AODA Alliance
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update
United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities
Website: www.aodaalliance.org
Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aodaalliance
Twitter: @aodaalliance
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/aodaalliance
TikTok @AODAAlliance
CBC’s “Marketplace” Program’s Extraordinary Coverage of Restaurant Accessibility Barriers in Ontario Shows Similar Problems as a Toronto Star Series Documented 23 Years Earlier
November 8, 2026
SUMMARY
On Friday, November 6, 2026, CBC TV’s national public affairs Marketplace program devoted its entire 30 minute prime time episode to revealing the recurring accessibility barriers that patrons with disabilities experience. A report summarizing this episode also aired on CBC’s The National on November 5, 2026. You can view that shorter report on YouTube. Below we set out the text to the online report that CBC also posted.
We vigourously applaud CBC for this coverage. It shows the harmful consequences of the Ford Government’s failed implementation and enforcement of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, as AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky explained in this ground-breaking report.
It is shocking but, sadly, not surprising that the Ford Government’s Minister for Seniors and Accessibility refused to give an on-camera interview to CBC. The Ford Government’s implementation and enforcement of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act has been a dismal failure. That the Ford Government won’t even go on camera to defend itself is a strong indication that it knows how poorly it is performing on this issue.
Disability barriers have existed for many years in restaurants. In July, 2003, the Toronto Star published a series of reports on this same issue. Back then, the Ontario Human Rights Commission took helpful proactive steps to enforce the Ontario Human Rights Code to address this barrier. Below we set out two July 2003 Updates from the AODA Alliance’s predecessor coalition, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. The ODA Committee led the 10-year campaign to get the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act enacted in May 2025.
Almost a quarter century later, the Ontario Human Rights Commission is not showing the same proactive enforcement leadership on this issue. It has the power to launch public interest proceedings against any organization to try to press for reforms in this area. That power has too often gone unused.
Moreover, in 2006, the Ontario Legislature radically changed how discrimination victims such as restaurant patrons with disabilities could enforce their human rights. Up until then, they could file a human rights complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Commission had the duty to investigate these complaints, try to work out a mediated settlement, and if not, to present these complaints to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario when the evidence warranted it. However, in 2006, the Legislature privatized the enforcement of the Ontario Human Rights Code. It took away from the Ontario Human Rights Commission its mandate to investigate and litigate individual human rights complaints.
Since 2008, anyone who wants to file a human rights complaint must investigate it themselves and present it themselves at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The Government created the Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre to help human rights victims, but that Centre lacks the resources to represent many if not most of them, no matter how strong is their case.
In 2006, the AODA Alliance joined with other social justice advocates to campaign against the proposed privatization of human rights enforcement in Ontario. We lost that round. On the AODA Alliance website’s human rights page, you can learn all about that battle. As well, you can learn about it by watching an online video talk by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on this topic.
How You Can Help
- Write CBC to congratulate them on their coverage of disability barriers in restaurants. Tell them about barriers you have faced or witnessed. You can write CBC at: marketplace@cbc.ca
- Encourage your local media to report on disability barriers in your community, including in restaurants.
- If you want practical tips on how to get media coverage, check out Episode 4 of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast. Former journalist Michelle McQuigge gives you very useful advice on how to do this.
MORE DETAILS
CBC News November 6, 2026
Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/accessibility-barriers-restaurants-9.7410440
CBC Marketplace
Hidden cameras reveal accessibility barriers at leading restaurants
At least 2 restaurants make changes after findings of investigation revealed
Jeremy McDonald, Rosa Marchitelli, Jeremy Grimaldi, Daniela Silva · CBC News · Posted: Nov 06, 2026 4:00 AM EST | Last Updated: November 6
Marketplace visited 10 popular restaurant chains with hidden cameras to document the dining experience of customers who have disabilities. (CBC)
Malfunctioning power door operators, inaccessible self-service kiosks and the inability to get a braille menu were among the issues people with disabilities faced while eating out as part of a Marketplace investigation into accessibility at fast-food and full-service restaurants in Ontario.
Marketplace put 10 popular restaurants to the test: five fast-food chains and five full-service restaurants.
The findings raise questions about the effectiveness of Ontario’s decades-old accessibility legislation, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), and the province’s overall approach to fulfilling the act’s purpose: achieving accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities.
“There’s so much more that can be done,” said accessibility strategist Lorene Casiez, who manages Human Space, the accessible design practice of architectural firm BDP Quadrangle.
“There are a lot of better practices, a lot of lived experience … easy-to-do things to make the environment as usable as possible for everyone.”
Robert Hampson lost his vision at the age of four after undergoing surgery for a brain tumor.
“I remember as a very young kid bumping into things, walking over curbs, hitting my head, but I decided I could do anything I wanted,” the Toronto resident said. “I just had to keep going and have no fear.”
Hampson said his confidence began to wane at a certain point, but it was restored when he decided to take on a mission.
“I need to educate people along the way,” he said. “Every time I walk out the front door and step outside, I’m an advocate for people who are blind and people with disabilities.”
Testing fast-food restaurants
Hampson, accompanied by a Marketplace producer, visited one Greater Toronto Area location for A&W, McDonald’s, Thai Express, Tim Hortons and Wendy’s to document his experience as a customer with a disability.
He started each trip with a simple question: Do you have a braille menu?
None of the locations he visited could provide one.
“I would have liked to have at least found one that had a braille menu,” he said. “It’s something that needs to be improved upon.”
Two companies responded directly to the findings regarding braille menus. Tim Hortons said it doesn’t offer them because of how frequently its menu changes. Wendy’s told Marketplace braille menus are available across the country, but did not explain why Hampson wasn’t offered one when he asked.
Accessibility strategist Lorene Casiez says Ontario’s accessibility laws fall short of what’s needed for persons with disabilities. (Submitted by Lorene Casiez)
The AODA does not specifically require braille menus, but Casiez said having them on hand sends a positive signal to customers.
“If someone can’t visually read, an alternate format might be braille. An alternative format might be an audible component,” Casiez said.
“Thinking about different ways that people can understand the information is certainly a requirement in the AODA.”
Beyond braille
Marketplace’s fast-food restaurant test also included self-service kiosks, layout and washroom accessibility.
Hidden cameras documented Hampson’s attempts to use self-service kiosks at McDonald’s and Wendy’s. Both had touchscreens and some accessibility features, but neither had a way for him to hear options.
At times, Hampson had difficulty navigating. He accidentally went through an emergency exit at Tim Hortons and was heading toward the drive-thru lane when a concerned motorist shouted toward him: “You’re in the drive-thru.”
A Marketplace investigation found that self-service kiosks at McDonald’s and Wendy’s locations it visited were unusable for Robert Hampson, a blind customer.
He also got confused on the way to the washrooms at McDonald’s and A&W. In the case of A&W, a producer intervened to help him.
On the bathroom door, there was no braille or tactile markings.
“I had no way of knowing, is that the women’s? Is that the men’s?” he said.
Casiez said a requirement for tactile signage on washroom doors has been in the Ontario Building Code for a long time.
“Not very expensive either, potentially.”
Whether the A&W Hampson visited would have been required by the Ontario Building Code to have the signage is unclear.
When it comes to navigating restaurants independently, Hampson wants to see more consistency in how they’re laid out. He’s also in favour of markings on the ground he can feel with his white cane that can help him determine his location and direction.
In a statement, McDonald’s Canada told Marketplace it’s sorry to hear about the challenges Hampson experienced.
“This restaurant is independently owned and operated, and we have shared the observations provided to us with the franchisee for its review,” the company said.
A Wendy’s statement said the company is looking into what was documented during the visit and is working with the franchisee to “identify any opportunities to further support the customer experience.”
“When this restaurant was built, it was built in accordance with all applicable standards at the time,” said a statement from Tim Hortons. “We are working to identify design changes that could in the future better allow all guests to navigate the space independently.”
A&W declined to comment on the investigation.
Taylor Lindsay-Noel and a Marketplace producer documented malfunctioning power door operators at chain restaurants in Toronto. (CBC)
Taking on full-service restaurants
Marketplace also visited one location in Toronto for full-service restaurants Boston Pizza, Earls, Milestones, Swiss Chalet and The Keg. At those locations, hidden cameras documented the experiences of two women who use wheelchairs.
Taylor Lindsay-Noel was one of the customers who, along with a Marketplace producer, dined at three of those establishments. She is a social media content creator who does accessibility-focused restaurant reviews.
“I want to show people that we live very full lives, but it also makes it hard for us to live our lives if places aren’t accessible,” she said.
The checklist included entrances, an area where Lindsay-Noel encountered challenges at Swiss Chalet and Boston Pizza. At Swiss Chalet, the power door operators malfunctioned on the way in and when she left.
A lot of restaurants claim to be wheelchair accessible. This reviewer puts it to the test
The same was true of Boston Pizza, but on the way out there was a plant and a sign placed in front of the power door button.
“Even if it was working, I wouldn’t have been able to hit it,” she said.
Marketplace also documented that there were no power doors at the entrance to The Keg, which is required by the current building code. It’s unclear which version of the building code applies to The Keg that Marketplace visited.
The full-service customers also asked employees if they were aware of the AODA, which is supposed to be covered in mandatory accessibility training. Of the five restaurants, only one frontline employee at The Keg said she was “a little bit” familiar with the legislation.
“It’s part of who you’re serving as your client base. So having an awareness of it is really important,” said Casiez.
Government response
Marketplace shared the findings of its investigation with the office of Ontario’s minister for seniors and accessibility, Raymond Cho, and requested an interview, but the request was declined.
Instead, his office sent a statement that said: “Individual businesses and organizations are responsible for ensuring they are in compliance with the AODA. The Ontario Building Code also sets out accessibility requirements for new construction and existing buildings undergoing extensive renovations.”
A spokesperson for Cho said the ministry focuses its “compliance and enforcement efforts” on areas where it can have the greatest impact and added, “complaint trends are reviewed regularly to help determine which sectors should be prioritized for audits and inspections.”
Under the AODA, businesses and non-profit organizations are required to file accessibility compliance reports every three years. The next deadline is Dec. 31.
Full-service restaurants make changes
Marketplace requested interviews with the full-service restaurant chains we documented in our investigation. None agreed to an on-camera interview.
Foodtastic, the parent company of Milestones, said in a statement that Milestones is committed to accessibility and added: “We have taken the opportunity to reiterate to our personnel the importance of being familiar with AODA rules, reminding all employees to ensure their training is up to date.”
The company also confirmed it added braille and tactile washroom signs to the location in our test.
A statement from Earls said the location we visited “adheres to all municipal building codes and accessibility requirements.” The response also affirmed the company’s commitment to “a safe, inclusive and comfortable environment.”
Boston Pizza, The Keg and Swiss Chalet provided no response to multiple requests for comment. But since sharing our findings with Swiss Chalet, new power door operators have been installed in the washrooms of the location Marketplace visited.
Swiss Chalet did not respond to Marketplace’s investigation, but has since installed power doors for the washrooms at the test location. (CBC)
Accessibility law ‘pathetically weak,’ advocate says
The AODA went into force in 2005. The regulations include standards for information and communications, customer service and design of public spaces.
“They’re pathetically weak,” said Toronto-based disability rights advocate David Lepofsky.
Lepofsky, who is blind, was at the forefront of efforts to create the AODA, but said it hasn’t lived up to its potential.
“They deal with the public spaces in the built environment, but virtually nothing about the barriers inside buildings.”
Lepofsky is pointing to the fact that many of the requirements for interior spaces are found in the Ontario Building Code, not the AODA. This includes details regarding doors, washrooms and signage.
But, according to Lepofsky, the Ontario Building Code has a crucial flaw: it only applies to new buildings or older buildings that have been extensively renovated.
“For the vast majority of our built environment, the building code’s inadequate provisions won’t even touch them.”
Power doors absent or malfunctioning at popular restaurants
Diners Taylor Lindsay-Noel and Ruth Wallace encounter barriers at the entrances of leading restaurant chains.
Lepofsky said he wants standards that cover both old and new buildings “comprehensively.”
He also wants to see better enforcement of the AODA.
“It’s like a voluntary law because people who break the law, even though it has strong financial penalties built into it, sadly don’t have to really worry about that at all.”
That sentiment was echoed in the 2023 legislative review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, which said “enforcement is non-existent under the AODA.”
The review cited a “lack of resources” and “the size of the private sector that falls under the jurisdiction of this legislation.”
Restaurants are also subject to Ontario’s Human Rights Code, which says every person has the right to equal treatment “with respect to services, goods and facilities.”
For Hampson, the restaurant visits were sobering, but he hasn’t lost hope.
“It’s definitely disappointing and frustrating,” he said.
“But I think change comes slowly and it has to be people like myself, other people who are blind, visually impaired and other people with disabilities just continuing to push and say if we’re going to continue spending money here and coming to your businesses we need to see more things made accessible.”
ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMMITTEE UPDATE
Originally posted at: https://www.odacommittee.net/new.html
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FOCUSES ON INACCESSIBILITY OF CHAIN RESTAURANTS – MEDIA COVERAGE SHOWS NEED FOR ODA TO BE STRENGTHENED SO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES NOT FORCED TO FIGHT THESE BARRIERS ONE AT A TIME
July 7, 2003
SUMMARY
The Ontario Human Rights Commission has announced that it is taking further steps to attempt to get restaurant chains to make their premises accessible to persons with disabilities. The Toronto Star has published a series of articles on this. In the most recent article, published July 7, 2003, the ODA Committee highlights the need for the Ontarians with Disabilities Act to be strengthened to require accessibility in the private sector, such as restaurants, so that persons with disabilities are not forced to fight these barriers one at a time. Jeff Adams, chair of the Government-appointed Accessibility Advisory Council, speaks out against imposing mandatory accessibility requirements for businesses such as restaurants.
MORE DETAILS
In a series of recent articles in the Toronto Star on July 4, 5 and 7, 2003, set out below, the newspaper highlights the fact that many restaurant chains still have too many restaurants that are inaccessible to persons with disabilities. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is described as taking steps to try to address these in seven companies under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Under the Code, individual discrimination complaints must be filed against each restaurant, fighting barriers one at a time.
In the most recent of these articles, in the July 7, 2003 Toronto Star, ODA Committee chair David Lepofsky and ODA advocates Ed Rice and Carole Riback are quoted. They focus on the need for the ODA to be strengthened to require mandatory accessibility standards in the private sector, such as in restaurants.
In that article, Jeff Adams, chair of the Conservative Government-appointed Accessibility advisory Council is quoted as speaking out against establishing mandatory provincial requirements for businesses such as restaurants to be made accessible to persons with disabilities. He comments negatively on the Americans with Disabilities Act. In contrast, Keith Norton, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, is described in the July 4, 2003 article in the Toronto Star in favour of higher standards such as those in place under the U.S. law.
In public hearings on the Government’s ODA bill in 2001, disability organizations and individuals overwhelmingly called on the Government to amend the ODA so that it would require accessibility in the private sector such as in stores and restaurants. The Opposition Liberals and NDP proposed amendments to achieve this. The Government voted down all those amendments.
Below please find these Toronto Star articles, and an excerpt from the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s 2002-2003 Annual Report addressing this issue.
We note that when the Conservative Government introduced its ODA bill back in November 2001, it made public statements on the need to remove the kinds of barriers which the Toronto Star describes. The Ontario Government’s policy paper, released on November 5, 2001 along with the ODA bill, entitled “The Framework for Change,” stated: “More than 20,000 retail businesses in Ontario can, for a modest cost, remove a front step – a barrier that persons with disabilities, mothers with strollers and seniors encounter every day. This small measure, along with other simple changes, could have an immense impact on the ease and independence of persons with mobility disabilities.”
During Second Reading Debate in the Ontario Legislature on the Government’s ODA bill, Conservative MPP Toby Barrett, speaking for the Government, stated “Minister Jackson this afternoon used the expression “barrier-free Ontario.” At first blush I would think, is this possible or is this truly an insurmountable task? I think we all agree that a gap exists between where we are now and where we should be. I don’t see this as one gigantic challenge, something we can bite off in one chunk. It will take time. I see it as a series of very small challenges.
I think of the example of the step in front of so many stores and commercial establishments. In the first place, usually, through design, a step like that need not be built. By and large, it’s fairly simple to take out a concrete step and redesign the doorway. You have an accessible commercial establishment and the proprietors of that store have access to a new cadre of customers.” (Hansard, November 8, 2001)
Unfortunately the Government’s ODA bill did not require those barriers to be removed.
In June 2002, over one year ago, the ODA Committee submitted to the Ontario Government our proposed “Government Workplan” for implementing the ODA 2001. In it we suggested the steps that the Government should take over the following year to implement the ODA 2001. Among our recommendations we urged that:
“18. Full public consultations on … access to chain retail establishments should begin by December 2002. Draft regulations regarding barrier removal and prevention in these sectors should be proposed and published by May 2003, with a view to final regulations being enacted four months later.”
The Conservative Government has not followed this proposal. It has now been almost 19 months since the Government enacted the ODA 2001. Since it passed the ODA, it has not announced when or if it will ever make any such provincial standards for the private sector.
Over two years ago, on March 8, 2001, Tourism Toronto, an organization of hotels, restaurants and other hospitality providers in Toronto, held a press conference, in which they declared their intention to make Toronto a barrier-free city for tourists. The Toronto Star’s articles demonstrate that such voluntary efforts have not yielded substantial progress towards our goal of a barrier-free society.
In the July 7, 2003 article, the Toronto Star Quotes Jeff Adams, chair of the Government-appointed Accessibility Advisory Council, in the following terms:
“”It’s the job of disabled activists to ask that Rome be built in a day,” and he doesn’t feel that’s the right approach, he said.”
The ODA Committee has never called for every barrier facing persons with disabilities to be removed at once. Rather, the ODA Committee’s 11 principles for the ODA (which the Ontario Legislature approved and which have been adopted by many municipalities across Ontario) allow for reasonable time lines for action for barriers to be removed. The ODA Committee is aware of no disability advocates who have called for all barriers to be removed at once.
We encourage you to send your feedback to the Toronto Star by sending in a letter to the editor. You can email your letters to:
lettertoed@thestar.ca
We encourage you to tell the Star what you think about the barriers facing persons with disabilities in getting access to restaurants and stores. Let them know if you think it would be good to have mandatory accessibility standards put in place in this area. Give them your thoughts on whether the ODA should be strengthened to address barriers in the private sector. Share your views on whether it is good enough to have to fight these barriers one at a time under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Get others to write the Star as well.
*****
Toronto Star July 4, 2003
Eatery chains not accessible
Restaurants lack basics for disabled
Major firms cited by rights watchdog
THERESA BOYLE
QUEEN’S PARK BUREAU
Major restaurant chains are lacking in standards when it comes to access for the disabled, Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Keith Norton says.
In issuing his annual report yesterday, he cited seven chains for failing to meet building codes standards and human rights code requirements in accommodating disabled patrons.
The commission launched an inquiry into accessibility and paid visits to the restaurants in questions.
“The results of the onsite reviews were disappointing. They show that some facilities in operation in Ontario do not even meet the most basic accessibility requirements from the current building code. Nor do they meet the requirements of the Ontario human rights code,” Norton told a news conference.
Norton recently hurt his foot and yesterday said his use of crutches made him realize the difficulties faced by people with disabilities.
He has yet to publicly release the names of the restaurant chains, saying he wants to first give them an opportunity to respond to his concerns.
“In some cases facilities were completely inaccessible while in others, persons with disabilities would face significant barriers for example, in accessing washrooms,” he said.
Most of the chains also operate in the United States where they are required to respect higher standards of accessibility as set out in the Americans with Disabilities Act, Norton noted.
“There’s no reason why we in Ontario should expect anything less,” he said.
*****
Toronto Star July 5, 2003
On wheels, fast food isn’t easy
It’s a ramp, but not a very smooth one, at a Dairy Queen outlet.
Barriers to those with disabilities are rife on Yonge
Informal survey of chain outlets finds many inaccessible
NICOLAS KEUNG, GAVIN TAYLOR AND VALERIE HAUCH
STAFF REPORTERS
None of the dozens of fast-food restaurants visited yesterday by the Star along a stretch of Yonge St., from Lake Ontario to Major Mackenzie Dr. in Richmond Hill, can be independently entered by customers in wheelchairs.
In the wake of an Ontario human rights report that slammed seven fast-food chains for poor accessibility, the Star did an informal survey of 62 restaurants, chosen at random, and found they all lacked automatic door openers. That forces wheelchair users to ask for help to get in.
Ten restaurants lacked ramps allowing the disabled to bypass steps. Two others had doors impossible to negotiate by a wheelchair user entering alone.
While some restaurant operators said they’re working to correct the situation, others say it’s got nothing to do with them.
“It’s a big problem,” said the operator of a Subway shop at 2368 Yonge St. that’s accessible only via a flight of eight steps to the basement, “but … it is a problem for the developer.” Calls to Subway’s head office weren’t returned.
More than 1.9 million Ontarians have disabilities and the number is growing, according to the Ministry of Citizenship.
Although the Ontario Human Rights Commission found some major fast-food chains are failing to meet building code standards and human rights code requirements in accommodating disabled patrons, some chains contacted by the Star said they haven’t yet seen the commission’s report.
While the commission plans to name the seven chains in about six weeks, spokesperson Afroze Edwards told the Star yesterday, Commissioner Keith Norton has sent out letters to give them time to respond first.
To determine the extent of accessibility, Star reporters visited restaurants belonging to 15 major chains on Yonge St.
Aside from the lack of automatic door openers, none of the restaurants visited north of Steeles Ave. had what could be considered a barrier.
The Star also discovered an absurd anomaly: at least a couple have entrance barriers but sport washrooms labelled wheelchair-accessible (Tim Hortons at 1910 Yonge and McDonald’s at 5200 Yonge). So disabled patrons can’t get into the restaurants without help, but they are welcome to use the washrooms.
The Ontario Human Rights Code requires all businesses in Ontario to make their facilities accessible and provides only limited grounds for an exemption. But investigations into complaints are done on a case-by-case basis and can take months or even years.
`I can’t change unless the landlord changes it.’
Koosha Hosseinzadeh, Mr. Sub operator
The Ontarians With Disabilities Act only directly affects the public sector (such as hospitals, school boards and municipal buildings) but does give municipal governments additional powers. Section 29 of the act, for instance, allows municipalities to require that businesses be accessible to people with disabilities as a condition for obtaining, holding or renewing a licence.
And while the Ontario Building Code requires all new restaurants to be constructed barrier-free, there are several loopholes when it comes to renovating older buildings.
For instance, Wendy’s has a beautifully decorated fast food outlet in a leased building at 475 Yonge St. Wendy’s began renovations when it moved into the building and, aside from a 15-centimetre step at the entrance, the restaurant has an open design that could easily accommodate wheelchair patrons. So why not remove the step?
Dave Carter, Wendy’s director of development, said the chain is in negotiations with the building’s owner to build a ramp. Otherwise, he said, the building is in complete accordance with the Ontario Building Code.
“Our company as a corporation is very aware and tries to live up to accessibility in all cases,” said Carter, adding he hadn’t yet seen the Ontario Human Rights Commission report. He said he believed the majority of Wendy’s outlets in the GTA “have accessibility.”
Just up the street, at 494 Yonge, there’s a Mr. Sub that also has a 15-centimetre step. But Koosha Hosseinzadeh said nothing can be done because the premises are leased and small, in a building a century old. “I can’t change unless the landlord changes it.”
Hosseinzadeh said he does get some wheelchair customers, and either he or their friends help them in. “As long as we can solve the problem, it’s okay.”
Patti Jameson, vice-president of Tim Hortons, maintains his company meets “all the codes” at its 1,231 Ontario locations.
“I think from Tim Hortons’ standpoint, it is important that we understand all the issues that create challenges for all of our customers,” said Jameson, adding that she is eager to get a copy of the human rights report. “We need to understand all our obligations in those areas. Once we have a chance to study it, we will tackle it appropriately.”
Sometimes a building’s design can make it inaccessible.
The main entrance of the McDonald’s at 5200 Yonge forces patrons to pass through two doors at right angles, an impossibly tight turn for a wheelchair. The side door is also inaccessible and the front sidewalk has a steep ledge with no ramp.
Local and corporate officials from McDonald’s could not be reached for comment.
Two right-angled doors also pose an obstacle at the Pizza Pizza franchise at 6040 Yonge. A cardboard cutout of the Incredible Hulk stands in front of a second entrance, and a sign says to “please use the other door.” Head office officials for Pizza Pizza couldn’t be reached.
*****
Toronto Star
Monday, July 7, 2003, p. B01
Advocate urges caution on accessibility
Mandated changes in U.S. created ‘a lot of ill will’ Star survey finds 62 food outlets without automatic doors
Valerie Hauch
Toronto Star
This isn’t the right time to bring in mandatory provincial requirements to force businesses such as restaurants to become accessible to the disabled, says Jeff Adams, chair of the province’s Accessibility Advisory Council of Ontario. “It would be onerous and difficult for them,” he said. Adams, a paralympian gold medallist who uses a wheelchair, lived in the U.S. in the 1990s when the Americans with Disabilities Act was taking effect. He said the ADA, which forced U.S. businesses to become accessible, created “a lot of ill will” and confusion. A smoother transition could have been made if more effort were put into educating people about it, he said, adding that’s what he and others are trying to do here. Adams has just returned to Canada from a European trip, and said he hasn’t taken a close look yet at the announcement Thursday by Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Keith Norton. Seven restaurant chains in the province are failing to accommodate disabled patrons, Norton said. “But I think that any time we take a measured look at accessibility it’s a good idea,” Adams said.
A recent informal survey by the Star found 62 fast food restaurants on Yonge St. lacked automatic doors.
Adams said his group’s mandate is to comment “on the legislation (Ontarians With Disabilities Act) as it now stands,” not to suggest changes unless asked to do so. The ODA, passed in 2001, requires public buildings, such as government, hospitals and school boards, to be accessible. “Everyone’s complying,” said Adams. There’s really no need to enact the last remaining provision of the ODA, which hasn’t been proclaimed and which provides penalties for non-compliance, he said. “Why enact that if you don’t need to?” Adams said.
He believes that information regarding accessibility from municipal planners in the province can eventually be used by private businesses. “It’s the job of disabled activists to ask that Rome be built in a day,” and he doesn’t feel that’s the right approach, he said. But the government has had plenty of time to prove its belief that the private sector will voluntarily make their premises accessible, said David Lepofsky, chair of the Ontarians With Disabilities Act Committee, a grassroots coalition of groups and citizens.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s findings that seven chains aren’t making their facilities accessible proves mandatory regulations are needed, he said.
“The government’s approach has been that ‘We don’t need legislation, businesses will voluntarily do it’ … well, this proves that’s not the case,” said Lepofsky. “This is exactly why we need the ODA to provide standards. Right now, the building code doesn’t require you to change anything that’s there already.”
While the ODA currently only covers government and other public buildings, it allows the government, if it chooses, to set standards of accessibility for the private sector. So far, it hasn’t done so. The Ontario Human Rights Code does require that all buildings be accessible to the disabled but enforcement is on a case-by-case complaint basis and can take years to resolve. “That’s why this is a ridiculous situation and that’s why we want them to set standards,” said Lepofsky, who applauds Norton “for taking proactive steps” with the report on restaurants. The document won’t be fully released until it’s tabled in the Legislature although the names of the chains will be made public in about six weeks. “But what we need in addition are mandatory provincial enforcement standards on accessibility.”
His group asked the government to include those standards in the ODA when it was passed. The government has long talked about setting standards and MPPs have even admitted in the Legislature that “more than 20,000 retail businesses” in the province have a single step that keep disabled people out of stores, said Lepofsky. “But they don’t do anything.” Leaving it up to restaurant owners to decide whether or not to put in automatic door openers or ramps is not the solution, said Eddie Rice, 54. He uses a power scooter to get around his Yonge St. and Steeles Ave. neighbourhood and finds that few restaurants or retail stores in the area, outside of malls, are accessible.
“Voluntary means there’s no pressure to do anything,” said Rice, who adds that when he travels to the U.S. he finds most places accessible. Automatic door openers are important to him, he said, because he doesn’t have the upper body strength, as a result of post-polio complications, to pull a street-level door open.
Rice wasn’t surprised by the findings of the Star survey. He wonders why more outlets don’t install automatic doors, considering the cost is under $1,600.
“We’re not talking big bucks … what’s that to a Pizza Pizza or Mr. Sub?” But Carole Riback, a 42-year-old paraplegic who uses a motorized wheelchair, says what’s more important is whether a restaurant has a step at the entrance and a wheelchair-accessible washroom. In the Davenport Rd. and Yonge St. area she lives in, there are few that meet her needs, she said. An avid fan of eating out – “it’s hard to cook in a wheelchair” – she finds herself going to the same restaurants all the time. She feels legislated standards for accessibility are “critical. If you don’t have (those standards) written in … there’s no point in having the legislation (ODA).”
*****
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2002-2003
Disability Issues
Following the release of its Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate in March 2001, the Commission continues to undertake several initiatives to ensure equal access to goods, services and facilities for people with disabilities.
- Building Code and Restaurant Accessibility
In March 2002, the Commission presented an in-depth submission to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing outlining the need for reform to the barrier-free access requirements in the Ontario Building Code. In July 2002, this document was made public along with a report on a Commission initiative to promote accessibility in the restaurant sector. The initiative involved surveying 29 major restaurant chains in Ontario. A review of the responses revealed that the restaurant chains are setting their standards for accessibility based only on the Ontario Building Code that is in effect at the time of construction or renovation. Neither the Code nor the Commission’s Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate are considerations in setting standards for accessibility. Accordingly, the Commission initiated its own inquiry into the accessibility of restaurant chains. The Commission’s expert visited several locations of each of the seven chains in various parts of the province. The results of the review were disappointing and revealed that there are facilities in operation in Ontario that do not meet even the most basic accessibility requirements of the current Building Code, nor the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code. In some cases, facilities are completely inaccessible while in others, persons with disabilities would face significant barriers, for example, in accessing washrooms. In the next fiscal year, the Commission intends to share the results of this review with the seven chains to ascertain their plans for achieving accessibility in the future. The results of the review will also be made public.
ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMMITTEE UPDATE
Originally posted at https://www.odacommittee.net/news96.html
MORE MEDIA COVERAGE ON BARRIERS TO RESTAURANTS FACING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
July 9, 2003
SUMMARY
The Toronto Star has published yet more items on the barriers facing persons with disabilities in getting access to restaurants, the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s efforts to tackle these by individual complaints, and the need for mandatory standards to be passed into law dealing with the private sector in this area. This includes an official Toronto Star editorial on the need for action, and several letters to the editor which oppose the notion that we do not need mandatory accessibility standards to be passed into law in this area. You are encouraged to send the Star a Letter to the Editor to keep this issue prominent.
MORE DETAILS
On July 4, 5 and 7, 2003, the Toronto Star published an excellent series of articles about barriers facing persons with disabilities when they try to go to restaurants in Toronto, the positive steps that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is taking to tackle these establishments through individual complaints, and the need for the Ontarians with Disabilities Act to be strengthened to extend it to the private sector. That coverage also included statements by Jeff Adams, chair of the Conservative government-appointed Accessibility Advisory Council. He advocated against imposing mandatory accessibility requirements for businesses such as restaurants. You can see that coverage at:
http://www.odacommittee.net/news94.html
The Toronto Star has now included even more coverage of this issue in its July 8 and 9 editions. Set out below are:
* The July 8, 2003 Toronto Star article reporting on the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s plans to address this issue, and a statement by Ontario Citizenship Minister DeFaria.
* Four letters to the editor in the July 9, 2003 Toronto Star, expressing the need for imposing mandatory accessibility
requirements for businesses such as restaurants.
* A July 9, 2003 official Toronto Star editorial echoing the message which we, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, have been in the forefront of bringing forward for over eight and a half years, that removing barriers is good for business, and that where business does not act, we need government action to enforce accessibility.
We thank all those who have already written letters to the editor to the Toronto Star on this issue. We encourage all others to write letters to the editor now. This will give you a chance to express your views on this topic. It will also help keep this issue prominent in the media as we lead up to the next provincial election.
Send your letters to:
lettertoed@thestar.ca
MORE BACKGROUND INFORMATION
It may be helpful to give you some additional pieces of background information:
You may wonder what the difference is between we, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, and the Ontario Accessibility Advisory Council, chaired by Mr. Jeff Adams. Here is a short explanation.
The ODA Committee is a grass-roots, non-partisan province-wide coalition of individuals and community groups, formed over eight and a half years ago to advocate for a barrier-free Ontario for all persons with disabilities, through the enactment and implementation of a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We are not appointed by the government and receive no Ontario government funding. Our activities since 1994 in leading the charge for a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act are all documented on our website at:
http://www.odacommittee.net
The Ontario Accessibility Advisory Council, chaired by Mr. Adams, was created and funded by the Ontario government in late 2001 under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001, and appointed last year. Its 11 members were all chosen by the Conservative government. Under the ODA 2001, its mandate is to advise the Ontario government on issues relating to the implementation of the ODA. We, the ODA Committee have offered our help to this Council on several occasions and have encouraged it to conduct public consultations on implementation of the ODA, to get input from the disability community. To date, that Council has not announced any public consultations.
There had been a similar provincially-appointed disability advisory council in Ontario from the 1970s until 1995. The Conservative government eliminated it within weeks of being elected in 1995. It then re-created the current provincially-appointed Council in its ODA 2001.
You may wonder what efforts have been made by Toronto’s restaurants to become accessible. On March 8, 2001, Tourism Toronto, representing Toronto’s hospitality sector including restaurants, declared its aim for Toronto to become a barrier-free city for tourists. As Toronto now recovers from the loss of tourism due to the SARS crisis, this is especially important. Yet over two years later, the Toronto Star documents that many barriers to restaurants still remain, including barriers that would be easy to quickly remove.
You can see what Tourism Toronto had to say at its March 8, 2001 news conference over two years ago at:
http://www.odacommittee.net/news95.html
You may wonder what positions have been taken by the three political parties in Ontario on this issue. An election is expected this fall.
Both opposition parties, the Liberals and NDP, have promised to pass a strengthened ODA within one year of taking office. This would include extending specific mandatory barrier-removal requirements to the private sector. Both the Liberals and NDP proposed amendments to the Conservatives’ ODA back in 2001 to achieve this.
The governing Conservatives have made no election commitments to strengthen the ODA. They voted down the amendments which the Liberals and NDP had proposed in 2001 that would have imposed mandatory requirements on the private sector.
The Liberals’ election commitments on the ODA can be seen at:
http://www.odacommittee.net/news80.html
The NDP election commitments on the ODA can be seen at:
http://www.odacommittee.net/NDP_2003.html
The Conservatives’ election position can be seen at:
http://www.odacommittee.net/news92.html
*****
Toronto Star
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Eatery chains urged to be accessible; Comply or else, rights chief says — Not on a witch hunt, he stresses
Nicholas Keung
Toronto Star
Ontario
A08
Major fast-food chains can either work with the Ontario Human Rights Commission to make their establishments accessible to the disabled or face tough compliance measures, says its chief commissioner.
“We’d like to accomplish it through co-operation. If all else fails, there are always other avenues available. The option is always there for the commission to initiate a complaint,” Keith Norton said in an interview yesterday, stressing that the request should not be viewed as a threat to the industry.
“The ultimate goal is to ensure accessibility. We are not creating this situation. The law already requires that facilities serving the public should be accessible.”
The province’s human rights watchdog hired an external consultant to inspect 28 fast-food restaurants across Ontario belonging to seven major chains last fall after fewer than half of 29 chains responded to its voluntary survey into accessibility to eateries.
The consultant assessed the establishments based on a 40-item checklist ranging from accessibility to washrooms and entrances to the size of the letters on menus and the height of counters. Automatic door buttons that would allow the disabled to get in without assistance were among the key elements the inspector looked for.
“Some of the chains are well established. I was surprised by how poor some of their facilities were (for) persons with disabilities,” Norton said. “Buttons on doors have become a much more significant thing. … Some doors are not difficult to manage, but some of the heavier ones are a bit of a challenge if you try to balance on crutches at the same time.”
Norton’s observations were confirmed by an informal survey of 62 eateries chosen randomly by the Star last week along a stretch of Yonge St. between Queen’s Quay and Major Mackenzie Dr. The survey found none of the facilities had an automatic door opener.
Sixteen per cent or 10 of the restaurants in the Star survey also lacked ramps allowing the disabled to bypass steps. Two others had doors impossible to negotiate for a wheelchair user entering alone.
In 2002, the commission received 1,776 complaints and disability was cited in 35 per cent of the 3,344 grounds of discrimination in those cases (a complaint often involves more than one ground).
Thirty-three per cent of the 1,172 disability-related grounds concerned services. In a 2001 high-profile case, the commission ruled in favour of five complainants who alleged that Famous Players violated the Ontario Human Rights Code by failing to provide wheelchair-accessible theatres. The chain had a policy of non-admittance for unaccompanied patrons in wheelchairs at its inaccessible theatres, and had a “sign-in” policy for attendants who receive free passes when accompanying persons in wheelchairs.
The commission eventually awarded each complainant compensation for the infringement, ranging from $8,000 to $10,000. The chain was also required to pay each $2,000 for mental anguish as a result of “the respondent’s reckless conduct.”
Norton maintains the commission is not on a witch hunt to nail restaurants that don’t comply with the Ontario Human Rights Code.
A copy of the accessibility report has been forwarded to the seven fast-food chains under study and they have been given six weeks to respond, he said.
“I want them to see this as an exercise in education about what responsibility they have under the human rights legislation. It’s an opportunity for them to look at their facilities and respond with a plan to bring them into compliance,” he said.
“If you are doing some physical renovation of a building, you look at the building code. It might not occur to you or your architect to say, ‘What is our responsibility under the human rights code?’ Now I hope that the Ontario Human Rights Code will be on their radar screen.”
Norton would not reveal details of the consultant report or name the seven fast-food chains that were targeted.
He said the report won’t be made public until this fall after the commission finds out what “remedies” the chains are willing to pursue.
Although the code requires all businesses in Ontario to make their facilities accessible and provides only limited grounds for an exemption, critics have said investigations are done only on a case-by-case basis and can take months or even years.
But Norton insisted, “The very fact that we’ve undertaken this (restaurant accessibility) initiative is itself proactive.”
Ontario Citizenship Minister Carl DeFaria said the government passed the Ontarians With Disabilities Act about a year ago, requiring public buildings, such as government, hospitals and school board facilities, to be accessible.
The act will have an impact, he added, as both the province and its 500-plus municipal governments will list accessibility as a contract criteria in awarding tenders in the private sector. The federal income tax act also allows businesses to deduct income for any accessibility improvements such as installing ramps, door openers, washrooms, doorways and elevators.
“The impact of those things will be seen down the road,” DeFaria said.
*****
Toronto Star
LETTER
Wednesday, July 9, 2003, p. A19
When is right time?
Who chooses when Ontarians with disabilities get to participate fully in society? Advocate urges caution on accessibility July 7.
Jeff Adams, chair of the Accessibility Advisory Council of Ontario, says, “This isn’t the right time to bring in mandatory provincial requirements to force businesses such as restaurants to become accessible to the disabled,” but I ask, when is the right time?
Who chooses when we, Ontarians with disabilities, get to participate fully in society? Who chooses when we can go anywhere, do anything, and be ourselves without having to break down barriers in order to do so? People like Adams are missing the point.
They are too hung up on whether someone making a six-figure salary would be upset at the prospect of all businesses being forced to renovate their premises to become accessible, instead of
considering that we, Ontarians with disabilities, are being short-changed and treated like second-class citizens.
People like Adams and his advisory council are in the perfect position to make a difference, if they stopped thinking of the whining, currently able-bodied upper class and remembered who they are – Ontarians with disabilities who deserve the same opportunities, opportunities not available due to disinterest and lack of strong, legislative motivation to change.
If Adams has no desire to be able to choose whatever restaurant catches his fancy and instead is happy with the few opportunities available now, the least he can do is not to screw it up for the rest of us, who do want the same choice as our able-bodied neighbours.
The government is doing a good enough job keeping us down – we don’t need to be pushed further by one of our own.
Marcia Cummings, North York
Barrier-free Access
Illustration(s):
ANDREW WALLACE/REUTERS FILE PHOTO Wheelchair athlete Jeff Adams, chair of the province’s Accessibility Advisory Council, begins his climb to the top of the CN Tower last September to raise awareness about the need for a barrier-free society.
*****
Toronto Star
LETTER, Wednesday, July 9, 2003, p. A19
Most disabled would not agree
Advocate urges caution on accessibility
July 7.
Jeff Adams’ comments urging a cautious approach to providing access for disabled people in restaurants do not reflect the views of disabled people in Ontario. Good access is good business full stop. At present, approximately 15 per cent of the population has some form of disability or impairment and we have money to spend. No business person can afford to ignore this significant market share.
Nancy E. Hansen, Ottawa
*****
Toronto Star
LETTER, Wednesday, July 9, 2003, p. A19
Ontario must act to protect disabled
Advocate urges caution on accessibility
July 7.
As a person who is deaf-blind, I am pleased to see the amount of effort the Toronto Star is putting into educating the communities of Canada. I am sure the Ontario Human Rights Commission would not have done its own inquiry into accessibility of restaurant chains, if the commission had not received hundreds of complaints from citizens who found entering restaurants to be impossible.
Why are we wasting taxpayers’ money on these complaints, when legislation would alleviate the necessity for the resources of the Human Rights Commission to be dealing with these accessibility rights? It is simply the duty of a responsible government to see the obvious need for businesses to be regulated in accommodating the physical needs of citizens of Ontario.
I am disappointed that the current chair of the accessibility advisory council states that the government shouldn’t legislate further, and that he feels he and his members only provide advice when asked to do so. What good is an advisory council, if it only responds when the government asks it for comment?
What are you advising the government to do? Wait for another five years? I am not impressed.
Penny Leclair, Ottawa
*****
Toronto Star
LETTER, Wednesday, July 9, 2003, p. A19
We’ve shown remarkable patience
Advocate urges caution on accessibility
July 7.
As an Olympic athlete and CN Tower climber, Jeff Adams is someone who has shown the world that people with disabilities are capable of astounding accomplishments.
He is entitled to his opinions about the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee and the disability activists that he characterized as “wanting to build Rome in a day.”
I believe we have been remarkably patient. Eight years of lobbying have now passed without the strong, enforceable law we need. We are doing everything possible to implement the weak, flawed ODA 2001 in our municipalities.
While Adams may feel that he does not need strong provincial legislation to identify, remove and prevent unnecessary barriers that confront people with disabilities, I speak to people every day who ask me why the Conservative government hasn’t made this a reality.
The Tories’ obvious reluctance to make the ODA a strong, mandatory law has slowed the movement towards a barrier-free Ontario down to a snail’s pace. As a result, a great many Ontarians with disabilities who could have achieved their potential in so many areas have been sidelined. As chair of the provincial accessibility advisory council, Adams should endeavour to understand what the ODA committee has learned from its provincial membership over the years.
And if he can’t or won’t try to hold the government to its own promises, then Adams should resign immediately.
Cathy Vincent-Linderoos, London, Ont.
*****
Toronto Star
EDITORIAL, Wednesday, July 9, 2003, p. A18
Disabled access a worthy pursuit
Barriers keeping the disabled from entering restaurants and stores or using their washrooms are clearly unfair, but that hasn’t prompted the Ontario government to ensure access for all. Perhaps a different argument is needed to catch its attention – blocking the disabled is bad for business.
About 1.9 million Ontarians have disabilities, according to the government’s own figures. That’s a big bloc of consumers. And the numbers will only grow as the population ages and more of us find ourselves using a cane, walker, or wheelchair to shop and visit restaurants. Despite this big source of potential profits, Ontario’s Human Rights Commission recently found that major restaurant chains in this province haven’t made their outlets fully accessible. That was confirmed, by the Star, through an informal survey of eateries along Yonge Street. Ontarians deserve better.
Obviously, a small “mom and pop” business, leasing a tiny space in an old building in need of extensive renovation, may face prohibitive costs. But there’s no excuse for large chain restaurants or stores, with vast space sometimes spread over several floors, to skimp on accessibility for the disabled. It needn’t cost a lot. A single doorstep can keep disabled customers out. That’s easily overcome with a small ramp costing $300, or even less. Other measures, such as an automatic door and wheelchair accessible washrooms, shouldn’t pose a problem to chains with multi-million-dollar construction and renovation budgets. After all, these are one-time costs, and disabled customers allowed inside will be able to spend their money for years thereafter.
Business needs to be made more aware of practical benefits flowing from increased accessibility. A public information campaign, sponsored by the provincial government, might help hammer the message home. If the private sector still won’t listen – and act -pressure will only build for strict laws and fines, forcing doors open to the disabled. Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Keith Norton warns that, if nothing is done, his agency could target firms with commission-launched complaints. “I want to try the carrot before we try the stick,” he added. Firms successfully challenged by the commission could be ordered to mend their ways and fix their buildings, and could also face fines. Businesses, large and small, must make every effort to put their own house in order. The disabled population is growing and flexing its collective muscle. Addressing its needs could boost the corporate bottom line while avoiding the penalties that would come with a crackdown. Besides, over and above business considerations and as a matter of fundamental fairness, providing more accessibility for Ontario’s disabled is simply the right thing to do.