A conversation with disability rights researcher Stella Varvis

LLM student Stella Varvis of the University of Alberta Faculty of Law hopes to pave the way for change in the ways people with disabilities can participate in economic, political and social activities. 

Her research assesses the traditional methods used to evaluate legislation and examines how these methods may need to be re-interpreted in the context of disability. 

In this Q&A, Varvis, ‘01 LLB, shares her scholarly journey, research and the changes she hopes to see in the future.

Can you tell us a little bit about yourself?

I graduated from the University of Alberta Faculty of Law in 2001 and have since gained a wealth of experience in various legal positions. These include working as a research lawyer in private practice, legal counsel at the Court of Queen’s Bench (as it was then known) and Legal Research and Writing (LRW) director at the Faculty of Law. I joined the Alberta Law Reform Institute in 2018 as legal counsel, where I have contributed to independent research, analysis and consultation aimed at improving the laws of Alberta. I am proud to have played a pivotal role in my first ALRI project on adverse possession, whose recommendations were successfully adopted into law by the Alberta Government in December 2023.

Over the past two years, I have had the privilege of coaching the Clinton J Ford Moot, an in-house competitive moot for third-year law students. The experience of working alongside intelligent and motivated students in an intensive team-based environment has been highly rewarding. 

What inspired you to pursue the Master of Laws program, and how has the experience been so far?

Pursuing a Master of Law program with a focus on disability law feels like a natural extension of the policy work I have been engaged in over the past few years. It was important to me to do this work at the University of Alberta so that I could continue to build and maintain relationships with provincially-based disability advocacy groups. So far, my experience has been excellent, and I am grateful to all of the faculty members who have taken an interest in my studies. I am especially thankful to my supervisor, Professor Jessica Eisen, who has been incredibly supportive of my work, especially since I started the program in the middle of a global pandemic! 

Can you tell us about your research?

In 2017, approximately 22% of the Canadian population – over six million individuals aged 15 and over – identified as having a disability. These individuals face barriers that hinder their full participation in economic, political and social activities. While accessibility legislation promises to improve the lives of people with disabilities, fulfilling this promise depends on how legislation interprets and reflects ideas of disability, equality, citizenship and identity. 

My research project, tentatively titled “Assessing Accessibility: Developing an Evaluative Framework for Assessing the Effectiveness of the Accessible Canada Act," assesses the methods we traditionally use to evaluate the effectiveness of legislation and how those methods may be re-interpreted in the context of disability. I hope that my research on what evaluative methods should be developed for assessing and measuring the effectiveness of accessibility legislation will help contribute to this conversation.

Your presentation at the 2022-2023 - Lessons from the Past Fifteen Years: Accessibility and Disability Rights colloquium was titled "Crossing the Threshold: Reinterpreting Section 15 Using the Social Model of Disability." Can you explain what your findings were?

During my presentation at the Centre of Human Rights & Legal Pluralism's colloquium at McGill University, I discussed the interaction between section 15 of the Charter and the social model of disability. Specifically, I compared the approaches taken by the Supreme Court of Canada in Auton v British Columbia (Attorney General) in 2004 and the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in Disability Rights Coalition v Nova Scotia (Attorney General) in 2021 when answering the threshold question of whether the benefit claimed is one provided by law. I argued that we ought to prefer the broader, contextual approach demonstrated in the Disability Rights Coalition case as it better reflects the principles of both substantive equality and the social model of disability. Moreover, taking a social model approach to this threshold question matters now more than ever, especially if the SCC’s 2022 decision in R v Sharma represents a pendulum swing back to a more formalistic approach to section 15 claims.