By Peter Shawn Taylor

It seems reasonable that children with disabilities should have the same opportunities as other kids to attend summer camp. It's also happens to be the law.

Unfortunately a recent human rights tribunal decision breaches the bounds of reasonableness in interpreting that law. In doing so, it appears to sets a troubling precedent.

The case in question, the subject of several Record articles, involves a city-run day camp at Cambridge's John Dolson Centre and a 12-year old boy known as D.M. diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, a high-functioning form of autism.

D.M. first attended the Dolson camp in 2006; at that time staff observed he needed extra supervision and recommended one-on-one support. In 2007 he returned to camp without extra help and struggled. At one point he called another camper a racial epithet. He did the same thing during a 2008 March break camp and was removed.

When his mother tried to sign him up for 2008 summer camp, city staff said he could only attend with a dedicated support worker, provided free by the city. However inclusion support of this kind is limited to one week per child to allow for broad access.

D.M.'s mother demanded that her son attend the entire summer. The city offered two weeks. The standoff eventually led to a human rights complaint.

In May a human rights tribunal found in favour of D.M. Adjudicator Mary Truemner said the city "failed to accommodate the applicant's needs arising from his disability" by only offering two weeks. She ordered Cambridge to pay $12,000 to D.M. for violating his "inherent right to be free from discrimination."

This month the city said it will not appeal to provincial court for a judicial review - the $12,000 fine presumably being cheaper than carrying on. However this is an objectionable decision that should be challenged.

The issue isn't that Cambridge is ignoring children with disabilities. The city, along with many other institutions that run summer camps, such as the University of Waterloo's highly-regarded ESQ camp, puts considerable effort and money into its support services. Dolson's inclusion budget has doubled over the past two years.

The real issue is the ability of the city to allocate scarce resources for maximum public benefit.

The Dolson camp serves nearly 2,000 children each summer at fees far below privately run camps. Cambridge loses money on the program, operating it as a public service. But even public services need to stick to their budgets.

In her ruling Truemner was unimpressed with the city's claim that providing extra support would amount to a financial hardship. She put the obligation on Cambridge to accommodate D.M.'s needs all summer.

The city's claimed, however, that it has a 50-name waiting list for one-on-one support. Meeting every request would require an additional 74 staff members. Such an obligation would clearly swamp the Dolson camp's tiny budget. The result would inevitably be higher fees, more taxes or a possible end to the camp.

Of course human rights tribunals are notoriously uninterested in the precedents they might set. That's seen as a job for the courts. Which is why this decision needs a judicial review.

Allowing it to stand gives parents of children with disabilities the apparent right to demand one-on-one support for the entire summer from any summer camp they choose on human rights grounds. However egalitarian such an idea may seem, it is clearly untenable.

Despite considerably greater resources, the public school system cannot provide full-time dedicated support for every student who needs it. How can we possibly expect such a thing from the recreation budgets of municipal governments? Or other non-profit groups that run summer camps? This ruling could cripple summer camps everywhere.

D.M.'s mother claimed her son did not require a support worker. But if the city had agreed, it could have faced an equally unpleasant situation. Setting aside his disability, D.M. called another camper a racist word so toxic it cannot be reprinted here. Failing to act on such an incident could easily have prompted a corresponding human rights complaint of racial discrimination.

Therefore it seems quite legitimate for the city to require a support worker for D.M. to protect itself and other campers. Accommodation is a balancing act.

It also bears mentioning that large, unstructured social environments such as the Dolson camp are problematic for children with Asperger's. (I have a son with the same diagnosis and plenty of experience with these issues.) It comes as no surprise that when D.M. attended music and computer camp, activities with a more solitary focus, he had no troubles. Regardless of what human rights legislation says, not every situation is appropriate for every child.

Finally it seems reasonable, as well as necessary, that a city should be able to ration support in order to check potentially unlimited demand for inclusion workers. It's a laudable goal to provide all children with equivalent experiences. But this need not comprise the entire summer for every kid.

In the end, it's the Truemner decision that is unreasonable. Left unchallenged, it creates an open-ended obligation that could threaten the financial sustainability of all summer camps. And that's bad news for every child.

Peter Shawn Taylor is editor-at-large of Maclean's magazine. He lives in Waterloo.

http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/EditorialOpinion/article/771132