence of Sexual Abuse in Adults with Intellectual Disability,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 2021;18(4):1980) found “the combined prevalence of sexual abuse in adults with intellectual disability was 32.9% (95% CI: 22.7–43.0)” — roughly one in three. Perpetrators are frequently people known to the victim, including caregivers and peers, and reporting rates are very low.

The correct response is not more control but better support: education (per the “Ring of Safety” logic — a person who knows the correct words, understands privacy, and knows they can say “no” is safer), the right to refuse and to have refusals honoured, trusted relationships, and enabling policy. Over-restriction does not eliminate abuse risk; it removes autonomy while leaving people ignorant and isolated — which increases vulnerability.

LGBTQ+ adults with developmental disabilities

LGBTQ+ adults with IDD experience “double marginalization” — stigma from ableism and from homophobia/transphobia, and often a feeling of not belonging fully in either the disability community or the LGBTQ+ community. They face barriers to coming out, to accessing affirming healthcare, and to finding community (including practical barriers like reliance on staff for transportation to LGBTQ+ spaces). Disability organizations can mirror the marginalization rather than counter it. Support needs include explicit affirmation, staff who do not assume heterosexuality or suppress gender expression, access to LGBTQ+ community and peer support (the Rainbow Support Group model, originating in New Haven in 1998, is one example), and inclusive sex education. Research into transgender people with intellectual disability specifically remains thin.

Marriage, cohabitation, and benefits

Marriage and cohabitation are rights — but families and providers should be aware early that they carry financial consequences under the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). If ODSP determines that two adults who live together are spouses (assessed after a minimum three-month period, on the basis of social/familial and financial factors — notably, “sexual factors” are not to be investigated or considered under the General Regulation), they must be assessed as a couple, and both partners’ income and assets are considered, which can reduce or eliminate benefits. This can create a real disincentive to cohabit or marry. The benefit mechanics are covered elsewhere; the point here is to flag it so relationship support and financial planning are coordinated, not to discourage partnering.

Parenting

Some adults with developmental disabilities are or wish to become parents; CRPD Article 23 protects the right to found a family. Canadian research (for example, analyses of the Canadian Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, which found about 8% of maltreatment investigations involved parents with intellectual disabilities) shows parents with intellectual disabilities are over-represented in and investigated by child-protection systems more often than other parents, and are under-referred to the tailored parenting supports that evidence shows can work. This is a substantial topic with its own law and practice and is only flagged here. The boundary principle: parenting capacity is distinct from sexual-consent capacity, and neither should be conflated with the other.

What families and providers can do

Concrete next steps, with the thresholds that should prompt them:

1. Start from a written rights affirmation (now). Adopt or update an organizational relationships-and-sexuality policy containing the nine elements listed above. When to escalate: if staff cannot point to a current policy that affirms the right to relationships, treat this as the first priority — a policy silent on sexuality functions in practice as a prohibition.
2. Fix privacy before anything else (now). Audit whether each supported adult actually has private space, uninterrupted time, and the ability to host guests, including overnight. Threshold: if the answer is no, the “right to relationships” is theoretical regardless of policy language — remediate physical and scheduling barriers first.
3. Provide accessible sex education (within the current service year). Arrange plain-language, repeated, activity-based education — locally, SHORE Centre’s Sex-Ability and its caregiver/support-provider workshops are a ready Waterloo Region option; SIECCAN and AIDE Canada materials supplement it. Threshold: education should be offered proactively, not only after a problem or an abuse disclosure.
4. Distinguish a capacity question from a discomfort question (case-by-case). Only seek a formal capacity assessment when there is a genuine, specific reason to doubt understanding — not because a relationship makes staff or family uncomfortable. When assessment is warranted, engage a qualified clinician familiar with tools like the SSKAAT-R and the G.F. four-part framework, and pair assessment with education. Threshold: if the concern is really about partner choice or “unwise” decisions rather than understanding, that is a dignity-of-risk conversation, not a capacity assessment.
5. Train staff on values-separation and s. 153.1 (ongoing). Ensure every direct-support worker understands both the duty to separate personal values from their role and the legal power-imbalance rules that make staff-initiated sexual contact a criminal offence.
6. Coordinate benefits and, where relevant, parenting support early (at relationship milestones). When cohabitation or marriage is contemplated, loop in ODSP-literate advice and, if parenting arises, tailored parenting supports — proactively, so financial or child-welfare consequences are planned for rather than used to discourage the relationship.
7. Affirm LGBTQ+ identity explicitly (ongoing). Do not assume heterosexuality; connect people to affirming community and peer support.

Grey areas and points of confusion

• Where the capacity threshold sits. Canadian criminal law (G.F., Owston) sets a knowledge-based threshold and rejects a “rational decision” requirement; some US jurisprudence (Wallace) and some clinical frameworks (Lyden) emphasize appraisal of consequences and judgment. The legitimate worry on one side is under-protection of people who are exploited; on the other, paternalistic over-restriction of consenting adults. Both errors are real, and the balance is genuinely debated.
• Assessment tools measure knowledge, not “consent” per se. The strongest Canadian tool (SSKAAT-R) measures sexual knowledge and attitudes; no universally accepted standardized instrument determines legal consent capacity, and experts agree assessment must be individualized. There is honest disagreement about how much to standardize.
• Dignity of risk versus duty to protect. How much risk is “reasonable,” and who decides, is contested — especially where a consenting adult chooses a relationship others view as unwise or exploitative.
• Capacity as buildable. There is a meaningful debate about the duty to educate toward capacity (rather than simply assess and restrict), and how far providers must go to enable capacity before concluding it is absent.
• The eugenic legacy is not fully closed. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights has documented that coerced and forced sterilization has continued in Canada, disproportionately affecting Indigenous women — a reminder that this is not purely historical.

How current is this, and what to double-check

• Currency. Legal statements reflect Supreme Court of Canada authority as of mid-2026: Re Eve (1986), R. v. J.A. (2011), and R. v. G.F. (2021) remain the governing decisions; ss. 153.1 and 273.1 of the Criminal Code are current. Case law can evolve; verify before relying on any specific point.
• Jurisdiction. This page is Ontario/Canada-focused. The sterilization statutes discussed were Alberta and BC; abuse-prevalence figures include US and international studies (rates vary widely by method and definition — the ~7× figure is US-derived; the ~33% meta-analytic figure is international). Treat non-Canadian figures as indicative, not authoritative for Ontario.
• Source reliability. Case facts and holdings are drawn from CanLII, the Supreme Court of Canada, and legal reporters; program details from the providers’ own materials; prevalence data from peer-reviewed meta-analyses and investigative journalism. Some prevalence statistics circulate in advocacy materials without primary sourcing and should be treated cautiously; where they appear here they are attributed to their named source.
• Scope. General legal capacity and guardianship, detailed abuse epidemiology and safeguarding response, ODSP benefit mechanics, and parenting depth each have their own dedicated coverage and are only summarized or flagged here.

This is general information, not legal or clinical advice. For a specific situation, consult a qualified Ontario lawyer and, where capacity is in question, a qualified clinician.

Related: Rights, Accessibility, and Anti-Discrimination Law for Adults with Developmental Disabilities in Ontario · Social Inclusion and Belonging for Adults with Developmental Disabilities in Ontario · Self-Advocacy for Adults with Developmental Disabilities in Ontario: A Plain-Language Guide