AODA Alliance

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Education Minister Paul Calandra’s Office Reaches Out to AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky to Schedule a Meeting

June 30, 2026

It has been an incredibly hectic first half of 2026 for those volunteering in the trenches of disability advocacy. Let’s conclude this first half of the year with positive news.

Last week, the office of Education Minister Paul Calandra reached out to schedule a meeting with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. On April 27, 2026, David Lepofsky first briefly with him for the first time during a break at the public hearings on Bill 101 held by the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy. The Minister was asked for a meeting, and he agreed.

On May 15, 2026, the AODA Alliance wrote to ask to schedule that meeting. On June 23, 2026, one of the Minister’s staff emailed us to work on scheduling the meeting.

We’ve responded and will keep you posted. This is the first time in several years that a Cabinet Minister in the Ford Government has agreed to meet with us.

In the meantime, the AODA Alliance updates will pause for a bit. We hope your inbox enjoys the peace and quiet! We thank all our many supporters for their efforts at advocating for accessibility for people with disabilities.

How You Can Help

Have a happy, safe and fun Canada Day. Enjoy the weather.
If you are looking for an interesting podcast to take in during this warm weather, check out our very own Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast

Toronto Star Reveals Scandalous Failures in the Ford Government’s Program Touted to Move People with Disabilities from Social Assistance to Work

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/ford-governments-internal-surveys-expose-failures-in-disability-job-training-program/article_5d95111d-f53f-4632-9e72-dda9d6ee899c.html#:~:text=Ford%20government’s%20internal%20surveys%20expose,the%20province’s%20own%20internal%20research.

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Toronto Star Reveals Scandalous Failures in the Ford Government’s Program Touted to Move People with Disabilities from Social Assistance to Work

June 29, 2026

SUMMARY

Last Month, in its May 7 and May 8, 2026 editions, the Toronto Star published two very disturbing articles. They show scandalous problems with the Ford Government’s multi-million-dollar program aimed at moving people with disabilities from social assistance to employment. We set out those articles below. This is part of our effort to catch up on important recent developments that have been eclipsed in AODA Alliance Updates, with so much going on.

The AODA Alliance has been advocating for many years for the Ontario Government to enact a strong and effective Employment Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We have also advocated for new initiatives to tear down the many disability barriers that impede people with disabilities from equal access to competitive employment. Many times, the late Lieutenant Governor of Ontario David Onley said that the unemployment rate facing people with disabilities in Canada is not only a national crisis – It is a national shame.

In 2011, the previous Dalton McGuinty Government enacted a helpful but weak and very limited Employment Accessibility Standard under the AODA. On January 22, 2019, the Ford Government received the final report and recommendations from the Government-appointed Employment Standards Development Committee. Yet in violation of the AODA, the Ford Government improperly kept that report secret for two full years. Sections 10 and 11 of the AODA required the Government to make that report public upon receiving it.

That report recommended some limited revisions to the Employment Accessibility Standard. Yet much more has been needed to strengthen that accessibility standard. Read the May 7, 2018 AODA Alliance brief to the Employment Standards Development Committee. We regret that the Employment Standards Development Committee did not use most if not all of our feedback and recommendations.

The Ford Government has never done anything in all the years since then to strengthen the Employment Accessibility Standard. It has never consulted the public, including the disability community, on what is needed in that regard. It has also done a very poor job of enforcing any and all AODA accessibility standards.

As seems obvious from the news stories set out below, Ontario needs a new initiative, in addition to the Employment Accessibility Standard, to end that national crisis and national shame of which David Onley spoke. We have always been ready to offer ideas. The Ford Government has never seemed interested.

How You Can Help

Write your member of the Ontario Legislature. Tell them it’s high time the Ford Government substantially strengthened the weak and limited Employment Accessibility Standard enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act You can find the contact information for all MPPs on the Ontario Legislature’s website.

Learn more about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy efforts in this area by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s employment page.

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star May 7, 2026

Jobs plan fails those with disabilities, surveys show

Ministry’s research reveals flaws in program touted as a success in getting people off social assistance

Moira Welsh Queen’s Park Bureau

Premier Doug Ford’s controversial plan to move people with complex disabilities off social assistance and into jobs is being hailed as a success, despite the government’s own research that exposes failures.

A Ministry of Labour slide show presentation from late last year, obtained by the Star, details how the province’s new Employment Ontario model has led to clients being rushed into jobs before they are ready, while organizations report diminished capacity to provide specialized supports.

The ministry conducted two surveys, one for people with disabilities and one for employment-service providers, which identified more than a dozen barriers hurting outcomes. Yet despite the findings, the province has not changed the system.

The presentation, summarizing feedback from organizations, said service providers have been underfunded for 15 years, employers “don’t know how to support” workers with disabilities, and performance targets are pressuring agencies to place clients into jobs too quickly – even when those with “complex barriers” need more time to prepare.

One of the surveys also found opposition to a rule requiring jobs to be at least 20 hours a week to count as successful employment, despite advocates saying many people with disabilities cannot manage those hours.

Operating funding for employment providers “has not increased in 15 years,” one ministry slide stated, leaving agencies “unable to meet the needs” of clients with disabilities and “compromising service quality and outcomes.”

The slides, however, also suggest the ministry believes it has made some progress, outlining a shift toward a “people first” model focused on flexible, person-directed supports and more equitable, needs-based funding.

The government research involved more than 200 sector stakeholders and interviews with 31 people with disabilities about their experiences finding work through the Integrated Employment Services (IES) system.

The Star asked Labour Minister David Piccini’s office why the government conducted the surveys only to ignore the opinions it sought.

Piccini’s spokesperson did not directly answer the question.

Instead, Michel Figueredo said the program reached “full province-wide operation over the past year and is already helping connect thousands of people to the support they need to find and keep meaningful work, and we are building on that progress.

“Our government will continue listening, consulting and carefully assessing any potential changes to strengthen service delivery and improve employment outcomes,” Figueredo said.

Piccini’s office previously called its program a success, leading to roughly 390,000 jobs at 20 hours a week, a number that includes nearly 124,000 people who “self-identified” as disabled on the program’s intake assessment form. The disabilities on the assessments can range from the use of hearing aids to one’s level of hyperactivity.

The ministry did not say how long a worker had to be employed to be defined as working. Nor did it respond when asked if those employment numbers back up the survey complaints that people are rushed out of employment preparation programs and into jobs.

“The government is not listening,” said Mark Wafer, who helped write Canada’s 2024 disability employment strategy and employed people with disabilities as an owner of Tim Hortons restaurants.

“The new model is a disaster,” Wafer said. “The strategies the government put in place will undo all the work we have done over the past few decades.”

Ontario’s 2019 launch of the “integrated employment services” system (IES) took employment training for those on the Ontario Disability Support Program away from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, and merged it with training for people on Ontario Works benefits, who Wafer said have much different needs.

Instead of relying on the public servants, the Ford government hired third-party operators to oversee the program’s new rules for funding and contract renewals for the organizations that, for decades, provided employment training for people with disabilities.

A long-time Progressive Conservative supporter, Wafer calls the external oversight a “total waste of money.”

In a sector that is reliant on government money, Wafer is one of the few willing to speak out based on his years as an employer, but made clear that he was not speaking in his capacity as chair of Canadian Hearing Services (CHS), which closed its program in April after 81 years of service but still gets provincial funding for other programs. Its staff refused to be interviewed although a CHS note to its clients said the program could not continue because the current system fails to recognize the needs of people with complex disabilities.

Many leaders the Star contacted agreed with that assessment, but said they are silenced by non-disclosure agreements and, more recently, a “non-disparagement” media protocol issued by WCG Consulting International Ltd., the largest third-party operator.

After the Star began asking questions, WCG reminded organizations of “Section A8.3,” which requires program leaders to ensure “their employees do not publicly disparage” the company, the Employment Ontario program or “the province.”

WCG oversees Ontario’s most populated areas including Peel and York regions, Ottawa and Toronto. Despite launching in Canada more than 30 years ago, WCG is now owned by Australia’s APM Group, which has minority U.S. investment from the Chicago-based Madison Dearborn Partners, a private equity firm.

The ministry transferred $224 million to WCG in 2024-2025, according to the public accounts. At least part of that money is used to disburse funding to employment services providers but when asked, the ministry did not provide the breakdown, nor did WCG.

Some of the third-party operators are not-for-profit or fall under municipal governance. They all uphold the ministry rules – including job targets – and award contracts based on the success of service providers meeting those requirements.

Along with WCG, a subsidiary of the U.K. based Serco Group received $73.8 million in transfers from the ministry in the previous fiscal year, according to public accounts. Serco Canada did not respond to repeated questions.

Toronto Star May 8, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/longtime-job-trainer-for-people-with-disabilities-quits-ontarios-program/article_8df922da-0828-4e2e-b4d0-4323cb73ea64.html

Training service parts with provincial initiative

Move comes after advocates slammed Tories’ job program

Moira Welsh Toronto Star

After 40 years providing employment services training to people with developmental disabilities, Community Living Mississauga says it will no longer work under Ontario’s job training program.

In a statement Wednesday, the organization said it made the decision “after careful consideration.”

Community Living Mississauga did not cite a reason for becoming the latest organization to exit Premier Doug Ford’s much-criticized Employment Ontario program. The organization will continue to operate other government-funded programs.

Unlike others that left and posted criticisms of the Labour Ministry’s “integrated services program” system (IES), Community Living Mississauga called it a “privilege” to work alongside “community partners, stakeholders and the Employment Ontario network …” It did not respond to interview requests.

A Star story published Thursday cited criticisms raised by advocates after the new program started rolling out in 2021, part of the Ford government’s goal of getting Ontarians off social assistance and into jobs. It merged programs for people with significant challenges on the Ontario Disability Support Program with recipients of Ontario Works and other supports, many of whom, advocates say, have few if any significant disabilities.

The Labour Ministry’s own research found more than a dozen barriers that limit the outcomes, including clients rushed into jobs before they are ready, while organizations report diminished capacity to provide specialized supports and performance targets are pressuring agencies to place clients into jobs too quickly – even when those with “complex barriers” need more time to prepare.

A November slide show of the government findings also suggested it is making some progress, outlining a shift toward a “people first” model focused on flexible, person-directed supports and more equitable, needs-based funding.

On Thursday, Labour Minister David Piccini’s office said employment providers receive “enhanced funding” for clients with higher needs, “recognizing that people with disabilities often require additional time, co-ordination and specialized supports to secure and maintain employment.”

Employment service providers that “fail to meet expectations face consequences,” Piccini’s spokesperson said, adding that organizations with decades of experience “continue to operate” in the program. “What has changed is the addition of clearer accountability measures and stronger oversight of public dollars.”

Last month, after 81 years, the Canadian Hearing Services ended its employment training. A note to clients said the government’s current program design made it impossible to meet the new performance rules. Two years earlier, Community Living Oshawa-Clarington ended its long-time program, saying the model “no longer aligns with our values and mission, as it fails to address the unique employment barriers faced by people with developmental disabilities.”

At Queen’s Park, New Democrat Leader Marit Stiles called Ford’s use of third-party contractors “appalling,” saying it takes money from programs for vulnerable people.

Liberal interim Leader John Fraser said the employment program controversy shows the premier is “abdicating his responsibility to people with disabilities to help them get in the workforce, and allowing profit to be a motive in this situation when it shouldn’t be there at all.”

Toronto City Council Unanimously Votes to Urge Metrolinx to Fix the Deficient Tactile Wayfinding for Blind Passengers on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Line

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Toronto City Council Unanimously Votes to Urge Metrolinx to Fix the Deficient Tactile Wayfinding for Blind Passengers on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Line

June 28, 2026

On Thursday, June 25, 2026, our campaign against one ridiculous disability barrier in Toronto’s new Eglinton Crosstown LRT line, Line 5, got a major boost. Toronto City Council unanimously passed a motion, brought forward by Councillor Rachel Chernos Lin, that states as follows:

“City Council request the Chief Executive Officer, Metrolinx, in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Transit Commission, the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee and the Accessibility Advisory Committee on Transit, to improve tactile wayfinding for those with visual impairments in stations along Line 5 to ensure that riders can safely navigate to escalators, elevators and stairs, and to establish this as a standard approach for future stations and existing stations undergoing refurbishment.”

Earlier this month, the City of Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee passed this motion, and forwarded to the entire City Council for a vote. This was triggered by an 8-minute online video that the AODA Alliance released and the media covered.

That video reveals how Metrolinx seriously messed up the routing of tactile wayfinding floor markers in the new multi-floor Chaplin station. These markings show blind passengers only how to find the elevators, which too often break down. They don’t show blind riders how to find the escalators or stairs in these labyrinthian stations.

How You Can Help

Email or phone Metrolinx to report any disability barriers you encounter in any transit station or stop, or in any transit services in which Metrolinx is involved. Email accessibility@metrolinx.com or call 416-869-3200 Toronto (local calling area) 1-888-438-6646 toll-free. You might take a photo or short video of the disability barrier, and email it to Metrolinx. Copy us at aodafeedback@gmail.com.
Encourage others you know to watch the AODA Alliance 8-minute online video about the barrier we highlight at Eglinton Crosstown Stations.

In Episode 15 of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast, Centre for Independent Living in Toronto CILT Executive Director Wendy Porch Gives Us More Great Tips on How to build Common Ground When Advocating on Disability Issues

In Episode 15 of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast, Centre for Independent Living in Toronto CILT Executive Director Wendy Porch Gives Us More Great Tips on How to build Common Ground When Advocating on Disability Issues

A Tale of Two School Boards – Opposite Responses to Parental Criticism of Announced Special Education Disruptions

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/these-toronto-students-are-getting-kicked-out-of-their-school-they-finally-found-out-where-theyll-be-going/article_241d054e-7d51-4026-880f-70f212bf8214.html

TikTok @AODAAlliance

A Tale of Two School Boards – Opposite Responses to Parental Criticism of Announced Special Education Disruptions

June 26, 2026

SUMMARY

Under the leadership of the Ford Government’s increasing and controversial micromanagement of school boards across Ontario, there is a growing and worrisome pattern of cuts and other harmful decisions when it comes to special education programs and supports. Parents, and especially parents of students with disabilities/special education needs, are increasingly fighting back.

It looks like the effectiveness of their advocacy efforts may depend on whether local democracy still survives at their school board. Here are two illustrative cases in point that garnered media attention this week. It’s the tale of two school boards!

First, the Ottawa Catholic School Board was planning to cut bus attendant staff on their school buses to and from school each day. Parents fought back. It imperils students with complex disabilities and students with fragile health conditions. The June 25, 2026 Ottawa Citizen includes a report, set out below, documenting that the school board relented and cancelled that cut. That board is still governed by elected school board trustees.

Second, and in sharp contrast, parents of students with disabilities/special education needs have advocated in opposition to the Toronto District School Boards disruptive plan to relocate students at the Haydon Park High School, a special education school, to another building. TDSB wants to populate Haydon Park with students from another school that must relocate. This comes after TDSB has gradually bled the student population at that school by not admitting students to Grade 9 or 10, with the seeming plan to eventually close it down.

As for this forced relocation of Haydon students, TDSB has dug in, and is going ahead with its plans, as is reported by an article in the June 25, 2026 Toronto Star (See below).

A key difference is that the TDSB is not governed by elected trustees. The Ford Government ousted them one year ago. It is instead governed by an unelected provincial Supervisor. He was picked by and reports solely to Education Minister Paul Calandra. That Supervisor has no background in education. He is only required to work three days per week, and is reportedly paid $350,000 per year for that part-time position.

Unlike school board trustees, that Supervisor has never attended any meetings of the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee. Since the beginning of this year, he has refused to even meet with its Chair David Lepofsky. Education Minister Calandra has also directed all provincially appointed Supervisors not to speak to the media.

How You Can Help

Write your member of the Ontario Legislature. Their contact information is all available online. Tell them that the Ford Government must remove the many disability barriers in Ontario K-12 schools. It should implement the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s final report that it received over four years ago.
Urge your MPP to watch the archived video of the Virtual Town Hall for parents of students with disabilities convened by the AODA Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition.
Learn what needs to be done to tear down disability barriers in Ontario schools by watching the AODA Alliance’s video on the blueprint for a barrier-free school system.

MORE DETAILS

Ottawa Citizen June 25, 2026

Originally posted at https://ottawacitizen.com/news/parents-ocsb-reverses-decision-school-bus-attendants

Parents relieved as Catholic school board reverses decision to cut bus attendants

Nearly three weeks after learning of the cuts, the school board announced it will be reinstating the school bus attendant program for students with special needs.

By Natasha Baldin

Amanda Jollymore says she was overwhelmed with emotion when she found out that her daughter, Mia McPhail, would continue to have access to a school bus attendant as the Ottawa Catholic School Board reversed a decision to cut the program. Photo by Jean Levac /Postmedia

Just one more thing.

That’s the slogan Amanda Jollymore and Brian McPhail live by while caring for their six-year-old daughter Mia, who requires around-the-clock care as a non-verbal and medically fragile child.

Over the past few weeks, “one more thing” involved diving head-first into advocacy after finding out the Ottawa Catholic School Board was slashing the bus attendant program that Mia relies on to get to and from school safely.

So, when school board trustees voted on Tuesday night to reverse the decision and to reinstate the school bus attendant program, Jollymore didn’t know whether to laugh, clap or cry happy tears.

For once the family had one less thing to worry about.

Article content

“We just want to focus on the summer to be able to try to keep (Mia) healthy, keep her safe, keep her happy and just be able to now look towards the summer and not have to spend it worrying about how we’re going to get her to and from school safely,” Jollymore said.

Mia’s school bus attendant is a vital part of her support system on her rides to and from St. Francis of Assisi School in Orléans. Since she’s at risk of seizures, aspiration and other medical complications, it’s a life-saving measure to have an attendant at her side who is trained to look after her.

When they and other parents learned on June 5 that the attendants would be eliminated, with caretaking responsibilities shifted to bus drivers, Jollymore and McPhail joined the many other families across the city in sounding the alarm about the imminent dangers from those proposed cuts.

With bus drivers already focused on the roads, many parents were concerned their children wouldn’t have access to proper care in case of medical emergencies.

Nearly three weeks after the initial decision, the school board said it had heard parents’ concerns, with trustees voting unanimously to rescind the decision to slash the program.

“Over the past several weeks, trustees have listened carefully to families and heard directly from those most affected by this decision,” board chair Mark Mullan wrote in a news release.

“Parents and caregivers spoke passionately about the difference these supports make in the lives of their children. We listened, we reflected, and we unanimously agreed that continuing bus attendant services is the right decision.”

Prior to the reinstatement of the program, her parents were grappling with how they’d find the time in their day to drive Mia to and from school every day rather than putting her on a bus they believed would be unsafe, their next “one more thing.”

“I just hope everybody learned from this and we can grow to rebuild that trust because, unfortunately, our trust has been tarnished with this decision they made with less than 14 days left of the school year,” Jollymore said.

The OCSB said that going forward it would continue support for eligible students, work with transportation providers to ensure consistent service and review strategies to ensure the program could continue in the long-term.

Jollymore is confident Mia is also thrilled she’ll get to keep riding the bus, even if she doesn’t have the words to express it herself. For the six-year-old, it means she’ll continue to enjoy one of her favourite parts of her day.

“She loves the bus because her bus driver and bus attendant are amazing. They put on little kid nursery rhyme music and she starts dancing as soon as she sees the bus pull up,” Jollymore said.

“It’s not about me; it’s about my daughter just living her best life.”

Toronto Star June 25, 2026

These Toronto students are getting kicked out of their school. They finally found out where they’ll be going

Students at Heydon Park Secondary, which serves girls with special needs, will relocate in January. But parents fear for the school’s future.

Parents and students from Toronto’s Heydon Park Secondary School are upset the board plans to relocate it. It is the TDSB’s only school for girls, including trans and non-binary students.

Andrew Francis Wallace/Toronto Star

By Isabel TeotonioEducation Reporter

Students at Heydon Park Secondary School will relocate to the former Vaughan Road Academy site, a move that parents are reluctantly willing to accept, while calling on the board to reopen admissions and guarantee the school’s long-term survival.

In a notice to the school community of Heydon Park, which serves special-needs girls, the Toronto District School Board said the chosen site “provides an array of amenities conducive to offering secondary school programming.”

“TDSB recognizes that a relocation can be challenging, and we will do everything we can to make the transition as easy as possible,” reads the community bulletin sent on Wednesday.

Earlier this month, the downtown school community was blindsided in learning the TDSB plans to relocate its roughly 130 students in January. The move clears the way for the site to be used by nearby Orde Street Public School, which has about 400 students.

The Orde elementary students must vacate their own building because of safety concerns stemming from the construction of a 60-storey tower next to the school’s outdoor play area.

News of the forced relocation delivered a blow to families of Heydon Park, who are still upset by the board’s decision last year to halt admissions. Citing low enrolment, the TDSB will no longer accept students for grades 9 and 10 at Heydon Park and Eastdale Collegiate — a decision that has left parents worried the board is planning to phase out these two high schools, both of which serve students with special education needs.

“We want guarantees that the program will be allowed to flourish,” says Kamala Kalsi, co-chair of Heydon Park’s parent council.

“If you’re going to move us from our cozy little downtown school to a larger, less centralized campus, then give us the tools, resources and commitments to grow into the building over the long term.”

In a statement on behalf of the parent community, Kalsi said the fact that the relocation dovetails with ongoing decisions the TDSB has made about current and future enrolment at Heydon Park may be coincidental, “but our collective desire to have questions about the future of the school be answered can not be ignored.”

“We feel like we’re being moved into a giant space, one designed for a far larger school than ours, only for it to be used as justification to phase out the program on a timeframe that doesn’t jibe with the non-linear nature of how our kids learn.”

At a virtual meeting last week about the relocation, with TDSB senior staff fielding questions from the school community, parents asked that admissions for grades 9 and 10 be reopened at the Vaughan Road Academy site. Many spoke of how girls from across the city would benefit from Heydon Park — it serves a vulnerable population — but said the TDSB does a poor job of promoting it.

Jack Nigro, executive superintendent of Learning Centre 1, said decisions about enrolment are “a year-by-year consideration. And it depends on those who express interest in Heydon Park … That’s how these decisions have been made up until this year.”

Daniel Castaldo, the senior business officer for strategy and planning, explained that staff made the decision to relocate Orde out of “an abundance of caution.” The key criteria when looking for a space that could accommodate Orde during the construction were proximity, space and keeping all students together, he said, noting “the Heydon Park building, really, was the only feasible option.”

Heydon Park and Orde are both in the Grange Park neighbourhood, about 700 metres apart. Under the board’s plan, Heydon Park will vacate its building in January 2027, giving the TDSB time to renovate before Orde students arrive in September 2027. Heydon Park will then move north to the midtown area.

TDSB staff said two sites for Heydon Park’s relocation were considered: the former Rockcliffe Middle School site and the former Vaughan Road Academy, both of which can be used when schools need to temporarily relocate. Staff said parent representatives had visited both sites and preferred the latter, which is located on Vaughan Road near Oakwood Avenue. It is a large high school building, is more centrally located with better transit access, and has an auditorium, kitchen, pool, and multiple gyms.

Staff assured parents that Heydon Park’s specialized programs, such as culinary arts and cosmetology, and supports for students will be maintained. And that all necessary accessibility features will be in place before the relocation.

Parents also expressed concerns about the tight timeline and the mid-year move during the winter, with one mother saying it “puts our students at a huge disadvantage because these are students who have really big issues with transitioning.”

“I don’t feel like the board has really considered the needs of our students,” she said. “We’re asking the board to make this as equitable for all students involved and not have our students get the short end of the stick.”

Isabel Teotonio is a Toronto-based reporter covering education for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @Izzy74.

Email or Phone Metrolinx to Report Any Disability Barriers in Any Transit Stations or Services It Operates

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Email or Phone Metrolinx to Report Any Disability Barriers in Any Transit Stations or Services It Operates

June 25, 2026

We encourage everyone to email or phone Metrolinx to report any disability barriers you encounter in any transit station or stop, or in any transit services in which Metrolinx is involved. If you can, it would be great if you could take a photo or short video of the disability barrier, and email it to Metrolinx.

For example, tell Metrolinx about accessibility problems on TTC’s Line 5 (Eglinton Crosstown) and Line 6 (Finch West). Metrolinx built those lines and TTC operates them. Metrolinx is also responsible for Go Transit services and stations.

Email accessibility@metrolinx.com or call 416-869-3200 Toronto (local calling area) 1-888-438-6646 toll-free. We invite you to CC the AODA Alliance at aodafeedback@gmail.com so we can keep track of what Metrolinx is being told. Please also let us know what response you get from Metrolinx.

At our June 23, 2026 meeting with Metrolinx CEO Michael Lindsay, the AODA Alliance and the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians asked Metrolinx to engage an independent accessibility audit of the Eglinton Crosstown transit line. Earlier this month, the AODA Alliance had initially brought to light one serious accessibility problem, namely problems with the tactile wayfinding in this station. You can learn more about that barrier facing transit riders with vision loss by watching our 8-minute online video about it. However, this is certainly not the only disability barrier in this new transit line.

Some people have told us and/or the media about other barriers. For example, Toronto resident Darren Parberry took it on himself to record videos about accessibility issues in each of the Eglinton Crosstown stations. Watch the Darren Parberry videos online. That was a major effort!

The accessibility problem is big enough and serious enough that it warrants an independent audit. Your emails and calls to Metrolinx will help in our effort to get Metrolinx to agree to engage an independent accessibility audit. They will also help with our advocacy to Metrolinx.

The report from that audit, including its findings and recommendations, should be made public. The accessibility experts engaged to do the audit should have a totally free hand to investigate, and make whatever findings and recommendations it deems appropriate. Metrolinx would then be responsible for any decisions on what it will do regarding those recommendations.

Disability Advocates Get High-Level Meeting with Metrolinx CEO Over Accessibility Problems in Eglinton Crosstown Stations – Metrolinx to Explore Solutions and Consider a Request for an Independent Accessibility Audit of Those Stations

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Disability Advocates Get High-Level Meeting with Metrolinx CEO Over Accessibility Problems in Eglinton Crosstown Stations – Metrolinx to Explore Solutions and Consider a Request for an Independent Accessibility Audit of Those Stations

June 24, 2026 Toronto: Metrolinx CEO Michael Lindsay met yesterday afternoon with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians President Marcia Yale. They got this high-level meeting because of the public release earlier this month of an 8-minute AODA Alliance online video.

Lepofsky and Yale objected to Metrolinx having wrongly decided that passengers with vision loss should only use elevators, and should not be able to use stairs or escalators when going down the several levels of any transit station. During their one hour meeting, which Lepofsky summarized in a letter to the Metrolinx CEO set out below, They asked Metrolinx to agree to two important steps:

To fix the problems with wayfinding in Eglinton Crosstown stations so that transit riders with vision loss have the choice of taking stairs, escalators or elevators in these stations, and
To engage an organization with respected expertise in accessibility to undertake a comprehensive independent audit of disability barriers in the Eglinton Crosstown stations (not limited to this wayfinding issue), with that report to be made public.

“Metrolinx CEO agreed to look into possible solutions to fix this wayfinding problem for blind passengers, and to consider the idea of having an independent accessibility audit conducted of the Eglinton Crosstown transit line. He did not state for sure that the wayfinding problems would be fixed, or that an independent accessibility audit will be conducted,” said Lepofsky. “However, we’ve now made some progress, and Mr. Lindsay wants us dealing with him directly on these issues, obviously as a result of our advocacy efforts.”

In August 2024, the AODA Alliance made public an earlier online video that showed serious accessibility problems at the new Toronto courthouse on Armoury Street, costing almost one billion dollars. The Ford Government received accessibility complaints about that building After that courthouse opened, but before release of that video. As a result, the Ford Government had two separate independent accessibility audits conducted of that building. These reports corroborated the accessibility objections in that video and identified further problems.

At yesterday’s meeting with the Metrolinx CEO, he was urged to do the same here. He was told that it is essential that any such audit’s report be made public, so that there is real accountability to the public.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Learn more at the AODA Alliance website’s transportation page.

June 3, 2026 Letter from AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky to Metrolinx CEO Michael Lindsay

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com Twitter: @aodaalliance

June 23, 2026

To: Michael Lindsay, President & CEO

Via email: michael.lindsay@metrolinx.com

Metrolinx Corporation

97 Front Street West

Toronto, Ontario M5J 1E6 Canada

Dear Sir,

Re: Accessibility Problems Facing Passengers with Disabilities on the New Eglinton Crosstown Transit Line

Thank you for meeting with representatives of the AODA Alliance and the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians by Zoom on June 23, 2026. As well, thank you for viewing in advance the 8-minute online video which explains the wayfinding problems in the Chaplin station, as an illustration of our concerns.

I write to sum up some of the key points at our meeting.

We made two requests of you:

Please commit to fix the problems with wayfinding in Eglinton Crosstown stations so that transit riders with vision loss have the choice of taking stairs, escalators or elevators in these stations, and
Please engage an organization with respected expertise in accessibility to undertake a comprehensive independent audit of disability barriers in the Eglinton Crosstown stops (not limited to this wayfinding issue), with that report to be made public.

In response, you agreed to have Metrolinx investigate options for solving the wayfinding problems in these route stations and stops. You asked the AODA Alliance and AEBC to be among the those involved in this process. You did not contend that the status quo in these stations is sufficient. You did not categorically commit that the problem we identified will be fixed, but stated that you are committed to achieving accessibility for transit riders.

You did not rule out our request for an independent accessibility audit but did not categorically commit to one. Again, you will look into this and want an organization who will be accepted as qualified. I explained that it is important that those conducting such an accessibility audit be free to offer whatever advice they deem appropriate in their professional judgement, free of any direction from any outside organization. What Metrolinx later decides to do with their advice is, of course a separate issue.

I emphasized that this independent accessibility audit is needed because other accessibility problems have been identified with Eglinton Crosstown stations. We don’t suggest that the wayfinding problem we have identified is the only one requiring remediation. The accessibility audit would give you the best information for planning corrective action, and assisting with future station design.

We agreed with the idea of preparing a mock-up to get feedback from people with vision loss on possible improvements to the station tactile wayfinding. We also agreed that it would be worthwhile to fix one station first and get feedback on it, before proceeding to fix other stations.

We were told that it had been decided in or around 2015 that the tactile wayfinding would only lead to elevators, not stairs or escalators. We gave you the feedback that such a decision or possible choice should have been made public back then, for feedback from us, the users. I anticipate that Metrolinx would have been given very substantial feedback that people with vision loss should not be forced to depend on unreliable transit station elevators, and denied the choice of using stairs or escalators.

We were told that the decision had been made to only provide tactile wayfinding to elevators because it made the path of travel easiest to follow all the way through the station to the trains. I responded that the design that Metrolinx implemented falls far short on that score.

As our video illustrated, the tactile wayfinding does not always proceed in a simple straight line. At one point in the Chaplin station, it makes absolutely unnecessary 90 degree turns.

As well, there is no reason why tactile wayfinding markings could not have been included on the first floor below street level. The wayfinding route to the escalators could not possibly be confused with a wayfinding route to the elevator. There is no elevator on that floor. There is at present no tactile wayfinding on that floor.

Moreover, though not shown in the video, there is no tactile wayfinding markings whatsoever outside the station to guide a person with vision loss to either of the doors to enter the station at street level.

You expressed a serious concern that there are accessibility problems being reported about the Eglinton Crosstown stations, given the internal steps taken at Metrolinx to address accessibility. You wanted our input on this. We’d told you that be delighted to assist with this.

We explained that the fact that there are such accessibility problems proves that the existing planning processes within Metrolinx are not working. I shared that the AODA Alliance has been raising serious concerns with the Ontario Government for quite a number of years about the serious problems with how the Government (including Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario) deal with accessibility. We have urged major reforms for years. We have not seen the needed improvements.

As a short summary, I explained that Metrolinx and other Government bodies involved with building infrastructure should make public the independent accessibility advice it gives, and should do so when it receives that advice. There should be accountability for those who decide to disregard it. For all we know, the Government could be assigning major new projects to those who have wrongly disregarded accessibility advice on earlier projects.

As well, accessibility must be built into the design process from the very start. Metrolinx needs to do more of this, and to consult people with disabilities starting very early in the design process.

I explained that earlier this month, I attended a meeting of the Mimico Residents Association which has been advocating without success for at least a decade to get Metrolinx to make the Mimico Go station accessible. At that meeting, Metrolinx representatives told those assembled, including me, that they will consult with the community on the station changes when the design process is as much as 90% completed. At that meeting, I voiced the strong objection that this is far too late in the design process to get input on accessibility design.

While our discussion with you focused solely on Line Eglinton Crosstown (5), our thoughts are equally applicable to the Finch West line (Line 6).

You told us to follow up with your office on next steps. We look forward to doing so. Creating appropriate wayfinding in the Eglinton Crosstown stations, and indeed in all transit stations in Ontario, should not be hard to do. It is vital that the experience of us, the riders, is paramount.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Twitter: @davidlepofsky

CC: Marcia Yale, President AEBC president@blindcanadians.ca

Catching Up On Important News Stories Regarding Students with Disabilities!

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/parents-at-tdsb-special-needs-school-heydon-park-shocked-by-plan-to-move-students-and-give-their-space-to-another-school/article_4e4c1dc2-caf5-47ee-ae1a-535f534803fa.html

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Catching Up On Important News Stories Regarding Students with Disabilities!

June 23, 2026

SUMMARY

Over the past months, we and other disability advocates have continued to advocate for the Ford Government to at long last effectively address the plight of at least 350,000 vulnerable students with disabilities in Ontario schools. Quite a number of our recent AODA Alliance Updates have been devoted to this.

Today, we catch you up on several important news reports on this issue that our earlier Updates did not cover. Check out the following set out below:

The superb report at the very top of the June 22, 2026 Global TV News broadcast at 5 PM, by veteran reporter Caryn Lieberman. It reported on the June 18, 2026 Virtual Town Hall for parents of students with disabilities organized by the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition. You can still watch that Virtual Town Hall online.

The April 11, 2026 and May 7, 2026 Toronto Star news reports on the Toronto Catholic District School board’s highly criticized plan to relocate two special education classes. TDDSB eventually backed down after an effective advocacy effort by parents.

The April 27, 2026 Toronto Star included a report focusing on reluctance of some school board trustees because the Ford Government weakened their role. Students with disabilities need good trustees to come to the bat for them when their family runs into roadblocks working with senior school board bureaucrats.

The April 27, 2026 Toronto Star also included a report taking a thorough and critical look at Education Minister Paul Calandra’s widely criticized plan to penalize high school students for high absenteeism without addressing the underlying causes of that absenteeism.

The May 12, 2026 Toronto Star included a report that TDSB was to lay off 200 staff. The day before, TDSB senior budget staff did not reveal this cut to the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee during a required TDSB consultation with that SEAC on TDSB’s special education budget.

The May 12, 2026 Toronto Star included an article reporting on Education Minister Calandra’s stated thinking on when he’d restore school boards. His approach is inexcusably evasive and vague. Moreover, he has not explained why his own highly paid TDSB supervisor, whom the Minister instructs, has not restored TDSB to an assured balanced budget after running TDSB for one year.

The June 4, 2026 Toronto Star included an especially disturbing report that TDSB planned to displace students with disabilities at a special education school, the Haydon Park High School, when they relocate students from another school to that building. Parents of students with disabilities have been battling for over one year to protect that school, whose program TDSB appears to be gradually trying to shut down.

How You Can Help

Write your member of the Ontario Legislature. Their contact information is all available online. Tell them that the Ford Government must remove the many disability barriers in Ontario K-12 schools. It should implement the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s final report that it received over four years ago.

Learn what needs to be done to tear down disability barriers in Ontario schools by watching the AODA Alliance’s video on the blueprint for a barrier-free school system.

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star April 11, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tcdsb-parents-fight-to-stop-special-education-programs-relocation-saying-it-will-devastate-kids/article_d2c5064c-1362-43b9-adae-b1837c5b2067.html

‘Why fix something that’s not broken?’

Parents fight to stop relocation of intensive support program by Toronto Catholic school board

Isabel Teotonio Toronto Star

Parents of children with complex special education needs at a Toronto Catholic school are fighting the relocation of an intensive support program, warning the move could undo years of progress and compromise student safety.

The Toronto Catholic board plans to move a “multiple exceptionalities/developmental disabilities” class of 10 students at St. Matthew Catholic School this September to the newly built St. Fidelis Catholic Elementary school that offers a modern purpose-built space. But given the intense pushback from parents, board staff say they will review the decision.

Parents say uprooting their kids, most of whom are autistic and non-verbal, risks disrupting established routines and strong relationships with staff. Although school bus transportation will be provided to St. Fidelis, about 6.5 kilometres away, parents worry the roughly 15-to-30-minute ride could distress some students, which raises safety concerns.

“Why fix something that’s not broken? Why take away what is clearly working for students and parents?” asks Nicole Rebelo, whose high-needs son is in the program.

He currently rides the bus for just five minutes and routinely escapes his harness, sometimes harming himself by banging his head when upset.

“The kids will not be happy to see new faces and a new space. And if they have to take transportation, that is going to devastate them.”

Families also criticized the lack of transparency, having learned of the move through word of mouth, rather than official channels. Only after parents started a petition, and media reports surfaced, did the board notify parents about the relocation on Wednesday afternoon.

That night, parents delivered impassioned speeches to the Toronto Catholic District School Board’s special education advisory committee, which is made up of members from organizations that represent parents of children with disabilities and special education needs.

At the meeting, attended by senior staff, parents described St. Matthew’s “amazing staff” and said they worry about kids being transported because bus drivers aren’t trained to manage non-verbal children who are lashing out and having a “meltdown.”

“It’s like we’re risking their life every day doing that,” said one parent. “We’re going to live in fear.”

Mother Diane Dias says parents worry a change in routine will result in kids regressing, with them no longer wanting to go to school and throwing tantrums.

“You guys don’t understand what you’re putting us through,” she said at the meeting, fighting back tears. “All of this change – it’s too much.”

Dias says families of children with special needs have been shut out of meaningful discussions and decision-making that has real consequences for kids who rely on stability, routine and trusted relationships to succeed.

Cristina Fernandes, executive superintendent of student achievement, innovation and well-being, said at the meeting that the TCDSB will give the decision “a second look,” noting it’s “not a done deal completely.” She acknowledged the communication rollout to parents did not meet TCDSB standards and took full responsibility.

Staff said the relocation is not a budgetary move. The decision stems from an annual review of facilities. Also, St. Fidelis has a purpose-built space that offers superior technology, specialized furniture and accessible washrooms. They also said they would review if additional support or security measures would be required during transportation.

Maria Meehan, superintendent of special services and mental health, said the TCDSB would support families through the transition. For instance, this may include site visits to St. Fidelis or the creation of a “social story,” which is a personalized visual narrative often used to help autistic students navigate transitions and new environments.

“We do have a number of months to prepare for the transition and, as always, we work with families, we listen to their concerns and their questions, and we want to make sure we are working alongside them,” she said.

The TCDSB says multiple exceptionalities/developmental disabilities placements are offered at various school sites serving students from across the system. The board regularly reviews special education program locations to ensure students are learning in environments that best support their needs.

Parents of children with special education needs at St. Matthew Catholic School gathered at the Toronto Catholic District School Board on Wednesday to speak out against the relocation of an intensive support program. SUPPLIED PHOTO

Toronto Star May 7, 2028

Originally posted at https://www.pressreader.com/canada/toronto-star/20260507/281595247150645

TCDSB drops plan to relocate special education program

Isabel Teotonio Toronto Star

Toronto’s Catholic board will not relocate an intensive support program at two of its schools next year – a planned move that had generated intense pushback from parents of children with complex special education needs.

While the decision has been met with relief by parents, who worried that uprooting their high-needs children from their current schools would undo years of progress, they remain cautiously optimistic.

“We’re relieved for now,” says Diane Dias, whose daughter attends St. Matthew Catholic School and is in the multiple exceptionalities/developmental disabilities program. “But we’re scared for next year. Are they going to come back again next year and say this again?”

Parents at St. Matthew and St. Marguerite Bourgeoys Catholic School were notified last week by the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) that the program will remain at those schools for the 2026-27 academic year.

The change comes after parents were stunned in early April to learn through word of mouth, rather than official channels, that the board planned to relocate the program from those schools to other sites next year. Parents were upset, saying their children are happy and well-supported where they are, and worried that a change in routine would be extremely disruptive.

That prompted them to launch a petition, speak with media outlets and deliver impassioned speeches at a special education advisory committee meeting, which ended with senior staff agreeing to review the decision.

In a statement to the Star, a board spokesperson said staff recently met families at both schools “to listen to their perspectives and explore workable solutions that would best support student success.” After those discussions, the board opted to keep the programs where they are for next year.

The TCDSB “is committed to making decisions in the best interests of students with special needs and will continue to review its programs annually to ensure they align with student needs, program viability, and system-wide priorities,” said the spokesperson via email.

Angela Yim, whose son is in the program at St. Marguerite Bourgeoys, says parents are “happy it’s staying, but at the same time we all went through a lot of stress for the program to remain exactly where it is.”

Toronto Star April 27, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.pressreader.com/canada/toronto-star/20260427/281599542097166?srsltid=AfmBOopYiuz-OsYxcI3jOhQ8VLjKJNYIZ9yOb8RABmcDqanXgNsLz89n

Trustees confront their changing role

Some say they won’t run again under provincial revamp, while others still see a place in system

Kristin Rushowy Senior Writer

Little power, little say and little pay.

The role of school board trustees is soon to be sapped under new legislation, leaving them able to advocate for parents (but with no real clout or connections), hire the CEO (but not fire), take part in budget talks (but if there’s any disagreement, the education minister makes the final decision) – and not much else.

It’s left some wondering if there’s any point in running for the position, especially in the eight boards where the province has swooped in and taken control.

“I’m really concerned that (the bill) will change us from being collaborative partners with senior staff to being just also-rans in the relationship,” said Toronto District School Board trustee Dan MacLean, who is having second thoughts about standing for re-election in this fall’s municipal vote.

“I can effectively advocate for students and families because of the relationships with senior staff that I have,” added the Etobicoke Centre representative. “I don’t envision that will be the same going forward … It will still be really important to support parents, but the role you play will be so minor that I’m not sure staff will find it necessary to partner with you in the same manner, and I think that will make it really hard to effectively advocate for students and families.”

While he hasn’t ruled out running, he plans to “take some time and try to figure out where the dust settles.”

Under the Putting Student Achievement First Act (Bill 101), recently introduced by Education Minister Paul Calandra, no board can have more than 12 trustees – which means the Toronto public board will be almost halved from the current 22 – and their honoraria are cut to a maximum of $10,000 with limits on discretionary spending. They will hire the newly created chief executive officer (CEO) position, but not the new chief education officer, and cannot terminate the CEO without the minister’s permission.

Once passed, the bill will remove trustee organizations as the main bargaining group for provincial contract talks, and would forbid board staff and trustees from speaking publicly in their role on any political, non-school-related issues.

For Calandra, the new rules allow trustees “to do what they keep telling me that they want to do, it allows them to keep doing what the opposition says is the most important role of a trustee – to represent the community and bring that voice to the board. But it strips them away of much of everything else that they do that would cause division within our school system.”

The new CEO will devise the budget, and trustees can make suggestions and pass it, but if they choose not to, the minister makes the final call.

“The changes to how boards are governed and the reduction in the role of a trustee to a much less divisive role make things a lot clearer, and I know will put the focus back on student achievement,” Calandra said after introducing the bill.

While Calandra had initially threatened to get rid of all English public trustees – saying Catholic and French needed to remain for constitutional reasons – he instead diminished their roles. Catholic trustees will retain authority around denominational issues; French board trustees are unaffected.

For former Toronto Catholic board chair Markus de Domenico, “what happened in Bill 101, in an odd way, it’s a victory for the parent voice … I’m not happy about (the bill), but I believe the province’s plan a year ago was to get rid of every trustee in the province, take control of the boards, and parents … spoke out. They realized that the appointed supervisor was not responding … was just not going to cut it, and the role of trustee suddenly became more relevant than ever – that voice to assist parents and direct them through what can be a very large and confusing bureaucracy.”

Plus, he added, “with all due respect, I’m not sure they thought this thing through. Because having a trustee … is a pretty good buffer for the government.”

Disability rights activist and retired lawyer David Lepofsky slammed the “power grab” and “creation of a blizzard of bureaucracy.”

“You need a lawyer, and a lot of years, to try to figure out what the heck the role of the trustees is,” he told the Star’s Isabel Teotonio, amid worries it would mean less assistance for parents of special needs children when issues arise.

While the province has mandated parent support offices in every board as of this fall, New Democrat MPP Chandra Pasma called them “a convenient talking point for the minister, but (in Ottawa, where the public board already has one) it hasn’t reduced the number of calls that are coming to my office.”

For Ontario families “who need somebody to pick up the phone and advocate for them, it absolutely matters that there’s still a trustee for them,” said Pasma, her party’s education critic.

For Cathy Abraham, a trustee in the Kawartha Pine Ridge public board and former president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, the revamp is “not the worst of scenarios … we’re still going to be there, and it’s not going to stop trustees from doing the work that we’ve always done, making sure that we advocate for our communities, telling our administration what our communities need and why, telling the ministry what we need and why.”

However, with CEO to be the top position at boards, having a financial but not necessarily education background, “what they have actually done is put us all under quasi-supervision.”

While trustees hire the CEO, the CEO then hires the chief education officer – referred to as the CEdO – “and you’re looking for somebody who reflects what you believe about education, and reflect your community’s needs, and we don’t have a say in that,” Abraham added.

While the CEO will be in charge of finances and is expected to have experience in that sector, the CEdO will oversee all aspects of teaching and learning, and needs to be a certified teacher.

A group of Ontario parents who sit on their school board parent involvement committees have drafted a response to the bill, saying “we wish for (trustees) to have the ability to advocate for students in a meaningful way” and that local voters have a say in he fate of school lands or outdoor education centres.

While Calandra has said he’ll appoint trustees if there are no candidates in an area, de Domenico said he hopes that doesn’t happen.

The role, he believes, “is worth it … if we care about the students, then we need to encourage people who are committed, and strong and ready to speak up about what is needed for kids in the system to get a great education, to step up and run.”

Toronto Star April 27, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.pressreader.com/canada/toronto-star/20260427/281500757849358?srsltid=AfmBOoo_qo2Fdll3s2xpuIprG2P7iZYCvFGCrCp3lfAs884ud8tD19Mq

Tackling absenteeism about more than marks

Ontario’s plan a start, but educators point to many reasons why students miss class

Kristin Rushowy Senior Writer Isabel Teotonio Toronto Star

They were sick, at a medical appointment, their parents gave them the day off. They were too tired, on vacation, or admitted to skipping.

When students were asked why they missed school over a two-week period, those were their top reasons – with sickness accounting for about half, followed by an appointment for almost one in five. Some 15 per cent cited their parents’ OK to be away.

As the government looks to curb soaring absenteeism in Ontario schools by making attendance and participation worth 10 or 15 per cent of a teen’s final mark, experts say more needs to be done to address a problem that is plaguing countries everywhere post-pandemic.

Jurisdictions in Canada and the U.S. have experimented with public education campaigns, creating attendance competitions between classes with fun rewards, training teachers and secretaries, and sending in supports when needed. Pathways to Education Canada, a non-profit tutoring and support organization for vulnerable students, also tracks absenteeism and says something as simple as providing a transit pass can make a difference.

“Every school division in the world will tell you that since the pandemic, absenteeism has been an issue,” said Tracy Vaillancourt, an education professor at the University of Ottawa and an expert on the topic.

In Ontario, provincial figures show just 40 per cent of high school students met attendance standards last year – being in class at least 90 per cent of the time.

That’s down nearly 20 percentage points from pre-pandemic levels. Missing more than 10 per cent of classes, or roughly 19 absences a year, is considered chronic absenteeism.

The data on why students here report missing class is taken from school climate surveys filled out by kids from grades 4 to 12 across the province – surveys the government says will no longer be mandatory. Vaillancourt said knowing the reasons can help pinpoint solutions.

Take the “too tired” group of teens: Their absenteeism rate doubles in high school “if they were on their screen before they went to bed,” Vaillancourt said.

“When we think about policies, or even outreach, this is something that parents can easily address – take your kids off their phone an hour before they go to bed, and maybe we’ll see them attending more.”

With vacation also a significant factor, she noted that in Scandinavian countries, “you’re not allowed to go on vacation during school time.” (And for parents all too willing to pull their kids out for a day or two to attend a sports tournament, “the priority should be attending school,” said Vaillancourt, herself a high-performance coach of a provincial U17 soccer team.)

Parents may mean well in allowing a day off, but poor attendance “goes hand in hand with lower academic achievement, which then puts more pressure on kids in terms of mental health,” she said. “We really need to be sending our kids to school, even when they are a little uncomfortable.”

The province also needs to take a deep look at the complex underlying issues, which include “mental health challenges, family responsibilities and transportation barriers,” said Kathleen Woodcock, president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association.

Without addressing these, the policy may not lead to lasting improvements and could disproportionately affect students already facing significant challenges, said Woodcock, who is urging the government to pair grading changes with increased supports and efforts to re-engage students.

Owen Charters, president and CEO of Pathways, says attendance at its after-school tutoring sessions is monitored, along with kids’ attendance at school, “so if they’re starting to drop out of classes or not attending, we follow up and figure out what the barriers are, and encourage them to be back in class.”

Sometimes kids just need a transit pass or a decent meal “so they’re not sitting in class hungry … there’s a whole layer of supports” including access to a computer or Wi-Fi. Then they need a caring adult who is paying attention, following up on absences, helping with any struggles and accessing supports, he added.

With school boards under greater strain due to staffing cuts, students are increasingly navigating a complex system to find needed help, he said.

“I’m glad to see the government is paying attention to absenteeism rates,” Charters added. “It’s not bad that they’ve created an incentive program by saying ‘it’s going to be part of your marks’ … but it has to come with supports.”

Toronto mother Katrina Matheson believes some students simply don’t see enough value in being at school. She was raised with the notion that kids shouldn’t miss school if they can help it, but having volunteered in her children’s classes, she can see how learning can feel dull and uninspiring, saying even she has struggled with whether to send them every day.

“When being in class doesn’t feel valuable, either because kids are bored at the slow pace or because they’re so lost they feel beyond help, then everyone begins to feel blasé about attendance,” she said.

Jennifer Pinder, a special education elementary teacher in Waterloo, believes unmet student needs are driving absenteeism, particularly when early intervention and services are lacking.

When needs aren’t met in early grades, she says children create “false narratives” about themselves and think they are poor learners, fuelling disengagement.

Grade 12 Toronto student Ahnaaf Hassan said classrooms thin out after second semester midterms, once colleges and universities have received the marks that matter most for admission. Students start to “chill out a little bit,” and look ahead to prom, end-of-year celebrations and “transitioning into summer.”

That may explain why Grade 12 students had the lowest attendance in 2024-25, with just 33 per cent attending at least 90 per cent of the time, down from 49 per cent in 2017-18. But Hassan believes any mandate to try to “force participation” could backfire and make some teens resent school.

Education Minister Paul Calandra has said exemptions to the attendance rules will be made for health reasons, special needs students as well as weather and transportation issues, especially in northern and rural areas – and that kids won’t be penalized if attending sports tournaments.

Parent leaders from 13 Ontario school boards recently met to discuss the change, warning it will hurt students already facing barriers. They are calling on the province to fund more vice-principals, incentivize principals and teachers in schools with strong attendance rates, and improve school transportation.

In recent years, some Ontario boards have launched attendance campaigns. Algoma District School Board introduced its campaign along with a “re-engagement team,” a multi-disciplinary group of staff who work with schools, families and community partners to help chronically absent students return to class.

The board says truancy charges are rare and used only as a last resort when all efforts have failed to get a student back in school.

The District School Board Ontario North East has already established attendance goals, peer mentoring and direct outreach to families, including mailing postcards home to each student who doesn’t have regular attendance.

At Rainy River District School Board, based in Fort Frances, teachers see alerts when students are repeatedly absent or attendance is declining, staff are trained to speak with families in positive, non-punitive ways, and even school secretaries – the first point of contact with families when a kid is away – receive training from an attendance counsellor.

Bluewater District School Board focuses on helping kids understand why attendance matters – even partnering with the local health authority to get this message across – and says families are being notified sooner about issues and more quickly connected to mental health supports.

According to Attendance Works, a U.S. non-profit initiative to reduce chronic absences, recognizing good or improved attendance with incentives such as assemblies, free homework passes or hallway dance parties are powerful motivators for kids. One California elementary school gives the class with the best attendance extra recess time once a week, while a Chicago high school gives teens with good attendance special access to its VIP lounge.

But for one Toronto high school guidance counsellor, who was not authorized to speak publicly, having educators build meaningful relationships with students and regularly check in is “one of the strongest predictors of improved attendance, especially for students at risk.”

“You’d be amazed at how many times these students will go, ‘I don’t want to disappoint so-and-so because they’re expecting me’ ” in school, the counsellor said. “That turns into a sense of belonging.”

Toronto Star May 12, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/ontario-education-minister-reveals-what-school-boards-must-do-to-end-supervision/article_b57ff670-6dc5-499b-9dd3-1dc4d487b6e9.html

Ontario education minister reveals what school boards must do to end supervision

Calandra says requirements could go beyond just balancing books.

Kristin Rushowy Senior Writer

The eight school boards currently under provincial supervision will need to balance their books and even post surpluses before they can get their powers back, says Education Minister Paul Calandra.

Speaking at the Democracy Forum at Toronto Metropolitan University, Calandra – who has previously not provided any timelines for returning local control – said “each of the boards have different challenges on restoring themselves, bringing themselves back to long-term financial stability.”

There are “some boards that have made some really challenging and difficult decisions that make no sense,” including the Dufferin-Peel Catholic board “that has a really dramatic challenge with respect to long-term disability (costs)” that put it on the brink of bankruptcy, Calandra said.

That’s why he stripped that board, and a handful of others, of their powers and sent in supervisors, Calandra said Thursday at the forum hosted by the Star.

The education minister said he’s looking for “long-term stability in their budgeting, in their financing, restoring their surpluses to a healthy margin and making sure that they can function on a long-term basis, on at least a balanced-budget approach.”

Over the past year, the province has taken over a number of school boards – Toronto public and Catholic, Dufferin-Peel Catholic, Ottawa public, Peel public, York Catholic, Near North public and Thames Valley public – mainly citing financial concerns, but also dysfunctional governance.

Boards have argued that provincial underfunding is at the root of their budgetary issues, and currently about 28 of 72 are running or projecting deficits.

Calandra said while he wants the supervisors to assess whether the formula for the province’s $40 billion education funding is working, he acknowledged that he is “100 per cent” looking at resources for special education, saying “teachers are very frustrated; they’re frustrated that they feel they’re not getting the support that they might need in order to help every child.”

The province’s auditor general is set to release a report on special education needs on Tuesday.

David Mastin, president of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, said the minister doesn’t need to hear from supervisors about the funding formula or special education because “we have education workers in every single school and every single community that could tell you what’s wrong … what’s happening on the ground is not being addressed.”

The “needs that students have are not being addressed,” he added.

While Calandra said trustees in the supervised boards have made questionable decisions – including hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on court battles between trustees in the York Catholic board – he told the forum that “there are pet projects … In Peel Region we have a trustee who has had a portable at his disposal for over 10 years. He’s using it as a storage locker.”

In an interview, trustee David Green said he had an agreement with the Peel District School Board to store equipment for Free For All Community Services – a non-profit that he runs that provides kids with lunchtime, after school and summer programming for a number of schools, with an agreement to provide some programming in exchange for space that has been used for the past 16 years.

But in a subsequent letter to Green, the provincial supervisor has said the items must be removed within 60 days, which Green says is in accordance with the agreement, and that the board is going to probe the “nature and extent of the relationship” between the board and Free For All.

Green said the programming supports children, especially Black students and those who are marginalized, and that the portable stores sports equipment, books, a barbecue for the organization’s big summer event, as well as some items for newcomer families.

He said he has no personal belongings there, adding he believes he and his organization are being targeted given he’s been an outspoken critic of supervision.

Education Minister Paul Calandra said each of the eight school boards currently under provincial supervision have “different challenges on restoring themselves, bringing themselves back to long-term financial stability.” Justin Tang/ The Canadian Press file photo

Toronto Star May 12, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tdsb-laying-off-more-than-200-administrative-staff-in-latest-cuts/article_fd19eb09-3acc-484a-8ac2-b6570323d5a7.html

TDSB laying off more than 200 administrative staff in latest cuts

The school board said the layoffs do not affect classroom staff, but union leaders say the cuts will still hurt the classroom.

Brendan Kennedy Investigative Reporter

The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) is laying off more than 200 “central administration staff,” the board announced Monday, citing years of declining enrolment as the reason for the downsizing.

In an email to staff and a statement to the Star, the board did not specify the kinds of jobs that will be affected, but said the cuts do not affect classroom staff.

In all, 218 employees will be laid off and 91 vacant positions will be eliminated.

“These changes are part of the TDSB’s broader efforts to protect classroom learning, support student achievement and restore long-term financial sustainability,” board spokesperson Ryan Bird said in an email.

Staff were notified at 4:59 p.m. Monday afternoon in an email from interim education director Stacey Zucker and supervisor Rohit Gupta.

On Monday evening, the president of one of the unions representing affected workers said he was still in the dark about what jobs the board was cutting.

“We don’t have any of that information,” said John Weatherup, president of Toronto Education Workers 4400, a CUPE local representing hundreds of different job classifications. Weatherup said it’s “misleading” of the board to suggest the cuts won’t impact the classroom. He said many of the workers he expects to be laid off work in schools, including in special education and outdoor education, among other roles.

The board did not immediately respond to Weatherup’s characterization or a request to provide more clarity on the affected jobs.

Another union leader representing professional support staff, including social workers and psychologists, said some of her members have been told they have been declared surplus, but she hasn’t been able to speak to anyone at the board to get a better understanding of the cuts.

“I’m concerned about the students,” said Solange Scott, president of the Professional Student Services Personnel bargaining unit. “I’m concerned about their mental health.

“There’s already been so many cuts to education, and this is just another deeper one for our students,” Scott said.

The TDSB, currently under provincial supervision due to what the Ontario government has described as financial mismanagement, is projecting 5,000 fewer students next school year.

The board announced last month it was cutting 40 vice-principals due to falling enrolment.

One union leader has raised concerns about students’ mental health as layoffs mark “another deeper” cut to education. Giovanni Capriotti for the Toronto Star file photo

Toronto Star June 4, 2026

Parents at TDSB special needs school Heydon Park shocked by plan to move students and give their space to another school

Kids at Orde school will move to Heydon Park, which serves special-needs girls, due to tower construction, but unclear where Heydon Park kids will go.

By Mahdis HabibiniaCity Hall Bureau

Melana Janzen said she doesn’t yet have the heart to tell her 16-year-old daughter Annika, who has learning challenges, that she will be forced to transfer out of her special education school next year.

Wednesday was prom night, Janzen said, and the news that Heydon Park Secondary School kids will soon be displaced for a few years to a yet-unknown school would have upset Annika.

“I’m so inflamed,” Janzen said in an interview, a day after learning the Toronto District School Board plans to relocate kids at nearby Orde Street Public School to Heydon Park, which serves special-needs girls, due to the construction of a 60-storey tower right next to Orde’s outdoor play area.

The TDSB has halted enrolment at two Toronto schools. Parents say the board is shutting them down by stealth

“It’s heartbreaking and terrifying to imagine what the alternative is. And for a lot of these kids, (Heydon Park) is a lifeline, literally,” said Janzen, among the moms who told the Star that the news is jarring. “It serves so many purposes. It’s the only female-identifying school (and for special needs). They’re very vulnerable. There are kids that are suicidal that go here and also girls that are on the spectrum are highly sexualized.”

In a June 2 letter sent by Jennifer Chan, the TDSB’s superintendent of education, parents and caregivers were notified that the students at Orde will be moved to Heydon Park, both in the Grange Park neighbourhood downtown, just 700 metres apart, as early as January 2027.

However, it would displace about 130 kids at Heydon Park, an overwhelming majority of whom have special needs ranging from autism to various learning disabilities.

“Excessive vibration, traffic, air quality levels, noise, and the risk of falling objects due to construction are not conducive to a safe learning environment for students and staff,” Chan’s letter said. “Given the number of Orde St. students, we will need to relocate Heydon Park (school) to another TDSB site as it represents the best opportunity to accommodate Orde Street (school) during construction.”

Dave Paskar, a parent whose two daughters attend Orde, said he knew in April their kids would have to relocate, but they didn’t know Heydon Park was even an option until an emergency meeting Tuesday night after Chan’s letter went out.

“We’re all worried. We have suspicions it will be a domino effect,” Paskar said, referencing concerns Heydon Park students will be permanently displaced and so will Orde students, because the latter will be taken over either by the city or province for other development purposes.

“Heydon Park is probably the best possible outcome in terms of proximity and keeping the school together … but on the other hand, why does a public school have to close because they have to build a building?”

According to a bulletin that Orde school’s principal sent parents Wednesday afternoon, the TDSB is anticipating the relocation period will be three to four years “or until tower construction is complete.” The bulletin said Heydon Park will also be renovated to “accommodate the needs for an elementary school” and that Orde Day Care will be relocated to Contact Alternative School.

On Wednesday evening, TDSB spokesperson Ryan Bird told the Star that Heydon Park was the best option because it’s close by and has room for all 400 Orde students.

“Of note, Heydon Park SS doesn’t have a geographical boundary and accepts students from across the city,” he said, adding the board wants to keep Heydon Park students together as well.

Parents at Heydon Park say they haven’t been consulted and remain in the dark about some questions. They argue the move doesn’t consider students’ learning needs and highlights an extreme lack of transparency.

“Why us? Why can’t they send the elementary school to a safer place that is empty?” said Kamala Kalsi, co-chair of the parent school council for Heydon Park, in an interview. “They’re moving the most vulnerable population to God knows which location. And for these students to even transition from one class to another is a big, big issue.”

Kalsi said the TDSB has scheduled a meeting on June 17 with parents to let them know where Heydon Park students will be relocated.

Chan’s letter did not detail how the TDSB chose Heydon Park as the host school, aside from “a thorough review of all possible options and sites.”

“I recognize that Heydon Park SS is a close-knit community with strong connections to its current home and we will do everything possible to make this as smooth a transition as possible,” Chan’s letter continued.

Kalsi said she doubts the Heydon Park students will be coming back and believes this is a way to permanently transfer students. “They just want to close Heydon Park and access to the special needs program,” she said.

Deborah Williams, the local school board trustee, said given that the TDSB will be suspending enrolment this fall for Grade 9 and 10 students at Heydon Park, citing low registration numbers, and parents’ brewing concerns for the last few years about the school potentially closing, that this looks like the board and province’s way of “winding down the school.”

“Everything’s happening behind closed doors,” Williams said. “The usual process for these reviews involves extensive meetings and opportunities for feedback. I don’t know why (TDSB chose) Heydon Park,” aside from proximity.

Williams said the province, which has been running the TDSB through a supervisor, is primarily to blame because it has been sending a message that boards have to fit students into a “funding formula that doesn’t serve our students’ needs.”

Janzen said Heydon Park has a model of special education for girls that has been successful, which is uncommon.

“It really does feel that they aren’t taking into account the genuinely unique situation here,” she said.

Mahdis Habibinia is part of the Star’s city hall bureau, based in Toronto. Reach her via email: mhabibinia@thestar.ca

Urge Toronto City Council to Pass a Motion at Its June 24 Meeting Calling on Metrolinx to Fix the Disability Barrier Revealed in the Recent 8-Minute AODA Alliance Video

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Urge Toronto City Council to Pass a Motion at Its June 24 Meeting Calling on Metrolinx to Fix the Disability Barrier Revealed in the Recent 8-Minute AODA Alliance Video

June 19, 2026

SUMMARY

On June 24, Toronto City Council will vote on a motion which Councillor Rachel Chernos Lin has proposed and which the City of Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee passed on June 11, 2026. It calls on Metrolinx to fix the disability barrier revealed in the AODA Alliance’s most recent 8-minute online video. That motion states:

“City Council request the Chief Executive Officer, Metrolinx, in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer, TTC, the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee and the Accessibility Advisory Committee on Transit, to improve tactile wayfinding for those with visual impairments in stations along Line 5 to ensure that riders can safely navigate to escalators, elevators and stairs, and to establish this as a standard approach for future stations and existing stations undergoing refurbishment.”

The AODA Alliance has written Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow and City Council members, urging them to vote for this motion. We set out that letter below. We applaud Councillor Chernos Lin for bringing this issue forward.

The Ontario Government’s Metrolinx designed the large, irregular, multi-floor labyrinthian transit stations that are especially hard for people with vision loss to independently navigate. Metrolinx commendably installed cane-detectible tactile floor wayfinding markings. However these only give passengers with vision loss the option of using elevators, not stairs or escalators, to go through these stations. Those elevators unpredictably break down, and can be out of service for hours, days or longer. It is ridiculous for the Ontario Government to decide for all passengers with vision loss that they are only to use elevators, not stairs or escalators.

How You Can Help

Whether you live in Toronto or may ever visit Toronto, please write Mayor Chow and Toronto City Council members. Urge them to pass Councillor Chernos Lin’s motion, recently adopted by the Infrastructure and Environment Committee, that calls on Metrolinx to fix the deficient tactile wayfinding floor markings in the Eglinton Crosstown Line 5 transit stations. Here is the contact information you need for at least some City Council members, generated by Chat GPT:

Olivia Chow, Mayor — mayor_chow@toronto.ca

Vincent Crisanti (Ward 1 – Etobicoke North) — councillor_crisanti@toronto.ca

Stephen Holyday (Ward 2 – Etobicoke Centre) — councillor_holyday@toronto.ca

Amber Morley (Ward 3 – Etobicoke-Lakeshore) — councillor_morley@toronto.ca

Gord Perks (Ward 4 – Parkdale-High Park) — councillor_perks@toronto.ca

: Frances Nunziata (Ward 5 York South-Weston) councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca

James Pasternak (Ward 6 York Centre) councillor_pasternak@toronto.ca

Anthony Perruzza (Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek) councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca

Mike Colle (Ward 8 – Eglinton-Lawrence) councillor_colle8@toronto.ca

Alejandra Bravo (Ward 9 – Davenport) — councillor_bravo@toronto.ca

Ausma Malik (Ward 10 – Spadina-Fort York) — councillor_malik@toronto.ca

Dianne Saxe (Ward 11 – University-Rosedale) — councillor_saxe@toronto.ca

Josh Matlow (Ward 12 – Toronto-St. Paul’s) — councillor_matlow@toronto.ca

Chris Moise (Ward 13 Toronto Centre) councillor_moise@toronto.ca

Paula Fletcher (Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth) councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca

Rachel Chernos Lin (Ward 15 – Don Valley West) — councillor_chernoslin@toronto.ca

Jon Burnside (Ward 16 – Don Valley East) — Councillor_Burnside@toronto.ca

Shelley Carroll (Ward 17 Don Valley North) councillor_carroll@toronto.ca

Lily Cheng (Ward 18 Willowdale) Councillor_Cheng@Toronto.ca

Brad Bradford (Ward 19 Beaches–East York) Councillor_Bradford@toronto.ca

Parthi Kandavel (Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest) Councillor_Kandavel@toronto.ca

Michael Thompson (Ward 21 – Scarborough Centre) — councillor_thompson@toronto.ca

Nick Mantas (Ward 22 Scarborough–Agincourt) Councillor_Mantas@toronto.ca

Jamaal Myers (Ward 23 Scarborough North) Councillor_Myers@toronto.ca

Paul Ainslie (Ward 24 – Scarborough-Guildwood) — Councillor_Ainslie_CO@toronto.ca

MORE DETAILS

Text of the AODA Alliance’s June 19, 2026 Letter to Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow and Members of Toronto City Council

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com Twitter: @aodaalliance

June 19, 2026

To: Mayor Olivia Chow and Toronto City Council

Dear Mayor Chow and Members of Toronto City Council,

Re: Accessibility Problems Facing Passengers with Disabilities on the New Eglinton Crosstown Transit Line

At the upcoming June 24, 2026 meeting of Toronto City Council, you will consider a motion that Passed on June 10, 2026. Councillor Rachel Chernos Lin commendably proposed it. We urge City Council to pass this motion. It provides:

In 2022, Metrolinx made a commitment that all stations on the Eglinton line would be accessible. Yet serious accessibility problems were identified very shortly after Line 5 opened. Examples of these are identified in a troubling February 10, 2026 City News report, days after Line 5 opened to the public.

A new 8-minute online video produced by the AODA Alliance has made public an additional barrier in Line 5 stations. Metrolinx could easily have prevented all these barriers when designing and building Line 5 stations.

The motion that comes before you on June 24, 2026 and which we urge you to support concerns the specific disability barrier highlighted in our recent online video. In raising it, we do not prioritize this disability barrier over the many other accessibility problems with this Line 5.

In summary, there is a troubling lack of sufficient wayfinding at the Line 5 stations needed to enable blind and low vision transit passengers to navigate through these large labyrinthian stations. This is especially harmful because Line 5 stations are large, multi-floored, irregularly laid out, and therefore challenging to navigate.

Metrolinx commendably installed cane-detectable wayfinding tactile markings on the floor in Line 5 stations to enable people with vision loss to independently navigate through them. However, Metrolinx made the wrong-headed decision that passengers with vision loss (like me) only use elevators, and never use stairs or escalators when navigating through the several levels of a Line 5 station. Their tactile wayfinding floor markings only direct a passenger with vision loss to and from the station’s elevators. They do not give passengers with vision loss the option of using the stairs or escalators.

Blind and low vision passengers, like all other passengers have the right to choose for themselves whether to use the stairs, escalators or elevators. No Ontario Government bureaucrat should be making that choice for them.

There are good reasons to use the stairs or escalators, for those able to do so, including many people with vision loss. It takes longer to go through a Line 5 station using two successive, sluggish elevators. A passenger must take two elevators in any single station to get from street level to the train tracks.

Moreover, no one should have to depend on transit station elevators if they can avoid it. TTC has a sorry record of having subway station elevators unpredictably out of service. I was at the Cedarvale station on Saturday June 6, 2026, when the elevator from Line 5 to Line 1 was out of service. It was still out of service 12 hours later when I was at that station again the next day.

For any passenger who depends on the Line 5 station elevators, a station becomes inaccessible to them if any elevator is out of service. Metrolinx should not have designed its tactile wayfinding floor markings to make passengers with vision loss unnecessarily depend on the unreliable elevators.

In response to our video about this disability barrier, The media has asked Metrolinx to explain its decision. The evasive Metrolinx responses reported by the Toronto Star, CTV and CBC do not give any reasons for this barrier.

The Ontario Government has pledged to lead Ontario by example when it comes to advancing the cause of disability accessibility. On June 24, 2026 please vote for accessibility. Please vote against the creation of new barriers against people with disabilities, using public money.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Twitter: @davidlepofsky

Education Minister Paul Calandra Snubs Parents of Ontario K-12 Students with Disabilities, Refusing to Attend a Virtual Town Hall to Hear About Barriers at School Hurting Their Children

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Ontario Autism Coalition

Education Minister Paul Calandra Snubs Parents of Ontario K-12 Students with Disabilities, Refusing to Attend a Virtual Town Hall to Hear About Barriers at School Hurting Their Children

June 18, 2026 Toronto: Today at a Virtual Town Hall livestreamed to the public, parents and guardians of students with disabilities from around Ontario gave two hours of gut-wrenching accounts of their children’s unmet disability-related learning needs in Ontario schools. The AODA Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition organized this grassroots event to show the Ontario Government and 72 school boards how over 350,000 K-12 students with disabilities require major improvements in the school system. The virtual Town Hall is permanently archived on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMT8vY1Ejts

This Virtual Town Hall was organized as a result of Education Minister Paul Calandra’s commitment to these students when he addressed the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy on April 27, 2026, saying:

“The level of special education across the province is different from school board to school board. I’m frankly unhappy with that. I’m unhappy with the disconnect between the three ministries that are responsible. I certainly think we can do a better job. I will be spending a significant amount of time over the next number of months seeing how we can better perform when it comes to special education.”

The Ford Government’s controversial Bill 101 gives Education Calandra massive new powers to micromanage the school system, so we invited him to join our Virtual Town Hall, hear what parents have to say, and speak to those attending, said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky who co-moderated the Virtual Town Hall, and who is also Chair of TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee. “We very much regret that Minister Calandra did not attend, and did not even answer our invitation.”

“The painful accounts we heard at this Town Hall echo the reports we repeatedly receive from parents of students with disabilities all over Ontario, as well as the findings of our survey on families’ experiences with special education,” said Ontario Autism Coalition vice president Kate Dudley-Logue who also co-moderated the Virtual Town Hall. “We need the Education Minister to listen to these parents, and read our survey’s report.”

Problems that speakers reported included such things as Lack of needed staff support for students with disabilities due to underfunding, Elimination of successful special education programs, students suffering from anxiety caused by the lack of support inn school that led them to absent themselves from school, parents who have trouble doing their job because their child can’t attend school all day, physical inaccessibility of school buildings even when labeled as “accessible,” parents having to navigate months of complex red tape and bureaucracy to fight for the school board to meet their child’s disability-related needs, recurring attitude barriers on the part of some school staff towards their child’s disability and learning potential, lack of funding and long delays to get the diagnosis needed to get support at school and much more.

This is strikingly similar to feedback which the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee received when it held a similar Town Hall for parents of TDSB students with disabilities/special education needs on April 13, 2026. TDSB senior staff strenuously opposed TDSB’s SEAC holding that event, and refused to actively help with its being organized. A video of that event can be viewed on YouTube.

In January 2022, the Ford Government received a comprehensive blueprint on how to fix the school system. It was prepared by a Government-appointed panel of experts drawn equally from the disability community and the educators’ community. The Government has enacted none of their recommendations. That failure contributes to the ongoing barriers facing thousands of Ontario’s K-12 students with disabilities.

As a result of this Virtual Town Hall, the AODA Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition will work with other disability advocacy groups to ramp up pressure on the Ontario Government to fix a broken,, underfunded and out-of-date special education system.

Contact: Kate Dudley Logue – Vice President, Community Outreach, Ontario Autism Coalition (647) 496-4688

David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

Learn more on the AODA Alliance website’s education page and the Ontario Autism Coalition’s website.

Tomorrow 10 AM to Noon EDT, Provincewide Virtual Town Hall for Parents of Students with Disabilities to Describe What is Needed to Tear Down Obstacles to Their Child’s Education in Ontario Schools

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Ontario Autism Coalition

MEDIA ADVISORY

June 17, 2026

Tomorrow 10 AM to Noon EDT, Provincewide Virtual Town Hall for Parents of Students with Disabilities to Describe What is Needed to Tear Down Obstacles to Their Child’s Education in Ontario Schools

What: The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition will hold a livestreamed Virtual Town Hall for parents of students with disabilities to describe the problems that impede their children from getting a full and equal education in Ontario schools, and what must be done to fix this.

When: Thursday, June 18, 2026 10 AM to Noon EDT

Where: Livestreamed on the Ontario Autism Coalition’s YouTube channel, and later to be archived on YouTube.

It is important for the Minister and the Ford Government to hear directly from the parents of the students who chronically suffer from the many problems with special education in Ontario. To assist the Minister, the AODA Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition have organized this Virtual Town Hall.

In a letter to the Minister on June 3, 2026, the Minister was invited to attend this Virtual Town Hall, to hear from parents and students with disabilities themselves. The Minister was invited to speak to those taking part in this Virtual Town Hall. So far, he has not responded.

The public can watch the livestream on the Ontario Autism Coalition’s YouTube channel. Speakers will get a Zoom link. Speakers are welcomed on a first come, first served basis, without any prior screening of what they have to say. American Sign Language interpretation and real-time captioning will be provided.

Contact: Bruce McIntosh 416-451-8315, bruce.mcintosh@ontarioautismcoalition.com

David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

Toronto’s Mimico Go Transit Station is Yet Another Metrolinx Accessibility Bungle

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Toronto’s Mimico Go Transit Station is Yet Another Metrolinx Accessibility Bungle

June 16, 2026

SUMMARY

Here is yet another illustration of the Ontario Government’s Metrolinx bungling its duty to ensure accessible public transit for people with disabilities in Ontario. It’s now called the “Mimico Accessibility Fiasco.”

Metrolinx operates “Go Transit” lines in and around the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). It has not ensured that all Go transit stations are accessible to public transit riders with disabilities. One glaring example is the Mimico Go Transit stop.

There is no way for a person using a mobility aid like a wheelchair to get from the street to the trains, or vice versa. A formidable organization of local residents, the Mimico Residents’ Association, has been advocating for this to be fixed for over a decade. All they’ve gotten was a chain of broken promises. A May 27, 2026 CBC report, set out below, recounts their latest efforts. Metrolinx sent representatives to a public meeting of this Association during National AccessAbility Week, but could not give a date by when this station will be accessible. This Go station is right in the midst of a growing Toronto community.

This is a fantastic illustration of an unstoppable residents’ association taking up the cause of accessibility, and not giving up. We often report to you on accessibility advocacy by people with disabilities. Here it is an organization that was not created to undertake disability advocacy, but who see this injustice as hurting all its members.

How You Can Help

If you live in a neighbourhood with a residents’ association, urge it to advocate for fixing disability barriers in your area. Offer to work with them on this advocacy. Remind them that everyone is bound to eventually get a disability.
To get your residents’ association started, encourage them to listen to Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast to get advocacy action tips. For more on our podcast, visit the AODA Alliance website’s new podcast page.
Write Premier Ford at premier@ontario.ca and your local member of the Ontario Legislature. You can find your MPP’s contact information on the Ontario Legislature’s web page. Tell them Metrolinx is doing a terrible job at ensuring public transit facilities are accessible to riders with disabilities.
Watch the AODA Alliance’s 8-minute video highlighting one accessibility barrier that Metrolinx created on Toronto’s new Eglinton Crosstown transit line.

MORE DETAILS

CBC News May 27, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mimico-demonstration-go-station-accessibility-1.7545455

Mimico residents vow to keep pressure on Metrolinx to make local GO station accessible

Contract has been awarded to begin design phase of planned accessibility upgrades, Metrolinx says

Muriel Draaisma, Tyler Cheese CBC News

On Tuesday, residents gathered near the Mimico GO station to demand that Metrolinx begin work as soon as possible. A Metrolinx representative told residents at the demonstration that the Ontario government has awarded a contract to begin the design phase of planned accessibility upgrades at the station.

There is no start date for construction.

Rozhen Asrani, president of the Mimico Residents Association, said Tuesday that residents have been waiting for Metrolinx to break ground on accessibility updates to the station for about a decade.

Previous projects to make the station more accessible were linked to larger developments of the area that included housing. Two projects collapsed, one in 2023 and one in 2012.

“The community is very frustrated. Patience has run out. It’s been a decade of a lack of accessibility and multiple failed promises by Metrolinx,” Asrani said.

There is no elevator at the station.

“It’s difficult to get to,” said Asrani. “There are all kinds of issues for people who use strollers, have mobility constraints, bicycles they are trying to get up and down the stairs. There are lots of barriers.”

Rozhen Asrani, president of the Mimico Residents Association, says: ‘The community is very frustrated. Patience has run out. It’s been a decade of a lack of accessibility and multiple failed promises by Metrolinx.’ (James Spalding/CBC)

Asrani said residents were promised by Metrolinx that the station would be fully accessible by 2023 but that did not happen. Now, she said, there are no new project completion dates and no clear timelines.

Asrani said that’s unacceptable and is violation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). The community is growing and residents deserve to have an accessible transit station, she added.

“An announcement of a contract is great, but what we really need is shovels in the ground and actual timelines,” Asrani said.

Contract awarded to begin planning, Metrolinx says

In a statement on Tuesday, Metrolinx noted that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation announced on May 14 that a contract was awarded for “design development and construction management services to support accessibility upgrades and other enhancements at Mimico GO.”

Metrolinx added: “The station improvement project will provide better connections and improved amenities to ensure a seamless and barrier-free experience for customers travelling across the GO network.

They were supposed to get a new train station. Instead, Mimico residents are ‘staring at a hole in the ground’

Ontario was supposed to be accessible by 2025. Some advocates say it’s not even close

When the development phase is complete, Metrolinx said the contractor will submit a proposed construction schedule and associated costs. If approved, a construction contract will be awarded, at which point project timelines will be more clearly defined, Metrolinx said.

Metrolinx said it is “fully committed” to meeting its obligations under the AODA and the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation.

‘People are feeling a bit disappointed,’ MPP says

Lee Fairclough, MPP for Etobicoke Lakeshore, said the community is concerned because accessibility upgrades have been delayed for years. A person who arrives at the station in a wheelchair would not be able to get down from the platform, she said. Someone using a walker or crutches would have to navigate steep stairs, she said.

“People are feeling a bit disappointed,” Fairclough said. “Glad that we’re moving ahead… But as a community and as a representative, we’re going to keep on making sure there is pressure to make it happen.”

Lee Fairclough, MPP for Etobicoke Lakeshore, says: ‘We’re going to keep on making sure there is pressure to make it happen.’ (James Spalding/CBC)

Fairclough said Metrolinx is taking full responsibility for ensuring that the station will be accessible.

“I think that gives some encouragement to the community that this is going to happen,” she said.

The residents association has gathered nearly 1,000 signatures on a petition to have Metrolinx start construction this year, and Fairclough says she plans to table the petition formally at Queen’s Park on Wednesday.

Improvements overdue, says councillor

Coun. Amber Morley, who represents Etobicoke-Lakeshore, said collaboration is needed and the accessibility improvements are overdue.

In the past three years, Morley said she has told Metrolinx repeatedly that the community is frustrated and pointed out that previous agreements with private developers have been ineffective.

“We’ve all come to a space where we understand and appreciate those challenges but are very focused on moving forward and delivering for community,” she said.

A Mimico resident gathers signatures on a petition that calls on the Ontario transportation minister to ‘direct Metrolinx to begin construction of the accessibility retrofits in 2025, and that the project swiftly moves to completion without any undue delay.’ (James Spalding/CBC)

In its statement, Metrolinx said the proposed improvements at the station include:

A new east connection with elevator and stair access to the platform level, with customer access from both sides of the rail corridor.
A new south entrance at Manchester Street and Blue Goose Street with elevator and stair connections to the platforms.
Platform upgrades, including “tactile walking surface indicators” at the edge of the platform.
Accessibility and customer experience upgrades to platforms and shelters.

The Latest in a Growing and Worrisome Pattern of Harmful Special Education Cuts is Revealed at the Ottawa Carleton Catholic District School Board

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

The Latest in a Growing and Worrisome Pattern of Harmful Special Education Cuts is Revealed at the Ottawa Carleton Catholic District School Board

June 14, 2026

SUMMARY

On Thursday, June 11, 2026, the CTV Ottawa news reported on a forthcoming special education cut at the Ottawa Carleton Catholic District School board, OCCDSB. The report, set out below, describes how OCCDSB is eliminating staff in school busses needed to support students with disabilities with complex health needs. This cut endangers the health of these students, and is the latest in the many disability barriers impeding students with disabilities at Ontario schools.

This is just the latest in a worrisome and growing patter of new cuts to special education programs, services and supports at an increasing number of school boards around Ontario. These cuts are not limited to school boards that the Ford Government took over and is directly running. These cuts all fly in the face of Education Minister Paul Calandra’s commitment when speaking on April 27, 2026 to the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy as follows:

In addition this new special education cut in Ottawa flies in the face of the school board’s duty to accommodate students with disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights. It is also impossible to square with the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which includes this requirement:

“75. (1) This section applies to every school board that provides transportation services for its students.

(2) School boards to which this section applies shall,

(a) ensure that integrated accessible school transportation services are provided for their students; or

(b) ensure that appropriate alternative accessible transportation services are provided for students with disabilities, where in the opinion of the board integrated accessible school transportation services are not possible or not the best option for a student with a disability because of the nature of the disability or safety concerns.

(3) School boards to which this section applies shall, in consultation with parents or guardians of students with disabilities,

(a) identify students with disabilities before the commencement of each school year or during the school year, based on the needs of the student with a disability;

(b) develop individual school transportation plans for each student with a disability that,

(i) detail student assistance needs for each student with a disability, and

(ii) include plans for individual student boarding, securement and deboarding; and

(c) identify and communicate to the appropriate parties the roles and responsibilities of the transportation provider, the parents or guardians of the student with the disability, the operator of the vehicle used to transport the student, appropriate school staff and the student with the disability.

(4) School boards to which this section applies shall meet,

(a) the requirements of subsection (2) by July 1, 2011; and

(b) the requirements of subsection (3) by January 1, 2014.

(5) In this section,

“school board” means a board as defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Education Act; (“conseil scolaire”)

“transportation provider” includes an entity or person that has entered into an agreement with a board for the transportation of students under subsection 190 (6) of the Education Act; (“fournisseur de services de transport”)

“transportation services” means transportation that a board provides under section 190 of the Education Act.”

We want to raise this growing pattern of special education cuts with the Education Minister, among other issues. On April 27, 2026, Education Minister Paul Calandra agreed to have a meeting with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. On May 15, 2026, the AODA Alliance wrote Minister Calandra, asking to schedule that meeting. Neither the Minister nor his office has responded.

On Thursday, June 18, 2026, from 10 AM to noon, the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition have joined forces to host a Virtual Town Hall for parents of students with disabilities and students with disabilities themselves to share what disability barriers still exist in Ontario schools, and to recommend solutions. Education Minister Paul Calandra was written on June 2, 2026 to invite him to attend, listen to speakers, and address this virtual Town Hall. No reply has been received to that invitation.

June 11, 2026 was quite a news day for the AODA Alliance. We were in three different news outlets on two different stories. In addition to the CTV Ottawa report set out below (which is a story that CTV brought to us, not the reverse), we were in the Toronto Star and on CBC regarding the AODA Alliance video depicting one Eglinton Crosstown public transit barrier, as included in the June 12, 2026 AODA Alliance Update!

How You Can Help

Speak to any parents, grandparents or other family members of students with disabilities. Get them to email TownHall@OntarioAutismCoalition.com to sign up to speak at the upcoming June 18, 2026 Virtual Town Hall on improving our schools for students with disabilities. Speakers are asked to describe disability obstacles and problems at school, and recommend solutions. We ask speakers not to identify the student, school, teachers or other staff members. They can name their school board if they wish.

MORE DETAILS

CTV News Ottawa June 11, 2026

Originally posted at: https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/parents-seek-answers-after-ottawa-catholic-school-board-decision-to-eliminate-bus-attendants/

Parents seek answers after Ottawa Catholic School Board decision to eliminate bus attendants

By Katelyn Wilson

Disability rights advocates are raising concerns about the consultation process surrounding OCSB bus attendant cuts. CTV’s Katelyn Wilson reports.

Questions are mounting over the Ottawa Catholic School Board’s decision to eliminate bus attendants for students with special needs this fall.

The change is expected to impact roughly 100 students and their families.

Bus attendants help support students with complex needs during the ride to and from school, including students with medical, behavioural and mobility needs.

Jimmy Ruggiero says the decision has left parents scrambling for answers.

“It was upsetting because number one, I didn’t expect it,” he said. “Also, the timing of everything was not the greatest. As a parent I am still trying to deal with it right now.”

Earlier this week, Ruggiero received a letter from his son’s school saying the board would be “concluding its bus attendant service” beginning in September.

It’s a support his nearly 18-year-old son Luca has relied on since elementary school to help him get to and from school safely.

“What a difference it’s made for my son,” Ruggiero said. “He has an acquired brain injury from when he was young. He has medical complexities. He’s fully dependent in all areas of his life.”

The letter says the board is “transitioning to a model where transportation support is coordinated through healthcare partners such as CHEO.”

But CHEO tells CTV News in a statement, “It was not involved in the decision by the OCSB and became aware of the change after parents and families began reaching out with questions.”

“That was extremely frustrating,” Ruggiero said. “It felt like a lot of the messages that were sent out weren’t accurate.”

The decision is now facing scrutiny from disability rights advocates.

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance says school boards have a legal obligation to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities.

“If the school board has been providing this accommodation, they would have to prove why they suddenly decided the children don’t need it anymore,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

“The parents don’t have to prove they need it. The school board has to prove they don’t.”

He added that the board had a duty to consult parents before reaching any decisions.

The board says the decision was shaped by feedback from parents surveyed regarding service cancellation when bus attendants were unavailable.

Saying majority of those who filled out the survey indicated they wanted their children to go to school even if attendants were unavailable, but many parents told CTV News they were never consulted about the cancellation of bus attendants.

In a statement, the OCSB said “student safety and well-being remain our highest priorities” adding, “bus attendants are not healthcare professionals and are not responsible for providing medical care or medical assessments during transportation.”

But Ruggiero says the concern isn’t medical treatment, it’s having another trained adult on the bus.

“My son is non-verbal. He can’t communicate how he’s feeling. If he has a seizure, no one would really know,” he said. “My concern is that a bus driver has to focus on the road.”

Ruggiero says the biggest frustration is the uncertainty, with September just months away.

“We need clear communication from the board to know that we’re going to feel safe, knowing that our kids are not just pushed to the side,” he said.

Pressure Escalates on Metrolinx to Fix Accessibility Problems at New Eglinton Crosstown Transit Line

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

WATCH Visual tour of accessibility barriers inside Eglinton Crosstown station:

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Pressure Escalates on Metrolinx to Fix Accessibility Problems at New Eglinton Crosstown Transit Line

June 12, 2026

SUMMARY

The pressure is ramping up on the Ford Government’s Metrolinx organization to explain and fix the accessibility problems at the new Eglinton Crosstown transit line stations.

One week ago, the AODA Alliance made public an 8-minute online video that has now been seen over 1,300 times. It shows that Metrolinx designed the new Chaplin station based on an absurd decision that transit passengers with vision loss only need to know how to reach the station’s elevators, and not the stairs or escalators, when navigating large, irregularly laid-out stations.

This is but one of the troubling accessibility barriers in the design of the Eglinton Crosstown transit stations that hurt transit riders with a range of disabilities. Metrolinx had committed that all these new stations would be accessible.

Here is how the pressure on Metrolinx is increasing:

On Monday, June 8, 2026, the AODA Alliance wrote Metrolinx CEO Michael Lindsay to urge him to watch this video, to answer important questions about this barrier, and to seek a meeting with him.

The Monday, June 8, 2026 CTV Toronto evening news broadcast included a strong report about the AODA Alliance video and the disability barrier it reveals.

On Thursday, June 11, 2026, the Toronto Star and CBC both made public great reports on this issue. The Star article was included in the online and print versions of the newspaper. The CBC included reports on the web and on radio. We set out the Star and CBC reports below.

On June 11, 2026, the Toronto City Council’s Infrastructure and Environment Committee passed a strong motion that calls for Metrolinx to fix the disability barrier depicted in the new AODA Alliance video. The motion, as approved, states:

We applaud City Council member Rachel Chernos Lin for taking it upon herself to press for this motion, after she heard about this disability barrier. This motion will come before Toronto City Council on June 24, 2026 for approval. We hope and trust that it will pass.

On June 11, 2026, the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians AEBC wrote Metrolinx CEO Michael Lindsay. We set their letter out below. AEBC supported the AODA Alliances June 8, 2026 letter and asked for a meeting with Mr. Lindsay.

This pressure is starting to show preliminary signs of results. On June 11, 2026, Metrolinx CEO Michael Lindsay responded by email to AEBC and then to the AODA Alliance. They have agreed to all meet in a virtual meeting on June 23, 2026.

A Pattern of Poor Public Infrastructure Design

This is not an isolated incident. We have witnessed a pattern of extremely poor infrastructure design traceable to the Ontario Government. For example, in 2018, the AODA Alliance made public another video that reveals serious accessibility problems at earlier public transit station projects in the Toronto area.

As well, in 2024, the AODA Alliance released a video that shows serious accessibility problems at the huge new downtown Toronto courthouse. The AODA Alliance had pressed the Ontario Government for years to fix accessibility problems in that courthouse’s design. Much of that advice was disregarded. You can learn more about this by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s courts accessibility page.

What Should Happen Now

Metrolinx should answer the AODA Alliance’s questions in our June 8, 2026 letter to its CEO, such as:

Who decided that blind people should not have the option of finding escalators or stairs at Eglinton Crosstown stations?
What advice on this issue did Metrolinx get from any accessible design experts it consulted?

Metrolinx should fix the disability barrier that the AODA Alliance video has identified in its existing stations, and should ensure that this problem is not repeated in new stations it builds after this.

As well, the Ontario Government should now retain an independent accessible design consultant to conduct an accessibility audit of the Eglinton Crosstown stations. Transit riders with disabilities should be involved in that review. The audit results and recommendations should be made public.

When the accessibility problems at the new Toronto courthouse were revealed after the building’s doors opened, the Ford Government hired two different accessibility consultants to undertake accessibility audits of that project. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and a number of other disability advocates took active part in their work. That was an important action in that case. It is equally important in the case of the Eglinton Crosstown transit line.

How You Can Help

Write members of Toronto City Council, and Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow. Urge them to vote on June 24, 2026 in support of the Infrastructure and Environment Committee motion regarding inaccessibility at Eglinton Crosstown transit stations.
Write Premier Doug Ford at premier@ontario.ca to tell him what you think of Metrolinx using public money to design and build new public transit stations with accessibility barriers.
Make your own video of accessibility barriers in public transit stations around Ontario. Post them online. Let the AODA Alliance know about them. Share them on social media, and with the conventional media.

MORE DETAILS

CBC News June 11, 2026

Originally posted at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/accessibility-eglinton-crosstown-9.7230717

Accessibility gaps at Eglinton Crosstown stations are limiting some riders, advocates say

Council to consider motion calling on Metrolinx to improve tactile wayfinding next month

Tyler Cheese CBC News

Accessibility advocates are pointing to what they say are significant gaps in Metrolinx’s design of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT’s underground stations, arguing they create unnecessary barriers for people with disabilities.

David Lepofsky, a blind transit advocate and chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Alliance, is highlighting what he calls a key flaw in the stations’ wayfinding floor markers – ridged tiles that direct visually impaired riders where to go.

He told CBC Toronto the markers in all the stations show riders the way to get to the elevators but leave them unable to find other means of entering or exiting the system.

“In the end, somebody at Metrolinx decided that blind people should use elevators, but not stairs or escalators,” Lepofsky said. “I don’t know what planet they’re living on, but not the one that we blind people live in.”

The design limits independence and creates additional barriers when elevators are unavailable, he said.

Lepofsky recently released a video demonstrating the issue at Chaplin Station and sent a letter to Metrolinx CEO Michael Lindsay, calling for answers about the installation of tactile walking surface indicators, or TWSIs, throughout the underground stations along Line 5.

In a statement to CBC Toronto, Metrolinx did not directly address Lepofsky’s concerns but said it is committed to building “a transit system that is safe, accessible, and inclusive for all customers.”

Lyndsay Miller, Metrolinx’s senior manager of media relations and issues management, said the provincial transit agency works with people with disabilities through public consultation and that it continues to work closely with the TTC to ensure customers have safe and accessible access at all Line 5 stations.

On Wednesday, the city’s infrastructure and environment committee voted to call on Metrolinx, in consultation with the TTC and accessibility advisory committees, to improve tactile wayfinding in Line 5 stations. The motion will be considered by city council later this month.

Ontario was supposed to be accessible by 2025. Some advocates say it’s not even close

Adam Cohoon, co-chair of the Accessibility Committee with transit advocacy group TTC Riders, told CBC Toronto the concerns raised point to broader issues in how accessibility is implemented across Toronto’s transit network.

Wayfinding features like TWSIs can have unintended effects when they become the primary path through a station, rather than one of several accessible options, he said.

“Not everybody wants to use those elevators,” Cohoon said, adding the station design’s reliance causes even more barriers when the elevators are not working, he said.

Cohoon pointed to an ongoing issue at Don Valley Station, where an out-of-service elevator has made it more difficult for wheelchair users to reach a nearby repair centre.

“There are individuals that, even though they want to use conventional transit, they’re having issues getting to the main repair centre,” he said.

Disruptions like that can force riders into longer, more complicated routes that are difficult to navigate independently, Cohoon said.

In Lepofsky’s letter to Metrolinx, he also questioned how the design decisions were made and whether accessibility consultants advised on the placement of the tactile indicators. He has asked the agency to identify who approved the approach and whether changes will be made.

Lepofsky’s video highlights the stations tactile warning surface indicators marking the stairs, but he notes there are no wayfinding markers that would lead a visually impaired rider to the stairs. (AODA Alliance/YouTube)

“Who made this decision? Why did they do it? Why did they do it when it’s so obviously wrong?” he said.

Line 5, which opened after years of delays and cost overruns, has been billed as a fully accessible rapid transit line.

But the station layouts also vary significantly, Lepofsky noted, requiring riders with vision loss to learn a new navigation route in every new station they encounter, rather than following a consistent system.

He wants Metrolinx to review the station designs and make changes to ensure more consistent, independent routes throughout the network.

Meanwhile, Cohoon said the transit agency needs to course correct and ensure fully accessible designs are carried into future projects, including the city’s currently under-construction subway line.

“We don’t want to have a repeat of some of these issues when the Ontario Line opens,” he said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Tyler Cheese is a reporter with CBC Toronto, telling stories focused on local and provincial issues, public accountability, and life in the GTA.

Toronto Star June 11, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/vision-disability-advocate-slams-eglinton-crosstown-station-wayfinding-in-video-shocking-bungle/article_dc5f3c29-71b0-48cb-94e0-4dbd80d23a5f.html

Blind advocate flags wayfinding flaws at new LRT station

Metrolinx defends its design process

Femi Dawodu Toronto Star

A new video released by a Toronto-based disability advocate is raising serious concerns about the transit planning and accessibility for visually impaired commuters on the long-delayed Eglinton Crosstown light rail transit line.

The video, released by Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance chair David Lepofsky on Friday, details what he calls a “shocking bungle” by Metrolinx in the design of way-finding systems at the new Chaplin station in the city’s Forest Hill neighbourhood.

The eight-minute video follows Lepofsky as he tries to navigate the station on his own, from the perspective of a visually impaired transit user.

Lepofsky, who is blind, demonstrates in the video how current tactile way-finding floor markings intended to help visually impaired commuters navigate the station fall short, an issue, he says, is widespread across what’s also known as TTC Line 5.

“Unfortunately, while it’s shocking, it’s not unusual,” Lepofsky told the Star. “The same problem I identify in Chaplin station is replicated in at least of some, or possibly all the other stations. I certainly know it’s a problem at the very important Eglinton and Yonge station, which is terribly confusing to figure out,” he said.

Lepofsky says Metrolinx installed cane-detectable floor way-finding tactiles only to the elevators, not at the stairs or escalators, a decision he calls “radically disconnected from the real world of blind people.”

As someone who has been fully blind since 1978 and has used the TTC for decades, Lepofsky says, “For a blind person, the TTC is like our car. It’s our way to get around. And I’ve travelled all over the world, and I’ve never encountered such an absurdity.”

Lepofsky recounted a trip to Cedarvale station where the elevator was out of service for two days in a row, leaving the station inaccessible for anyone unable to use the stairs or escalators. “This is emblematic of what a disastrous design this is and what people with disabilities have to put up with,” he said.

He argues the design was not an accidental oversight, but a deliberate choice. “They decided only to put (the way-finding markers) through one route, to the elevators, not stairs or escalators,” Lepofsky said. “That’s absurd. They could have put in both while they were building it. There’s no other way to describe it but incompetence.”

Adding to the confusion, according to Lepofsky, is the presence of tactile warning bumps at the top of the staircases but there are none that lead you to those staircases.

When contacted for comment, the TTC, which operates Line 5, deferred all questions regarding the station’s layout and accessibility concerns to Metrolinx. In a statement, Metrolinx defended its design process, saying it uses “public consultations with people with disability” to ensure infrastructure and service meets “the needs of the broadest range of users possible.”

The provincial transit agency added that it is working alongside the TTC to ensure commuters have “safe, convenient, and accessible access” across all Line 5 stations.

June 11, 2026 Letter from the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians and Metrolinx CEO Michael Lindsay

June 11, 2026

Michael Lindsay, President & CEO

Metrolinx Corporation

97 Front Street West

Toronto, Ontario M5J 1E6 Canada

Via email: Michael.Lindsay@metrolinx.com

RE: Accessibility Problems Facing Passengers with Disabilities on the New Eglinton Crosstown Transit Line

Dear Mr. Lindsay:

I am writing on behalf of the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians / l’Égalité des Personnes Aveugles du Canada (AEBC) to support the letter from the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance which you received on June 8, 2026.

AEBC is a national charitable organization that works to empower blind, Deafblind, and partially sighted Canadians to drive change, influence systems, and live with dignity—by combining lived experience with focused advocacy and peer leadership. To learn more about us, please visit our website.

As eloquently stated in the June 8 AODA Alliance letter, blind, Deafblind, and partially sighted people deeply appreciate the installation of TWSIs in the new transit stations. However, limiting their installation to routes to and from elevators fails to increase ease of wayfinding, since it only provides one safe route out of a myriad of possibilities. We should not have to follow someone else’s idea of a preferred route, especially when it is not the most convenient.

I look forward to hearing what Metrolinx will do to mitigate this error in judgment.

Yours truly,

Marcia Yale

National President, Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians

N.B.: We would ask that any response be provided in text format, i.e.: Word (.docx, rtf, txt). Please avoid sending a pdf as they are not always accessible.

Ford Government Says It Wants School Boards to Be More Accountable About Their Budgets and Promptly Does the Opposite!

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Ford Government Says It Wants School Boards to Be More Accountable About Their Budgets and Promptly Does the Opposite!

June 11, 2026

SUMMARY

The Ford Government makes grand statements about its plans for Ontario’s school system. It is increasingly clear that they do the very opposite of what they say they are doing. Who does that remind you of?

When the Ford Government brought forward its Bill 101, it said it wanted to put student achievement first. Indeed, Bill 101 is entitled the “Putting student Achievement First Act.” Yet the AODA Alliance along with many other presenters at the April 27, 2026 legislative hearings on Bill 101 said that this bill did nothing to advance student achievement. In fact, several, including the AODA Alliance said it would hurt vulnerable students with disabilities.

Here is another blistering illustration of this. The Ford Government ousted elected Toronto District School Board trustees as well as those of several other school boards, and brought forward its widely criticized bill 101 on its claims that Ontario needs much more accountability when it comes to the development of school board budgets. We now have overwhelming proof from TDSB under provincial supervision that there is now far less public accountability when it comes to the development of next school year’s budget.

TDSB’s upcoming budget is being developed entirely behind closed doors by Education Minister Paul Calandra’s hand-picked TDSB Supervisor. There are no public meetings of elected school board trustees to give them a chance to openly review the proposed budget, grill TDSB staff about it, and vote on it.

A revealing June 10, 2026 Toronto Star article, set out below, documents how TDSB staff disclosed precious little about the forthcoming budget at the June 8, 2026 meeting of TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee and the June 9, 2026 meeting of TDSB’s Parent Involvement Advisory Committee. Ontario Regulation 464/97 requires TDSB to consult its Special Education Advisory Committee on its special education budget and to enable that Committee to review TDSB’s financial statements as they relate to special education.

At its June 8, 2026 Special Education Advisory Committee meeting, the budget was on the agenda. Senior budget officials were present at the meeting. One senior budget official made a presentation. It revealed almost nothing about the contents of the budget. No budgetary information was circulated in advance of the meeting, despite a request for such from the Special Education Advisory Committee Chair, David Lepofsky.

TDSB senior budget staff largely repeated general information about how the Ministry of Education funding formula works. That was not news. SEAC had been told all of that in the past.

The Special Education Advisory Committee was told that the budget must be finalized by the end of June and must be balanced. However, no information was provided on what cuts would be made under the budget, beyond stating that special education in-school staffing would not be reduced. TDSB staff admitted that they don’t know whether the population of students with disabilities/special education needs will decrease or increase next year. Yet the Ford Government has cut six million dollars from TDSB’s special education budget.

There have been cuts to the TDSB Special Education central office staff to “modernize” and “right-size” that department. Such evasive jargon for job cuts is at the very least, evasive and offensive. Senior TDSB staff refused to disclose how many central staff in that department got “modernized” and “right-sized” out of their jobs.

A number of SEAC members expressed the view that this meeting did not constitute a consultation on the special education budget, which TDSB is required to undertake. As a result, the Committee passed the following motion:

“Whereas TDSB is required to consult the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee on the special education budget.

And whereas TDSB has known for one month that this topic will be on the SEAC agenda for the June 8, 2026 SEAC meeting.

And whereas the June SEAC meeting will be the only opportunity for SEAC to be consulted on the TDSB special education budget for the upcoming school year, because provincial funding amounts were only announced after the May 2026 TDSB SEAC meeting.

And whereas TDSB staff have provided SEAC with no budget information to review in advance of the June 8, 2026 meeting, in order to be able to provide any meaningful input on the special education budget.

And whereas SEAC members have raised concerns with TDSB staff over several years about the failure to provide budget information in advance of SEAC meetings where budget is known to be on the agenda, or where the information is only provided within hours of the SEAC meeting, and/or when the budget information has at times been presented in an inaccessible format for SEAC members with vision loss, precluding proper review by SEAC members.

SEAC therefore resolves as follows:

SEAC members have not been properly and meaningfully consulted on the upcoming school year’s special education budget.
In future years, when the budget is placed on the SEAC agenda, TDSB staff should is asked to provide meaningful budget information in written form, and in an accessible format, at least one week before the SEAC meeting where the budget is to be discussed.”

The Ford Government’s TDSB Supervisor Rohit Gupta did not attend this SEAC meeting. He has refused to attend any of TDSB’s SEAC meetings since he took up his position last summer. Last fall, he twice met with SEAC Chair David Lepofsky and agreed they should meet regularly with a next meeting to be in January 2026. However, since then he has refused to meet with the SEAC Chair or answer any emails from him.

Taken together, this, combined with the information in the Toronto Star report, below, is the total opposite of increased accountability. Making that even worse, since last October, Education Minister Calandra has ordered the eight school boards under provincial supervision to stop livestreaming any Special Education Advisory Committee meetings. The public, including parents of students with disabilities/special education needs, therefore have a hard time finding out what issues are raised on their behalf. TDSB senior staff have also tried to shorten SEAC meeting minutes, so they would provide even less accountability.

We commend the Ontario Autism Coalition for itself livestreaming SEAC meetings at TDSB and the Ottawa Carleton District School Board, and possibly others. We encourage others to do the same. You just need a smart phone, and access to YouTube or Facebook.

To help promote the accountability that the Ford Government has so dramatically reduced, the AODA Alliance posted on its website an AI-generated transcript of the June 8, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee meeting which has been provided to us. As with all things AI, it is capable of having errors and inaccuracies. Please find it on the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

How You Can Help

Write Premier Ford at premier@ontario.ca and your member of the Ontario Legislature. Tell them you oppose all this backroom secrecy at the TDSB and other school boards which are under provincial supervision. Tell them to retract their ban order that school boards under provincial supervision may not livestream Special Education Advisory Committee meetings. Premier Ford and Education Minister Calandra should not be so afraid of openness and accountability, when they preach openness and accountability.
Remember to sign up to speak at the June 18 Virtual Town Hall on disability barriers in Ontario schools that the AODA Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition are organizing. Parents of students with disabilities and students with disabilities themselves should write TownHall@ontarioautismcoalition.com to sign up to speak at this important event. Tell any parents of students with disabilities in Ontario that you know to do the same!

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star June 10, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tdsb-reveals-next-years-budget-as-protesters-warn-against-cuts-that-will-hurt-students/article_8f565a00-0c5d-463f-a81c-a009ac91ff00.html

Budget update short on detail

Parents left with unanswered questions as protesters warn against cuts

Isabel Teotonio Toronto Star Kristin Rushowy Senior Writer

Following a protest by educators, parents and union leaders warning that spending cuts will hurt students, senior staff at Toronto’s public school board delivered a budget presentation Tuesday night that was thin on details.

Staff were scheduled to present a 2026-27 budget update to the Toronto District School Board’s parent involvement advisory committee. Instead, no new figures were revealed.

Instead, they delivered a high-level overview focused on the general budget process, survey results, declining enrolment and ministry funding – making little reference to coming staff reductions.

Parents raised concerns about various issues, including money coming from school budgets to help cover the $750 spending card for teachers, as well as cuts to model schools.

Stacey Zucker, the board’s new CFO and chief operations officer, said that although it is moving away from the current model schools program, it will continue to support students based on need.

When asked by parents if the board will balance its books with this budget, Zucker said: “We may not be completely balanced at the end of this year, but there certainly will be a plan to get there.”

Katrina Matheson, co-chair of the parent committee, said members “came with a lot of questions and clearly there is more work to do.”

Crystal Stewart, a parent committee representative, called the meeting “terrible.”

“We’re entitled to more information, and they haven’t given it to us.”

The board is currently being run by provincially appointed supervisor Rohit Gupta, who was present at the meeting but did not answer questions. At the end of the meeting, he said he’d worked closely with senior staff.

That prompted members in the public gallery to shout, “Your cuts are hurting our kids,” and that his $350,000 salary should instead be put toward public education.

While the budget-setting process typically involves weeks of public meetings and trustee debates, this year’s decisions have been made behind closed doors – and it remains unclear if the almost $3.34-billion final spending plan will be made public before it’s submitted to the ministry by the end of June.

The Star has already reported on many of the cost-cutting measures being implemented at the board, which has a $25-million deficit this year and faces continued declining student enrolment that further reduces its funding.

Reductions for next year include the elimination of 792 staff positions – this includes cuts of 40 vice-principals, 289 teachers and 461 support staff, such as educational assistants and designated early childhood educators.

Savings will also be found by closing a main distribution centre, five outdoor education centres, nine unprofitable school cafeterias and the board’s museum and archives.

The board is also cutting additional staff to model schools in the city’s most disadvantaged communities, which has meant smaller class sizes and more support staff.

Before the meeting, a rally was held outside, with mother Bibi Hanif – whose children attend a model school in the Jane-Finch area – saying “the impact is felt most by our most vulnerable students.”

The Ministry of Education is making a record $43-billion investment in provincial education, but boards have long argued that they are underfunded and the money has not kept pace with inflation.

John Weatherup, president of Toronto Education Workers CUPE local 4400, pushed back against the board’s claim that reductions are because of declining enrolment, with an expected drop by 5,000 to a total of 232,000 students in 2026-27.

“Declining enrolment is part of it,” Weatherup told the Star, “but they’re short-funded from the provincial government to begin with.”

Budget discussions were also on the agenda at a Monday night meeting of the board’s special education advisory committee, made up of members from organizations that represent kids with disabilities or special education needs.

Staff are required to consult with the committee on special education budget matters.

“They went through this charade of giving us virtually no information, way less than we ever got” in past years, said committee chair David Lepofsky on Tuesday, adding he was “appalled.”

“We don’t know how many special education staff at head office are cut. They’ve told us they’re not cutting special education staff in the classroom, but we don’t know what other cuts are happening at the board that could have a direct effect on our kids.”

Read an AI transcript of the June 8, 2026 Meeting of the Toronto District School Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee (which may have some transcription errors)

AI TRANSCRIPTION OF JUNE 8, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee MEETING

This was prepared by AI and may well have errors in it. Text of motions was pasted into the body of this transcription.

Chair: David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky: All right, good evening, everyone.

0:00:00 – 0:00:04

My name is David Lepofsky, I’m chair of the Toronto District School Board Special Education

0:00:04 – 0:00:11

Advisory Committee and also the representative on SEAC for the Ontario Parents of Visually

0:00:11 – 0:00:17

Impaired Children.

0:00:17 – 0:00:18

I’m calling to order, or disorder as the case may be, the June meeting of SEAC, welcoming

0:00:18 – 0:00:27

everybody, whether you’re due to SEAC or you’ve been here before.

0:00:27 – 0:00:32

What I’d like to do, as I always do, is go around the room and have everyone who’s in

0:00:32 – 0:00:37

the room introduce themselves, tell us what organization, if you’re a SEAC member or staff,

0:00:37 – 0:00:44

and if you’re a SEAC member, who you represent, starting on my right.

0:00:44 – 0:00:49

Jordan Glass, I’m the vice chair of SEAC and I am also the learning center to regional

0:00:49 – 0:00:54

representative.

0:00:54 – 0:00:58

My name is Nora Green and I represent Inclusion Action in Ontario.

0:00:58 – 0:01:03

Good evening, everyone.

0:01:03 – 0:01:05

Nandi Palmer, executive superintendent for special education programs and equitable outcomes.

0:01:05 – 0:01:11

And I’m going to pass it over to our newly appointed CEO, who will introduce himself.

0:01:11 – 0:01:19

Thank you.

0:01:19 – 0:01:20

Good evening, everyone.

0:01:20 – 0:01:22

My name is Camillo Cipriano, and as Nandi indicated, I’m the new chief executive officer

0:01:22 – 0:01:26

for the TDSB, and today is my first day in the role.

0:01:26 – 0:01:31

It gets better.

0:01:31 – 0:01:34

Thank you.

0:01:34 – 0:01:35

Good evening, Stacey Zucker, CFO and COO.

0:01:35 – 0:01:42

Welcome back.

0:01:42 – 0:01:43

Good evening.

0:01:43 – 0:01:44

My name is Stephanie Harris, and I’m the acting executive officer of business services.

0:01:44 – 0:01:52

And Leo here for Autism Ontario.

0:01:52 – 0:01:54

Right.

0:01:54 – 0:01:55

That’s everyone in the room, but Jean-Paul just walked in.

0:01:55 – 0:01:59

Jean-Paul, just the time to introduce yourself.

0:01:59 – 0:02:03

Hello, everyone.

0:02:03 – 0:02:06

I’m Jean-Paul Ngana and community rep.

0:02:06 – 0:02:14

Great.

0:02:14 – 0:02:16

Thank you.

0:02:16 – 0:02:17

And welcome back.

0:02:17 – 0:02:18

It’s good to have you here.

0:02:18 – 0:02:19

So and welcome to everybody who’s online.

0:02:19 – 0:02:22

We will proceed to the additional steps of our meeting.

0:02:22 – 0:02:27

First, land acknowledgement, all rise who are able, and Vice Chair Jordan Glass will

0:02:27 – 0:02:33

lead us in it.

0:02:33 – 0:02:35

We acknowledge we live on the lands of the Mississaugas of the Anishinaabe, the Haudenosaunee,

0:02:35 – 0:02:41

Confederacy, and the Wendat.

0:02:41 – 0:02:43

We also recognize the enduring presence of all First Nations, Metis, and Inuit people.

0:02:43 – 0:02:48

Feel free to be seated.

0:02:48 – 0:02:53

And a particular welcome to our new CEO, and looking forward to your being here and to

0:02:53 – 0:03:01

doing whatever we can do to help you land smoothly, safely, and enjoyably in your new

0:03:01 – 0:03:07

role.

0:03:07 – 0:03:09

Let’s go through our opening procedures.

0:03:09 – 0:03:12

First, we have an agenda proposed for tonight.

0:03:12 – 0:03:16

Can I ask if we have a motion to approve the agenda?

0:03:16 – 0:03:23

Leo.

0:03:23 – 0:03:27

Leo moves.

0:03:27 – 0:03:28

Leo moves it, and who would be prepared to, Dora’s seconding it.

0:03:28 – 0:03:32

All in favor.

0:03:32 – 0:03:35

Tell me if it’s approved.

0:03:35 – 0:03:42

For here, Leigh Ann.

0:03:42 – 0:03:45

Yes, that’s approved.

0:03:45 – 0:03:49

All right, thank you.

0:03:49 – 0:03:51

And does anyone have a conflict of interest to declare in relation to anything on the

0:03:51 – 0:03:58

agenda?

0:03:58 – 0:03:59

Please speak now if you do.

0:03:59 – 0:04:02

We have no conflicts, great.

0:04:02 – 0:04:05

Approving the minutes, I’m going to propose doing this in reverse order.

0:04:05 – 0:04:09

First May meeting minutes.

0:04:09 – 0:04:12

May I ask if there could be a motion to approve the May meeting minutes?

0:04:12 – 0:04:17

Jordan’s moving it, seconder, Leo.

0:04:17 – 0:04:26

Any revisions anyone wants to ask for, or should we proceed to a vote?

0:04:26 – 0:04:31

Nothing?

0:04:31 – 0:04:33

All right, all in favor of approving the minutes of our May meeting.

0:04:33 – 0:04:43

Five here, Leigh Ann.

0:04:43 – 0:04:47

Sorry, four.

0:04:47 – 0:04:48

David, I don’t see.

0:04:48 – 0:04:49

Five.

0:04:49 – 0:04:50

Five, Leigh Ann.

0:04:50 – 0:04:51

I keep forgetting if I could vote.

0:04:51 – 0:04:56

Those are approved.

0:04:56 – 0:04:57

All right, the March meeting minutes.

0:04:57 – 0:05:01

I’d like first a motion to approve them, and then I’m going to propose the amendments

0:05:01 – 0:05:07

to them that are set out in my chair’s report, which I don’t think we have to read out.

0:05:07 – 0:05:12

They’re all spelled out.

0:05:12 – 0:05:14

But first we need a motion to get the minutes on the table.

0:05:14 – 0:05:18

Okay, Jordan’s moving it, Nora’s seconding it.

0:05:18 – 0:05:23

I’m moving the addition of my amendments to the minutes as set out in my chair’s report,

0:05:23 – 0:05:31

or I’m entertaining a motion.

0:05:31 – 0:05:33

Could someone move that for me, please?

0:05:33 – 0:05:37

Leo, second?

0:05:37 – 0:05:39

(Note: the following are the amendments to the minutes:

In the discussion of TDSB staff refusing to send to other Ontario SEACs copies of my February letter to the Minister, I proposed to add this:

“The Chair noted that the Associate Director, Student Learning & Equitable Outcomes had previously advised him that TDSB’s policy or protocol was that when SEAC writes a letter to the Minister of Education and copies it to Ontario’s other SEACs, TDSB would forward that letter to the other school boards to deliver it to their SEAC. The Associate Director, Student Learning & Equitable Outcomes stated that TDSB has decided to revise that policy or protocol.”

In the discussion about the Supervisor not seeking SEAC input before making certain decisions, staff eliminated the following:

“SEAC members also noted that the trustees on SEAC used to regularly report to SEAC about issues that the trustees are considering, and that the TDSB website only includes a few actions by the supervisor. Presumably he is doing much more that is not recorded there.”

In the discussion of TDSB’s decision to eliminate the maximum size of any individual Grade 4 to 8 class, I had added the following, which senior staff disallowed:

“SEAC members expressed serious concern that TDSB was not told about this increase afterwards, or consulted on it in advance, and that it can create further barriers to effective inclusion of students with disabilities/special education needs in the regular classroom.”

In the discussion of SEAC’s objections to the TDSB parents’ survey that that gave parents the option of supporting or opposing special education as a budget priority:

“As well, at last June’s SEAC meeting, the TDSB Associate Director, Student Learning & Equitable Outcomes had apologized on behalf of TDSB to its having been included in that year’s budget survey.

TDSB’s Interim Director of Education stated that this year’s survey was different, because last year’s survey asked about priorities for budget cuts while this year’s survey asked for priorities about budget spending. SEAC members provided the feedback that this is a distinction without a difference. In both cases, TDSB parents are offered the chance to choose to prefer deprioritizing special education as a budget spending priority. They also stated that special education is required to be a spending priority. This budget is misleading parents by suggesting or implying that it could be otherwise.”)

Okay, very good.

0:05:39 – 0:05:42

Jordan’s second it.

0:05:42 – 0:05:45

Can we just have a vote on it?

0:05:45 – 0:05:46

All in favor?

0:05:46 – 0:05:48

Raising my hand.

0:05:48 – 0:05:53

How are we, Leigh Ann?

0:05:53 – 0:06:05

Five here.

0:06:05 – 0:06:07

I have seven online, so that would pass.

0:06:07 – 0:06:10

All right.

0:06:10 – 0:06:11

Leigh Ann, that means we could dispense with my motion regarding the minutes.

0:06:11 – 0:06:17

The next item on the agenda is my chair’s report.

0:06:17 – 0:06:20

I am going to move mighty fast.

0:06:20 – 0:06:22

I am going to move at the end that the committee receive my chair’s report, because I can’t

0:06:22 – 0:06:28

cover all of it, and I’ve given all the other important items we have to deal with.

0:06:28 – 0:06:32

First, welcome to our new CEO.

0:06:32 – 0:06:35

We are a lively bunch, and I look forward personally to meeting with you and getting

0:06:35 – 0:06:41

to know you and working collaboratively.

0:06:41 – 0:06:44

We got a good bunch of people here.

0:06:44 – 0:06:46

They don’t agree on everything, but they have a very healthy and vigorous debate on things.

0:06:46 – 0:06:52

They agree on lots of things, and when they disagree, it’s on items of principle, and

0:06:52 – 0:06:56

you can learn from all sides of those debates.

0:06:56 – 0:06:59

I sure do.

0:06:59 – 0:07:01

I want to just focus on a couple of major high points.

0:07:01 – 0:07:06

First, this committee has held a town hall a year and a half ago for parents of kids

0:07:06 – 0:07:12

with special education needs, and a public forum last April, both were tremendous successes.

0:07:12 – 0:07:20

The community has learned from our example, and I’m proud to tell you that the Ontario

0:07:20 – 0:07:25

Autism Coalition and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance,

0:07:25 – 0:07:30

which I have the privilege of chairing, will be hosting a virtual town hall for parents

0:07:30 – 0:07:36

of students with disabilities and special education needs for across Ontario on the

0:07:36 – 0:07:42

18th of June.

0:07:42 – 0:07:44

The Minister of Education has publicly stated that he wants to take a look at how to deal

0:07:44 – 0:07:51

with the inconsistencies in the delivery of special education around the province.

0:07:51 – 0:07:56

We felt that we could assist by inviting him to come to a virtual town hall where he can

0:07:56 – 0:08:00

hear directly from parents, and we’re going to be using the exact approach that this committee

0:08:00 – 0:08:06

used.

0:08:06 – 0:08:07

We’re not going to edit who speaks, as long as they’re a parent, and as long as they’re

0:08:07 – 0:08:11

prepared to follow the principles that we’ve set out.

0:08:11 – 0:08:15

Tell us about your barriers, tell us what can be done to fix it.

0:08:15 – 0:08:19

Don’t name the school, don’t name the child, don’t name the teacher.

0:08:19 – 0:08:23

We will ask if they’re open to naming their school board, but that’s up to them.

0:08:23 – 0:08:28

Please sign up, please encourage others to, if you have any social media networks or association,

0:08:28 – 0:08:36

please share this because we want to get as wide a representation as we can.

0:08:36 – 0:08:44

Let me mention briefly that I brought a freedom of information application several months

0:08:44 – 0:08:54

ago because then interim director of education, Stacey Zucker, here with us, always great

0:08:54 – 0:09:01

to have you here, and made an announcement in January about a change, a detailed announcement

0:09:01 – 0:09:08

about a change to the special education review that had been underway for a year and a half,

0:09:08 – 0:09:13

announcement about which the staff had described themselves as being very excited.

0:09:13 – 0:09:19

I had asked for a copy of the statement read out.

0:09:19 – 0:09:22

It was not provided.

0:09:22 – 0:09:24

I brought a freedom of information application asking for it and a couple more things.

0:09:24 – 0:09:30

It was refused.

0:09:30 – 0:09:31

I brought another one just asking for the text that was read out.

0:09:31 – 0:09:35

It was refused on grounds, well, they’re set up in my report, but essentially it would

0:09:35 – 0:09:40

reveal things that aren’t public, except every word that I was seeking was read out in public.

0:09:40 – 0:09:48

Rather than appeal to the information privacy commissioner, which is a pile of work, I’ve

0:09:48 – 0:09:52

done it.

0:09:52 – 0:09:53

I think I’d be successful.

0:09:53 – 0:09:56

I simply have, with the assistance of a member of this committee, an AI, you’ll see in my

0:09:56 – 0:10:01

report a word for word transcription of what was said at that meeting.

0:10:01 – 0:10:05

It’s exactly what I was trying to get, so unfortunately we had to go through those steps.

0:10:05 – 0:10:09

Now, with that, there are other items in my chair’s report.

0:10:09 – 0:10:14

I’d like them reflected in the minutes.

0:10:14 – 0:10:16

I don’t want to take your time to go through them.

0:10:16 – 0:10:19

Can I entertain a motion that my report be received and appended to the minutes?

0:10:19 – 0:10:25

Nora, seconder?

0:10:25 – 0:10:28

Leo.

0:10:28 – 0:10:30

All in favor?

0:10:30 – 0:10:39

There’s five of us in the room.

0:10:39 – 0:10:55

Leanne?

0:10:55 – 0:10:57

I have seven online, so that’s 12, so that pass.

0:10:57 – 0:11:01

All right, thank you.

0:11:01 – 0:11:04

I have posted that report on my Facebook page and on several other ones, which will total

0:11:04 – 0:11:11

about 45,000 people subscribing, so it’s quite public.

0:11:11 – 0:11:16

I would hope it can be reflected in the minutes.

0:11:16 – 0:11:21

Let’s move to the budget topic.

0:11:21 – 0:11:24

We will have a motion at the end of this that a SEAC member wanted to bring and which is

0:11:24 – 0:11:29

set up in my report, but first I think we should deal with the budget process as is.

0:11:29 – 0:11:35

In fact, we may have two motions, but this is in fulfillment of the board’s legal obligation

0:11:35 – 0:11:44

to consult special education advisory committee on the special education budget.

0:11:44 – 0:11:49

The board could only give us general information up to now what it thought it wanted to spend,

0:11:49 – 0:11:55

but up until the time after our May meeting, the board learned for the first time from

0:11:55 – 0:12:01

the province what money they can expect from the province.

0:12:01 – 0:12:06

We will be having a presentation on it now.

0:12:06 – 0:12:08

I want to begin by noting that I, in my chair’s report and at earlier meetings, have asked

0:12:08 – 0:12:14

for us to get some kind of written information that we’re able to digest well before the

0:12:14 – 0:12:21

meeting.

0:12:21 – 0:12:22

That was not received, and I am very concerned that if there is going to be effective consultation

0:12:22 – 0:12:30

on budget, especially under the timelines available now, without the opportunity to

0:12:30 – 0:12:36

read the details in advance is not effective consultation, but let’s do the best we can

0:12:36 – 0:12:42

with our time.

0:12:42 – 0:12:45

I’ll punt it over to TDSB staff and you figure out who goes in what order, and we’re all

0:12:45 – 0:12:50

ears.

0:12:50 – 0:12:51

Good evening.

0:12:51 – 0:12:52

Thank you very much.

0:12:52 – 0:12:53

As mentioned, my name is Stephanie Harris, and I’m the interim executive officer of finance

0:12:53 – 0:13:01

and here to present an update on the 26-27 budget.

0:13:01 – 0:13:06

We do have some slides, but I can’t see them in the room.

0:13:06 – 0:13:12

So Liane, can you share the budget slides, please?

0:13:12 – 0:13:21

And as in the past, because I’m blind, I have not gotten these in advance to read.

0:13:21 – 0:13:25

I’m wondering if whatever’s on the screen, if it’s available to my colleagues, if it

0:13:25 – 0:13:28

could be read out to me.

0:13:28 – 0:13:38

We seem to have leveled the playing field, but not in the way anyone wanted.

0:13:38 – 0:14:02

I’m wondering if staff would like me to proceed to the next agenda item while we work through

0:14:02 – 0:14:32

the slides?

0:14:32 – 0:14:33

I’m going to try to share a screen.

0:14:33 – 0:14:36

Liane, I’ll try.

0:14:36 – 0:14:37

Sure.

0:14:37 – 0:14:38

I am trying.

0:14:38 – 0:14:42

So apologies, everyone.

0:14:42 – 0:14:44

We were supposed to be in committee room eight today because they just upgraded the IT system

0:14:44 – 0:14:50

in the boardroom, so we’re having a bit of technical troubles, but I am sharing screen

0:14:50 – 0:14:55

right now.

0:14:55 – 0:14:56

Thanks.

0:14:56 – 0:14:57

Thanks, Nandy, so if we can just move to slide two.

0:14:57 – 0:15:08

So the 26-27 budget, there is a requirement under the Education Act for the board to submit

0:15:08 – 0:15:15

a balanced budget, and that balanced budget means that our estimated expenses exceed our

0:15:15 – 0:15:24

or are equal to our, our estimated revenues are equal to or more than our estimated expenses.

0:15:24 – 0:15:33

This year, because the TDSB is under supervision, budget decisions will be approved by the supervisor,

0:15:33 – 0:15:40

and then the budget will be submitted to the ministry, and we have to submit our 26-27

0:15:40 – 0:15:46

budget by the end of June.

0:15:46 – 0:15:50

Next slide.

0:15:50 – 0:15:54

So as mentioned in the presentation at the last meeting, there are several, three key

0:15:54 – 0:15:59

high-level steps to the budget process.

0:15:59 – 0:16:01

The first step revolves around planning, so the board assesses what our staffing, our

0:16:01 – 0:16:07

educational needs, facility needs are for the upcoming year.

0:16:07 – 0:16:11

As part of that planning, we take into consideration our high-level assessment of what our enrollment

0:16:11 – 0:16:18

will be, as well as what our high-level expectation for inflation will be.

0:16:18 – 0:16:23

The second part of this process is that we engage the public.

0:16:23 – 0:16:28

This year, the public was engaged through a budget, online budget survey, and the purpose

0:16:28 – 0:16:32

of that engagement is to provide feedback on the budget priorities.

0:16:32 – 0:16:37

And the third step in the budget process is to balance the budget, so to bring expenses

0:16:37 – 0:16:42

in line with estimated revenues by reducing any shortfalls.

0:16:42 – 0:16:52

As mentioned, we did engage the public this year in a budget survey.

0:16:52 – 0:16:57

The survey was issued between March 2nd and 16th, and we had over 5,000 respondents who

0:16:57 – 0:17:05

responded to the survey.

0:17:05 – 0:17:07

The survey respondents were asked to rank out of a list of 10 what they thought their

0:17:07 – 0:17:13

top five budget priorities should be, and the priorities that were selected the most

0:17:13 – 0:17:21

based on those responses, and these are in alphabetical order.

0:17:21 – 0:17:26

Our first one is classroom resources and materials, second literacy and numeracy development,

0:17:26 – 0:17:33

third mental health and well-being, fourth school facilities and maintenance, and lastly

0:17:33 – 0:17:39

special education support and resources.

0:17:39 – 0:17:47

The majority of the funding that the board receives annually comes from the Ministry

0:17:47 – 0:17:51

of Education, and the ministry funding supports all areas of board activities.

0:17:51 – 0:17:57

So that includes staffing, learning resources, special education, transportation, facilities,

0:17:57 – 0:18:04

and administration.

0:18:04 – 0:18:07

Our funding levels are largely dependent on enrollment, and enrollment is expected in

0:18:07 – 0:18:13

26-27 to decline by about 5,000 students at the TDSB.

0:18:13 – 0:18:22

The next slide is a slide depicting the projected core education funding across the province.

0:18:22 – 0:18:30

In 26-27 the provincial funding for core education is about $30.5 billion, and the special education

0:18:30 – 0:18:39

fund makes up roughly 12% of that total across the province at approximately $3.8 billion.

0:18:39 – 0:18:49

The special education funding comes to the board primarily through four allocations,

0:18:49 – 0:18:56

and I’ll just at a very high level talk on how each of those allocations are calculated.

0:18:56 – 0:19:04

So the first allocation, and I’ll just flip to the next slide.

0:19:04 – 0:19:12

The first allocation is a per-pupil allocation.

0:19:12 – 0:19:15

This is the largest allocation of funding to the board.

0:19:15 – 0:19:19

That’s about 53% of the total funding that we receive, and this funding is calculated

0:19:19 – 0:19:24

on a per-pupil basis based on our average daily enrollment, and there’s an amount funded

0:19:24 – 0:19:31

depending on the grade level of the students.

0:19:31 – 0:19:34

So from JK to grade three, the funding amount is roughly $1,217, and then it declines down

0:19:34 – 0:19:43

to $616 for grade nine to 12 students.

0:19:43 – 0:19:49

This funding is intended to cover all costs associated with special education supports

0:19:49 – 0:19:56

within the board, including teachers, learning materials, and professional development.

0:19:56 – 0:20:05

The next allocation is the differentiated needs allocation, and this allocation accounts

0:20:05 – 0:20:11

for 34% of the total special education funding that the board receives.

0:20:11 – 0:20:17

The purpose of this funding allocation is to address variation among school boards with

0:20:17 – 0:20:23

respect to students’ special education needs and the school board’s ability to meet those

0:20:23 – 0:20:29

needs, and it appreciates that those needs vary due to geographic factors, language factors,

0:20:29 – 0:20:36

and socio-demographic factors.

0:20:36 – 0:20:42

The differentiated needs allocation relies on a statistical formula, and the statistical

0:20:42 – 0:20:49

formula attempts to estimate the total number of students who require special education

0:20:49 – 0:20:55

supports and programming, and it takes into account information from the census data as

0:20:55 – 0:21:02

well as the Ministry of Education’s data, and it looks at predictors of special education

0:21:02 – 0:21:08

need, including parent education level, median household income, recent immigration, et cetera.

0:21:08 – 0:21:17

There’s also a board-specific formula, which uses seven criteria to determine what the

0:21:17 – 0:21:22

board-specific portfolio of special education needs is, and this allocation takes into account

0:21:22 – 0:21:30

things such as the number of students within the board receiving special education supports,

0:21:30 – 0:21:36

EQAO participation, and the number of credits that are accumulated by special education

0:21:36 – 0:21:42

students.

0:21:42 – 0:21:44

There’s also a number of other components within this allocation that look to support

0:21:44 – 0:21:49

the board in funding collaborative approaches to special education needs students, to supporting

0:21:49 – 0:21:59

multidisciplinary needs, math interventions, professional assessments, and also there’s

0:21:59 – 0:22:05

funding provided to support transitions to students as they move between grades, schools,

0:22:05 – 0:22:11

and as they leave the board.

0:22:11 – 0:22:15

The next allocation is the complex supports allocation, which is approximately 10% of

0:22:15 – 0:22:22

the total special education funding, and this envelope is to support very specialized supports

0:22:22 – 0:22:29

for students with extraordinarily high needs.

0:22:29 – 0:22:36

So within the complex supports allocation, there’s three high-level factors that help

0:22:36 – 0:22:44

calculate how much funding TDSB receives.

0:22:44 – 0:22:48

The first is the special incidents portion, and this portion is specifically meant to

0:22:48 – 0:22:53

provide funding for students who have high needs, and high needs are defined as those

0:22:53 – 0:22:59

students who require more than two full-time staff members.

0:22:59 – 0:23:04

The second is an education and community partnerships program allocation, and this funding is meant

0:23:04 – 0:23:10

to support those students who can’t attend regular school for a variety of reasons, including

0:23:10 – 0:23:17

court-ordered facility stays and those who might be in very specialized care.

0:23:17 – 0:23:22

And the final component is a behavioral expertise component, and this is funding for the board

0:23:22 – 0:23:28

to hire applied behavior professionals, both to train staff and to support students directly

0:23:28 – 0:23:35

with autism and other behavioral exceptionalities.

0:23:35 – 0:23:41

And finally, the last portion is the specialized equipment allocation, representing about 3%

0:23:41 – 0:23:47

of the total funding of the board.

0:23:47 – 0:23:50

This funding is meant to assist the board to purchase specialized equipment, which directly

0:23:50 – 0:23:55

supports special education needs within the board, and each board receives a base allocation

0:23:55 – 0:24:02

of $200,000 and then an additional $51.10 per ADE.

0:24:02 – 0:24:10

And this funding is meant to purchase equipment that would support such things as sensory

0:24:10 – 0:24:15

and physical assistance, hearing and vision aids, and technology, software, and hardware.

0:24:15 – 0:24:27

So using the information that we’ve been provided as part of the core education announcement,

0:24:27 – 0:24:33

TDSB expects to receive $396.5 million in special education funding in 26-27.

0:24:33 – 0:24:43

And this is about a $6.4 million decrease from the amount we received in 25-26, primarily

0:24:43 – 0:24:50

due to the decrease in enrollment that I mentioned.

0:24:50 – 0:24:57

The school-based staffing for 26-27 has already been finalized, and the staffing incorporates

0:24:57 – 0:25:05

the fact that we will need less teachers next year due to the lower enrollment that we’re

0:25:05 – 0:25:10

projecting of 5,000 students.

0:25:10 – 0:25:13

Despite the fact that overall enrollment within the board will decline next year, special

0:25:13 – 0:25:18

education school-based staffing will remain unchanged across the district.

0:25:18 – 0:25:28

So the next steps as we finalize the budget, we are still working on the 26-27 budget.

0:25:28 – 0:25:34

However, all of the staffing decisions have already been finalized.

0:25:34 – 0:25:39

When our work is completed, the TDSB will submit our final budget to the ministry by

0:25:39 – 0:25:45

the June 30 timeline.

0:25:45 – 0:25:48

So I thank you very much for the opportunity to present this high-level update.

0:25:48 – 0:25:53

And we are happy to receive any feedback or questions.

0:25:53 – 0:25:59

Thank you.

0:25:59 – 0:26:01

Jordan will take a speaker’s list, and while he’s doing so, I’ll lead off if I can.

0:26:01 – 0:26:08

Can you tell me of the – you’ve said that there is a projected 5,000 – a reduction

0:26:08 – 0:26:14

in the total 5,000 students that will be at TDSB next year.

0:26:14 – 0:26:20

As of last meeting, as I recall, we were told that the percentage reduction in the number

0:26:20 – 0:26:30

of students with disabilities or special education needs was expected to be lower than pro rata.

0:26:30 – 0:26:38

Do you know whether the number of students with disabilities or special education needs

0:26:38 – 0:26:43

this fall is going to go up, we’re going to go down, and if it goes down, by how many,

0:26:43 – 0:26:48

or if it goes up, by how many?

0:26:48 – 0:26:50

Thanks, David.

0:26:50 – 0:26:51

I’ll take that one.

0:26:51 – 0:26:53

And at this time, we do not have numbers in terms of decrease or increase, particularly

0:26:53 – 0:27:00

for students with disabilities or special education needs.

0:27:00 – 0:27:04

We will know more when school starts.

0:27:04 – 0:27:06

We get new registrations over the summer.

0:27:06 – 0:27:10

We get families moving over the summer well into the fall, so we don’t have those numbers

0:27:10 – 0:27:16

right now.

0:27:16 – 0:27:17

And similarly, do you know whether the profile of the student population of students with

0:27:17 – 0:27:24

disabilities is going to be more students with higher needs or lower needs?

0:27:24 – 0:27:30

I take it if you don’t know how many, you probably don’t know the profile either until

0:27:30 – 0:27:34

the fall.

0:27:34 – 0:27:35

Correct.

0:27:35 – 0:27:36

All right, so then how is it that we could be told that the staffing will remain the

0:27:36 – 0:27:42

same when, in effect, that may mean there will be, if there was, for example, a reduction,

0:27:42 – 0:27:51

or if there was an increase in the number of students with disabilities or special education

0:27:51 – 0:27:55

needs, or if a reduction at a lower rate, then cutting staff pro rata for all students

0:27:55 – 0:28:05

would be actually a bigger cut for students with disabilities or special education needs.

0:28:05 – 0:28:11

Can you help me out?

0:28:11 – 0:28:13

So I’ll start and ask my colleagues to supplement.

0:28:13 – 0:28:17

So through the chair, we do know that our enrollment is going down by 5,000.

0:28:17 – 0:28:23

Although we do not expect the number of students that have special education needs to decrease

0:28:23 – 0:28:28

by 5,000, we expect it to be lower, we still do expect a decrease.

0:28:28 – 0:28:34

Just based on the fact that we will have a decrease in enrollment.

0:28:34 – 0:28:39

And so based on that, as we keep the staffing exactly the same as it currently is, or was

0:28:39 – 0:28:44

in October, then we would expect there to be actually proportionately an increase in

0:28:44 – 0:28:50

the level of support for students with special education needs.

0:28:50 – 0:28:54

And so like we do every year, we will use because our funding is even for special education

0:28:54 – 0:29:00

is mostly based on our overall enrollment, it obviously impacts how much funding we have

0:29:00 – 0:29:06

available in order for us to meet the needs of students with special education needs.

0:29:06 – 0:29:13

Even though we know that our funding is going down by 6.4 million, we did not decrease our

0:29:13 – 0:29:18

expenditure.

0:29:18 – 0:29:19

In fact, it will be higher just based on increases in salary levels.

0:29:19 – 0:29:24

So that our commitment to special education and to students with special education needs

0:29:24 – 0:29:31

is that even though our enrollment is decreasing and it is expected that our number of students

0:29:31 – 0:29:35

that have special education needs will decrease, we have kept the staffing level the same.

0:29:35 – 0:29:41

So I would say that that is in comparison to every other staffing level that we have

0:29:41 – 0:29:49

seen including centrally, we have maintained the school level support for students with

0:29:49 – 0:29:56

special education needs again based on the fact that we know how important those supports

0:29:56 – 0:30:02

are and it was again indicated as a priority through the survey.

0:30:02 – 0:30:08

The other short thing and then we’ll go to our list.

0:30:08 – 0:30:13

Obviously to reach a balanced budget, they’re going to have to cut something.

0:30:13 – 0:30:16

What areas are planned for cuts because even though they’re not in the special education

0:30:16 – 0:30:21

envelope, beyond that 6 million, they can affect our students.

0:30:21 – 0:30:27

So can you tell us what areas are going to be cut?

0:30:27 – 0:30:32

So we are, through the chair, still working through the budget and it is still to be determined

0:30:32 – 0:30:39

whether or not we will reach a completely balanced budget for 26-27.

0:30:39 – 0:30:45

That being said, we do know that school-based staffing, like classroom teachers for example,

0:30:45 – 0:30:50

decreases with a decrease in enrollment.

0:30:50 – 0:30:51

So that will, the decrease in school-based staffing based on enrollment will have impacted

0:30:51 – 0:30:59

our overall budget.

0:30:59 – 0:31:01

In addition, as I’ve shared that many people have seen through media, we did decrease by

0:31:01 – 0:31:09

309 central staff and so that will be able to help us offset some of the decrease in

0:31:09 – 0:31:21

grants as a result of decrease in enrollment and we are still looking at other areas because

0:31:21 – 0:31:28

again we haven’t finalized our budget yet that we would look in order to move towards

0:31:28 – 0:31:33

a balanced budget.

0:31:33 – 0:31:34

Leo?

0:31:34 – 0:31:41

Thanks David.

0:31:41 – 0:31:42

And Nora and then Jean -Paul.

0:31:42 – 0:31:43

Yep.

0:31:43 – 0:31:44

Thank you.

0:31:44 – 0:31:45

I have two quick topics that are intricately linked and I know we’ve spoken about this

0:31:45 – 0:31:49

before but it’s a surprise that it always comes up so I have to say it again.

0:31:49 – 0:31:53

About the survey, right?

0:31:53 – 0:31:54

Special education should never have been in that survey and we’ve said this, we’ve gone

0:31:54 – 0:31:58

to the media about it.

0:31:58 – 0:31:59

When you ask someone to do a prioritization exercise, you’re implying that the categories

0:31:59 – 0:32:03

are discretionary, optional.

0:32:03 – 0:32:05

So it is completely irrelevant whether or not the special education was selected by

0:32:05 – 0:32:09

respondents as a priority.

0:32:09 – 0:32:11

I’m happy that it was but it’s irrelevant.

0:32:11 – 0:32:13

Special education is not optional, it’s not discretionary, it’s a legal right protected

0:32:13 – 0:32:17

under the Education Act, Ontario’s Human Rights Code and consolidated by the Supreme Court

0:32:17 – 0:32:21

of Canada in Moore versus British Columbia.

0:32:21 – 0:32:23

They ruled that it’s not a dispensable luxury but a means by which disabled students access

0:32:23 – 0:32:27

education itself.

0:32:27 – 0:32:29

You don’t put fire safety in the survey so why do you put this?

0:32:29 – 0:32:33

It’s exactly the same thing.

0:32:33 – 0:32:35

When you list it in the survey, it seems to be an attempt to get stakeholders more open

0:32:35 – 0:32:39

to the illegal idea of considering special education as subject to a vote.

0:32:39 – 0:32:43

It is not.

0:32:43 – 0:32:44

Please kindly stop including it in these surveys.

0:32:44 – 0:32:46

It’s already the third time that this happens.

0:32:46 – 0:32:48

And the second topic, thank you for presenting the special education funding envelopes but

0:32:48 – 0:32:53

again a quick reminder as always, special education envelope does not define the board’s

0:32:53 – 0:32:57

legal obligation.

0:32:57 – 0:32:58

It exists, the obligation exists, regardless of whether provincial funding is sufficient.

0:32:58 – 0:33:03

If the envelope falls short, the legal duty to accommodate students does not disappear

0:33:03 – 0:33:07

with it.

0:33:07 – 0:33:08

Thank you.

0:33:08 – 0:33:10

Right, Nora and then Jean-Paul and then Richard.

0:33:10 – 0:33:17

Thank you.

0:33:17 – 0:33:18

So Leo commented on something I was going to comment about.

0:33:18 – 0:33:23

Last year we received an apology about the survey and putting students with disabilities

0:33:23 – 0:33:27

on a survey and letting the public weigh in a bit whether or not they were important enough

0:33:27 – 0:33:32

and this year unfortunately that apology never came.

0:33:32 – 0:33:35

So I think I appreciate that Leo brought that forward.

0:33:35 – 0:33:39

I won’t touch on it again.

0:33:39 – 0:33:41

I want to thank also that staff probably did go through extensive data to show evidence

0:33:41 – 0:33:49

to try and maintain staffing levels.

0:33:49 – 0:33:52

That must have been a meticulous looking at IPR seed students, non-identified students

0:33:52 – 0:33:57

and making sure that despite declining enrollment there were going to be needs in the system.

0:33:57 – 0:34:03

So I want to thank staff for fighting to put that together because I’m sure you had to

0:34:03 – 0:34:08

make evidence to make a case that we needed the same staffing levels.

0:34:08 – 0:34:12

I do warn that losing central staff can impact students.

0:34:12 – 0:34:19

I think sometimes people aren’t aware that those are experts that are deployed to situations

0:34:19 – 0:34:24

where schools are struggling and need capacity building.

0:34:24 – 0:34:27

So I hesitate to say it’s a total win.

0:34:27 – 0:34:30

I appreciate you had to find the money somewhere but sometimes those things can affect how

0:34:30 – 0:34:36

students experience school so I worry about that.

0:34:36 – 0:34:38

And then lastly I guess I’m very disappointed about the lack of transparency about the budget.

0:34:38 – 0:34:48

So we and I’ve been here quite some time as you’re aware and we’ve had financial facts

0:34:48 – 0:34:54

my entire time here and so it’s appreciated that somehow you’re telling us how we get

0:34:54 – 0:35:00

the money which I appreciate that was a really great explanation but it’s information I can

0:35:00 – 0:35:06

get online because it’s public.

0:35:06 – 0:35:10

I don’t know anything about your expenditures really.

0:35:10 – 0:35:13

I don’t know how much money is going to ISPs, I don’t know how much money is going to EAs,

0:35:13 – 0:35:18

I don’t know how much money is going to special education teachers, busing, transportation.

0:35:18 – 0:35:24

At one time this entire committee would have had a document showing that.

0:35:24 – 0:35:30

So it’s very difficult for us to say that this is consultation when we have nothing

0:35:30 – 0:35:36

to consult about other than this is the pot of money we get it’s not enough and we fought

0:35:36 – 0:35:40

to make sure we didn’t cut it.

0:35:40 – 0:35:42

And so I am on one hand eternally grateful that you did that but on the other hand this

0:35:42 – 0:35:46

isn’t truly a partnership then because we don’t have data to even help inform you.

0:35:46 – 0:35:52

So I wanted to make that comment because we would have liked to have seen that before

0:35:52 – 0:35:56

we were asked to say anything about budget but for me and my historic time here this

0:35:56 – 0:36:01

does not constitute consultation thanks.

0:36:01 – 0:36:06

Thank you, Jean-Paul.

0:36:06 – 0:36:14

I think Laura touched on one of the points that I wanted but I have a question not just

0:36:14 – 0:36:24

touching on and you indicated that the special education school based staff will be status

0:36:24 – 0:36:32

school next year, I think that is one question that I mean you have two questions, does it

0:36:32 – 0:36:41

mean that the status school even this year was no problem with that level of staffing?

0:36:41 – 0:36:49

That’s the first question.

0:36:49 – 0:36:50

I think I’m turning myself to Nandi who is special education expert and the second question

0:36:50 – 0:36:57

is if you say that you make it precision saying that the special education base, the school

0:36:57 – 0:37:08

based staff will be status school, what happened with the central base staff?

0:37:08 – 0:37:14

Does it mean that there will be some cuts there?

0:37:14 – 0:37:20

Because we know that there were this central base special education staff for a reason

0:37:20 – 0:37:29

because if there is a cut there it will probably have some ripple effect you know impacting

0:37:29 – 0:37:37

you know even the provision of special education.

0:37:37 – 0:37:41

Want to know if there is a potential cut at the central level, how would you be making

0:37:41 – 0:37:49

sure that this has not negative impact on the special education in schools?

0:37:49 – 0:37:59

Thank you very much.

0:37:59 – 0:38:00

Good evening Jean-Paul, thank you for the question.

0:38:00 – 0:38:03

I’m not done, sorry.

0:38:03 – 0:38:05

Oh I’m sorry, carry on sir.

0:38:05 – 0:38:08

Yeah I mean my last question is the one that I’ve been asking you know Craig, your predecessor

0:38:08 – 0:38:17

for many years and also academy staff, think we always put dollar at the beginning at the

0:38:17 – 0:38:26

foundation of budget and you said that here that the board is required to balance the

0:38:26 – 0:38:34

budget.

0:38:34 – 0:38:35

At the same time I’m asking myself you know what is the purpose of education built into

0:38:35 – 0:38:43

that foundation you know of the work that you, we all know that and you cite you know

0:38:43 – 0:38:51

rightly the education act and the same education act you know tell us what is the purpose of

0:38:51 – 0:38:56

education.

0:38:56 – 0:38:57

What is to provide student with the opportunity to realize full potential?

0:38:57 – 0:39:03

How would you know the focus only on the dollars, we’ll make sure that as we’re doing that

0:39:03 – 0:39:13

make sure that we’re getting all this you know special education you know special needs

0:39:13 – 0:39:19

to these students to meet their full potential as well, tell us if we keep looking at because

0:39:19 – 0:39:25

we may go back you know if we find that focusing only on the dollar would kind of jeopardize

0:39:25 – 0:39:34

you know the idea of or the purpose of education, we have to go back as that we have this discussion

0:39:34 – 0:39:40

here many years ago I mean you know 10 years 15 years with with all this you know so-called

0:39:40 – 0:39:47

consultation which is not consultation we just it’s an information we become you know

0:39:47 – 0:39:52

share what is already public as nor I just say with us you know it’s not really we you

0:39:52 – 0:39:57

know you’re not already really co-creating this budget is special education budget with

0:39:57 – 0:40:03

us and this is sort of first time I think that is it is becoming you know kind of the

0:40:03 – 0:40:07

way that’s what does a lot of my third question thank you.

0:40:07 – 0:40:12

Thank you JP.

0:40:12 – 0:40:14

Louise?

0:40:14 – 0:40:15

Yeah thanks very much Chair Lepofsky and good evening Jean Paul and good evening all members

0:40:15 – 0:40:20

of SIAC it’s lovely to see you on screen or even if your camera’s not on we know that

0:40:20 – 0:40:25

we know that you’re there and participating and appreciate you so much.

0:40:25 – 0:40:29

Jean Paul you know to answer to your questions absolutely our primary focus is on the success

0:40:29 – 0:40:37

of our students with special education needs disabilities all of our students and I really

0:40:37 – 0:40:43

want to echo Leo’s Leo’s caution and absolutely accurate language to say we have a duty to

0:40:43 – 0:40:52

be supporting students who need accommodations the special education grant is meant to be

0:40:52 – 0:40:58

an incremental grant so it’s not the expectation of the ministry or indeed we at the board

0:40:58 – 0:41:06

to stay within that envelope because our students with special education needs and disabilities

0:41:06 – 0:41:10

have access to the other grants as well so I want to reassure you about that and our

0:41:10 – 0:41:18

commitment to our students and which kind of connects to your first question Jean Paul

0:41:18 – 0:41:24

how do we how do we ensure support throughout the course of the year I can share with you

0:41:24 – 0:41:30

that Nandy meets weekly and honestly daily with consultants and coordinators when we

0:41:30 – 0:41:38

have a student with with need to review the supports at the school and if there is adjustment

0:41:38 – 0:41:46

throughout the system that is necessary if additional support is required if a team is

0:41:46 – 0:41:51

required to go in and assess the programmatic needs of the of a student we send that specialized

0:41:51 – 0:41:57

team in to work with the local school team to be making sure programming is at its utmost

0:41:57 – 0:42:04

and if additional support is required we dispatch that so that commitment maintains throughout

0:42:04 – 0:42:11

the year and in regards to your your second question I hope I’m getting them all you were

0:42:11 – 0:42:18

asking about central reduction so it is an unfortunate place that we are in sir that

0:42:18 – 0:42:25

we are not only five thousand students projected down next year we’re three thousand students

0:42:25 – 0:42:31

this year so that’s you know within these two years that’s a very significant drop in

0:42:31 – 0:42:36

enrollment and which creates a deficit situation for us and we have to be looking at what I’ll

0:42:36 – 0:42:47

say adjusting the size of our central teams and all departments to be making sure that

0:42:47 – 0:42:54

we are what I’ll use the phrase right sizing to our new enrollment size so difficult decisions

0:42:54 – 0:43:01

in all departments and special education was was included in that consideration we did

0:43:01 – 0:43:07

reduce some central staff but what I will assure CAC is that the central staff do not

0:43:07 – 0:43:14

directly support students I don’t want to minimize every person on a team is important

0:43:14 – 0:43:20

and Norris point of course even even employees who don’t directly support students their

0:43:20 – 0:43:28

work is valued and important the frame that we tried to take was about modernization and

0:43:28 – 0:43:35

where we had positions where there was more than one individual in the role would we be

0:43:35 – 0:43:41

able to again right size based on our enrollment so that’s how the decisions were made and

0:43:41 – 0:43:46

again that was department by department so it’s we were we were included in the TDSB

0:43:46 – 0:43:52

team but what I can always reassure you is that under Nandy’s leadership and mine as

0:43:52 – 0:43:59

well that we are committed to supporting all of our students to be taking our new structure

0:43:59 – 0:44:08

and making excellent processes and procedures and we are very very thankful that the staffing

0:44:08 – 0:44:14

has been maintained because we know that there are students with with need who need our SNAs

0:44:14 – 0:44:23

EAs and educators so I think could you just tell us how many central staff in the special

0:44:23 – 0:44:33

education department are being eliminated yes number yeah thanks for the the question

0:44:33 – 0:44:40

David I the details about the department by department reductions have not been made public

0:44:40 – 0:44:48

so I am committing to maintaining our communication standard for the board as soon as it’s public

0:44:48 – 0:44:55

will you let us know even if it’s over the summer if it’s made public for department

0:44:55 – 0:45:01

by department David I would be honoring that communication standard to you so we may never

0:45:01 – 0:45:07

know how many were reduced I’m going to go back to the our school-based staffing has

0:45:07 – 0:45:15

been maintained yeah and I know that the the what you’re asking I’m asking a specific question

0:45:15 – 0:45:21

it’s possible not about school-based staff but it’s possible we never may never know

0:45:21 – 0:45:27

how many people got modernized or right-sized out of their jobs so David what I’ll say

0:45:27 – 0:45:33

is that you know that we publish a special education plan annually right so the details

0:45:33 – 0:45:39

about our staffing is included in the special education plan so that so we’ll know by the

0:45:39 – 0:45:47

end of July when you submit it to the province and it’s published on our website right okay

0:45:47 – 0:45:53

thanks we’re actually a bit jammed on time but I want to we’ve got Richard Jessica and

0:45:53 – 0:46:02

Jordan can you each pile it in about sorry oh and Jean-Paul can we can you each do like

0:46:02 – 0:46:09

one minute each is that can you manage that if possible I’m not going to hold you to it

0:46:09 – 0:46:14

but just give it a try JP thank you it’s true I think you know what what what I would really

0:46:14 – 0:46:26

like is not to provide us you know with this kind of generic answers and really to bring

0:46:26 – 0:46:36

some quantitative you know data to support what you know yeah Louisa just described to

0:46:36 – 0:46:45

us and the comment that I want I want to also to make is I’m not sure I’m I already understand

0:46:45 – 0:46:55

you know when it comes to share something about information about special education

0:46:55 – 0:47:00

with us and is all we always you know the staff always says you know wait when you become

0:47:00 – 0:47:10

public I don’t understand are we public maybe I think that is if because this meeting is

0:47:10 – 0:47:19

probably maybe what I will expect is to you know during this meeting the meeting that

0:47:19 – 0:47:26

happened between you or David and staff that you know that you know at least what is going

0:47:26 – 0:47:33

on with social education because and to be engaged and you know give any advice before

0:47:33 – 0:47:41

things become public does that that that is I think this petition not always saying that

0:47:41 – 0:47:48

when it’s public and saying that you know yeah that is a comment I’ve always made that

0:47:48 – 0:47:53

comment here I think we keep saying you know waiting the public I will respect that place

0:47:53 – 0:48:00

you know this you know staff is the central staff reduction that maybe if it’s not possible

0:48:00 – 0:48:08

here because the meeting is public that we David that during a meeting after this public

0:48:08 – 0:48:15

meeting to have conversation around that and to see what what what is possible implication

0:48:15 – 0:48:21

of the reduction at the central level on what will happen at the school level thank you

0:48:21 – 0:48:26

okay thank you Richard thank you David good evening everyone whereas the budget survey

0:48:26 – 0:48:34

has respondents to establish a priority ranking for the noted categories how does this translate

0:48:34 – 0:48:43

to the budget allocation i.e. what is the dollar value cost of each priority item and

0:48:43 – 0:48:49

how do we ensure that the funding allocation maximizes the spend and benefits of this to

0:48:49 – 0:48:55

me you can rank 10 things but it’s like going in a restaurant somebody asking you what you

0:48:55 – 0:49:00

want you have a set amount of dollars you want to spend in that restaurant each item

0:49:00 – 0:49:04

has a different price I don’t see any valuation monetization to each of these rankings so

0:49:04 – 0:49:11

is it possible that if five of the ten that were selected would maximize the entire budget

0:49:11 – 0:49:18

spend whereas you could pick others and leave one out and spend you know have money left

0:49:18 – 0:49:24

over I don’t understand how ranking it translates to the budget so if the finance team can explain

0:49:24 – 0:49:32

the value of each of the 10 items how they impact the budget I think that would be very

0:49:32 – 0:49:38

informative for SEAC and help us better understand thank you right that’s great thank you by

0:49:38 – 0:49:43

the way Leanne can you get the motion ready that I sent you on on the budget to be posted

0:49:43 – 0:49:51

on screen and if for some reason you can’t if you could send it to Nandi to put it up

0:49:51 – 0:49:56

on the screen Jessica thank you and good evening the information that we’ve gotten tonight

0:49:56 – 0:50:09

isn’t very helpful when it comes to trying to evaluate the effects on special education

0:50:09 – 0:50:17

students when we don’t have access to information from the board we need to look at information

0:50:17 – 0:50:24

from other sources which does seem to be available and I’m concerned by what I’m hearing but

0:50:24 – 0:50:34

unfortunately when the board doesn’t release information we are really having to go off

0:50:34 – 0:50:41

rumors speculation etc. however I’m going to bring up one of the points to illustrate

0:50:41 – 0:50:49

the concerns so we are hearing that school-based staffing will remain as it was this year that’s

0:50:49 – 0:50:58

great but that requires students need to be able to get to school so one of the things

0:50:58 – 0:51:04

that we’re hearing is being cut for example is supervision of special education students

0:51:04 – 0:51:09

on transportation to get to school students with significant disabilities may not be able

0:51:09 – 0:51:17

to travel safely to school on TDSB transportation without supervision which means that supports

0:51:17 – 0:51:24

available in the school aren’t very relevant if they can’t get there in the first place

0:51:24 – 0:51:30

it’s really difficult to have a conversation if I don’t know if that’s true or is that

0:51:30 – 0:51:35

just a rumor but I would be very concerned if we’re saying that well it’s fine because

0:51:35 – 0:51:45

it’s not school-based staffing so we can cut it because that does very much affect the

0:51:45 – 0:51:50

student experience thank you all right thank you Jordan okay I’ll make it quick because

0:51:50 – 0:51:59

I think I’m going to echo some of the things that my colleagues have said the big concern

0:51:59 – 0:52:05

for me is the lack of thoroughness of what we’ve seen here in the presentation I want

0:52:05 – 0:52:12

to read the fine print so to speak I want I want to see the numbers I want to know where

0:52:12 – 0:52:16

the money’s going and what we’re getting is as as described something very high level

0:52:16 – 0:52:24

and if the and if there’s a concern about about the public nature of these meetings

0:52:24 – 0:52:29

perhaps this is something that can be shared with us in the three weeks leading up to June

0:52:29 – 0:52:32

30th if I may be so bold as to volunteer the rest of my colleagues on the committee we

0:52:32 – 0:52:38

agree a number of us would agree if I can just speak directly to our new CEO because

0:52:38 – 0:52:49

you have the absolute fantastic position of saying I just got here but this is by far

0:52:49 – 0:52:56

the most empty presentation on a budget that I’ve seen in 11 years and I don’t mean to

0:52:56 – 0:53:06

fault Ms. Harris personally whatsoever like confident she’s doing her best but we have

0:53:06 – 0:53:15

been given I mean virtually ostensibly nothing other than no staffing changes at school-based

0:53:15 – 0:53:26

staffing levels of school-based staff for students with special education needs which

0:53:26 – 0:53:31

is only one part of the funding that affects our kids this is way less than we’ve been

0:53:31 – 0:53:38

given in the past and even then I’ve been very concerned in the past we’ve never really

0:53:38 – 0:53:44

been consulted we’re told about it and then said oh here’s what’s happening any questions

0:53:44 – 0:53:51

there’s way less here but the information presented tonight could largely have been

0:53:51 – 0:53:57

emailed out I don’t know six months ago just wait for the dollar emails we have no idea

0:53:57 – 0:54:03

and generalist undertaking sincerely expressed by senior staff that we care deeply about

0:54:03 – 0:54:11

all children and we respect the important role of accommodation we’ve been hearing that

0:54:11 – 0:54:16

repeating after meeting year after year they don’t change a thing there’s a legal duty

0:54:16 – 0:54:23

to consult us on the special education budget and to share with us the financial statements

0:54:23 – 0:54:31

relevant to the special education budget neither has happened and that is woefully inadequate

0:54:31 – 0:54:43

and I encourage you as you take clearly there’s a something’s going to get cut because there

0:54:43 – 0:54:50

was a deficit last year and the trustees were removed from office because of it and there’s

0:54:50 – 0:54:57

going to be fewer students this year and no one’s saying there’s going to be more money

0:54:57 – 0:55:04

so something’s going to be cut and our kids could well be affected and we don’t have a

0:55:04 – 0:55:10

clue that is not consultation the consultation on the special education budget is not optional

0:55:10 – 0:55:24

I proposed a motion which I’ve circulated by email do we have it on the screen I need

0:55:24 – 0:55:31

someone to move it because Louise has properly pointed out that I as chair shouldn’t be moving

0:55:31 – 0:55:36

motions Leo is moving it someone wished to second it I second Bronwyn thank you Bronwyn

(Note: This is the text of the motion under consideration:

“Motion on TDSB Consultation of SEAC on Special Education Budget

Whereas TDSB is required to consult the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee on the special education budget.

And whereas TDSB has known for one month that this topic will be on the SEAC agenda for the June 8, 2026 SEAC meeting.

SEAC therefore resolves as follows::

SEAC members have not been properly and meaningfully consulted on the upcoming school year’s special education budget.
In future years, when the budget is placed on the SEAC agenda, TDSB staff should is asked to provide meaningful budget information in written form, and in an accessible format, at least one week before the SEAC meeting where the budget is to be discussed.”)

0:55:36 – 0:55:46

any discussion or is anyone object to our proceeding to a vote okay all in favor of

0:55:46 – 0:55:55

the motion oh sorry David sorry it’s Karina here I did have I did have a comment I wanted

0:55:55 – 0:56:03

to make and it might be I’m new to the committee this year so I apologize if my understanding

0:56:03 – 0:56:08

is not correct but I feel that the I fully support the motion and appreciate you bring

0:56:08 – 0:56:15

it forward my concern is that the discussion it comments on the TDSB’s requirement to consult

0:56:15 – 0:56:23

with SEAC and if my understanding is not incorrect SEAC has a responsibility to participate in

0:56:23 – 0:56:34

so to me that feels like if the TDSB doesn’t fulfill their requirement that’s not good

0:56:34 – 0:56:40

and remember not happy but if we as a committee have a requirement to participate in and then

0:56:40 – 0:56:46

we don’t participate because we’re not given the opportunity to I feel like we’re not fulfilling

0:56:46 – 0:56:52

the requirements of the committee and so I would just want I think that if that’s the

0:56:52 – 0:56:56

case and happy if it’s not the case but if it was the case I would prefer if that was

0:56:56 – 0:57:01

reflected because of course we all take our role seriously and if that is a requirement

0:57:01 – 0:57:05

something that we are required to do and you know just to note that I did put up my hand

0:57:05 – 0:57:09

to be a part of the working group on the budget okay I can I just make the following suggestion

0:57:09 – 0:57:17

just in the interest of time I’m not sure I I think I think the key thing is the board

0:57:17 – 0:57:23

needs to consult us and they didn’t in effect and that’s the core message I’m not sure I

0:57:23 – 0:57:29

read the regulation the same way okay but I also in fairness haven’t double-checked

0:57:29 – 0:57:35

today but I think for purposes of the objection that’s raised in the motion whether you’re

0:57:35 – 0:57:40

right or I’m right won’t really matter the message will still be clear okay fair enough

0:57:40 – 0:57:47

that fair that’s fair that’s great thank you and thanks for raising that the all in favor

0:57:47 – 0:57:55

of the motion we have five in the room five in the room and I have nine online so that

0:57:55 – 0:58:06

is 14 so that passes that passes thank you and thank you Stephanie for your presentation

0:58:06 – 0:58:13

all right I would like to move to oh Leo is this the point when you wanted to bring your

0:58:13 – 0:58:24

motion sure I can bring it now there’s a motion which Leo I didn’t formally put on the agenda

0:58:24 – 0:58:31

but it’s in my chair’s report was circulated to everybody no one voice voiced any concerns

0:58:31 – 0:58:39

arising out of the closure of the 15 diagnostic kindergarten school classes I’m wondering

0:58:39 – 0:58:49

before we actually raise it whether staff want to speak to the circumstances of that

0:58:49 – 0:58:56

closure in respect for staff if they want to share anything with us before we proceed

0:58:56 – 0:59:04

to that motion thanks David I’ll just share that based on numbers and needs on an annual

0:59:04 – 0:59:14

basis that the department looks at opening and closing all ISPs so while some may be

0:59:14 – 0:59:22

closing I can tell you that this week alone and it’s a very fluid process we just approved

0:59:22 – 0:59:31

to open three additional developmental disability ISPs as well as one other gifted ISPs we’re

0:59:31 – 0:59:39

also opening 13 plus at this point developmental disability ISPs in the new year as well as

0:59:39 – 0:59:47

seven or eight ASD ISPs so depending on student needs and numbers we do open some and close

0:59:47 – 0:59:55

some so while your motion speaks to one particular ISP please know that we’re opening more ISPs

0:59:55 – 1:00:03

than this what this motion speaks to you and it’s very fluid again next year it might be

1:00:03 – 1:00:09

another type of ISP that we’re closing but again opening others depending on student

1:00:09 – 1:00:14

needs thank you all right Leo does that make you want to change the

1:00:14 – 1:00:19

motion at all no it doesn’t but I can like appreciate the answer you can comment on that

1:00:19 – 1:00:25

and you want me to give a brief context on the motion yeah go ahead yeah okay thank you

1:00:25 – 1:00:30

so I think I think the issue lies with the fact that the caps were raised a few months

1:00:30 – 1:00:35

ago with the justification that it would reduce wait lists and therefore increase access and

1:00:35 – 1:00:40

then this happens so it doesn’t it doesn’t necessarily have too much logic in my view

1:00:40 – 1:00:48

but anyway the motion concerns the planned elimination of 15 DK classrooms this fall

1:00:48 – 1:00:52

diagnostic kindergarten as people know it serves complex developmental communication medical

1:00:52 – 1:00:59

learning needs and it depends on small classes individualized instruction specialized supports

1:00:59 – 1:01:06

and I hear back from many many parents who kids have thrived in that environment last

1:01:06 – 1:01:12

year the maximum class size was increased from eight to ten despite concerns from families

1:01:12 – 1:01:15

educators SEAC and trustees families and media reports since have described greater sensory

1:01:15 – 1:01:21

overload as regulation and reduced individualized support it’s in the median the proposed elimination

1:01:21 – 1:01:27

of these 15 classroom it represents another significant system level change SEAC was not

1:01:27 – 1:01:32

consulted nor notified we learned about it through the media these families already face

1:01:32 – 1:01:36

substantial barriers in learning what programs are available and many are told that their

1:01:36 – 1:01:41

children’s needs cannot be supported in their local neighborhood schools the motion is challenging

1:01:41 – 1:01:46

whether this declining enrollment can justify a reduction of the scale it’s recommending

1:01:46 – 1:01:51

that SEAC is consulted before future reductions improve communication with families as well

1:01:51 – 1:01:57

provide the evidence supporting this decision and further now that the decision has been

1:01:57 – 1:02:03

made report on impacts such as waitlist reduction transportation travel time staffing access

1:02:03 – 1:02:09

and specially student outcomes so what happens now let’s watch and see right that we would

1:02:09 – 1:02:14

be very important to know that we’re also calling for meaningful consultation with the

1:02:14 – 1:02:20

affected families and for the motion to be shared with senior TDSD and provincial officials

1:02:20 – 1:02:25

the motion is not asking SEAC to manage day-to-day operations in ISP numbers up or down all that

1:02:25 – 1:02:32

we’re saying is that major changes to availability wait lists and delivery of special education

1:02:32 – 1:02:37

falls squarely within our mandate thank you all right is there’s Leo do you want to move

1:02:37 – 1:02:44

your motion I think Nora oh go ahead well let’s get the motion on the table and then

1:02:44 – 1:02:50

we’ll have discussion Leo do you want to move the motion okay I’ll move the motion in all

1:02:50 – 1:02:59

right do we have a seconder Nora all right and people who want to say something we got

(Note: Here is the text of the motion under discussion:

“MOTION Regarding Diagnostic Kindergarten Class Size Increases and Planned Classroom Reductions

WHEREAS the students in the Toronto District School Board’s Diagnostic Kindergarten (DK) program require intensive early intervention and specialized educational support for students with complex developmental, communication, medical, and learning needs; and

WHEREAS the programming for these students depends on low student-to-staff ratios, individualized instruction, safe learning environments, and effective access to support tailored to a student’s individual needs;

WHEREAS last year the TDSB Supervisor increased the maximum class size cap in Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms from eight to ten students in 2025 despite concerns expressed by educators, families, SEAC and parents’ advocates, and despite a vote to the contrary by the elected TDSB trustees;

WHEREAS the media has publicly reported on increased student dysregulation, sensory overload, diminished individualized support, and deteriorating classroom conditions following the increase in class sizes;

WHEREAS the TDSB has now announced plans to eliminate 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms this fall;

WHEREAS SEAC has repeatedly raised serious concerns with TDSB senior staff over the past decade that parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs have substantial difficulties finding out from TDSB what programs, services and supports are available at TDSB for students with disabilities/special education needs, and continue at present to raise this concern;

WHEREAS TDSB cannot therefore justify such a reduction in the number of these classes by any asserted drop in the demand for these classes from parents, since parents can encounter those difficulties in learning what TDSB offers in such classes;

WHEREAS many students and families have described feeling excluded by their local schools and told that their child’s needs are too challenging for them to be able to attend locally;

WHEREAS it is difficult to believe that a projected reduction of a total of 5,000 TDSB students next year (including all students, not just students with disabilities/special education needs) could account for this reduction in Diagnostic Kindergarten classes;

WHEREAS, while SEAC does not seek to direct day-to-day operational decisions of TDSB staff, a planned reduction of 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms is a system-level change affecting the availability, accessibility, and delivery of special education programs and services, and falls squarely within SEAC’s mandate to provide advice and recommendations on matters affecting special education at TDSB;

WHEREAS TDSB staff did not consult the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee on the possibility of this reduction in the number of Diagnostic Kindergarten classes, or even notify SEAC of this decision after the fact, before making this decision to get SEAC’s input despite the fact that several SEAC members voiced strong concerns about increase in Diagnostic Kindergarten class sizes at meetings last spring;

WHEREAS SEAC members had to learn about this forthcoming reduction in the number of Diagnostic Kindergarten classes from the media and from parents;

WHEREAS it is no justification for TDSB’s conduct regarding SEAC that such reductions are made by TDSB’s normal process for deciding on such programs and/or is an operational matter. Whether or not it is part of such normal processes or is an operational matter, SEAC’s mandate is to give input on the design and delivery of special education At TDSB;

SEAC therefore recommends as follows:

TDSB should notify its Special Education Advisory Committee when it anticipates a reduction in the number of any classes, services or supports for students with disabilities/special education needs and should seek SEAC’s input before a decision on such reductions is reached;
TDSB should substantially improve its communications to parents/guardians, including parents/guardians of TDSB students with disabilities/special education needs, so they can easily learn about the programs, placements, services and supports available for students with disabilities/special education needs;
TDSB staff should provide SEAC with the data, analysis, and rationale used to support the planned reduction of 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms, including enrolment projections, waitlist information, referral trends, class utilization rates, staffing ratios and the anticipated impact on students and families;
TDSB staff should report to SEAC on the anticipated impact of the proposed Diagnostic Kindergarten classroom reductions, including effects on class size, travel times, transportation, student access, waitlists, staffing and student achievement;
TDSB should conduct meaningful consultations with affected families and report the results to SEAC to evaluate the impact of changes to class cap sizes, as well as families on wait lists;
TDSB should arrange for TDSB’s senior staff member in charge of communications to attend a SEAC meeting this fall to discuss TDSB efforts in this regard and
TDSB should forward this motion to the Director of Education, the TDSB Chief Executive Officer, the TDSB Supervisor, the Minister of Education, and the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario.”)

1:02:59 – 1:03:06

the speakers list okay I think I feel need to say something because the association I

1:03:06 – 1:03:11

represent and our belief in inclusive education meaning our local schools and I know all of

1:03:11 – 1:03:17

our committees don’t necessarily agree but I will be voting in favor of the motion because

1:03:17 – 1:03:22

I do believe in the communication with families and making sure that there’s meaningful consultation

1:03:22 – 1:03:27

with our committee that families and student centered approach is at the heart of what’s

1:03:27 – 1:03:33

happening and that data and evidence about the outcomes of kids is driving the decision-making

1:03:33 – 1:03:39

so you know Leo and I have had and many other people in this committee and I have had many

1:03:39 – 1:03:43

conversations about that and I’m happy to agree with anything that someone can prove

1:03:43 – 1:03:47

that’s better for a student my understanding is there’s very little evidence about the

1:03:47 – 1:03:51

effectiveness of the ISPs other than anecdotal from families who quite frankly face high

1:03:51 – 1:03:57

degrees of persecution I would say it’s an appropriate word should they choose not to

1:03:57 – 1:04:03

go to an ISP and our association gets tons of those calls to help families literally

1:04:03 – 1:04:09

fight staff in a community to keep a child in their local school it’s not always that

1:04:09 – 1:04:15

families are choosing that but they do feel sometimes the need to go there for some sort

1:04:15 – 1:04:20

of welcoming community that that sees them and values them so I just wanted to put on

1:04:20 – 1:04:29

the table that because it’s going to look a little weird I’m voting for this about the

1:04:29 – 1:04:33

diagnostic kindergartens but this is an issue about communication student-centered and data

1:04:33 – 1:04:37

driven decision-making and making sure that SEAC is part of that process and I just want

1:04:37 – 1:04:43

to add Richard before you chime in that I think it is a real strength of the SEAC and

1:04:43 – 1:04:49

I encourage our new CEO to see us as having this strength that there are people around

1:04:49 – 1:04:56

this table who have very deeply passionately diverging views on the relative advantages

1:04:56 – 1:05:05

of inclusion or separate classes but they work together and in the case of this motion

1:05:05 – 1:05:14

Leo who is a profound advocate perhaps on one side Nora on the other both respectful

1:05:14 – 1:05:22

collaborated with me in the development of this so it would be a motion that they would

1:05:22 – 1:05:28

actually both agree on and that’s where one of the examples I think that you’ll find

1:05:28 – 1:05:34

that SEAC is a very constructive partner when treated that way on the other hand when we

1:05:34 – 1:05:41

keep learning about these developments from the newspaper you’ll expect and understand

1:05:41 – 1:05:49

why there is a certain amount of frustration that comes from that if not distrust.

1:05:49 – 1:05:57

Richard thank you David so to try and bridge the gap that you’ve just noted the question

1:05:57 – 1:06:03

I would have are the students that would otherwise have been served in these DK diagnostic kindergarten

1:06:03 – 1:06:10

classes being closed are they being served in a more appropriate classroom setting and

1:06:10 – 1:06:15

if so how has this assessment been performed for each and every one of these students so

1:06:15 – 1:06:21

that’s I want to know that if there’s a classroom that’s been closed and there’s no seats for

1:06:21 – 1:06:26

these children students where have they gone in the school system and is it a better more

1:06:26 – 1:06:32

appropriate setting for them thank you thank you unless there’s anyone else I’m going

1:06:32 – 1:06:38

to propose we we vote all in favor five here at the end and I have nine in the room so

1:06:38 – 1:06:58

that passes for the benefit of staff I’m going to especially Nandi I’m going to move to letters

1:06:58 – 1:07:07

of expectation and then we will get to special education plan and if there’s time for leadership

1:07:07 – 1:07:16

we could do that or we could just trade take it as written and if there are questions or

1:07:16 – 1:07:21

if you want to do a quick summary and I’ll defer our roundtable yet again unfortunately

1:07:21 – 1:07:26

till September David can I ask that we stick to the doing the special education plan first

1:07:26 – 1:07:32

just because that’s a legislative please piece that I’d like to fulfill please all right

1:07:32 – 1:07:37

go for it okay thank you for this component of the agenda I’m going to pass it over to

1:07:37 – 1:07:43

system superintendent dr. Debbie Donski thank you thank you very much and good evening just

1:07:43 – 1:07:51

going to share the presentation I just what just while you’re getting that going I know

1:07:51 – 1:08:02

Jessica you do have a motion which was going to come up in the context of the roundtable

1:08:02 – 1:08:10

but we will deal with that before the meetings over your motion just make sure I remember

1:08:10 – 1:08:17

can I just confirm that everyone can see the slides yes those who can see could see that

1:08:17 – 1:08:24

of course David got it first thank you I was going to say yes and get you worried go ahead

1:08:24 – 1:08:34

okay so I’ll begin with the second slide so we’ve itemized some more changes that in some

1:08:34 – 1:08:45

cases were in the spec ed plan but not on the amendments last month and I would like

1:08:45 – 1:08:50

to apologize for that and I hope that the details we offer this evening will provide

1:08:50 – 1:08:56

more information that CAC has requested so to begin general language has been updated

1:08:56 – 1:09:03

across the plan in addition to sorry in addition to what we shared last month we have changed

1:09:03 – 1:09:14

the required time spent on the individual learning plan it has been shortened from what

1:09:14 – 1:09:19

was six to eight weeks now to four to six weeks enabling a more timely support for students

1:09:19 – 1:09:27

we have also standardized terminology by changing child or children to student or students where

1:09:27 – 1:09:33

appropriate and I know there was a question about this and it was brought to our attention

1:09:33 – 1:09:37

and I just want to clarify that when the statement for example says a parent knows their child

1:09:37 – 1:09:42

best we wouldn’t say a parent knows their student best so when it says change to student

1:09:42 – 1:09:49

or students where appropriate that’s what I’m implying in section B the board’s consultation

1:09:49 – 1:09:56

process it was noted that of course there was a minority report shared by the association

1:09:56 – 1:10:02

for bright children it is noted in section B and we have added it to the amendments in

1:10:02 – 1:10:10

addition the actual minority report will be submitted to the ministry of education when

1:10:10 – 1:10:16

the special education plan is submitted for review and section D roles and responsibilities

1:10:16 – 1:10:23

there was a question about what we’re comparing it to because in the amendments we put in

1:10:23 – 1:10:29

that it was replaced and I’ve included a link to the special education roles and responsibilities

1:10:29 – 1:10:36

page because we took the definitions around roles and responsibilities directly from that

1:10:36 – 1:10:41

page on the next slide section e special education and advisory committee the amendments chart

1:10:41 – 1:10:51

now includes cx meeting times and locations additionally the specific process for cx input

1:10:51 – 1:10:58

into the special education plan for 26 27 has been formally added to the amendments

1:10:58 – 1:11:05

whereby the input to the special education plan will be done by the whole team at cx

1:11:05 – 1:11:11

meetings throughout the year next year section f the statement specific to the ccat 7 as

1:11:11 – 1:11:19

a screener has been removed and replaced with a general statement on universal screening

1:11:19 – 1:11:25

for all grade 3 students section g early identification there was a statement in the plan and it was

1:11:25 – 1:11:33

included in last month’s amendments regarding early french immersion and how early years

1:11:33 – 1:11:40

environments promote joy and belonging and engagement it was removed not because early

1:11:40 – 1:11:45

french immersion doesn’t also have a right to have joy belonging and engagement but all

1:11:45 – 1:11:53

students do so we took it out because it shouldn’t be a specific mention as if it’s different

1:11:53 – 1:11:59

the amendments also reiterate that cac will um i’m sorry that’s that’s uh that’s redundant

1:11:59 – 1:12:06

okay next slide um section h we have updated the resource links for english language learners

1:12:06 – 1:12:14

and french as a second language and special education documents so that you can actually

1:12:14 – 1:12:19

use them now uh the link to public documents a key update to the iprc process and i’ll

1:12:19 – 1:12:26

go into that in the next slide in more detail um is that level one and level two decision

1:12:26 – 1:12:32

making is now delegated to the school level supported by special education and inclusion

1:12:32 – 1:12:37

staff to ensure a more timely and effective student support the next slide and i do apologize

1:12:37 – 1:12:46

for the the small um font um this summarizes how the changes are going to be implemented

1:12:46 – 1:12:54

and what you’ll see in this chart um and i’ll focus on the changes as well but those who

1:12:54 – 1:13:00

can see uh the green font shows where there have been changes so this slide summarizes

1:13:00 – 1:13:07

the key procedural changes to the iprc process for next year the most significant amendment

1:13:07 – 1:13:14

here is the delegation as i said of level one and level two decision making to the school

1:13:14 – 1:13:21

level and you’ll see um in the chart what is referred to as level one and two i’ll explain

1:13:21 – 1:13:27

it in a moment this shift is supported by our special education and inclusion staff

1:13:27 – 1:13:32

and is intended to streamline the process so we provide more timely and effective student

1:13:32 – 1:13:37

support so to clarify level one is when there’s an original iprc for any exceptionality with

1:13:37 – 1:13:45

regular class placement which can be indirect resource or withdrawal as well as gifted only

1:13:45 – 1:13:52

um exceptionality and placement that’s not a change that has been happening for a number

1:13:52 – 1:13:56

of years at the school level a change and it was noted in an email from siak we used

1:13:56 – 1:14:03

to have um psychology present as committee members and they still remain at a level three

1:14:03 – 1:14:10

which is for highly complex cases and who determines its complex is the special education

1:14:10 – 1:14:16

centrally assigned principal so they remain there but the expectation from the legislation

1:14:16 – 1:14:21

is that there are three members of a committee one must be a principal or a superintendent

1:14:21 – 1:14:27

so by anchoring the iprc process at the school level it preserves vital relationships and

1:14:27 – 1:14:34

trust already built between family and the local principal they of course will be supported

1:14:34 – 1:14:40

by special education teams as well as family of schools superintendents so you’ll see at

1:14:40 – 1:14:46

um level two a level two iprc is also going to be done at the school level it’s when there

1:14:46 – 1:14:53

is an increase from regular class to an intensive support program or there’s a change in exceptionality

1:14:53 – 1:15:00

or placement or it’s an initial placement in an intensive support program the local

1:15:00 – 1:15:06

principal will be the chair and then we will have centrally trained principals and that’s

1:15:06 – 1:15:11

where the family of schools superintendent comes in to really know their people and say

1:15:11 – 1:15:16

you know what debbie you would benefit from having mandy come in as your second because

1:15:16 – 1:15:21

she is more experienced than you so we’ve tried to work in professional learning at

1:15:21 – 1:15:25

every stage job embedded as well as formal learning to shift this process um we are keeping

1:15:25 – 1:15:35

accountability centered on the students daily success while growing the collective capacity

1:15:35 – 1:15:40

at the school and system levels and then finally as per the education act oh i’ve mentioned

1:15:40 – 1:15:46

this about three people and and really the the reason for removing psych staff from levels

1:15:46 – 1:15:53

one and two is because we want them focused on assessments we know how key those assessments

1:15:53 – 1:15:58

are and although we’ve done really good work in reducing those wait lists they still exist

1:15:58 – 1:16:04

and this is another way that we can um move forward the next slide

1:16:04 – 1:16:17

nj so we added that the iprc must include the reasons for placement in a special education

1:16:17 – 1:16:25

class on the statement of decision this is not a change but we put it in as a firm reminder

1:16:25 – 1:16:32

about the importance of including reasons for placement we’ve also added language to

1:16:32 – 1:16:38

clearly distinguish between program and placement for deaf hard of hearing developmental disability

1:16:38 – 1:16:45

and gifted special education classes that are full time the information for the iprc

1:16:45 – 1:16:51

determination of exceptionality for autism has been updated and reorganized so for example

1:16:51 – 1:16:58

necessary items like progress reports parent input and completed ilps are still included

1:16:58 – 1:17:04

in the general information earlier in the section um and when this was indicated within

1:17:04 – 1:17:11

the amendments that we created um an overall general information section so that we could

1:17:11 – 1:17:18

reduce the redundancy within this section and then um for placements in learning disability

1:17:18 – 1:17:25

autism spectrum disorder physical disability and mild intellectual disability isps the

1:17:25 – 1:17:31

language reinforces that the placement can be either special education full time or special

1:17:31 – 1:17:37

education with partial integration based on the individual students needs strengths and

1:17:37 – 1:17:43

their thereby reinforcing the importance of integration for student growth and in line

1:17:43 – 1:17:48

with the ministry of education special education class as either full time or partial integration

1:17:48 – 1:17:59

and then finally the last slide continuing with section j statement clarifying that grade

1:17:59 – 1:18:06

12 students in gifted asd and ld intensive support programs are offered english and one

1:18:06 – 1:18:13

other subject through the isp is now included in the amendments chart for gifted placement

1:18:13 – 1:18:19

decisions it is now explicitly clarified that this includes special education class with

1:18:19 – 1:18:24

partial integration at the secondary level section p student numbers for each school

1:18:24 – 1:18:32

at the for provincial and demonstration schools have been updated as required and then section

1:18:32 – 1:18:38

t in the appendices we updated the links that were also problematic in the last document

1:18:38 – 1:18:43

we shared and that is it for me all right thank you for comments you’re welcome thank

1:18:43 – 1:18:50

you um mindful of time is there any i what i’d rather there be now if you have just questions

1:18:50 – 1:18:59

for your own information if you could email them in um and leanne can refer them if there’s

1:18:59 – 1:19:06

a change to anything you’ve just heard or you read in preparation for tonight that you

1:19:06 – 1:19:12

feel is uh critical uh why don’t you raise it uh now bronwyn and then richard richard

1:19:12 – 1:19:24

and Norah Kareena and then if you could each do it in about a minute more or less if you

1:19:24 – 1:19:34

can that’d be great Jessica’s fifth okay uh Bronwyn um i have the three things um first

1:19:34 – 1:19:43

of all is the day of the week going to be changed or have any more flexibility with

1:19:43 – 1:19:48

the time because um myself as a person who always works in person um and i see patients

1:19:48 – 1:19:54

every 20 minutes i am never able to actually appropriately dedicate all this time thankfully

1:19:54 – 1:20:00

my husband can and he’s been doing this longer but it’s very hard for us and i would like

1:20:00 – 1:20:06

to see that time frame always being on like a Thursday at this time and not thinking outside

1:20:06 – 1:20:12

the box or families like ourselves number two um i do have concerns about not having

1:20:12 – 1:20:18

a social worker or someone they’re accessible i know social workers aren’t automatically

1:20:18 – 1:20:22

always there i understand the psychologist aspect but i remember my first year with my

1:20:22 – 1:20:28

daughter with her invisible disability is being in tears and crying and the principal

1:20:28 – 1:20:33

was basically yelling at me beforehand before i even had to fight and get that iprc meeting

1:20:33 – 1:20:38

so i don’t want other families to go through that without having other people watching

1:20:38 – 1:20:43

what we went through to fight for that so i am concerned and are we still able to invite

1:20:43 – 1:20:48

advocates like ourselves at our own will if needed like myself or anyone here who represents

1:20:48 – 1:20:54

these communities because that should be explicitly given to parents as something they can do so

1:20:54 – 1:21:01

they don’t they need documentation on what’s going on there we can’t just be there with

1:21:01 – 1:21:05

the principal and the vp alone and the superintendent i don’t feel that’s safe and uh that’s what

1:21:05 – 1:21:10

we’re now okay um i’m gonna treat this as give your feedback which staff will note rather

1:21:10 – 1:21:16

than getting into a discussion on practice and policy at iprc is not that that’s unimportant

1:21:16 – 1:21:23

but because that’s a substantive topic that i’m happy to to have us devote meeting time

1:21:23 – 1:21:29

to but just not uh not right now i don’t feel comfortable with that david to be honest i

1:21:29 – 1:21:35

think the direct question about the day of the week can be answered if it’s going to

1:21:35 – 1:21:39

be changed because these are sensitive things to people all right i understand it but it

1:21:39 – 1:21:44

does mean okay i don’t feel comfortable chasing emails can staff answer the whether the day

1:21:44 – 1:21:49

of the week is going to be changed sorry bronwyn the day of the week with regards to can you

1:21:49 – 1:21:55

just clarify that for me it’s always on a specific day and the same with sst that where

1:21:55 – 1:22:00

parents are not given flexibility in their work schedule or the time they are just thrown

1:22:00 – 1:22:05

a day and then if you ask them if they can change it around the schedule or a certain

1:22:05 – 1:22:10

time of the day there’s like an absolute hard no and in the past it’s been sort of used

1:22:10 – 1:22:14

as the excuse that we’re bringing in you know the a b and c but i’m hoping now with this

1:22:14 – 1:22:21

change that there will be more flexibility for parents to um since there’s not going

1:22:21 – 1:22:26

to be so many people invited to the meeting to actually be parents bronwyn what i’m going

1:22:26 – 1:22:31

to suggest you’re essentially saying could there be more flexible scheduling of iprc

1:22:31 – 1:22:37

so parents have more flexibility to accommodate their own their own lives have i got it right

1:22:37 – 1:22:42

yes yeah half the time i can never even attend to the parent now what i’m going to do again

1:22:42 – 1:22:47

sensitive to the time and not wanting to run over time is to say to put your request forward

1:22:47 – 1:22:56

and if if staff can get back to her and if this remains an open issue or unsolved bronwyn

1:22:56 – 1:23:03

approach me by email and we can we can schedule this as a an agenda item uh in the fall and

1:23:03 – 1:23:10

if necessary bring a motion with a recommendation okay yeah there also is the last week of

1:23:10 – 1:23:17

september these happen right so that’s my concern it’s been the fall everyone disappears

1:23:17 – 1:23:22

anyway okay thanks okay um next was pardon me richard thank you um is it possible to

1:23:22 – 1:23:33

bring up the last slide on the special education plan where it was talking about ld mid etc

1:23:33 – 1:23:39

and just for the clarity for this committee if i have that on the screen i’ll be easy

1:23:39 – 1:23:44

to understand my my question here is that possible debbie can you bring up just give

1:23:44 – 1:23:50

me a moment just give me a moment okay and actually go back one uh i’m looking for the

1:23:50 – 1:24:08

one where you talked about the partial integration of students with lds etc i’m not sure where

1:24:08 – 1:24:17

it’s segregate uh special education class and partial integration exactly so it speaks

1:24:17 – 1:24:25

to ld asd pd etc am i to assume that if a child a student has a diagnosis of developmental

1:24:25 – 1:24:33

disability um special education with partial integration is not being considered for them

1:24:33 – 1:24:42

or is not available to them because i don’t see uh i don’t have the document in front

1:24:42 – 1:24:47

of me so i can’t confirm it on the developmental disability i i hope that the school board

1:24:47 – 1:24:53

is offering the same opportunities to them with either special education full-time or

1:24:53 – 1:24:58

special education with partial integration can that be clarified please for this committee

1:24:58 – 1:25:03

can you or or uh or debbie help us out thanks uh richard so um in many cases our dd isps

1:25:03 – 1:25:13

we do have them in integrated sites but in most cases we have them in congregated sites

1:25:13 – 1:25:18

and so there’s not integration in a congregated site it’s a full-time special education class

1:25:18 – 1:25:23

however when they are in integrated sites whenever possible yes we do integrate them

1:25:23 – 1:25:30

as we can the difference is that with a dd isp in secondary they are full-time isp classes

1:25:30 – 1:25:39

and ld asd pd mid they take some courses in the isp and some courses they take outside

1:25:39 – 1:25:47

of the isp so that’s why dd is not there um because it is a full-time special education class

1:25:47 – 1:25:54

is it possible for this language to be added to the special education plan so parents realize

1:25:54 – 1:26:00

that if they make a particular decision with their child that they may be locked out of many

1:26:00 – 1:26:06

opportunities thanks richard so um those conversations are had at the iprc they’re

1:26:06 – 1:26:15

also had at the sst prior to that but are in the criteria for placement for each of the isps

1:26:15 – 1:26:22

including dd isps it does set out what that placement um criteria is and it also talks

1:26:22 – 1:26:29

about the program that the student with a developmental disability who may have special

1:26:29 – 1:26:34

education class full-time will will be having so while we haven’t shown that here the plan does

1:26:34 – 1:26:42

outline what that program is so we can can you send us that wording so we can see it so we can

1:26:42 – 1:26:47

share with parents thank you okay great next is kareena thank you um i do have some comments that

1:26:47 – 1:27:00

i will send along via email um however there’s one item that i wanted to raise here um in respect

1:27:00 – 1:27:07

to a change in section j related to uh placements in gifted isps which is a significant concern for

1:27:07 – 1:27:16

us previously the language stated that eligible students may also meet one of two criteria that

1:27:16 – 1:27:22

were listed and it now reads that eligible students must meet one of the two criteria

1:27:22 – 1:27:29

which i think is a if i understand it it could be a significant change so i would like to understand

1:27:29 – 1:27:36

the the goal or intention of of this change in the wording any potential impacts it might have on

1:27:36 – 1:27:43

number of placements going forward and also what documentation or support would be required to

1:27:43 – 1:27:50

meet the criteria um in particular the first criteria so i don’t need the answer today but

1:27:50 – 1:27:57

um but would appreciate uh staff getting back to to me on that um on this item that’s great thank

1:27:57 – 1:28:04

you um and finally jessica thank you uh very quickly i i know in the plan um that the language

1:28:04 – 1:28:15

around the cat seven has disappeared um we were told that there was a pilot study running we

1:28:15 – 1:28:21

haven’t been briefed on that um and i’m just curious when we will be briefed on the results

1:28:21 – 1:28:26

as i presume that the change in language means that we are changing what test is being used thanks

1:28:26 – 1:28:34

so much thanks uh jessica really quickly um we’ve removed it uh we we did conduct a pilot we will be

1:28:34 – 1:28:43

conducting another pilot uh in the new year and so we have not chosen to move to a different uh

1:28:43 – 1:28:49

screener at this point in time but we will be um doing a broader uh pilot of the ravens which

1:28:49 – 1:28:58

we presented to ciac in february of this year thanks okay and our other final is nora which is

1:28:58 – 1:29:05

the real final thanks uh i guess i just wanted to make a comment about what we perceive the special

1:29:05 – 1:29:11

education plan to be i think sometimes we treat it like it’s a written document when it’s very

1:29:11 – 1:29:16

much actually related to budget so those two are not distinct from on each other budget absolutely

1:29:16 – 1:29:22

impacts a special education plan so things like diagnostic kindergartens or isps for this or isps

1:29:22 – 1:29:28

for that the committee is going to want to know like the number of each type the locations of

1:29:28 – 1:29:34

each type because it gives us an idea of how you’re serving our students so my association

1:29:34 – 1:29:40

very much would love to know how many students are in regular class how much staff is allocated for

1:29:40 – 1:29:44

that how many students are in isp how much staff is allocated for that are we now serving a higher

1:29:44 – 1:29:50

proportion of kids in isps than we did even though we’re saying we’re doing inclusion and should be

1:29:50 – 1:29:55

doing it well i’m not trying so i guess my point is that we see the numbers the location as being

1:29:55 – 1:30:03

not part of cx purview when we’ll be the first people people will call when changes happen or

1:30:03 – 1:30:10

asked to get information for them so i’m hoping the special education plan louise has now said

1:30:10 – 1:30:15

the number of staff and type will be in the plan at the end of july and will the location in the

1:30:15 – 1:30:22

map still show where all of these things happen but again we’re not really giving input into that

1:30:22 – 1:30:28

we’re being told that so it’s not really consultative in that sense thank you so not every item in the

1:30:28 – 1:30:34

plan is consulted on not every decision is consulted on again when these decisions are

1:30:34 – 1:30:39

made based on needs and numbers of students so it doesn’t make sense in a fiduciary way or any other

1:30:39 – 1:30:47

way to maintain isps with two staff members and four students when we have open spots in other isps

1:30:47 – 1:30:56

as an example it also doesn’t make sense to have isps with nor few students when we have other isps

1:30:56 – 1:31:02

or the regular program requiring staff cac as with everyone else it was cx recommendation to

1:31:02 – 1:31:10

put the link with the locations of the isps how many of each and as we open classes or close classes

1:31:10 – 1:31:17

those are updated so those will be updated we also follow the standards and the regulation when it

1:31:17 – 1:31:23

comes to school board special education plans and again i’ll state and c hack has repeatedly shared

1:31:23 – 1:31:28

that a 300 page special education plan is not helpful to parents and so we really stick to the

1:31:28 – 1:31:34

what the standards requirements are for the plan knowing that at c act meetings we can provide

1:31:34 – 1:31:40

information as well as our parent guide which is required by the ministry to be submitted with the

1:31:40 – 1:31:46

plan so i would argue that universal design would indicate you’d have a variety of types of a way of

1:31:46 – 1:31:51

communicating information so i wouldn’t use the ministry’s limited understanding of what we’re

1:31:51 – 1:31:57

entitled to see if it impacts special education students we would have purview to see that so

1:31:57 – 1:32:02

because the ministry said that this is the information we’ll get and yes that will overwhelm

1:32:02 – 1:32:06

some students doesn’t mean that information should not be released to the public all right i’m going

1:32:06 – 1:32:12

to uh i’m going to call it here thank you very much i just want to offer one last observation

1:32:12 – 1:32:18

and request of both staff and cac members um staff came to me and suggested we need to rethink how

1:32:18 – 1:32:26

we do the input process on this special education plan there’s a reference here that we will deal

1:32:26 – 1:32:32

with it each cac meeting um i’m actually um open to different ways of doing it i frankly don’t want

1:32:32 – 1:32:39

to eat up a lot of very precious cac meeting time on this one form and we’ve got so many other

1:32:39 – 1:32:45

substantive issues i think there’s a couple of things one of which is i welcome everybody’s

1:32:45 – 1:32:50

feedback over the summer by email on how we might most efficiently do this i want to do however

1:32:51 – 1:32:58

ask everyone to divide in their minds uh this whole area into two very different buckets one

1:32:58 – 1:33:09

bucket is substantive changes last year it was raising the maximum size of diagnostic kindergarten

1:33:09 – 1:33:19

and mild intellectual uh disability classes that was a substantive change and people had views on

1:33:19 – 1:33:25

that um the change in here uh not using uh psychologists at these uh iprcs and instead

1:33:25 – 1:33:36

devoting their time more to assessments which personally i think is a great idea um those are

1:33:36 – 1:33:42

substantive policy changes and those are ones that we shouldn’t be discussing by trying to

1:33:42 – 1:33:49

kind of pin for gold in a 300 page document to see what’s changed or for staff to sort of highlight

1:33:49 – 1:33:56

oh here are the substantive changes uh those are things which in my view it would be most helpful

1:33:56 – 1:34:03

if staff could be bringing to us as issues on which they are they can say we’re thinking of

1:34:03 – 1:34:09

making this change if we do it would be represented in this special education plan what are your

1:34:09 – 1:34:17

thoughts and then we give our input with the other bucket are formalities uh cosmetic not in the

1:34:17 – 1:34:26

derisive sense or the i’m not seeking to minimize it but which terminology is best or are we using

1:34:26 – 1:34:33

consistent language that’s not substantive changes that affect our kids um i want to make

1:34:33 – 1:34:39

sure we can give any input you want to give i don’t want to spend meetings of all of us dealing with

1:34:39 – 1:34:45

the uh the the cosmetic stuff or the formality formal uh presentation stuff though you should

1:34:45 – 1:34:53

get input and staff should benefit from it uh but i do want to make sure that we find out about

1:34:53 – 1:34:59

substantive changes early enough of the year that we can have meaty discussions of them not because

1:34:59 – 1:35:05

of the form not because it’s in the special education plan but because it’s a change that’s

1:35:05 – 1:35:10

being proposed give me your ideas over the summer i welcome it from nandy from you and louise and

1:35:10 – 1:35:16

and from debbie um and i welcome the feedback from from from members of the committee so we

1:35:16 – 1:35:22

could use your best your time to best advantage and staff’s time to most efficient advantage with

1:35:22 – 1:35:29

both of those um i want to turn to what will be um um our last substantive topic before a quick

1:35:29 – 1:35:37

motion by jessica and uh the if time permits the the leadership report and that is the issue of

1:35:37 – 1:35:44

letters of expectation i’ve discussed this in my chair’s report and in my last month’s chair’s

1:35:44 – 1:35:50

report because i gave staff a heads up they asked for an extra month to prepare um it came to my

1:35:50 – 1:35:57

attention that there are occasions when the the tdsb will write a parent what they refer to as a

1:35:57 – 1:36:07

letter of expectation that’s not a legally created animal it’s a letter and that’s the name they give

1:36:07 – 1:36:13

and it essentially is a direction uh telling the parent limiting who they can talk to and when they

1:36:13 – 1:36:22

can talk to them at the board i’m assuming this is triggered by a sense that someone and i gather

1:36:22 – 1:36:28

from what staff has told me it’s not limited to parents it could be others um are engaging in

1:36:28 – 1:36:33

repetitive and disruptive content contact um and the board has decided to go this step when i saw

1:36:34 – 1:36:43

this and and we’re not here to discuss or explore any individual case the first thing i wanted to do

1:36:43 – 1:36:51

it raised some flags in my mind and i raised i mentioned them in my uh my report who decides

1:36:51 – 1:36:59

on this and what are the criteria does the board have a policy or a procedure setting out the

1:36:59 – 1:37:07

guidelines for when these are to take place the board has policies and procedures on tons of things

1:37:07 – 1:37:12

who decides what are the safeguards if a parent receives this and wants to contest it

1:37:12 – 1:37:20

is there an internal review within the board can they take it higher within the board and say hey

1:37:20 – 1:37:26

this isn’t fair i don’t deserve this um the the other two questions that came to mind for me is

1:37:26 – 1:37:34

is there an end date the paragraphs i read and i shared with you which are the only ones i’ve seen

1:37:34 – 1:37:42

and i don’t want to see anymore because they’re anonymized made it sound like this is basically

1:37:42 – 1:37:48

for the duration and the other consideration is what if a parent receives a letter like this

1:37:48 – 1:37:55

and uh they their child has become ill and they want to notify someone or there’s an accommodation

1:37:55 – 1:38:04

need or their child has gone missing or there’s some kind of crisis and being told you’ve got to

1:38:04 – 1:38:09

contact some school board official they’re all busy and it may not get to the right person

1:38:09 – 1:38:15

with the kind of lightning speed that may an emergency may require there’s no end date and

1:38:15 – 1:38:21

there’s no exemption for communications necessary to fulfill the duty to accommodate

1:38:21 – 1:38:26

so i asked staff if they could brief us on the answer to the questions who decides what are the

1:38:26 – 1:38:34

criteria is there an appeal route is there a policy and procedure from the board that we can see

1:38:34 – 1:38:40

written one um and what recourse is there for parents who want to contest it or where it’s open

1:38:40 – 1:38:48

ended and uh so over to nandy she knew this was coming so we welcome your your your information

1:38:48 – 1:38:55

on this and then we’ll open it to discussion thanks david so i’ll start with your third question

1:38:55 – 1:39:00

and then i’ll go through everything else so if there’s um an emergency or an issue at a school

1:39:00 – 1:39:06

we’re not sending the parent to a superintendent school-based staff whether it’s a vice principal

1:39:06 – 1:39:15

a principal support staff a teacher will connect with the parent in a situation of emergency so i

1:39:15 – 1:39:21

just wanted to be very clear that this is for day-to-day or questions that may not be emergency

1:39:21 – 1:39:29

related questions but emergency uh pieces will be dealt with as we would with any emergency so with

1:39:29 – 1:39:38

regards to letters of expectations there’s no specific board policy or procedure that prescribes

1:39:38 – 1:39:43

a formal process for issuing such a letter administrators and superintendents are given

1:39:43 – 1:39:49

authority and rely on their authority under the education act to maintain a safe respectful and

1:39:49 – 1:39:54

positive school climate in practice decisions are informed by key board policies and procedures

1:39:54 – 1:40:00

which include pr 739 promoting respect in the workplace pr 595 code of conduct po policy 31

1:40:00 – 1:40:09

human rights policy 34 workplace harassment prevention policy the code of conduct outlines

1:40:09 – 1:40:16

standards for of behavior for all members of the school community including parents it emphasizes

1:40:16 – 1:40:22

the importance of respect civility and positive interactions it also highlights the role of parents

1:40:22 – 1:40:28

in supporting a safe and inclusive inclusive environment including demonstrating respect for

1:40:28 – 1:40:34

staff and others particularly during times of disagreement the human rights policy reinforces

1:40:34 – 1:40:40

the board’s commitment to upholding and promoting human rights in all learning as well as working

1:40:40 – 1:40:46

environments and the workplace harassment prevention policy affirms the board’s expectation

1:40:46 – 1:40:51

that all environments remain safe inclusive and free from harassment and discrimination

1:40:51 – 1:40:56

across all these policies and procedures there’s a consistent expectation that all interactions

1:40:56 – 1:41:03

reflect professionalism on the part of staff and mutual respect from all parties

1:41:03 – 1:41:08

when a letter of expectations is issued it may establish a single point of contact so i know

1:41:08 – 1:41:14

david you are referring to one particular letter but each of these letters are written in a different

1:41:14 – 1:41:19

way and they have different information so it may and not always establish a single point of contact

1:41:19 – 1:41:26

which may be a teacher vice principal principal or superintendent to support clear communication

1:41:26 – 1:41:31

in most cases however a letter of expectation typically reinforces expectations for respectful

1:41:32 – 1:41:39

and collaborative engagement the decision to issue a letter of expectations is made with careful

1:41:39 – 1:41:45

consideration and in alignment with board policies and procedures and often as a last resort when a

1:41:45 – 1:41:52

letter is issued the reasons for issuing the letter is are clear the reasons are clearly

1:41:52 – 1:41:58

communicated to the parent or individual receiving it to support transparency and understanding so in

1:41:58 – 1:42:05

a nutshell that is what a letter of expectation is that’s how it’s issued that’s who it’s issued by

1:42:05 – 1:42:11

okay thank you and is there uh i asked also what kind of internal review who decides on this

1:42:11 – 1:42:19

sorry i had to take a sip of water go for it um so again under the education act the principal

1:42:22 – 1:42:29

is responsible for maintaining a safe respectful and positive clue school climate as for the parent

1:42:29 – 1:42:35

concern protocol the principal uh sorry the parent can go from the principal to the school

1:42:35 – 1:42:42

superintendent if the school superintendent is issuing the letter of expectation the final stop

1:42:42 – 1:42:49

is with the school superintendent and again that would have been done as a last resort after other

1:42:49 – 1:42:55

options have been explored after communication has been attempted several times with the families and

1:42:55 – 1:43:02

so forth in all cases i want to maintain however that there is a single source of contact in such

1:43:02 – 1:43:09

circumstances and again this doesn’t happen all the time but there’s always ongoing communication

1:43:09 – 1:43:15

happening okay i wanted to open it to questions or comments or feedback we’re not going to make any

1:43:15 – 1:43:22

decisions on what to advise if anything today this is the first uh cut at this as we sometimes do but

1:43:22 – 1:43:30

i i have just a couple of my own preliminary observations the others may find them compelling

1:43:30 – 1:43:37

you may not um i consider this kind of letter um while it may be justified in some limited

1:43:37 – 1:43:46

circumstances in some form um deeply worrisome for a series of reasons nandy referred several

1:43:46 – 1:43:54

times to the education act there’s nothing that i can see in the education act that authorizes

1:43:54 – 1:44:01

the board to order a parent not to talk to their child’s teacher and it’s not a direction to the

1:44:01 – 1:44:10

teacher not to talk to the parent it’s a school board purporting to use its authority

1:44:10 – 1:44:16

to order parents not to speak to certain people about their child’s education and in the case

1:44:16 – 1:44:24

of students with disabilities or special education needs that includes not to speak to the teacher

1:44:24 – 1:44:31

about their child’s disability related accommodation needs that is a very intrusive

1:44:31 – 1:44:40

exercise of state power and any exercise of state power is governed by the law and part of our law

1:44:40 – 1:44:49

is the charter of rights and part of the charter of rights is the guarantee of the freedom of

1:44:49 – 1:44:55

expression and i would need to be i’m not asking school staff to comment on this here of course

1:44:55 – 1:45:02

but at the very least the tdsb would need legal authority and i see none and a clear legal authority

1:45:02 – 1:45:13

to be able to impose restrictions on the freedom of expression of a parent of a child with a

1:45:13 – 1:45:19

disability about their child’s disability related education needs with the very people who have to

1:45:19 – 1:45:26

meet it now i’m not saying that there couldn’t be somebody who is so cantankerous that steps need to

1:45:26 – 1:45:34

be taken but with no policy and no procedure this risks arbitrariness and for example being told that

1:45:34 – 1:45:46

it’s a last resort that’s a very commendable position but with no policy no procedure no

1:45:46 – 1:45:55

safeguards assured in board policy these could be happening and senior staff might not even know

1:45:55 – 1:46:03

or how often or even if they’re justified just for example if the concerned parents protocol is their

1:46:03 – 1:46:11

recourse one would think it should be required to be explained in the letter that if you disagree

1:46:11 – 1:46:17

with this here’s who to go to now i haven’t read the whole letter and as we were told they vary

1:46:17 – 1:46:25

but one would think parents would deserve that if that’s supposed to be their avenue

1:46:25 – 1:46:29

so i i i open this up for our committee to just say i’m worried about the risk of one of these

1:46:29 – 1:46:37

being used in circumstances that may not justify it and i question the authority to do it at all

1:46:37 – 1:46:47

are does anybody want to either ask a question or express a view i think nora wanted to is anybody

1:46:47 – 1:46:54

else want to get on the on the speaker’s list i know we’re okay nora yeah thank you so i guess

1:46:54 – 1:47:02

my first question or recommendation would be is the entire staff aware of ppm 170 and the timelines

1:47:02 – 1:47:08

the ministry has set out for responding to parent concerns because i don’t think that’s

1:47:08 – 1:47:13

necessarily true i’ve met many families where the communication or the volume of communication

1:47:13 – 1:47:19

increases dramatically because no one is answering them so now you’re being characterized as though

1:47:19 – 1:47:25

you’re not really rational anymore when really it’s a result of being ignored and david brought up my

1:47:25 – 1:47:32

primary concern which is your you can be given a letter as you’re advocating for the very

1:47:32 – 1:47:37

accommodations that are not consistently being delivered to your child you can be given a letter

1:47:37 – 1:47:43

saying that your advocacy about your child’s inability to access their accommodations is too

1:47:43 – 1:47:49

much and so therefore you you’re not allowed to do that anymore meanwhile there’s no accountability

1:47:49 – 1:47:55

on the side of the school board about not providing the accommodations in the first place that are

1:47:55 – 1:48:00

causing the issue and then i guess thirdly i would recommend that all superintendents not just a

1:48:00 – 1:48:06

superintendent of special education and i feel immense sympathy for nandy debbie and the staff

1:48:06 – 1:48:13

that come to this table and have to face the consequences of their colleagues to this committee

1:48:13 – 1:48:18

immense sympathy for them and i think that it’s about time that superintendent field superintendents

1:48:19 – 1:48:26

need to come to this committee to understand the lived experiences of our students because

1:48:26 – 1:48:32

they’re making decisions not necessarily with the same experience or background or knowledge

1:48:32 – 1:48:37

that you or louise or now our director who will be attending might have because they don’t come or

1:48:37 – 1:48:44

know anything about special education and they rely very heavily on a heavily taxed department

1:48:44 – 1:48:50

for their education which is not inclusive to say you are solely responsible for the lack of

1:48:50 – 1:48:56

accommodation in the school is ludicrous i can’t we can’t come to the superintendent of special

1:48:56 – 1:49:01

education about that for 40 000 children those superintendents need to be held accountable

1:49:01 – 1:49:08

for understanding the lived experiences of our kids right thanks i’m going to just say if people

1:49:09 – 1:49:15

have other feedback that you would like feel free to use our email network over the summer and share

1:49:15 – 1:49:23

it around and we can decide whether we want to do anything about this or nothing at all

1:49:23 – 1:49:28

before we get to the leadership report Jessica do you want to just bring your motion forward

1:49:28 – 1:49:35

this is the second uh Leanne i should have given you the heads up but it’s the uh it’s the auditor

1:49:35 – 1:49:41

(Note: This is the motion as proposed:

“Report to Toronto District School Board Special Education Advisory Committee

From: David Lepofsky, SEAC Chair

Date: June 3, 2026

I have lots to report in preparation for the June 8, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee Meeting. This report is longer than usual because so much is going on.

This report includes two proposed motions from SEAC members. If you have any required wording changes you wish to request, it would be great if you could email all SEAC members as soon as you can, and before the meeting, so we can consider refinements. This will help us get through our busy meeting agenda. Of course, it is always open to a SEAC member to seek a revision to a proposed motion at the meeting. However if we can iron such things out in advance, that helps us cover more ground at the meeting.

1. Approving the March 2026 SEAC meeting Minutes

We have deferred to June considering whether to approve the March 2026 SEAC meeting minutes. There are 3 additions that I asked staff to make before the draft minutes were circulated, but which senior staff have refused to make.

I asked senior staff for their reason. I was told that these were excluded because the meeting minutes are supposed to be “high level.” I confess that I still have never received an explanation of what they mean by “high level.”

I will propose these three amendments, which track the wording that senior staff refused. All are accurate records of what in fact was said. Their inclusion does not materially change the nature of the minutes as minutes.

The common theme among these three points is this: Each involves feedback to TDSB, which is SEAC’s core role. Each raises an objection to something TDSB has done. Editing each seems to try to diminish criticisms of TDSB. I believe the minutes should be an accurate record of feedback we have given.

In the discussion of TDSB staff refusing to send to other Ontario SEACs copies of my February letter to the Minister, I proposed to add this:

In the discussion about the Supervisor not seeking SEAC input before making certain decisions, staff eliminated the following:

In the discussion of TDSB’s decision to eliminate the maximum size of any individual Grade 4 to 8 class, I had added the following, which senior staff disallowed:

In the discussion of SEAC’s objections to the TDSB parents’ survey that that gave parents the option of supporting or opposing special education as a budget priority:

2. TDSB Budget for Next School Year

TDSB has received budget information from the Ontario Government on how much funding TDSB will get next year. At this meeting, TDSB’s budget lead will brief us on their actual budget plans, and invite our feedback and questions.

I am by this report asking that TDSB send us as much budget information as possible, including their slides, well before the meeting so we can review it and prepare for the meeting. Most if not all of the time, we have budget material presented for the first time at the meeting itself, or a few hours before the meeting. This does not give us the time we need to prepare. As a blind person, I am put in the position of either missing out on details set out in slides presented to us, or slowing down the meeting to get all that information read aloud. I am asking TDSB to prevent this from recurring at this meeting.

There have been TDSB decisions announced just before our last meeting, or since that meeting, that involve cuts to classes or some TDSB staff. This cannot be disentangled from budget. I know we will all want to know what next year’s budget portends for students with disabilities/special education needs. Such reductions are going on at more than one of the school boards that are run by the Ministry, not just TDSB. It certainly looks from the outside as if this is part of a larger Ontario Government strategy of cuts to special education tied to budget concerns.

As part of this agenda item, I anticipate that we all want to know about the impact on TDSB’s central staff of the overall staff reductions that TDSB made just before our May meeting, and which were not announced to us at that May meeting.

3. A Forthcoming Motion at This SEAC Meeting Regarding TDSB’s Eliminating 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten Classes

Related to the budget topic, we will consider this motion from a SEAC member:

MOTION Regarding Diagnostic Kindergarten Class Size Increases and Planned Classroom Reductions

WHEREAS the TDSB has now announced plans to eliminate 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms this fall;

WHEREAS many students and families have described feeling excluded by their local schools and told that their child’s needs are too challenging for them to be able to attend locally;

WHEREAS SEAC members had to learn about this forthcoming reduction in the number of Diagnostic Kindergarten classes from the media and from parents;

SEAC therefore recommends as follows:

TDSB should notify its Special Education Advisory Committee when it anticipates a reduction in the number of any classes, services or supports for students with disabilities/special education needs and should seek SEAC’s input before a decision on such reductions is reached;
TDSB should substantially improve its communications to parents/guardians, including parents/guardians of TDSB students with disabilities/special education needs, so they can easily learn about the programs, placements, services and supports available for students with disabilities/special education needs;
TDSB staff should provide SEAC with the data, analysis, and rationale used to support the planned reduction of 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms, including enrolment projections, waitlist information, referral trends, class utilization rates, staffing ratios and the anticipated impact on students and families;
TDSB staff should report to SEAC on the anticipated impact of the proposed Diagnostic Kindergarten classroom reductions, including effects on class size, travel times, transportation, student access, waitlists, staffing and student achievement;
TDSB should conduct meaningful consultations with affected families and report the results to SEAC to evaluate the impact of changes to class cap sizes, as well as families on wait lists;
TDSB should arrange for TDSB’s senior staff member in charge of communications to attend a SEAC meeting this fall to discuss TDSB efforts in this regard and
TDSB should forward this motion to the Director of Education, the TDSB Chief Executive Officer, the TDSB Supervisor, the Minister of Education, and the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario.

4. TDSB Special Education Plan

Because some SEAC members had concerns about TDSB staff’s proposed changes to the Special Education Plan, there have been direct discussions with staff since our last SEAC meeting. Staff will report back at the June SEAC meeting. Any issues that were not resolved over the past month can be raised with staff at this meeting. I would welcome feedback from SEAC members via email on creating a better process for TDSB staff and SEAC members to be able to discuss the Special Education Plan next year.

5. TDSB Letters of Expectation

As I announced in my May 2026 SEAC Chair’s report, I learned that TDSB sometimes sends a “letter of expectation” to a parent or other person. That letter directs them with whom they may or may not speak at TDSB, and limits when they may communicate.

I have the operative paragraphs of one such letter. It does not identify the parent, student or school involved. These are the only excerpts from that letter that I have seen.

“It is important to clarify that while the Board has a duty to accommodate disability-related needs, there is no entitlement to a particular or preferred accommodation. The obligation is to provide reasonable, individualized accommodation that addresses identified functional limitations and removes barriers to access and participation, up to the point of undue hardship.”

And later:

“We must now address the pattern, frequency, and scope of ongoing communications. The Promoting Respect in the Workplace Procedure (PR739) defines “unreasonable complaint and conduct” as behaviour which, because of its nature or frequency, raises substantial health, safety, resource, or equity issues for the parties involved, including submitting high volumes of communications, refusing to accept explanations already provided, and insisting that matters be dealt with in ways incompatible with Board procedures.

Given the volume of correspondence and repeated revisiting of matters that have already been addressed, we are implementing the following communication structure effective immediately:

All school-based concerns must be directed to the Principal as the single point of contact.
Communication will be limited to one consolidated email thread per week.
The Principal will provide one written response per week addressing any new and substantive issues raised.
Matters that have already been addressed will not be relitigated unless new and relevant information is provided”

I gather from the context that this is meant to address situations where a parent or other person has engaged in repetitive contacts, the circumstances of which create a level of difficulty for TDSB. I have asked TDSB staff to give us a briefing or an explanation at our June 2026 SEAC meeting on the policies, procedures or protocols at TDSB for issuing such letters. It would especially help to know what TDSB’s criteria are for issuing such a letter, who decides whether to issue such a letter, what, if any, internal appeals or reviews are available to the parent, and what the duration of the terms set out in such a letter.

Our meeting is not the place for any specific instance or case to be raised or discussed. Nothing in the quotations I set out above identifies to whom this letter was addressed or what the context was.

I am very concerned about the unilateral nature of such letters, and that such letters can impair a parent’s ability to effectively advocate for their child’s special education and health/safety needs. I am especially interested in knowing what basis TDSB believes it has for issuing such a letter, what internal recourse a parent has at TDSB to seek to get such a letter rescinded and what safeguards are in place to prevent the unwarranted issuance of such a letter. I asked if we could hear from a TDSB official who has lead responsibility in this area.

This topic falls directly within our SEAC’s mandate. That mandate is broadly defined in Section 11(1) of Ontario Regulation 464/97 as follows:

“11. (1) A special education advisory committee of a board may make recommendations to the board in respect of any matter affecting the establishment, development and delivery of special education programs and services for exceptional pupils of the board.”

6. New TDSB Senior Management Structure

I have asked TDSB staff to include in their Leadership Report an update on changes to senior management structure.

On May 22, 2026, TDSB announced that Camillo Cipriano, has been appointed the new Chief Executive Officer of TDSB. He previously served

as Director of Education of the Niagara Catholic District School Board. He starts on June 8, 2026. I’m hoping his first day on the job will include attending our SEAC meeting.

Under Bill 101, the new position of Chief Executive Officer is created for each school board. Under them, there is to be a Chief Education Officer, in charge of education at the board. I have seen no announcement of who will fill this role. It may be at some boards that these two positions will be combined, though that seems contrary to the design of Bill 101. I have asked staff to let us know what they know about this, and where the positions of people like Louise Sirisko, an Associate Director of Education, fits in. Will they report to the Chief Executive Officer or the Chief Education Officer?

7. Impact of Bill 101 on Education for Students with Disabilities/Special Education Needs at TDSB

Under Bill 101, the Minister of Education can issue a wide range of new orders, directions, regulations and guidelines. This will no doubt have an impact on education for students with disabilities/special education needs. It will be important for TDSB staff to keep us apprised of these directives. I suspect it will be hard for TDSB to keep track of them.

I am by this report asking TDSB staff to let us know about this at our monthly meetings. If they need more time than the Leadership Report allows, I am happy to accommodate this.

8. Roundtable Discussion on Feedback SEAC Received at Our April 13, 2026 Parents’ Forum

We will go around the table to give you a chance to identify follow-up ideas and issues arising out of the April 13, 2026 SEAC Parents’ Forum. For example, think of suggestions you can give TDSB staff on additions or changes to their Staff Action Plan arising out of the parents’ feedback we received.

There are 6 delegations in writing that we did not have time to review at our May meeting. Because our agenda is jammed, I’ve asked TDSB to forward those to you as part of the meeting mailout, so you can read them yourselves before the meeting. We won’t read them aloud at the SEAC meeting.

9. Auditor General’s Report on Special Education

Since SEAC’s last meeting, the Auditor General released a blistering report about special education. We will want to hear from TDSB staff about TDSB plans in response to that report. This would fit in well to our agenda item on our responses/ideas coming from the April 13, 2026 SEAC Public Forum for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs

We will consider the following motion.

Motion:

WHEREAS the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario recently released a performance audit of special education in Ontario, recommending that “the Ministry require all school boards implement a standardized, quantitative mechanism to measure family reported experience in special education, and use this mechanism to conduct regular feedback cycles of parents/guardians of students receiving special education services and support”;

AND WHEREAS the Ontario Ministry of Education has agreed with the recommendation;

AND WHEREAS a Special Education Advisory Committee is responsible for making recommendations to the board on anything that impacts the establishment, development and delivery of special education programs and services for exceptional pupils of the board;

AND WHEREAS obtaining meaningful parent and caregiver feedback regarding special education programs and services falls directly within the advisory role of the Special Education Advisory Committee

THEREFORE the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee Recommends:

The TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee should be given an opportunity to participate in the development and review of any parent/caregiver feedback survey related to education of students with disabilities/special education needs from the earliest stages of the process;
The survey should be distributed to the families and caregivers of all TDSB students with disabilities/special education needs;
The survey results and any resulting TDSB staff recommendations or action plans should be shared with the Special Education Advisory Committee for review and discussion; and
TDSB should forward this motion to the Director of Education, the TDSB Chief Executive Officer, the TDSB Supervisor, the Minister of Education, and the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario.”)

general thing right jessica correct okay uh it’s the second motion set out in my chair’s report

1:49:41 – 1:49:50

leanne if you could get it up onto the screen just so you know what what’s going on here

1:49:50 – 1:49:55

between meetings i was approached by two different members who wanted to bring motions forward i

1:49:55 – 1:50:02

thought the best way to do it is set it out in my report so you all had a chance to reflect and share

1:50:02 – 1:50:07

views before we got here jessica do you want to give us a one-minute summary absolutely um so the

1:50:07 – 1:50:13

auditor general’s report set out many concerns regarding special education delivery in ontario

1:50:13 – 1:50:18

one of the auditor general’s recommendations i thought was particularly relevant to this committee

1:50:18 – 1:50:24

in that the auditor general recommended that there be yearly parent surveys related to their

1:50:24 – 1:50:33

experiences and their children’s experience with special education services given surveys that

1:50:33 – 1:50:39

we’ve seen already i felt that it was important that we have a voice at the table that’s developing

1:50:39 – 1:50:46

those surveys so that we have a high quality survey with results that are usable so that’s

1:50:46 – 1:50:51

what this motion is about all right um could would somebody jessica i’m assuming you want to

1:50:51 – 1:50:57

move your motion yes please uh does somebody want to second it nora um do we require any discussion

1:50:57 – 1:51:07

or are people comfortable going to a vote no discussion all right all in favor of the motion

1:51:07 – 1:51:15

oh sorry sorry Jean paul oh sure go ahead

1:51:16 – 1:51:23

sorry your mic isn’t picking you up yes sorry there that’s better thanks so much i think that

1:51:23 – 1:51:36

is one why only should we expect them to we want them to we’ll say should let me let me choose not

1:51:36 – 1:51:45

to yeah that’s all i consider i consider that a friendly amendment we can change should to shall

1:51:45 – 1:51:52

okay uh you’ve got that lian

1:51:52 – 1:51:56

uh should to shall that’s correct let’s change it

1:51:56 – 1:52:03

all right with that unless there’s anything else all in favor

1:52:03 – 1:52:10

five here lian

1:52:14 – 1:52:17

i have nine online so that passes all right um our last agenda item for this uh june meeting

1:52:17 – 1:52:28

will be uh nandy leadership report who is going to now speak at 450 words a minute and only i will

1:52:28 – 1:52:35

understand uh david i’m going to kick off uh this evening as i promised last month the fantastic news

1:52:35 – 1:52:42

uh that nandy received the educational leader of the year from the council for exceptional children

1:52:43 – 1:52:51

toronto chapter and i had mentioned that i wanted to share the speech i have it on video so please

1:52:51 – 1:52:57

indulge us for just a few minutes so that you can hear a vice principal in our system who does not

1:52:57 – 1:53:05

know nandy uh who nominated her and uh the details are uh are incredible lian let’s take it away

1:53:05 – 1:53:13

all right elizabeth is going to try to share this thank you

1:53:13 – 1:53:20

me palmer nandy palmer’s leadership as executive superintendent of special education programs

1:53:32 – 1:53:39

and equitable outcomes at the toronto district school board exemplifies the vision courage

1:53:39 – 1:53:46

and sustained impact that the council for exceptional children educational leader of the

1:53:46 – 1:53:51

year award seeks to recognize with an extensive and extinguished career in special education and

1:53:51 – 1:53:59

inclusive leadership nandy has consistently advanced practices that center dignity equity

1:53:59 – 1:54:06

and high expectations for all learners her recent system level initiatives demonstrate both strategic

1:54:06 – 1:54:14

foresight and a deep commitment to meaningful change establishing a requirement that as a

1:54:14 – 1:54:21

september of 2026 all future vice principals principals and special edu superintendents of

1:54:21 – 1:54:29

education in the tbsb must hold special lian we uh we lost it

1:54:29 – 1:54:58

okay is it posted online somewhere um elizabeth is trying to get it back

1:54:59 – 1:55:11

i was having trouble sharing so she offered to do it so it seems to have some kind of an error

1:55:11 – 1:55:17

happening if not is it online posted where you can share a link and people can watch it so that

1:55:17 – 1:55:22

we can move on to the leadership thank you let’s let’s uh elizabeth just give it one

1:55:30 – 1:55:37

more shot and then we’ll move on and then we’ll send the link out

1:55:37 – 1:55:40

nandy’s got a link to share about louise next right

1:55:40 – 1:55:46

it takes uh just so little to express gratitude let’s just see let’s do it thank you david can

1:55:46 – 1:55:58

you get it going in the tbsb must hold special education qualifications ensuring that inclusive

1:55:58 – 1:56:06

leadership is also embedded across the system developing also a developmental disability

1:56:06 – 1:56:12

curriculum that affirms the right of students to be treated with respect while being challenged

1:56:12 – 1:56:18

to reach their full potential and also restructuring intensive support programs

1:56:18 – 1:56:25

teaching roles into term positions that strengthen the quality and commitment of educators serving

1:56:25 – 1:56:32

students with complex needs and also implementing a modified day tracking system has all increased

1:56:32 – 1:56:40

accountability and reduced unnecessary exclusion from school these are only a few of the initiatives

1:56:40 – 1:56:48

and they and they reflect a leader who not only understands the complexities of special education

1:56:48 – 1:56:54

but actively transforms systems to better serve our students nandy’s impact is grounded into a

1:56:54 – 1:57:03

breadth of leadership experience across multiple levels of education she currently serves as

1:57:03 – 1:57:10

executive superintendent of special education programs and equitable outcomes at the toronto

1:57:10 – 1:57:15

district school board from october 2024 until the present following her role as system superintendent

1:57:15 – 1:57:23

special education and inclusion april 2022 to mark october 2024 to superintendent of education

1:57:23 – 1:57:32

february 2021 to 20 moved to march 2022 prior to her work with the toronto district school board

1:57:32 – 1:57:42

she held several key leadership roles with the york region district school board

1:57:42 – 1:57:47

including richie regional principal inclusive schools and community services from january 2021

1:57:47 – 1:57:54

to february 2021 elementary school principal from september 2020 to december 2020 and september 2021

1:57:54 – 1:58:05

to june 2017 an elementary school vice principal from september 20 september 20 2008 to june 2011

1:58:05 – 1:58:17

she has also contributed provincially as an executive officer with the ontario ministry

1:58:17 – 1:58:24

of education from august 2020 to august 2017 to august 2020 and she’s influenced policy and practice

1:58:24 – 1:58:34

at a broader scale across all of these roles mandy has demonstrated an unwavering commitment

1:58:34 – 1:58:41

to equity inclusion and excellence in special education she always recognizes the hard work

1:58:41 – 1:58:49

of her team and colleagues as well mandy’s ability to translate vision into action coupled with her

1:58:49 – 1:58:57

dedication to improving outcomes for students with diverse learning needs makes her an outstanding

1:58:57 – 1:59:03

and deserving recipient of the council for exceptional children’s educational leader of

1:59:03 – 1:59:09

the year award congratulations mandy congratulations again thank you louise very very much for

1:59:09 – 1:59:23

don’t be mad at me i’m happy um i just wanted to quickly say that um staff in the department

1:59:23 – 1:59:33

as well as all of our staff across the district work really really hard to support students with

1:59:33 – 1:59:38

disabilities and special education needs and we come here month after month and i know we

1:59:38 – 1:59:43

don’t always agree but please know that we do agree on one thing and that is about supporting

1:59:43 – 1:59:49

all of our students um so i accepted that award on behalf of all of the staff and the families

1:59:49 – 1:59:56

and the students that work to support outcomes for students david i’m a little upset with you

1:59:56 – 2:00:02

because every month i prepare the leadership report and i get about 30 seconds um to share

2:00:02 – 2:00:09

the leadership report i’m extending the meeting as long as you need um and the leadership report

2:00:09 – 2:00:16

is not about great things that we’re doing in the department the leadership report is really about

2:00:16 – 2:00:20

highlighting um what our students are doing and achieving um and i want to share in detail this

2:00:20 – 2:00:28

piece so please bear with me so victoria park collegiate institute celebrating our extraordinary

2:00:28 – 2:00:34

graduates as students and staff prepare for graduation at victoria park collegiate the

2:00:34 – 2:00:39

school community is celebrating the achievements of eight graduates from the school’s intensive

2:00:39 – 2:00:44

support programs for students with mild intellectual disability collaboratively special

2:00:44 – 2:00:50

education and inclusion staff administration teachers guidance and families have worked to

2:00:50 – 2:00:56

map out unique post-secondary pathways for each of these students whether heading to specialized

2:00:56 – 2:01:02

programs at george brown and seneca college entering the workforce or stepping into family

2:01:02 – 2:01:07

businesses each graduate story reflects growth achievement and perseverance proud parents and

2:01:07 – 2:01:14

inspired students highlighted the impact of early transition planning and dedicated collaborative

2:01:14 – 2:01:20

support as part of their success the individual accomplishments within the school heart showcase

2:01:20 – 2:01:27

success and dedication one graduate not only secured their ontario secondary school diploma

2:01:27 – 2:01:33

but also earned the prestigious exceptional achievement award an additional ossd graduate

2:01:33 – 2:01:39

shun in a nursery co-op placement and will return this fall to mentor incoming grade nine students

2:01:39 – 2:01:45

in the mid isp another student also achieved their ossd and celebrated major milestones in

2:01:46 – 2:01:54

independent travel during a successful ymca co-op placement demonstrating a strong work

2:01:54 – 2:02:01

ethic one student successfully balanced employment with their studies and will attend seneca college

2:02:01 – 2:02:06

in the fall another classmate has shown a strong commitment to achieving her graduation goals

2:02:06 – 2:02:13

while pursuing her creative passion for graphic design another student is preparing to take his

2:02:13 – 2:02:19

skills into his family’s carpentry business and furthermore one student has expressed interest

2:02:19 – 2:02:25

in the george brown vocational program with the team supporting their next steps the final graduate

2:02:25 – 2:02:31

remains focused on summer employment and continuous skill building four of these graduates also

2:02:31 – 2:02:37

received recognition and funding through the victoria park collegiate institute special education

2:02:37 – 2:02:42

awards to maintain this incredible momentum the school hosted a specialized transitions workshop

2:02:42 – 2:02:49

in may to further equip these proud graduates with the self-advocacy and executive functioning

2:02:49 – 2:02:55

skills needed to thrive as they begin their post-secondary journey we are so proud of these

2:02:55 – 2:03:00

graduates so really wanted to highlight there are the achievements of students in those isps at

2:03:00 – 2:03:08

victoria park collegiate and uh victoria park collegiate and uh really quickly i’ll fly through

2:03:08 – 2:03:16

the rest of the leadership report um it is june and we are still offering parent engagement

2:03:16 – 2:03:23

sessions and we’re looking particularly at supporting students at home during the summer

2:03:23 – 2:03:29

months um so those are some parent sessions that we’re offering on june 2nd and 3rd we hosted a

2:03:29 – 2:03:35

parent engagement session focusing on helping children maintain healthy routines throughout

2:03:35 – 2:03:40

the summer while exploring engaging sensory activities that support growth development and

2:03:40 – 2:03:46

overall well-being the sessions drew a hundred sorry a total of 17 attendees and of the attendees

2:03:46 – 2:03:53

who completed the survey 100 of them rated the session a five out of five in terms of usefulness

2:03:53 – 2:04:00

and the majority of attendees felt better informed about how to help their children

2:04:00 – 2:04:04

maintain healthy routines throughout the summer months as always a copy of the recorded is shared

2:04:04 – 2:04:10

on our special education and inclusion parent engagement web page we also have published our

2:04:10 – 2:04:17

june newsletter to families which has a lot of summer activities and information and resources

2:04:17 – 2:04:23

for families as well next slide please lianne oops uh sorry i lost my screen apologies for that

2:04:23 – 2:04:35

on may 12th and 13th special education and inclusion hosted a parent engagement session

2:04:35 – 2:04:41

for parents on foster focusing on empowering teens with adhd i’m really happy to say that the

2:04:41 – 2:04:48

session drew a total of 357 attendees 163 on may 28th and 194 on may 29 of the attendees who

2:04:48 – 2:04:59

completed the survey 76 rated the session of four or five out of five in terms of usefulness and the

2:04:59 – 2:05:06

majority of attendees felt better informed about how to support and access support for their children

2:05:06 – 2:05:12

with adhd next slide please on the june 5th pa day the department continued to host professional

2:05:12 – 2:05:22

learning sessions for support staff focusing on tier one strategies in the kindergarten classroom

2:05:22 – 2:05:28

structuring unstructured time supporting co-regulation and emotional well-being of

2:05:28 – 2:05:33

students how to use abc data logs and how to support students in asd and mid isps we also

2:05:33 – 2:05:42

had question and answer sessions more informally as well as sessions focused on sensory and self

2:05:42 – 2:05:48

regulation these hands-on sessions provided an opportunity for support staff to learn and

2:05:48 – 2:05:53

further develop their skills and explore effective inclusionary practices to implement accommodations

2:05:53 – 2:05:59

in classrooms that incorporate universal design for learning and differentiated instruction

2:05:59 – 2:06:05

and of course even though we’re at the end of june or in june we continue to offer professional

2:06:05 – 2:06:11

learning sessions for staff around some of those topics i just mentioned and finally june is national

2:06:11 – 2:06:19

deafblind awareness month in canada and we have provided resources for staff on how to acknowledge

2:06:19 – 2:06:27

and celebrate that as well as redshirt day on wednesday june 5th and the purple walk which will

2:06:27 – 2:06:33

be held on june 20th at college park again once again for epilepsy toronto’s most spirited day of

2:06:33 – 2:06:42

the year so that concludes my leadership report happy to take any questions any questions

2:06:42 – 2:06:49

okay sorry david if no questions i also wanted to express my gratitude on behalf of

2:06:51 – 2:06:58

the entire department as well as the entire tdsp to all cac members it is our 10th and

2:06:58 – 2:07:05

final cac meeting for the 2025 2026 school year so thank you everyone for your partnership and

2:07:05 – 2:07:13

collaboration do we this is graduation okay uh thank you all very much i’m gonna call the

2:07:13 – 2:07:22

meeting for this uh for tonight and wishing you all a healthy safe and enjoyable summer thank

2:07:22 – 2:07:29

you for all of you for your time staff and and cac members

2:07:29 – 2:07:34

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s Monthly Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Urges Parents of Students with Disabilities to Sign Up to Speak at the June 18, 2026 Virtual Town Hall on How to fix the Many Disability Barriers in Schools Around Ontario

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s Monthly Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Urges Parents of Students with Disabilities to Sign Up to Speak at the June 18, 2026 Virtual Town Hall on How to fix the Many Disability Barriers in Schools Around Ontario

June 10, 2026

SUMMARY

Below you can find AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofskys monthly column for June in the Toronto Star’s 25 Metroland publications all over this province. It encourages parents of students with disabilities and the students themselves to sign up to speak at the Virtual Town Hall that the AODA Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition are holding from 10 AM to noon on Thursday, June 18, 2026. The speakers will be invited to describe disability barriers of any kind impeding students with disabilities at school, and what needs to be done to remove and prevent these barriers.

How You Can Help

If you are a parent of students with disabilities in an Ontario school who has encountered disability issues or barriers at school, sign up to speak at the June 18 Virtual Town Hall! That includes any kind of disability whatsoever.
Please send this article to any parents of students with disabilities that you know in Ontario. Encourage them to register to speak at this Encourage your local media to cover this Virtual Town Hall. Let’s focus public attention on what is needed to give students with disabilities equal opportunity to succeed at Ontario schools.

MORE DETAILS

Inside Halton June 9, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.insidehalton.com/opinion/columnists/parents-share-barriers-to-education-june-18/article_98152f1e-0e67-532e-9325-3d8b1f66fbbb.html

Concerned about disability barriers in Ontario schools? Virtual town hall gives parents, students a chance to share concerns

A virtual town hall hosted by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition will be held June 18.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is the chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

Wherever you live in Ontario, do you have a child, grandchild, niece or nephew with disabilities in school, or who you want to go to school?

That includes kids who have a physical, learning, hearing, vision, communication, mental health disability, or autism, or any other challenges learning. A unique and important opportunity has been created for you.

On April 27, Education Minister Paul Calandra made this important commitment when addressing a standing committee at the Ontario Legislature:

In previous columns, I’ve talked about the many unfair disability barriers that more than 300,000 students with disabilities face in Ontario schools.

These include difficulties getting into and around a school, problems getting the adaptive technology they need and the training to use it, lack of sufficient staff to support their learning in class, and bureaucratic obstacles when trying to navigate a maze-like school board.

I bemoaned the lack of effective strategic action by the Ontario government to fix this chronic injustice. Today, I offer you a way to try to make a difference.

Two non-partisan grassroots disability coalitions have teamed up to help the minister hear from parents of students with disabilities, and from students with disabilities themselves, about the barriers to learning in kindergarten to Grade 12 schools anywhere in Ontario.

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance (which I chair) and the Ontario Autism Coalition are holding a virtual town hall on Thursday, June 18, from 10 a.m. to noon EDT.

We’re inviting parents and students to sign up to tell us what barriers to an equal education they face at school, and to recommend what needs to be done to remove and prevent these barriers.

Sign up to speak by emailing TownHall@ontarioautismcoalition.com or learn more about the event and how to watch it live on the alliance’s website, www.aodaalliance.org.

We’ve invited the education minister to log in, listen to speakers, and say a few words at the virtual town hall.

It is incredibly important for him to hear unfiltered feedback from our classrooms’ front lines.

School boards and the education ministry often say parents are the best experts on their kids. We are devoting our volunteer efforts to ensure that the minister can hear from those experts.

We are accepting speakers on a first-come, first-served basis.

To respect privacy, we ask speakers not to name their child, their school or their teacher. We’ll only give a speaker’s first name. If possible, we’d like to know with which school board they are connected.

We also know speaking at this event will be hard — both because the topic can be very emotional and because we’ll have to limit each person’s time to allow all participants to speak.

Please encourage parents of students with disabilities or students with disabilities to participate.

I believe that the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) at each of Ontario’s 72 school boards should hold a similar event, both in-person and online.

For too long, too many parents of students with disabilities around Ontario have felt stressed, isolated and unable to get a platform to be heard. Let’s help the education minister keep his commitment to them.

David Lepofsky is a retired lawyer who chairs the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance and the Toronto District School Boards Special Education Advisory Committee. He is a visiting professor of disability rights at the law schools at Western, Queen’s and the University of Ottawa, and hosts a podcast: Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast.

In a News Report on Disability Barriers in New Eglinton Crosstown Line, Metrolinx Gives Evasive Defence to CTV News

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

In a News Report on Disability Barriers in New Eglinton Crosstown Line, Metrolinx Gives Evasive Defence to CTV News

June 9, 2026

SUMMARY

In its 6 PM news broadcast on June 8, 2026, CTV included an excellent report on the AODA Alliance’s new online video. That video reveals one of the serious disability barriers in the new Eglinton Crosstown transit line that the Ontario Government’s Metrolinx organization designed and built using taxpayers’ money. Read that news report below.

The video shows that to assist transit riders with vision loss to navigate through the huge multi-floor transit stations on that line, Metrolinx commendably installed cane-detectable “tactile walking surface indicators” on the floors. These are meant to assist with wayfinding through large open spaces.

However, they only guide transit riders with vision loss to the elevators. They don’t show the way to stairs or escalators. Metrolinx wrongly decided for transit riders with vision loss that they should only use the elevators, which are notorious for breaking down.

CTV asked Metrolinx to respond to the AODA Alliance’s criticism of the station design. This news report includes the following evasive Metrolinx response:

“In a statement, the agency said in part that it is “dedicated to building a transit system that is safe, accessible, and inclusive for all customers.”

“Through public consultation with people with disabilities, Metrolinx works to ensure transit infrastructure and services meet the needs of the broadest range of users possible. We are continually looking for opportunities to enhance accessibility across the network and improve the customer experience,” Metrolinx said.”

This, sadly, is a classic governmental non-response. By not directly answering the criticism, Metrolinx in effect concedes it has no real answer. This further calls into question why Metrolinx should ever again be entrusted with spending billions of the taxpayers’ dollars to design and construct new public transit systems and stations.

We await a response to the AODA Alliance’s June 8, 2026 letter to the Metrolinx CEO Michael Lindsay.

How You Can Help

Urge as many people as possible to watch the AODA Alliance’s new video about the Eglinton Crosstown line’s Chaplin station. Publicize it on social media.
Use your smart phone to make your own video about disability barriers in any Ontario public transit station, like those on the Eglinton Crosstown transit line. We received word from Darren Parberry that he is creating an entire series of videos on YouTube about accessibility at each of the Eglinton Crosstown stations. Check it out on YouTube. If you want tips on how to do this, email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com
Write Ontario Premier Doug Ford at premier@ontario.ca to ask him why the Ontario Government did not keep its commitment to ensure that all of the Eglinton Crosstown stations would be accessible to transit riders with disabilities.
Learn more about the AODA Alliances advocacy on accessible public transit by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s transportation page.

MORE DETAILS

CTV News June 8, 2026

Originally posted at: https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/bungled-design-work-disability-advocate-calls-out-metrolinx-for-inaccessibility-on-new-eglinton-crosstown/

‘Bungled design work’: Disability advocate calls out Metrolinx for inaccessibility on new Eglinton Crosstown

By Joanna Lavoie and John Musselman

It’s only been open for a few months but there are calls for changes to the layout of some of the stations on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. John Musselman reports

A prominent disability advocate is calling out Metrolinx for its failure to ensure the new Eglinton Crosstown fully accessible.

David Lepofsky, a retired lawyer who has been blind for most of his life, says he’s frustrated and angry, and he wants answers from the provincial transportation agency over what he calls “bungled design work” affecting riders with disabilities on the new light rail transit line.

“I’ve been riding the TTC for 50 years. I don’t want to have to find the elevators, which may not be working periodically,” he told CTV News Toronto on Monday.

“I just want to be able to find my way to the stairs or the escalator, and Metrolinx decided when they designed these stations they would only provide us blind people with guidance to get to the elevators, not the escalators or stairs.”

Lepofsky said he and a friend recently shot a video inside the new Chaplin Crosstown station at 574 Eglinton Ave. to highlight the problem.

He says the tactile walking surface indicators in the station only lead to the elevator, adding that there should really be more of them and on every level.

In the video, Lepofsky shows how he needs to be guided by an exterior wall just find the escalator.

“There should be proper tactile warnings on the floor, not just to the elevator, but also the stairs and escalators, so that is easier and straightforward to find our way around these stations,” he said.

CTV News Toronto reached out to Metrolinx about Lepofsky’s concerns.

In a statement, the agency said in part that it is “dedicated to building a transit system that is safe, accessible, and inclusive for all customers.”

Metrolinx CEO Michael Lindsay speaks at a news conference in North York Monday December 1, 2025.

Lepofsky, meanwhile, says he has a written a letter to the CEO of Metrolinx and is asking for a face-to-face meeting to address this issue. He says people with disabilities continue to face far too many barriers in public transit.

Disability Advocates Demand Answers from Metrolinx CEO About Accessibility Bungles on the Eglinton Crosstown Transit Line

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Disability Advocates Demand Answers from Metrolinx CEO About Accessibility Bungles on the Eglinton Crosstown Transit Line

June 8, 2026, Toronto: Disability advocates are pressing for answers from the Metrolinx CEO about ridiculous disability barriers in the new Eglinton Crosstown public transit line. In a letter sent to Metrolinx CEO Michael Lindsay today (set out below), AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky urges Lindsay to watch the new 8-minute online video launched last week during National AccewssAbility Week, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syRJX0_n0p8

It shows how Metrolinx bungled the routing of tactile wayfinding floor markers in the Chaplin station. They show blind passengers only how to find the elevators, which too often break down. They don’t show them how to find the escalators or stairs.

“Blindness affects my eyes, not my feet,” said Lepofsky, who guides the video’s viewers through the Chaplin station from a blind person’s point of view. “I always use the escalators or stairs on the TTC and never take the time to find the elevators, hope they’re working, and wait for them to arrive.”

The AODA Alliance has asked Metrolinx who made the decision to provide wayfinding markings only to the elevators, wrongly deciding that blind people can’t or won’t use escalators or stairs. The Alliance asked to see any expert advice Metrolinx got from accessible built-environment design consultants. It also asked for a face-to-face meeting with the Metrolinx CEO.

“Metrolinx took 15 years and spent 13 billion dollars on this transit line and still couldn’t get it right! The Ford Government entrusts Metrolinx to design, build and manage billions of dollars of public transit services and facilities to operate for decades into the future,” said Lepofsky. “It’s time Metrolinx and the Ford Government start living up to the rights of over 2.9 million Ontarians with disabilities guaranteed under the Charter of Rights, the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.”

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Learn more at the AODA Alliance website’s transportation page.

Eglinton Crosstown Chaplin Video: Eglinton Crosstown Chaplin Station Accessibility Bungle.

Text of the AODA Alliance’s June 8, 2026 Letter to the Metrolinx CEO

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com Twitter: @aodaalliance

June 8, 2026

To: Michael Lindsay, President & CEO

Via email: michael.lindsay@metrolinx.com

Metrolinx Corporation

97 Front Street West

Toronto, Ontario M5J 1E6 Canada

Dear Sir,

Re: Accessibility Problems Facing Passengers with Disabilities on the New Eglinton Crosstown Transit Line

I write to bring to your attention just one of the serious accessibility problems facing transit riders with disabilities on the new Eglinton Crosstown transit line in Toronto. Metrolinx was responsible for its design and construction and remains responsible for its day-to-day maintenance.

In 2022, Metrolinx made a commitment that all stations on the Eglinton line would be accessible. Yet serious accessibility problems were identified very shortly after it opened., exemplified in a troubling February 10, 2026 City News report.

We wish to bring to your attention an additional and entirely preventable disability barrier. In presenting it, we do not prioritize it over the many other accessibility problems with this new transit line. To quickly understand this barrier, please watch the new 8-minute video that we posted online during National AccessAbility Week, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syRJX0_n0p8. We understand that this issue is not unique to that station’s design.

Once you watch that short video, we anticipate that you will have some important questions for senior Metrolinx staff. We ask those same questions of you.

It is great that Metrolinx decided to install wayfinding tactile walking surface indicators (TWSIs) on the floor in new Eglinton Crosstown stations, which enable blind passengers to find their way through the many new stations. Having a TWSI on the floor can be a great help to people who are totally blind and for those who use a white cane or guide dog. If properly colour contrasted, they can help passengers with low vision.

However, someone at Metrolinx made the decision that passengers with vision loss (like me) only use elevators, and never use stairs or escalators when going down the several levels of any transit station. The wayfinding TWSIs direct a passenger with vision loss only to and from elevators. They do not give passengers with vision loss the option of being directed to the stairs or escalators.

It takes longer to go through a station using these elevators. This is made worse because a passenger must take two elevators in any single station to get from street level to the train tracks.

Moreover, no one wants to have to depend on transit station elevators if they can avoid it. TTC has a sorry record of having subway station elevators unpredictably out of service. I myself was at the Cedarvale station on the evening of Saturday June 6, 2026, when the elevator from Line 5 to Line 1 was out of service. It was still out of service some 12 hours later when I was at that station again the next morning.

Speaking for myself, in my many times using TTC for over 50 years, I have never used the elevators when travelling by myself. It would have been easy to design the TWSIs to guide us to the stairs, escalators and elevators, so blind passengers, like passengers without disabilities, would have the choice.

This failure is further compounded because each station on Line 5 is not the same. There is no standardized station layout. Each station has several floors. Each floor within a single station may be laid out very differently. The task of learning to navigate these stations is rendered much harder and more time-consuming because of the misguided decision of how to deploy the TWSIs.

Can you please identify who made the decision to design the TWSIs this way? How and why did they reach such a problematic decision?

I understand that Metrolinx has access to accessible design consultants, whether working within the Metrolinx organization and/or as external consultants. Can you please provide us with the text of the advice that those consultants gave on where the wayfinding TWSIs should direct passengers with vision loss, including any advice on whether it would be sufficient to direct them only to elevators, which essentially removes the option of finding the escalators or stairs?

It is essential for Metrolinx to do far better. Metrolinx is bound by the Ontario Government’s repeated commitment to lead Ontario by example when it comes to achieving accessibility for people with disabilities.

People with disabilities have faced and continue to face far too many barriers in public transit systems in Ontario. I would welcome an opportunity to meet with you to discuss this issue, and I look forward to your response to our inquiries.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Twitter: @davidlepofsky

In Episode 14 of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast, Centre for Independent Living in Toronto CILT Executive Director Wendy Porch Teaches Us How to build Common Ground When Advocating on Disability Issues In Episode 14 of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast, Centre for Independent Living in Toronto CILT Executive Director Wendy Porch Teaches Us How to build Common Ground When Advocating on Disability Issues

In Episode 14 of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast, Centre for Independent Living in Toronto CILT Executive Director Wendy Porch Teaches Us How to build Common Ground When Advocating on Disability Issues
In Episode 14 of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast, Centre for Independent Living in Toronto CILT Executive Director Wendy Porch Teaches Us How to build Common Ground When Advocating on Disability Issues

New Video by Blind Disability Advocate Reveals Ridiculous Difficulties Navigating New Eglinton Crosstown Station Due to Metrolinx Accessibility Bungle

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New Video by Blind Disability Advocate Reveals Ridiculous Difficulties Navigating New Eglinton Crosstown Station Due to Metrolinx Accessibility Bungle

June 5, 2026 Toronto: A new online video, just released during National AccessAbility Week, reveals how the Ontario Government’s Metrolinx shockingly bungled accessibility for blind public transit passengers on the long-awaited Eglinton Crosstown transit line. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky shows how Metrolinx messed up the wayfinding floor markings installed to enable blind passengers like him to find their way through the new Chaplin station’s four different levels.

“We blind people need a proper cane-detectable wayfinding path on the floor to find our way through each of this station’s four levels, since each level is completely different and unpredictable,” said Lepofsky. “But Metrolinx only provides wayfinding markings to the elevators, not the escalators or stairs. Who at Metrolinx made the bone-headed decision that we blind people should only use elevators. In over 50 years riding TTC, I always prefer to use the escalators or stairs.”

TTC’s transit station elevators are notoriously unreliable. A person must take two different elevators to get from the surface down to the trains. If either elevator doesn’t work, passengers who need elevators are out of luck at that station.

It’s quicker to take escalators or stairs for those able to do so, rather than waiting for two successive elevators. People with disabilities who must use the elevators may have to wait longer if Metrolinx only directs blind passengers to the elevators, and if they otherwise could use stairs or escalators.

“It appears that that this outrageous decision isn’t limited to the Chaplin Station,” said Lepofsky. “Making this even more ridiculous, Metrolinx knew blind people might use the stairs, because it installed tactile warning bumps on the floor at the top of the station’s staircases. They knew we’d want to have the option of the stairs, so why didn’t they provide tactile floor wayfinding to the stairs?”

The Eglinton Crosstown line is just the latest in Ontario Government accessibility bungling in Toronto area transit station construction. In May 2019, the AODA Alliance released a video that revealed serious accessibility problems at other new and recently renovated Toronto-area public transit stations.

“These new Eglinton Crosstown stations are quite a challenge to figure out, in sharp contrast to the simpler old subway stations in downtown Toronto,” said Lepofsky. “This video highlights just one of the Eglinton Crosstown line’s accessibility problems.”

In 2022, Metrolinx made a commitment that all stations on the Eglinton line would be accessible. TTC claims the Chaplin Station is accessible. Metrolinx could easily have prevented this bungle when designing the Eglinton Crosstown line. As it is, the Ontario Government took far longer than expected to build it and spent 13 billion dollars. Given its record of poor performance on accessibility, Metrolinx should not be allowed to design and build any more public transit stations.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Link to Chaplin Transit Station Bungle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syRJX0_n0p8

Sign Up to Speak at the June 18, 2026 10 AM to 12 Noon EDT A Virtual Town Hall on Disability Barriers in Schools Around Ontario

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Ontario Autism Coalition

Sign Up to Speak at the June 18, 2026 10 AM to 12 Noon EDT A Virtual Town Hall on Disability Barriers in Schools Around Ontario

June 3, 2026

Sign Up Now!

On Thursday, June 18, 2026, from 10 AM to noon EDT, the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition are holding an online Virtual Town Hall to hear from parents of students with disabilities and students themselves on the disability barriers they face in Ontario schools. We want to hear where there are gaps, and what needs to be done to ensure that students with disabilities can fully and equally benefit from all that our publicly-funded school system has to offer. To sign up, write TownHall@ontarioautismcoalition.com. We will accept requests from parents/guardians of students with disabilities, and of course from students with disabilities, on a first come, first served basis. We’ll also keep a waiting list for overflow.

Speakers at this Virtual Town Hall will be asked two questions:

What disability barriers have you or your child faced in Ontario-funded schools, whether public or Catholic?
What needs to be done to remove and prevent these disability barriers?

Please don’t mention your child’s name, or their school or any teaching staff. We’ll introduce you online by your first name. We will ask you to mention which school board you are speaking about, if you are agreeable to do that.

We are also inviting Minister of Education Paul Calandra to log in, listen to speakers, and say a few words partway through the Virtual Town Hall. Below is the letter inviting the Minister to join us.

This is especially timely for the Minister. On April 27, 2026, he said this at the Legislature:

In holding this Town Hall, We are aiming to help the Minister with this work.

We are very appreciative that the ARCH Disability Law Centre will provide American Sign Language interpretation and CART captioning for this event. This is an online-only event. There is no in-person event to come to. The public will be able to watch the event via livestream on YouTube. The YouTube link will be https://www.youtube.com/c/OntarioAutismCoalition

We will again make public all the login details closer to the date of the event.

We’d appreciate it if anyone emailing us to request to be included on the speakers’ list could include the following:

Your name.
A phone number we can reach you at before and during the Town Hall.
The school board you are connected to, whether you are a parent of a student with disabilities.
One or two sentences about the problem or barrier you will talk about.

After we see how many people will be speaking, we’ll let you know how much time each speaker will get.

Text of the June 2, 2026 Letter Inviting the Minister of Education Paul Calandra to the June 18, 2026 Virtual Town Hall

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com Twitter: @aodaalliance

June 3, 2026

To: The hon. Paul Calandra, Minister of Education minister.edu@ontario.ca

Ministry of Education

14th Floor, 315 Front Street West

Toronto, ON M7A 0B8

Canada

Dear Minister,

Re: Invitation to Attend and Address the June 18, 2026 10 AM to Noon Virtual Town Hall for Parents of Students with Disabilities and Students with Disabilities Themselves

On behalf of the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition, I’m delighted to invite you to attend the Virtual Town Hall on June 18, 2026 from 10 AM to noon EDT. At this event, we are inviting parents of students with disabilities as well as students with disabilities themselves to tell us about disability barriers they face at school, and to recommend what needs to be done to remedy this.

We invite you to hear what parents and students have to say. We also want to invite you to speak for a few minutes to our virtual audience, partway through the event. We can coordinate with your staff the timing that works best for you.

We are accepting speakers on a first come, first served basis. The event will be livestreamed to the public on YouTube.

We hope and trust that this Virtual Town Hall will assist you in undertaking the important work on special education that you announced when you addressed the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy on April 27, 2026, where you said:

Please have one of your staff contact me to let us know if you will be attending and to work out the logistics. We hope and trust that you will be able to join us.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Twitter: @davidlepofsky

CC: Denise Cole Deputy Minister of Education Denise.A.Cole@ontario.ca

During National AccessAbility Week, Ontario’s Accessibility Ministry Seriously Understates Built Environment Accessibility Requirements

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

During National AccessAbility Week, Ontario’s Accessibility Ministry Seriously Understates Built Environment Accessibility Requirements

June 2, 2026

SUMMARY

In a CBC news report during Canada’s National AccessAbility Week, Ontario’s Ministry of Accessibility makes a statement about the obligation to ensure accessibility of the built environment that seriously understates that duty. In that news report, set out below, a musician with disabilities bemoaned the difficulties in finding an accessible studio. The article includes:

“The ministry said accessibility requirements “apply to most new construction and to existing buildings undergoing extensive renovations. Building owners are encouraged to upgrade their buildings to meet the needs of their tenants and clients.”

That means older buildings without accessibility features are grandfathered under the building code until the building owner decides to make renovations.”

Yet the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act itself, which the Minister for Accessibility Raymond Cho is obliged to implement and enforce, requires the following in Sections 1 and 7:

“ 1. Recognizing the history of discrimination against persons with disabilities in Ontario, the purpose of this Act is to benefit all Ontarians by,

(a) developing, implementing and enforcing accessibility standards in order to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1, 2025; and

(b) providing for the involvement of persons with disabilities, of the Government of Ontario and of representatives of industries and of various sectors of the economy in the development of the accessibility standards. …

The Minister is responsible for establishing and overseeing a process to develop and implement all accessibility standards necessary to achieving the purposes of this Act. …”

The Minister has failed to develop, enact and enforce comprehensive built environment accessibility standards that will achieve the AODA’s purposes, which include the accessibility of buildings and the built environment. The very limited Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard leaves in place the vast majority of disability barriers in the built environment.

Just as disturbing, the Ministry did not appear to acknowledge that the Ontario Human Rights Code imposes a duty to accommodate customers with disabilities, up to the point of undue hardship to the service-provider. That duty includes a duty to remove existing accessibility barriers in the built environment. See Quesnel v. London Educational Health Centre (1995), 28 C.H.R.R. D/474 (Ont. Bd. Inq. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has concluded in its Policy: “Ableism and Discrimination Based on Disability at Footnote 145:

“Similarly, organizations cannot rely only on the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, but must consider their obligations under the Human Rights Code. The Human Rights Code prevails over the Building Code and organizations may be vulnerable to a human rights claim if their premises fall short of the requirements of the Human Rights Code. Relying on relevant building codes has been clearly rejected as a defence to a complaint of discrimination under the Human Rights Code: see, for example, Quesnel v. London Educational Health Centre (1995), 28 C.H.R.R. D/474.

Fully 21 years after the AODA was enacted, it is inexcusable that the Minister or Ministry could get such a basic accessibility requirement so wrong. To do so in the context of National AccessAbility Week is even more indefensible. We emphasize that the public-facing communications strategies of that Ministry are usually dictated by the overall political and policy direction of the Minister and their political staff.

How You Can Help

Write Premier Ford at premier@ontario.ca Tell him its time Ontario enacts a full and comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.
Check out the AODA Alliance’s series of informative videos about disability barriers in the built environment. If you know anyone who teaches design professionals such as architects, urge them to use these videos in their courses and classes.
Learn more about our advocacy efforts to win an accessible built environment by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s built environment page.

MORE DETAILS

CBC News June 1, 2026

Originally posted at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-musician-says-finding-an-accessible-studio-in-ontario-was-beyond-challenging-9.7212784

Kitchener musician says finding an accessible studio in Ontario was ‘beyond challenging’

Advocate says Ontario’s rules don’t go far enough to help people with disabilities

Aastha Shetty CBC News

Michael Monize says finding an accessible recording music studio has been ‘beyond challenging’ as many aren’t wheelchair friendly. After many calls and inquiries, he found an accessible studio at the Kitchener Public Library.

Everything about making music comes easy to Michael Monize — everything except finding accessible studio space.

The musician, who’s based in Kitchener, Ont., has used a wheelchair for over 20 years after a spinal cord injury. While pursuing his craft, though, he’s faced issues in finding an accessible studio.

Monize has been searching for space in cities across southwestern Ontario, including Toronto and, most recently, in Waterloo region.

“I would describe it as beyond challenging,” Monize said, reflecting on the amount of time and research that went into trying to find a wheelchair-friendly studio space.

“I’d call around to studios and you wouldn’t believe, a step or two would prevent access. It just changes the whole dynamic. I’m coming to a studio to create, be creative, be in that space — not deal with challenges getting into the space.”

Monize said he called four different studio spaces across Waterloo region before finally looking into the Kitchener Public Library’s Heffner Studio, a fully accessible space where he now creates music.

Ontario’s Ministry of Seniors and Accessibility offers a toll-free number to call if a business is not compliant with the province’s accessibility rules, but Monize said his calls haven’t led to actionable change.

“Nothing’s going to be done. You call a line, you complain this place isn’t accessible, they take your complaint and that’s about it.”

‘Holding back his potential’

Monize’s manager, Natalia Isak, said it’s frustrating to see Monize struggle to just find a space, and it wastes valuable time and energy.

“I can access places, I can do things, but he cannot,” Isak said.

“Before you go anywhere, you have to make plenty of calls to make sure that something’s accessible or whether this thing that you are doing is even possible for somebody with a disability just because the built environment isn’t accessible. So [it’s] definitely holding back his potential, his growth.”

David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Alliance. The volunteer-run advocacy group campaigns for the effective implementation of AODA standards.

Lepofsky said the provincial government isn’t doing enough to help.

“There’s some enforcement, but it’s pathetically paltry. We desperately need enforceable accessibility standards to prevent these kind of barriers, and while the government passed some, they haven’t passed a new accessibility standard since 2012,” Lepofsky said.

“When you build a building on a number of fronts, it has accessibility requirements in it, but they’re absolutely up to date as of the late Middle Ages. You can easily build a building that fully complies with the accessibility requirements and the building code, and yet it’s still a building that’s replete with disability barriers.”

At the Kitchener Public Library, David Mason, the library’s strategist of inclusive experiences, said they are dedicated to going above and beyond when it comes to improving accessibility for all.

“I think it’s great to be able to see [Monize’s] work happen in action at the studio at Kitchener Public Library,” Mason said.

“I think it’s important that we do accessibility work all the time. It’s helpful to see folks have a good experience. You do all this work to make the space as accommodating and welcoming as possible. Accessibility is a net win for everybody at the end of the day.”

Advocate calls phone line for complaints ‘a joke’

When it comes to making complaints about shops or studios that are inaccessible, Lepofsky said the provincial phone number is falling short.

“We fought for this over a decade ago as a complaint line where you could get things enforced. But from what we’ve heard … the government certainly doesn’t treat it that way,” he said.

“From any feedback we’ve received from people with disabilities, it’s a joke.”

In a statement to CBC News, the Ontario Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility said complaints are only occasionally received through the toll-free line, adding it’s meant for people to ask for assistance or pose questions related to compliance.

The ministry said accessibility requirements “apply to most new construction and to existing buildings undergoing extensive renovations. Building owners are encouraged to upgrade their buildings to meet the needs of their tenants and clients.”

That means older buildings without accessibility features are grandfathered under the building code until the building owner decides to make renovations.

For now, Monize said he’s happy at the library’s Heffner Studio.

“I was able to complete my first track here, I Am On, which I said I’ll release for National AccessAbility Week [May 31 to June 6],” he said.

“I connected with other artists here at the studio for my next project, Tears of Boswellia. They added some vocals for it and we were able to build like you would in a studio with other artists. I think that was fantastic.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Aastha Shetty is a journalist with CBC Kitchener-Waterloo. She has lived, worked and told stories in Waterloo region and surrounding areas since 2018. She has covered a variety of topics including housing and affordability, consumer rights and social injustice. She also has experience as a court reporter and as a multimedia producer. Get in touch: aastha.shetty@cbc.ca or 226 338 7845.

Focusing on the Plight of Vulnerable Students with Disabilities in Ontario Schools During National AccessAbility Week that Begins Today

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Originally posted at: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/for-this-non-verbal-student-school-is-a-chance-to-learn-basic-life-skills-his-parents-fear-a-new-integration-plan-in-peel-could-take-it-all-away/article_ac534c07-8013-4a98-b1c7-11fbbc871df7.html

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Focusing on the Plight of Vulnerable Students with Disabilities in Ontario Schools During National AccessAbility Week that Begins Today

May 31, 2026

SUMMARY

The AODA Alliance is highlighting the plight of tens of thousands of students with disabilities in Ontario schools during National AccessAbility Week. It starts today, and runs through June 6, 2026.

Here are two important media publications on point that we set out below:

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s monthly column in the Toronto Star’s 25 Metroland publications around Ontario addresses the Ford Government’s opposition to measures that would have helped students with disabilities, during debates in the Legislature earlier this month. The May 25, 2026 AODA Alliance news release gives more detail on the Tories’ systematic votes against students with disabilities.
A May 31, 2026 report by Toronto Star education reporter Isabel Teotonio reveals how cuts at the Peel District School Board hurt students with disabilities. The May 26, 2026 AODA Alliance Update set out similar problems at the Toronto District School Board. Both of those school boards are directly run by the Ford Government. It ousted their elected school board trustees and replaced them with a provincial Supervisor who reports directly to Education Minister Paul Calandra.

On April 27, 2026, Ontario’s Minister of Education Paul Calandra made this public commitment on behalf of the Ford Government when addressing the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy:

How You Can Help

Circulate this AODA Alliance Update to friends and family. Share it via social media.
Send letters to the editor about the need for the Ontario Government to get going with its promised reforms to special education. Write Metroland at thenewsroom@metroland.com and write the Toronto Star at lettertoed@thestar.ca Keep your letter to 300 words or less. Mention the name of the article to which you are responding.
Write the Minister of Education at edu@ontario.ca and Premier Ford at premier@ontario.ca Urge them to reverse these harmful cuts. Tell them to substantially increase funding for students with disabilities/special education needs in Ontario schools.
Sign up to speak at the June 18, 2026 virtual Town Hall for parents of students with disabilities, and for students with disabilities themselves, to talk about the disability barriers in Ontario schools. To sign up, write the AODA Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition (who are hosting this event) at townhall@ontarioautismcoalition.com
- Watch the AODA Alliance’s presentation to the Standing Committee on Social Policy on Bill 101 during the April 27, 2026 public hearings.

MORE DETAILS

Inside Halton May 31, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.insidehalton.com/opinion/ontario-bill-101-create-new-barriers/article_597391a1-aa44-5f89-b894-13123da3d890.html

Ontario’s new education bill ‘not a pretty picture’ for students with disabilities, advocate writes

Accessibility advocate David Lepofsky says bill lacked proper consultation and could create new barriers for students.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is the chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

With May 31 to June 6 being National AccessAbility Week in Canada, you may expect and hope governments at all levels would line up to announce new actions to tear down at least some of the many accessibility barriers that plague people with disabilities every day.

Sadly, for hundreds of thousands of students with disabilities in schools all over Ontario, the news from Queen’s Park is instead rather grim.

Earlier this month, the province used its majority to ram through the legislature its controversial Bill 101, Putting Student Achievement First Act.

That law largely eviscerates the positions of school board trustees.

Education Minister Paul Calandra has given himself the power to micromanage your schools.

For students with disabilities, Bill 101 is not a pretty picture. Yet when this was publicly pointed out to the government, Calandra rejected several amendments to the bill that would have added some safeguards for vulnerable students with disabilities.

Here are some worthwhile amendments that were rejected.

Bill 101 gives the education minister sweeping power to issue new regulations, guidelines, policies and directives. These will impose a maze of new rules on how schools operate. There’s a huge risk that these can create new barriers for students with disabilities.

For example, Calandra intends to order high schools to penalize students through grades if they miss too many classes. He ignored the many reasons why some students with disabilities may be absent from school, including times when the principal refuses to let them come to school.

When this was pointed out to him, Calandra said he’d exempt students with disabilities from the requirement to penalize high school students for absenteeism. Yet, he didn’t consider that this is going to lead to more bullying of students with disabilities.

It looks like he’s making up education policy as he goes along.

How do we try to protect against this?

The opposition proposed sensible amendments at our request that would require the education minister to consult the community — including parents of students with disabilities — before making any new regulations, guidelines, policies or other directions to ensure changes do not create barriers that impede students with disabilities from equally benefiting from school programs.

The province opposed those amendments.

Bill 101 gives Calandra control over local construction of new schools, or additions to existing schools.

Right now, the government has nothing in place to ensure any new buildings are fully accessible to students, parents and school employees with disabilities. Yes, the Ontario Building Code has accessibility requirements, but they are grossly inadequate.

The opposition proposed an amendment to Bill 101 at our request to require that these new buildings and additions to existing buildings be accessible. The provincial government voted no to that as well.

Many individuals and community organizations strongly opposed the bill and yet only one day of public hearings was scheduled.

At those hearings, the few organizations that got to speak each confirmed the province did not consult them when it was developing Bill 101.

Only three organizations were invited to speak from the perspective of parents of students in the school system.

Calandra was given more time to speak than the three organizations giving a parents’ perspective.

I spoke for 15 minutes on behalf of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Alliance.

You can watch a recording of the presentation on YouTube.

No changes were made to address the serious concerns I have. As well, you’ll see in the video that no Tory MPP asked me a single question about our concerns.

I was questioned only by opposition members.

For one-third of a million students with disabilities in Ontario schools, National AccessAbility Week is just another week of schools replete with disability barriers of all kinds.

May 31, 2026 Toronto Star

For this non-verbal student, school is a chance to learn basic life skills. His parents fear a new integration plan in Peel could take it all away

The Peel board plans to overhaul its Learning Hub 10 Resource program in high schools, where high-needs students spend the day in a contained class.

Harish and Tanya Shroff with their son Garv at their Mississauga home. They are among a group of parents concerned about changes the Peel District School Board is making to a specialized program for high school students with complex needs, shifting them from contained classrooms into mainstream classes for half the day.

By Isabel TeotonioEducation Reporter

At his Mississauga high school, Garv Shroff is learning life skills that matter deeply to his family: how to wash his hands, use his walker and feed himself with a spoon.

He returns home each day happy and cheerful, something his mother attributes to the support he receives in a specialized program for students with complex developmental, physical and communication needs.

Garv, who is non-verbal and doesn’t know letters from numbers, spends the full day in a self-contained classroom for 10 students, staffed by a special education teacher and four educational assistants (EA). But that is about to change.

The Peel District School Board plans to overhaul its Learning Hub 10 Resource (LH 10R) program in high schools. Next year, students will spend half the day, or two periods, in a contained class, and integrate into mainstream classes for the other two periods, with support from the EAs.

Parents like Tanya Shroff fear the new model will dilute individualized instruction and displace vital life skills lessons, like cooking or doing laundry. They warn that putting vulnerable children into large, overstimulating classrooms could heighten anxiety, trigger behavioural challenges and compromise safety. They also worry that kids, who can’t easily advocate for themselves, may become targets for bullying or social media exploitation by mainstream peers, and could be overlooked in large classes where regular teachers are already juggling significant demands.

Toronto schools in higher-needs communities are losing extra staff. Why parents are fighting to save TDSB’s ‘model schools’

The board says the change reflects its commitment to greater inclusion — an educational model in which students of all abilities learn alongside their peers in regular classrooms with appropriate supports — and is grounded in Ministry of Education policies.

But parents suspect the shift may be tied to budget pressures at the PDSB, which is under provincial supervision over concerns about long-term finances. Without sufficient planning, staffing and individual accommodations, families argue that inclusion can inadvertently become exclusion, leaving high-needs students physically present but unable to learn, participate or feel safe.

“I don’t mind inclusion,” says Shroff, whose 20-year-old son is in the program at Rick Hansen Secondary School, one of the schools running it. “But they’re not at all prepared for it. They are just picking up our kids from the (LH 10R) class and putting them into the integrated class … We have no option.”

Nicola Allison, president of the local union representing Peel’s public high school teachers, believes the change is driven by “cost savings,” calling it “devastating” to the board’s “most vulnerable students.”

“If you take those 10 students and you put them into classes of 25 to 30 mainstream students with one teacher, and then you may have one EA who comes to support two or three students in that class, that is obviously not the same level of support,” says the president of the teachers’ bargaining unit of Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation District 19. She also warns it will be “very difficult” for EAs to manage medical needs while supervising multiple students in a mainstream classroom.

Parents have worries, and a lot of questions

For parents, the anxiety is compounded because many of their questions remain unanswered. For instance, what will the student-to-EA ratio be in mainstream classes, how will standard classrooms accommodate bulky specialized equipment and how will EAs safely transition multiple students between classes, given that some use wheelchairs, walkers and have serious medical issues including seizures? And if one EA is supporting multiple students in a mainstream class, what happens when more than one kid needs help at the same time?

Furthermore, what’s the backup plan when an EA is absent? This is key because a PDSB report last spring said teachers have previously flagged gaps in support staff as a major challenge of integration rollouts. Front-line staff worry students may be asked to stay home on days when EAs are away.

In a recent letter to senior PDSB staff, on behalf of several concerned parents at the school, Shroff says families fear the proposed model can’t realistically meet students’ needs.

“True inclusion requires students to be appropriately supported, able to participate meaningfully, emotionally regulated, safe and capable of accessing learning in a way that reflects their individual abilities and needs,” according to the letter.

The PDSB did not respond to the Star’s questions about changes to the program, which for students is up to the age of 21.

However, in response to the parents’ letter, Claudine Scuccato, co-ordinating superintendent of special education at the PDSB, says the board is “deeply committed” to ensuring students with special education needs access “safe, inclusive and high-quality learning environments.”

Scuccato says student safety is a top priority, that four EAs will continue to support the program, and local schools will develop staffing and supervision plans to ensure enough support throughout the day. She notes that the PDSB will support the new model through staff training, access to central resources and expertise, and a focus on student well-being and success. And decisions about each child’s placement will continue to be made individually, based on their strengths and needs.

That response offered little comfort to parents Sam and Mandy Malawi, who describe it as a “word salad.”

“We have a genuine concern for the safety, the dignity and integrity of the students,” Sam tells the Star.

The couple’s son Jordan is in the program at Rick Hansen and is “thriving.” He’s surrounded by staff with whom he has a strong rapport and who understand his needs, and is in a contained classroom that provides structure, emotional regulation and key life skills training, such as using public transit. For next year, families are being asked to choose mainstream classes for their kids to integrate in, such as drama, physical education, science and Canadian geography.

The Malawis say there’s a mismatch between what’s being offered and what their son needs, noting Jordan can’t absorb concepts like geography and needs information to be stated clearly and repetitively, which isn’t in line with mainstream teaching styles.

According to the union president, the board expects mainstream teachers to absorb high-needs students, but cutting the specialized teachers’ classroom hours means there’s no one available to modify the curriculum to ensure it meets students’ individual education plans. And while EAs will be in the room, that’s mostly to help with social skills, behavioural issues and physical care, not to rewrite lesson plans.

“For any student … if their needs are not met and they can’t engage with the curriculum there’s going to be frustration,” says Allison. That leads to “an increase in behaviours, and that is going to be detrimental” to everyone’s learning.

The Malawis say Jordan is an emotional 19-year-old prone to meltdowns and can be triggered by a perceived rejection — for example, if someone doesn’t smile at him.

“My biggest fear,” says Mandy, “is that our son regresses and does not want to go to school anymore.”

Isabel Teotonio is a Toronto-based reporter covering education for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @Izzy74.

Save the Date! June 18, 2026 10 AM to 12 Noon EDT A Virtual Town Hall on Disability Barriers in Schools Around Ontario

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Ontario Autism Coalition

Save the Date! June 18, 2026 10 AM to 12 Noon EDT A Virtual Town Hall on Disability Barriers in Schools Around Ontario

May 30, 2026

Mark your calendars and save the date! On Thursday, June 18, 2026, from 10 AM to noon EDT, the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition are co-hosting an online virtual Town Hall to hear from parents of students with disabilities and students themselves on the disability barriers they face in Ontario schools. We will invite them to log in and answer two questions:

What disability barriers have you or your child faced in Ontario-funded schools, whether public or Catholic?
What needs to be done to remove and prevent these disability barriers?

We’ll ask everyone to respect a few basic guidelines: Please don’t mention your child’s name, or their school or any teaching staff. We’ll just introduce you online by your first name. We will ask you to mention which school board you are speaking about, if you are agreeable to do that.

Once On April 27, 2026, Ontario’s Minister of Education Paul Calandra said this when addressing the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy:

This is an online-only event. There is no in-person event to come to. The public will be able to watch the event via livestream.

We will make public all the login details closer to the date of the event.

In holding this Town Hall, We are volunteering our time and effort to help the Minister with this work. We will invite the Minister to attend the Town Hall, to hear what parents and students have to say, and to speak to attendees. We hope he will agree to attend and take part.

To ask to be put on the speakers’ list, email townhall@ontarioautismcoalition.com please tell us

Your name.
A phone number we can reach you at before and during the Town Hall.
The school board you are connected to, whether you are a parent of a student with disabilities.
One or two sentences about the problem or barrier you will talk about.

We will accept speakers on a first come first served basis. We will accept speakers who are parents of a student with disabilities, or a student with disabilities themselves. After we see how many people will be speaking, we’ll let you know how much time each speaker will get.

While Claiming to Put Student Achievement First, Tories Voted Against the Needs of Vulnerable Students with Disabilities Over and Over As They Rammed the Controversial Bill 101 Through a Standing Committee

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

While Claiming to Put Student Achievement First, Tories Voted Against the Needs of Vulnerable Students with Disabilities Over and Over As They Rammed the Controversial Bill 101 Through a Standing Committee

May 27, 2026 Toronto: Earlier this month, the Ford Government used its majority in the Ontario Legislature to pass its controversial Bill 101 earlier this month. Although this legislation as been in the headlines for weeks, here is an important story that the media has yet to cover.

When the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy voted clause-by-clause on the bill on April 30, 2026, the Tories used their majority to systematically defeat every opposition amendment, including several that would help students with disabilities:

The Tories voted against requiring the Auditor General to provide a report on how much Bill 101 will cost the taxpayers. This legislation creates a great deal of new red tape and bureaucracy.
The Tories voted against preventing the Education Minister from penalizing students for absenteeism until he takes “reasonable steps to facilitate student attendance, including steps with respect to special education, mental health, transportation, class sizes and alternative high schools,…”
The Tories voted against requiring the Education Minister to collect and publish statistics on student absenteeism rates, broken down on various grounds including disability.
The Tories voted against requiring that before the Education Minister can make or amend any guidelines, orders, directions or regulations under Bill 101, they must consult and consider the feedback of the public, parents, teachers and other educators and their associations and special education advisory committees.
The Tories voted against requiring that the Education Minister does an impact assessment to ensure there are no anti-Black impacts or negative impacts for students with disabilities resulting from the Minister’s new guidelines, orders, directions or regulations.
The Tories voted against requiring that the Education Minister should consider the needs of students with disabilities and should ensure that any new guideline, order, direction or regulation,

““‘(i) enables students with disabilities to have equal benefit of education at a school board, and

“‘(ii) does not create or continue any disability barriers that would adversely impact students with disabilities…”

The Tories voted against requiring the Education Minister to provide a public statement on how they reached their conclusion on the forgoing.
The Tories voted against the Education Minister ensuring that construction of new school buildings or renovations/additions be accessible to people with disabilities, when he makes decisions under Bill 101 regarding school construction or renovation.
The Tories voted against the Education Minister being required to list the remaining powers of school board trustees. Bill 101 reduces the powers of school board trustees, and leaves it unclear to the public and school boards what remaining powers the trustees still have.
The Tories voted against requiring the Education Minister to make public their criteria that a school board must meet in order to have them remove provincial supervision from that board.

“During a full day of clause-by-clause debate in the Standing Committee on Social Policy on April 30, 2026, Tory MPPs gave absolutely no reasons for opposing any of these amendments that would have helped vulnerable students with disabilities,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. “In cruel contrast, Tory MPPs systematically passed a series of Government amendments that do nothing to help students with disabilities, but which grant the Education Minister even more power to micromanage Ontario’s 5,000 schools.”

As the April 29, 2026 AODA Alliance news release explained, the opposition Liberal and New Democratic Parties proposed a series of amendments to Bill 101. Among these were several commendable proposals that were based on AODA Alliance recommendations.

The Ford Government says that this legislation is supposed to “put student achievement first.” In fact, it does nothing to advance student achievement. The AODA Alliance’s May 23, 2026 brief to the Standing Committee on Social Policy showed that Bill 101 hurts vulnerable students with disabilities in Ontario schools. It recommended amendments to help reduce that harm.

On April 27, 2026, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky gave a 15 minute presentation to the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy, outlining how this bill harms students with disabilities. Watch this presentation on YouTube or read the text of it in the May 15, 2026 AODA Alliance Update.

During the April 27, 2026 Standing Committee hearings on the bill, witness after witness said Ontario must do more for students with disabilities/special education needs. Even Education Minister Calandra conceded:

The Ford Government only allowed one day for clause-by-clause debate on Bill 101. Key excerpts concerning students with disabilities are set out below. Read the entire text of that debate online.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky at aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Excerpts from Clause-by-Clause Debate on Bill 101 in the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy on April 30, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/committees/social-policy/parliament-44/transcripts/committee-transcript-2026-apr-30?utm_source=openai

First Excerpt:

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Thank you very much, Chair.

This is not a good bill. The stakeholders that came to speak to us on Monday, who represented only a small subsection of all the people who wanted to make comments on the bill, were very clear that this does not address the real challenges in our education system; that there are serious concerns about the centralization of power in the hands of the minister, including the sweeping liability protections that he is giving himself, which the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said are almost unprecedented.

We heard that none of the teachers or education worker unions were consulted, neither were the trustee associations or the principals. These are the people who are on the front lines of our education system every single day, who know the challenges that our kids are facing and what supports are actually needed to support them. They were very clear that it is not the changes that are being put forward in this bill, which doesn’t even contain the words “classrooms,” “class sizes,” “mental health” or “special education.”

Second Excerpt:

Mr. John Fraser: I’ll just keep my remarks brief. Our schools are not safe places to learn or to work, and that’s because class sizes are too big. They have grown. Special education has been starved. Boards have had to find $800 million that the government doesn’t give them. There’s a mental health crisis in our schools that the minister actually acknowledged when he was here earlier this week.

There’s not one thing in this bill that will make one child’s class smaller. There is not one thing in this bill that will make sure that a child who has exceptional needs will get the help that she needs. There is nothing in this bill that’s going to address the mental health crisis that exists in our schools.

The question is, if we’re not doing that, why are we doing this? It’s not right. The bill should be withdrawn.

Third Excerpt:

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: … What we hear with all the experts that came—these are folks who represent hundreds of thousands of education workers. My experience in schools since COVID is that the kids are not okay, the teachers are burned out and the ed workers are spread too thin. Our kids need those caring adults. We call it co-regulation. They learn how to regulate their emotions through the caring adults in their environment. When they don’t have access to those caring adults in their environment, they don’t learn how to regulate. We’re seeing unprecedented amounts of Internet addiction, mental health crises and kids’ special education needs not being met, and that’s because there are too few caring adults, who are struggling. This is a canary in the coal mine.

I probably see that this bill will pass and it will go forward, but I hope if you walk away today thinking that next time an education bill comes forward and we want to solve a problem—we’re going to talk to the people who work in that sector. We’re going to talk to the folks who do this job every day in a meaningful way, in a good process and we’re going to do it with the evidence and data that jurisdictions across the world are doing to solve these problems.

Our kids really need our help right now and our kids are our future. If we don’t invest in their well-being, if they don’t get to learn how to read, they don’t get their special education needs met, we’re going to have a generation of kids who have been failed and abandoned by us.

Fourth Excerpt:

Mr. Chris Glover: …This government’s record on education is abysmal. They have increased class sizes. They have cut $6.5 billion—an inflationary cut of $6.5 billion from our schools. They negotiated pay for teachers and expenses for special education and then underfunded by $900 million. …

Fifth Excerpt:

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I just want to make sure that we also mention on the record the serious equity and accessibility concerns, along with the constitutional concerns about this bill. There were multiple stakeholders. The AODA Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition were able to come to speak but we know that there were other organizations representing persons with disabilities and Parents of Black Children and the Black Trustees’ Caucus of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, who all raised concerns that this bill does not even mention accessibility or equity and that the measures that are in this bill have the possibility of making even greater challenges, putting even greater barriers in front of students with disabilities and Black and racialized students within our system.

Sixth Excerpt:

Mr. John Fraser: … How did our schools get into this state—how did they become not safe places to learn or to work? How did class sizes get bigger? How did special education get starved? How are we not addressing the mental health crisis in our schools? Why? Because the government is not focused on the right things. …

Seventh Excerpt:

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I just want to highlight what I’ve been learning about the root causes of why we’re in this state.

I hear again and again—they’re called fail-to-fills. If a teacher is sick, a lot of boards don’t fill in that sick person’s post. That class ends up getting taught by a principal or a special ed teacher or rolled into something else. It means that most kids are missing out on their special education supports. I also learned from the EAs and ECEs and CYWs that when they call in sick, they don’t replace them either. So boards, because of these short funds, the gaps in funding, are actually trying to balance budgets—and sometimes it’s not a choice; there are no people to fill in those posts. They end up balancing the budget by not filling in those posts. That means those kids are not, maybe, at school, because the EA who supports them isn’t there that day. It means kids aren’t getting their special education help, so they don’t get their literacy support.

I talked to a special education teacher the other day who said she got to teach her reading recovery program twice in the month because she was fighting fires. We know that, when I talk to principals, they are also fighting fires instead of doing the work that they need to do. So it’s kind of like we’ve spread ourselves so thin by not funding our sick days and making sure that we have staff to fill those in that the place is just trying to survive, and it’s at a breaking point.

… The problem is gaps in funding and a lack of recognition for how the system works and how it can work well. I think the solution includes meaningful collaboration with experts in making evidence-based decisions and meeting the moment of this mental health crisis. Whether it’s gambling addictions, pornography addictions, social anxiety, depression, it’s hitting kids at a younger and younger age and in a more serious way. We do not have the supports in the community to address the needs of kids with special education needs, autism, developmental disabilities, mental health issues.

Eighth Excerpt:

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that section 2 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“0.1. Subsection 8(1) of the act is amended by adding the following paragraph:

“‘reports

“‘1.1 request a report,

“‘i. from the Auditor General with respect to any costs to the province of Ontario that would result from the passage of schedule 2 to the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026, and

“‘ii. from the Ombudsman with respect to any actions the minister takes or intends to take under an authority under this act that resulted from the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026;’”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Pasma again.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I’m moving this amendment because there were some significant concerns raised about the costs of all of the new layers of bureaucracy that the minister is adding to the Education Act, including all of the various reports and requests for permission that are going to need to be sent in to the minister, along with the new layers of bureaucracy at school boards. This adds the costing from the Auditor General so the public actually has a sense of how much we’re going to be paying for all of the minister’s new bureaucracy It allows the Ombudsman to weigh in on the equity and accessibility concerns about the many new measures that are being introduced in this act, all the powers that are being centralized by the minister and the new CEOs.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Glover.

Mr. Chris Glover: I just want to echo what my colleague MPP Pasma says about this amendment. This government, with this bill, instead of cutting red tape, as they always talk about doing, is actually increasing the red tape. They’re demanding that the school boards provide a whole bunch of documentation to the minister so that the minister can control everything that happens in every school like a puppeteer.

And all those additional positions, all of that additional documentation that’s going to be required, all the people that are going to be required to pay for it—that’s all going to come out of the existing education budget, which has been slashed over the last number of years under this government and under the previous government as well.

Our schools are grossly underfunded in this province. The class sizes have increased. Every school board in the province pays more for special education services than they receive, and yet students with special needs are still stuck at home because there aren’t enough staff in the schools to actually provide them with the service that they need in order to attend. So this government is violating their right to actually attend school, and yet the government is downloading the cost of more red tape so they can control more without providing better service to the students.

When the minister says that he’s going to focus on getting funding into the classroom, this is the exact opposite of that. This government is creating more red tape so the minister can demand more documents and have more control over our schools and take more money out of the classroom so the service in our classrooms will be even worse for students.

This is an NDP motion to actually fund all the red tape that the government is creating. I hope the Conservative government will recognize that they’re creating a whole lot of red tape and that they should fund it from the central provincial budget rather than taking the money out of the classrooms.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. The motion is lost.

Ninth Excerpt:

[The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell)]: We’ll now go to the NDP amendment amending subsection 2(1) of schedule 2. Is there further debate on this, or comments? I recognize MPP Pasma.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that subsection 2(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by striking out paragraph 3.3 of subsection 8(1) of the Education Act and substituting the following:

“policies, guidelines: assessment of student achievement

“3.3 after taking reasonable steps to facilitate student attendance, including steps with respect to special education, mental health, transportation, class sizes and alternative high schools, establish policies and guidelines for the assessment of student achievement with respect to pupils attending schools under the jurisdiction of a board and require boards to comply with the policies and guidelines;”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Is there any debate on this section? I recognize MPP Pasma.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: This section of the bill allows the Minister of Education to determine how students will be assessed, and he has already made it clear that he intends to include attendance in part of a student’s grade. We’ve heard concerns from students—both student organizations and individual students contacting the committee—along with teachers and education workers, that this has a negative impact on our students who are already on the margins and struggling because it doesn’t address any of the reasons why students are not actually in class, which has to do with the fact that they’re not getting academic support in large classes, that special education supports and programs are being cut, that there is not enough mental health support in our schools. Only one in 10 has regularly scheduled access to a mental health professional.

The government has broken funding for student transportation, and so in far too many places in the province, there’s not reliable student transportation or students are travelling far too long, or because of the state of northern roads and the government’s failure to address them, the buses can’t actually get to school because of accidents on the road.

We are also seeing around the province many boards cutting alternative programs, including alternative high schools, which really help students who are on the edge of dropping out to remain in school with increased support so that they actually are able to get the credits they need to graduate from high school and move on to post-secondary education or into the labour force with a high school diploma.

I don’t think it’s fair for the minister to punish students when it’s the ministry that is failing these students, and that’s not even getting into the more than 20,000 students who are not attending school in Ontario at all because they have disabilities and there aren’t supports to keep them safe or support their learning in school, or the tens of thousands of students who aren’t allowed to attend for a full day or a full week because—the number one reason is that there aren’t supports to keep them safe or that principals are calling for parents to come and pick the child up because they’re not able to support the student for the rest of the day.

Until we address all of these reasons why students are not at school full-time, the minister should not be including attendance in grades. So this amendment states that the minister has to address all of these reasons why children are not at school before he is allowed to make attendance a mandatory part of a child’s grade.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Glover.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’m obviously speaking in favour of this motion.

The minister, in this bill, is saying that he wants to be able to deduct marks from students whose attendance is too low.

My question to the Conservative members here today—there are special-needs students who are not allowed to attend school because they do not have the staff supports in the school so that they can actually attend the school safely. So how many marks will this minister be deducting from their report card because they’re missing school because the government is not providing the funding for staff so that they can actually attend? It’s for any of the Conservative members.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Fraser.

Mr. John Fraser: Just further to MPP Glover’s comments: When the minister was here, we did ask him what the top three reasons for absenteeism are in schools, and he couldn’t provide a clear answer or any answer—it was very anecdotal, very regional. If you don’t fundamentally understand the cause of a problem, how can you propose a solution? I just wanted to add that in.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Clancy.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: On one hand, I am grateful that the government is acknowledging the problem of chronic absenteeism in our school system. It’s something I’ve been raising for two years, since I got here.

I was an attendance counsellor for 11 years. Our social workers in schools are our attendance counsellors. Our caseloads are enormous. Before, we had to help kids who were kind of struggling; now a lot of our attention goes to kids who are struggling to come at all, with very few days each month.

When you look at the stats, since smart phones were introduced in 2012, suicidality and social anxiety and depression have gone on the extreme—and we’re not even really fully analyzing violence in schools. Violence in schools is because of trouble with regulation. When you look at what social anxiety really means, it means that kids struggle to look at people in the face, they struggle to talk on the phone; they’d rather message or text. We see kids who are not getting a good night’s sleep.

I think the way in which we’re addressing the issue is where things fall apart. Experts say the main reason that kids miss school is because they’ve had a traumatic incident—they’re part of a Black, Indigenous, racialized community; they’re living on low incomes and they have to help their family members; or they don’t have a lunch. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sat with a family and tried to explore why their kid is not at school and they say, “I don’t have food to send with my child.” I think by the time somebody gets to high school, those habits can become very entrenched. We should be putting a lot of time and energy into grade 9, to make sure those kids have really good habits when they transition from elementary school to high school. And we should be putting in a lot of resources in kindergarten, to make sure kids have a really good start. Because I’m letting you know that the groups that I’ve identified, not to mention kids with developmental disabilities and special ed needs—we see those patterns emerging, of them feeling stupid, not feeling motivated to go to school and not thriving, and having other behavioural things that come from that, and that starts at a very young age. So this is trying to use a Band-Aid for a gunshot wound.

It also could further diminish people’s motivation. A lot of kids need to find hope. If you think about a semester system, for example, kids have marks—it’s the first time that they’ve been graded and they could fail. They’ve gone through all of elementary school with staff trying to buoy them up and help them continue on with their studies. Now they end up in high school, and if they’ve missed a number of days in September and October, they’ve already lost hope, and that’s when their report card comes out. So by the time the report card comes out, they’ve lost all their hope, and then if we add a participation mark on that to boot, we’re behind the eight ball.

That’s what alternative schools really do. They find a flexible, non-semester type model so that kids can learn at their own pace and they can get more individualized support. The marks just aren’t supported by evidence.

In fact, if we took the time to look at the Attendance Works data—they’re the experts. They’re an American organization but they have decades and decades of data. The thing that they say is, don’t punish people for attendance. Whether it’s suspensions and truancy, whether it’s courts or whether it’s lost marks, those three things only add insult to injury for folks who are already struggling to get by day to day. We have to invest in the root causes.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Lost.

Tenth Excerpt:

[The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell)]: We will now go to independent amendment 6. Do you want to go ahead? I recognize MPP Clancy.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I move that section 2 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(1.1) Subsection 8(1) of the act is amended by adding the following paragraph:

“‘policies, guidelines: student absenteeism

“‘3.3.1 establish policies and guidelines to address frequent absences by pupils and, for the purpose, the minister shall,

“‘i. require communication strategies and team-based supports for pupils and families of pupils experiencing attendance challenges,

“‘ii. require a board to annually collect and publish data on the number and types of absences by pupils attending schools under the jurisdiction of the board, and

“‘iii. require a board to annually publish the data collected under subparagraph ii broken down by race, ethnicity and students with disabilities;’”.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Can you read the first part of the motion, please?

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: The “I move” part?

I move that section 2 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Clancy.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: If we want to address absenteeism, and I think we all do, this is where it’s almost like health care—a team-based approach with folks who have expertise and early intervention is essential. If we do that, it will cost us less and it will help kids to thrive.

The data is essential. I have been anecdotally seeing a difference in the amount of students missing more and more days. I think we have heard about it from people we have had conversations with. We really need to ensure that that data is up to date on a regular basis. For example, most parents don’t even know that their kid has been missing a lot of school until the first report card and, by then, maybe two months have passed. We’ve really missed a lot of time.

Not only do we need data early on and early intervention for kids in the beginning of a semester—those who are parents in the room will know that they want to know what’s going on with their kids and try to get help as soon as possible. We need that team-based approach, but the data will help us identify what are the root causes. Are there low-income kids who don’t have lunches? Could we institute a food program? Will that help attendance? Are we seeing a disproportionate number of kids with special education needs who are missing school? Is that because of staffing issues? Is it because we didn’t do an assessment early on? Do we have enough supports in kindergarten?

Most times, a kid shows up in kindergarten maybe with complex disabilities and the school really doesn’t have a lot of information. We’re starting off the kid’s first year in kindergarten, right off the bat setting this kid up to fail because we don’t have a lot of those screening tools early on to make sure that we have supports in place when that kid starts kindergarten.

The data is essential and that’s what Attendance Works really talks about. If you are interested in learning about how to seriously address attendance issues, they have amazing resources. Jurisdictions, states and provinces across the world are addressing absenteeism in a really meaningful way and finding great results and that’s because they base their solutions on team-based care and good data.

I hope you will support this amendment.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Lost.

Eleventh Excerpt:

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that section 2 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(6) Section 8 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:

“‘Duties of minister

“‘(3.1) Before making or amending any guidelines, orders, directions or regulations under an authority under this act that resulted from the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026, the minister shall,

“‘(a) consult with, and consider the feedback of, the public, parents, teachers and other educators and their associations, special education advisory committees and such other persons as the minister considers appropriate;

“‘(b) ensure that an impact assessment is done to ensure there are not anti-Black impacts or negative impacts for students with disabilities resulting from the guideline, order, direction or regulation;

“‘(c) ensure that the guideline, order, direction or regulation complies with the recommendations set out in the Dreams Delayed action plan, dated March 27, 2025;

“‘(d) at least 90 days before making or amending the guideline, order, direction or regulation, post a draft of such document on a website of the government of Ontario that is accessible to the public;

“‘(e) consider any feedback received as a result of a posting under clause (d);

“‘(f) consider the needs of students with disabilities and ensure that the guideline, order, direction or regulation,

“‘(i) enables students with disabilities to have equal benefit of education at a school board, and

“‘(ii) does not create or continue any disability barriers that would adversely impact students with disabilities; and

“‘(g) provide a public statement with respect to how the minister reached their conclusion under clause (f).’”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: We’ve heard from many of the stakeholders and education partners who are vital to the functioning of our schools every day—the teachers and education workers, the principals, the trustees, parents’ associations and students—that they were not consulted on the contents of this bill. There was no attempt to take into account their needs, to reflect their priorities or even to ensure that what is in this legislation does not cause any harm.

There were particular concerns raised from disability organizations, including the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and ARCH Disability Law Centre, that the bill will make things worse for students with disabilities because it doesn’t even mention them or take their particular needs into account.

We heard from parents of Black children in the Black Trustees’ Caucus that this has the potential to cause greater harm to Black students and racialized and Indigenous students because it does not even mention them or take their needs into account. The standardization and harmonization of many measures mean, in fact, that there will be a reduction in the extent to which education reflects their reality and their needs.

The Minister of Education has taken no steps to implement the Dreams Delayed action plan more than a year after it came out, and the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner confirmed that there is systemic anti-Black racism in our system.

What this amendment does is require that, before he can use any of his extensive new powers in this legislation, the Minister of Education must:

—consult with parents, with the public, with students, with teachers, education workers and other stakeholders and special education advisory committees, who really know the details of what special education is like on the ground in their particular school board;

—ensure that impact assessments are done to make sure that nothing the minister is implementing under the new powers granted to him by this act is harming students with disabilities or harming equity-seeking students;

—that the minister actually makes public any rules he is considering before it happens so that the public has an opportunity to weigh in; and

—that when the minister implements any policy, guideline, order or direction, he has to ensure that it is not creating barriers, and he has to provide a public statement about how he reached his conclusion that it is not creating any barriers so that, once again, there is accountability for the decisions that the minister is making and there is transparency so people understand why he is making these decisions. That transparency, again, is an important part of accountability so that people know what conclusions the minister is reaching and why.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Collard.

Mme Lucille Collard: I think this is a very reasonable amendment, actually. I think this is the way every bill, every legislation, should be structured. Before the ministers propose some ideas to fix some problems, they need to understand the problem. I think the only way to do that is by consulting with the stakeholders, and clearly this has not been done in the elaboration of this bill because that’s not the text we would have before us today.

Having an impact assessment—of course. We can’t fix after the damage is done. We need to know in advance what the changes are going to do in terms of effect in our schools on our children, not after the damage is done.

Again, it might be easier to support government legislation if they actually could be more transparent and provide a public statement as to how they came to the conclusion that the proposed legislation is needed.

I will support these amendments.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): I recognize MPP Clancy.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I think this amendment tries to bring democracy back into the way we teach kids. I think the attitude in this bill undermines how important educational materials are to kids.

We are forming little people, little minds; big people, big minds. If we try to dictate that, I think those are the actions that we see of governments that are moving too far to the right and moving toward centralization of power and authoritarianism. Those are the characteristics of what happens in schools when there is major screening of what kids learn in schools. I think in order to make good legislation about educational materials in general, it’s essential that we talk to people who actually work in this field and create educational material, the people who use those materials and the families that are in our system.

I have things that I would like to see in terms of curriculum changes. For example, in Estonia, they have good curriculum on misinformation and disinformation. We want to build students that are critical thinkers, and that’s what teachers do. They help kids ask questions and think through issues.

I worry that by using a sledgehammer approach to controlling what kids learn in schools, we miss out on all of the messiness of democracy that I think ends up with more deep roots. A process like this is really what all of the stakeholder groups are asking for. That’s what I heard from ETFO, OECTA, CUPE and all of the groups, that they want to be part of the process. They are experts in the field.

I actually heard from the parent councils. They weren’t allowed to speak, and they thought it was hurtful to them that they have dedicated a lot of their advocacy and the work that they do outside of schools as volunteers because they care about their kids’ education, and the leaders of the parent councils weren’t able to raise their concerns at our committee.

I support this amendment, but I hope this government takes the amendment as a good template on what good process looks like. I look at the IPV consultations. They were so robust. We had lots of experts. I would love to see where that goes because it was well researched, and that’s what we should be doing when it comes to education because it is as important as healthy relationships for adults. The curriculum our kids learn is essential to having a thriving society, so I will be supporting the amendment.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I also just want to add that to our schools work best when there are partnerships between students, parents, teachers, education workers, equity and human rights advocates, trustees who are locally elected and locally accountable and the government. What we’re seeing here is a sweeping-aside of all of those other education partners, and only the Minister of Education is going to get to have any say.

We’re taking away any professional expertise and first-hand experience from people who are on the ground every single day in our schools. The government is not listening to parents and students who know what their needs are, who know where the system is failing them. They’re not listening to disability advocates and parent advocates about the real, systemic challenges that their kids are facing, the barriers that that’s creating and the harm that it is causing. They are trying to also take away accountability for these decisions from our communities.

This amendment is an attempt to restore that partnership, to say that the minister’s powers have to be enacted in partnership with all of these people who have a stake in our schools; who know what’s going on in our schools; who have a right to a meaningful, equitable and high-quality education in the province of Ontario; and who know what is lacking in order to make that real.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote. Please raise your hands, all those in favour. Please raise your hands, for all those opposed. Lost.

Twelfth Excerpt:

[The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell)]: Shall schedule 2, section 2, as amended, carry? Is there any debate on this section? I recognize MPP Pasma.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Chair, we’ve heard many concerns from students, parents, education workers, teachers, trustees, community members, parent involvement councils, disability advocates, equity advocates about the serious concerns of the centralization of power in the hands of the minister, the lack of accountability, the lack of consultation, the extreme overreach of the powers that the minister is giving himself.

Education works best when it’s a partnership that respects professional expertise, respects the needs of every child and respects local democracy, local accountability and includes parent voices. What we have here is a section that makes the Minister of Education the emperor of education in addition to the fact that, in other sections of this bill, he’s trying to shield himself from any consequences for the actions that he’s taking. So the NDP cannot support this section of the bill.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Any further debate? I recognize MPP Collard.

Mme Lucille Collard: I can’t either support this section. All the amendments that I’ve proposed on this bill were to try to formalize the engagement of the minister not to attack the francophone rights. Clearly there is no interest on the part of the government to support that, so there is clearly an indication that the minister has every intention to do whatever he likes, whether it does affect francophone rights to govern themselves or their education system.

I won’t be supporting this section.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Any further debate? Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Carried.

Thirteenth Excerpt:

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that section 3 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(3) Section 11 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:

“‘Same

“‘(6.1) Before the minister provides an approval or confirmation in respect of clause (6)(a.1) that may impact a facility of the school board, the minister shall ensure that the approval or confirmation will not negatively impact the accessibility of the facility to students, staff and other members of the community.’”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Go ahead.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: We know that, despite the adoption of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the timeline that was in place for the province to be fully compliant with that act, our schools are not fully accessible at present. The minister and the government have not exercised their responsibility under the act to ensure full accessibility, despite the fact that, in addition to the rights under the AODA, every child has the right to an equitable education in Ontario, which means that they have to have equitable access to the school building and its facilities.

This requires that, if the minister is going to exercise any power under this legislation with regard to school facilities, he must ensure that, before providing that approval or confirmation, nothing would negatively impact the accessibility of the facility.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed. Lost.

Fourteenth Excerpt:

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that section 6 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(1.1) Clause 58.1(2)(k) of the act is amended by adding the following subclause:

“‘(i.1) the determination of the roles and responsibilities of the members of district school boards,’”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: This is an amendment to try to address the fact that the Minister of Education is removing so many powers from school board trustees with this act when school board trustees are the democratically elected representatives of local communities and parents. They are the local voice of communities and parents. This creates a scene of great confusion for parents and communities as to what responsibilities and roles and powers our elected representatives actually have and what we are able to hold them accountable for. This would ensure that the minister is clearly spelling out, “Here are the powers and responsibilities.”

Another thing that we’ve seen repeatedly from this government over the past eight years is a lot of finger-pointing, a lot of dodging of accountability by claiming that the outcomes that they are responsible for with their funding cuts are actually the responsibilities of the teachers in your child’s classroom or the school board trustees who are not spending the money that the government is giving them appropriately.

This is a tool that also helps to provide greater clarity for accountability to parents so that the Minister of Education can’t simply pass the buck for anything he doesn’t want to take accountability for, because it will be clearly spelled out to parents, “Here are the powers, responsibilities and roles that your elected school board trustees actually have.”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Fraser.

Mr. John Fraser: People should understand the roles and responsibilities of the people they elect. It’s that simple. It’s a good amendment. I’m going to support it.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Members ready to vote? All in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Lost.

Fifteenth Excerpt:

Mr. John Fraser: I move that section 7.1 be added to schedule 2 to the bill:

“7.1 The act is amended by adding the following section:

“‘Publication of policy list

“‘169.1.1(1) The minister shall publish a list to a government of Ontario website that describes the policies that a board may make decisions on without oversight from the ministry.

“‘Timing

“‘(2) The first version of the list described in subsection (1) must be published within one month after the day the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 receives royal assent.

“‘No limitation on powers of board

“‘(3) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection (1) limits the powers of a board.’”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Debate?

Mr. John Fraser: This is something the AODA brought forward to us. The message is—and we talked about it a couple of times before—people are being shut out. People don’t know what’s happening in their schools. They don’t know what their trustees can do. They don’t know what the policies are.

I just heard recently that the Toronto District School Board that’s under supervision, which the minister has said is going to be the case for all school boards—because it’s really supervision. He said that. He said the bill is going to create supervision for every school board. In that board, they’re not going to let families know class sizes, how big their class is—every family.

That’s the point. You’re not just pulling it away from trustees; you’re pulling decision-making and information and accountability away from families. The minister can’t even really describe what trustees are going to do and what they’re doing there. He wants to essentially say to not just trustees but families in Toronto, “You only get one person for essentially what’s two of our ridings.”

We have to be open and transparent with people. These are their schools. There are too many kids—5,000 schools. They belong to the community. They belong to the families that they serve.

Withholding information? People are busy. People are just trying to pay their rent, buy groceries, get their kids to soccer and get done what they need to get done. They don’t need a government that’s getting in between them and their kids’ school, and that’s what’s happening. This amendment is really trying to point that out.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Pasma.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: When you have a democratically elected trustee, part of their job is to help you navigate concerns that you might have within the education system or answer your questions. But another part of their job is to take the bigger picture of the questions and concerns that they’re hearing, whether it’s from individual parents reaching out or whether it’s through consultation with their constituents to identify the systemic issues, take them to the board table, develop policies and programs and adapt budgets to address those concerns. That’s what people expect from our democratically elected trustees. What the government is doing with this bill is taking away a lot of the power of trustees to do that, because they’re giving an unelected, unaccountable CEO the power to override what trustees are even allowed to debate at the table.

So, again, I think it comes down to transparency, because if we’re going to have accountability, we need to have transparency about who is making what decisions and who is being allowed to make what decision so that parents understand when they reached out to their trustee about concerns—for example, about special education, about there not being enough special class placements or that there are specialized classes that are being closed—that there’s not a policy or a budget change being made at the board table because the government is not allowing trustees to do that, not because their trustees don’t agree that policies to support kids with disabilities and special needs are important. If we’re going to hold our trustees accountable, we need to know what powers they actually have to act, and if we’re going to hold the provincial government accountable, then we need to know what decisions the provincial government is accountable for by not allowing our local representatives to take action.

So I think this is about transparency, which is so, so important in a democracy, where we have the right to hold our decision-makers accountable, and I’ll be supporting this amendment.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Liberal amendment 25 is lost.

Sixteenth Excerpt:

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that section 9 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(2.1) Section 195 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:

“‘Approval by minister

“‘(2.1) The minister shall not give an approval under subsection (1.2) or (2) unless the minister has determined that the approval will not negatively impact the accessibility of any school site to students, staff and other members of the community.’”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: As I mentioned earlier today, the government is not compliant with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, despite the fact that the deadline to be compliant has come and gone. Not all of our school facilities are accessible to students, staff or members of the community.

This is a section of the bill that is giving the minister new powers over school lands and school facilities—and so this section is requiring that the minister actually abide by law in Ontario by considering the accessibility of a site and ensuring that any school site does not reduce accessibility for students, staff and community members.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Clancy.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’m concerned because I thought we wanted to cut red tape. This is another level of approval.

Another concern is—sometimes I don’t know if the government always understands the nature of schools. They’re kind of weird, flowing things, where you have growing and shrinking populations, but you have bricks and mortar that are meant to serve the community. I live in downtown Kitchener. We have an empty school. I would love to see something done with it. We’re all working to try to see if that school can be revitalized and opened up again. We had a shrinking population, but now we have high-rises all around that school, and we need it again. If we had sold that school five years ago, before the high-rises went up, we wouldn’t be able to service the population. We have overpopulated schools all around that school that we need to revitalize. It’s a tricky business. And I know the minister is saying, “Trust me,” but I don’t think he has done his homework well enough to prove that he has earned that trust.

So I support this amendment because it’s trying to add a bit of thought and measurability into the decisions that are being made so that we can rationalize why they’re happening and ensure that it doesn’t cause any harm to individuals with disabilities etc.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Fraser.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s a good amendment, and I encourage all members of the committee to support it.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? NDP amendment 27 is lost.

Seventeenth Excerpt:

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that section 9 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(4.1) Section 195 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:

“‘New construction

“‘(5.l) The minister shall ensure that any school building that is constructed after the day subsection 9(4.1) of the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 comes into force complies with,

“‘(a) any accessibility requirements set out in the Ontario building code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005;

“‘(b) any relevant recommendations set out in the final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, dated January 28, 2022.’”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: This is another amendment that comes from the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, in reflection of the fact that the government is still not AODA-compliant and they have not implemented the recommendations from the final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, which looked at how accessible and inclusive our education system is for students with disabilities. In both cases, the government is sadly lacking.

Since the minister has not of his own volition taken steps to ensure that every new school that is built in the province of Ontario is fully accessible, this amendment requires the minister to do just that.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Fraser.

Mr. John Fraser: I look at this amendment and I think, actually, if somebody who didn’t do what we do here looked at this amendment, they would say, “Don’t they do that already?” The fact is, we don’t, and it’s over a long period of time. It’s not just on one government. One would think we do this; we don’t. And I think the expectations of these days now are that we try to be compliant with the thing that we made a law, all of us together some time ago—about 20 years ago, 25 years ago.

I support this amendment.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Clancy.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I just want to thank the member for bringing it forward. As somebody who doesn’t face a physical disability—or even invisible—I am grateful that we’re trying to shed light on the gaps in our system and ways that we can just get it right the first time moving forward.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? NDP amendment 28 is lost.

Eighteenth Excerpt:

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that subsection 9(5) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 195 of the Education Act:

“Approval of minister

“(6.1) The minister shall not give an approval under subsection (6) unless the minister has determined that the approval will not negatively impact the accessibility of any building to students, staff and other members of the community.”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Again, this is a section of the bill that has to do with capital projects, repairs and improvements of school buildings, and it requires that any repairs or improvements respect accessibility for people with disabilities, students, staff and community members. It’s another amendment that’s being brought forth by the AODA Alliance, because our buildings in Ontario are not currently accessible to everyone.

It’s 2026. They should be accessible. There’s no excuse for not taking action. This amendment requires the minister to ensure that any amendments or repairs are accessible.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Clancy.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I just want to personalize this a bit. I remember that there was a student that I worked with. They were a newcomer from Eritrea. He and his mom came, a single mom. They didn’t know that he had muscular dystrophy. He was at school. We noticed he was just falling all the time and he couldn’t support himself. Over the process of them getting more comfortable in Canada and accessing services, he ended up being outfitted with walkers, and that progressed to power chairs.

It was a school that wasn’t AODA, so it ends up costing the board thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars to try to retrofit a building after the fact to make sure that there are proper washroom facilities, that he can get from A to B in terms of the school floors.

For that student in particular, it’s already pretty challenging to face a disability like muscular dystrophy when you’re in grade 7 and you want to be cool. But not being able to move around by yourself easily and having to have a staff person take care of you because they need to help you get from A to B and help you use washrooms individually, it just adds a lot of cost and it adds a lot of shame to somebody who really ought to have every opportunity he can to move through his childhood as best as possible given the circumstances that he faces already.

To not build a building in a way that makes sense for a kid in a power chair who is facing a shortened lifespan—to me, it doesn’t make fiscal sense and it’s not humane. So this is a small amendment we could add that I think just tweaks a few things when you’re building a school to make sure that this kid can move through this school as easily as anybody else.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Go ahead.

Mr. John Fraser: I’ll be supporting this motion.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Are the members ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? NDP amendment 29 is lost.

Nineteenth Excerpt:

Mr. John Fraser: I move that subsection 9(5) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 195 of the Education Act:

“Accessibility

“A policy established under subsection (7) must provide details about how the policy ensures the accessibility of the school site, land or building and complies with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Can you reread the accessibility part, please?

Mr. John Fraser: Oh, pardon me. The whole piece, right?

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Yes.

Mr. John Fraser: “Accessibility

“(7.1) A policy established under subsection (7) must provide details about how the policy ensures the accessibility of the school site, land or building and complies with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Debate? I recognize MPP Fraser.

Mr. John Fraser: This amendment, again, is an amendment that was brought to us by the AODA Alliance with regards to ensuring that no policies would be made that would actually impede accessibility to schools. That’s why we put it forward.

As I said earlier, I think putting forward these amendments—most Ontarians would think that it’s already happening, and it’s kind of surprising that it’s not across the board. I encourage all members to support it.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Pasma.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: We’ve heard a number of times this afternoon, Chair, about the importance of ensuring accessibility for all Ontarians with disabilities—students, staff and community members—and how our school buildings are not already accessible. It’s quite surprising, given the fact that they’re not accessible is actually not compliant with legislation in Ontario, that the government would keep voting against amendments that would ensure that we did become compliant with the law. But I’m hoping that this time’s the charm and government members will vote for accessibility.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All in favour, please put up your hand. All opposed? Liberal amendment 31 is lost.

Twentieth Excerpt:

Mr. John Fraser: I move that subsection 12(2) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections to section 230.3 of the Education Act:

“List of criteria

“(5.1) The notice required by subsection (5) must include a list of criteria that the board can satisfy in order to have the order revoked.

“Publication of list

“(5.2) The minister shall publish the list of criteria described in subsection (5.1) on a government of Ontario website.

“Automatic revocation if list not provided or published

“(5.3) The order is immediately revoked if,

“(a) the list of criteria described in subsection (5.1) is not included in the notice; or

“(b) the minister fails to publish the list to a government of Ontario website within one month after the day the order is made.

“Transition

“(5.4) The following rules apply with respect to any order that was made and not revoked before the day the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 received royal assent:

“1. The minister must provide a list of criteria to the board that the board must satisfy in order to have the order revoked.

“2. The minister must publish the list of criteria on a government website.

“3. The order is immediately revoked if the minister does not comply with paragraphs 1 and 2 within one month after the day the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026, received royal assent.”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): MPP Fraser, could you reread 2?

Mr. John Fraser: Oh, sorry.

“2. The minister must publish the list of criteria on a government of Ontario website.”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Thank you.

Further debate? I recognize MPP Fraser.

Mr. John Fraser: I think it should be fair, open and transparent so the people who live in a board that’s under supervision know what criteria under which they’ve been taken over but also under what criteria they can satisfy the obligations. It can’t be arbitrary.

One thing I’ve noticed with this minister is the arbitrary approach to education. One of the best examples was the EQAO results which sat on the minister’s desk because he wasn’t quite sure what to do with them, or he wanted to think about them a bit more, not realizing that those results were something that people should have had two months before—the arbitrary nature of saying what board is under supervision, the arbitrary nature of putting forward an amendment that essentially says, “Look, we’re going to change the tax implications for trustees, who don’t make very much money, but I’m good with buying a private luxury jet for the Premier.”

My point is, it should be clear—not just to the trustees, not just to the people who work at the board, but to the people whose kids go to school in the board, just like so many of us have kids that go to school or grandkids that go to school. I think it’s open and transparent, so I would respectfully ask that my colleagues support it.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I’m going to be supporting this amendment. We didn’t support Bill 33. We still don’t support the powers that Bill 33 gives the Minister of Education, which he has been very enthusiastically exercising. But if the government is going to proceed with this approach where the Minister of Education can take over a school board at any moment for any reason that he wants by declaring that any single thing that he wants is suddenly a matter of public interest, then I think that people of Ontario deserve some clarity on what criteria a board actually needs to meet in order to come out of supervision and what kind of timelines there might be involved in that.

Just as an example, the minister said that he was putting boards under supervision because of deficits and that the supervisors he was appointing were going to have mandates to eliminate the deficit. But in a number of boards, the supervisor is running a deficit in some cases even greater than what the elected trustees were. Meanwhile, they’re making all kinds of decisions that have nothing to do with a deficit or with finances, including cutting certain programming, eliminating classes for students who have disabilities. People should know what mandate has been given to a supervisor and whether or not a supervisor is meeting those criteria.

I also have serious concerns right now when the minister is out in public saying that he will leave these boards in supervision for a year, two years, 10 years, when we’re a few months before local school board elections. He has already made it very clear that he is prepared to appoint trustees where a trustee is not elected. I don’t know why a trustee would want to run, why a member of our community who is deeply committed to our children’s education would want to run if the minister is telling them that not only will they not be able to exercise that role in this four-year term, but maybe not even in the next four-year term, and maybe halfway through the one after that.

But what the minister could be pulling on us is a bait and switch, where he’s telling us the boards won’t come out of supervision any time soon so people don’t step forward and run. Then, the election passes and, lo and behold, the minister pulls supervision, there’s no elected trustees, and so the minister gets to appoint everyone that he wants to the board. This is a scenario where it’s very dangerous to have this much power accumulated in the hands of the minister, and so I think people deserve clarity and transparency on what criteria need to be met and how those criteria will be satisfied.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Clancy.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’m just grateful to the members beside me for putting this forward. I think we’re trying to put some parameters in place so that people have a better understanding of what’s going on—what the rules are, why things are happening—and there’s an even-steven way to measure things.

Also, we can’t just put people in jail forever and put them under supervision forever. There has to be a way out. We see lots of governments get into messy situations without a plan on how to get out, and it seems like it’s been an expensive endeavour of adding people who aren’t from the area, who don’t have a background in education to supervise a board. So I think if it’s not working, we also need to have that represented and communicated.

So, I’ll be supporting this amendment. I hope the government will consider putting in some checks and balances to make sure that boards that are under supervision can have their way back to democracy, because this supervision method of takeover is an affront to democracy.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Go ahead, MPP Glover.

Mr. Chris Glover: One of the things that I’ve seen over the last eight years is that Premier Ford is not happy being the Premier of Ontario. He wants to be the Premier of Ontario, he wants to control the mayor of every city, and he wants to control every school board and every decision that’s made in every school board. That’s what this bill is about. It’s about giving the Minister of Education—Ford’s appointee—the power to determine everything that’s happening in schools.

And the minister has exercised completely arbitrary power to take over school boards from the trustees that the people of Ontario have elected. They have overridden that democratic process. For the most part, the excuse that he gives for seizing control of these school boards is that they weren’t making cuts fast enough to make up for the funding shortfalls handed to them by the provincial government.

Now, this bill even secures that power to a greater degree. This is a power grab by a government that has shown absolutely no willingness to take responsibility for the education of our children.

As far as the education system goes, this government has increased class sizes. Their superintendents, where they’ve taken control of school boards, have cut special needs classes. There’s a Model Schools Program in Toronto, the TDSB, and this government is cutting the Model Schools Program. This is a program for students in low-income schools to give them a bit of a heads-up, a bit of catch-up so that they can actually be successful. Superintendents are targeting students from low-income communities, from racialized communities, students with special needs.

Yet, the minister wants even more power to silence any opposition, to control and have everybody in the school boards operating like strings on a puppet. It’s an absolutely outrageous attack on the democratic process that has been running our school boards since 1816. For over 200 years, we have been electing school board trustees to run our school boards. The reason that we have one of the most highly educated workforces in the world is because of our public and our Catholic schools in this province, and this government is destroying them in order to privatize them.

We will absolutely be voting against this section of the bill, and we will be voting against the bill in its entirety. I really hope that the members of the government side there will listen to the people who have come and deputed at this committee, they will listen to their constituents and they’ll vote for the best interests of the students, which means voting down this bill.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Liberal amendment 38 is lost.

Twenty-first Excerpt:

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that subsection 18(2) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 232 of the Education Act:

“Same

“(5.3) The minister shall not give an approval under subsection (5.1) unless the minister has determined that the approval will not negatively impact the accessibility of any facility of the board to students, staff and other members of the community.”

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Please go ahead.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: This amendment would ensure that any decisions that the minister is making regarding budgeting would have to take into account accessibility. We’ve already spoken a lot about how the government is not compliant with the AODA. There are many areas of board budgets where the government is massively failing children with disabilities, including, quite simply, just the right of these kids to be at school, let alone to have a meaningful, safe and supported education.

There should not be any power granted to the Minister of Education to approve board budgets that is not accompanied by a legal requirement for the Minister of Education to actually and finally respect the rights of every child in the province, regardless of whether or not they have a disability, to receive a meaningful and equitable high-quality education in the province of Ontario.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. NDP amendment 48 is lost.

Twenty-second Excerpt:

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): If requested by a member at this time, a waiting period of up to 20 minutes will be permitted. So you get a 20-minute break.

Committee members will know that, from this point forward, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved. I will take the vote on them consecutively. Are members ready to vote? Okay.

Let’s finish off with section 24.1, government amendment. Are members ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? I declare it carried.

Government amendment 54, section 25 of schedule 2: Are members ready to vote? In favour? Opposed? I declare it carried.

Liberal amendment 55: Are members ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? I declare it lost.

Shall schedule 2, section 25, as amended, carry? All in favour? All opposed? It is carried.

Schedule 2, section 26, Liberal amendment 56: Ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): It’s lost. Shall schedule 2, section 26—

Mr. Chris Glover: Just check the record.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Oh, I think I would go back in time.

Shall schedule 2, section 26, carry? Ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Schedule 2, section 27, Liberal amendment 57: Ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Liberal amendment 58: The motion is out of order. As Janse and LeBlanc note on page 651 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “an amendment which would render a clause unintelligible or ungrammatical is also out of order.”

Shall schedule 2, section 27, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Schedule 2, section 28: There are no amendments. Shall schedule 2, section 28, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Schedule 2, section 29: no amendments. Shall schedule 2, section 29, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Liberal amendment 59—did I miss one?

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): I feel like she’s a schoolteacher. She does an excellent job.

Schedule 2, section 30: no amendments. Shall schedule 2, section 30, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Schedule 2, section 31, Liberal amendment 59: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Liberal amendment 60: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Liberal amendment 61: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Liberal amendment 62: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Shall schedule 2, section 31, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Schedule 2, section 32, no amendments. Shall schedule 2, section 32, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Schedule 2, section 33, NDP amendment 63: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Government amendment 64: All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Government amendment 65: All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, section 33, as amended, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, as amended, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 3. I therefore propose that we bundle sections 1 to 9. Is there any agreement on that?

Shall schedule 3, sections 1 to 9, inclusive, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 3 carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Schedule 4, section 1, Liberal amendment 64: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Liberal amendment 67: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Shall schedule 4, section 1, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 4, section 2, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 4 carry?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: On a point of order?

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Yes?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Chair, can you clarify, when we voted on 66, did you say 66 or did you say 64?

Mme Lucille Collard: He said 64.

Mr. Chris Glover: He said 64.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Then I’ll reread 66. Is there unanimous consent that we go back to 66? Okay.

Liberal amendment 66: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Shall schedule 4 carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

There are no amendments to sections 1 to 5 of schedule 5. I therefore propose that we bundle sections 1 to 5. Is there agreement? Are members prepared to vote? Shall schedule 5, sections 1 to 5, inclusive, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: Point of order: I don’t think we did Liberal amendment 67 on schedule 4.

Interjections.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: We did? Okay. I’m just flaking out.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): All right.

Schedule 5, section 6, Liberal amendment 68: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

NDP amendment 69: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Shall schedule 5, section 6, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Schedule 5, section 7: There are no amendments. Shall schedule 5, section 7, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Schedule 5, section 8: There are no amendments. Shall schedule 5, section 8, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Schedule 5, section 9: no amendment. Shall schedule 5, section 9, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Schedule 5, section 10, Liberal amendment 70: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Shall schedule 5, section 10, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Schedule 5, section 11: There are no amendments. Shall schedule 5, section 11, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Schedule 5, section 12, Liberal amendment number 71: All in favour?

Mr. Chris Glover: NDP amendment 71.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Oh, this one’s not my fault. If you can see, it says “Liberal.”

NDP amendment number 71: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Liberal amendment 72: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Liberal amendment 73: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.

Canada’s Largest School Board to suffer Harmful Cuts to Special Education, Due to Combined Bad Decisions of the Ford Government and Its Provincially Appointed TDSB Supervisor

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Canada’s Largest School Board to suffer Harmful Cuts to Special Education, Due to Combined Bad Decisions of the Ford Government and Its Provincially Appointed TDSB Supervisor

May 26, 2026

SUMMARY

Recent media reports combine to show that the Toronto District School Board, Canada’s largest school board, will suffer from serious new cuts to special education. These are due to two causes.

First, the Ford Government is reducing its funding for special education at TDSB for the upcoming school year by six million dollars. For years, the Ontario Government has underfunded special education at that school board, among many other boards. This is revealed in the May 26, 2026 Toronto Today report, set out below.

Second, the Ford Government’s TDSB Supervisor, who gets his instructions from the Education Minister, has decided to cut fully 15 specialized special education kindergarten classes next year. This is revealed in an article in the May 14, 2026 edition of the Trillium, also set out below.

TDSB and the Ford Government have not consulted its Special Education Advisory Committee on any of this. These changes fly in the face of the devastating feedback parents of students with disabilities/special education needs gave TDSB at the April 13, 2026 public forum that TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee held to listen to parents’ voices. You can watch that public forum archived on YouTube. TDSB’s provincially appointed Supervisor, Rohit Gupta, has refused to attend any meetings of TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee, including the recent parents’ public forum.

When he addressed the public hearings on Bill 101 at the Standing Committee on Social Policy on April 27, 2026, Education Minister Paul Calandra acknowledged that Ontario must do better when it comes to special education. Speaker after speaker highlighted the harms caused by provincial underfunding of special education. This is all documented in the May 25, 2026 AODA Alliance Update.

How You Can Help

Write the Minister of Education at edu@ontario.ca and Premier Ford at premier@ontario.ca Urge them to reverse these harmful cuts at TDSB. Tell them to substantially increase funding for students with disabilities/special education needs in Ontario schools.
Watch the AODA Alliance’s presentation to the Standing Committee on Social Policy on Bill 101 during the April 27, 2026 public hearings.

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Today May 26, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.torontotoday.ca/local/education/tdsb-drop-special-ed-funding-next-year-6-million-12332287

‘We’re in trouble’: TDSB to see $6.4M drop in special ed funding next year

Provincial special education funding is closely tied to enrolment. The TDSB anticipates a reduction of about 5,000 students next year compared to this year

Gabe Oatley, Tina Yazdani

Amid a projected decline in enrolment, the Toronto District School Board will receive about $6.4 million less in special education funding next year from the provincial government — funds that opposition party leaders and advocates say the board cannot afford to lose.

The Ministry of Education recently released the figure as part of its overall spending plan next fall, which calls for reducing the TDSB’s revenue via the Special Education Fund from about $403 million to about $396.5 million — a drop of about 1.6 per cent.

David Lepofsky, chair of the TDSB’s special education advisory committee, called the planned reduction a “disaster.”

For years, the TDSB and many other boards provincewide have spent more on special education than has been provided by the Ministry of Education for that purpose, often using funds from other parts of their budgets to cover the gap.

In a report released two weeks ago, the province’s auditor general found that though provincial spending on special education has kept up with inflation, it has not kept pace with students’ increasing needs across Ontario.

The audit, which looked at three school boards in-depth, found just 21 per cent of classroom teachers surveyed said they were able to meet most of the needs of special education students in their class, while 87 per cent said they sometimes, rarely or never had the necessary resources to support the delivery of students’ individualized education plans.

While Lepofsky acknowledged the TDSB anticipates fewer students next year, he said any drop in funding is inappropriate.

“When the base amount wasn’t enough, and they’re reducing it more … we’re in trouble, and we’re in trouble, and we’re in trouble,” he said.

Ontario Liberal Leader John Fraser agreed the reduction is a bad idea.

“Classes aren’t safe places to learn or to work, because class sizes are big, and special education has been starved,” he said. “If it’s been starved, why are they giving it less?”

Funding cut based on enrolment: TDSB

In a presentation to the special education advisory committee on May 11, Stephanie Harris, TDSB’s interim executive officer of finance, said a reduction in provincial special education funding was anticipated as the bulk of it is directly tied to student enrolment.

Harris said the board anticipates about 5,000 fewer students next year.

She said the main drivers of the drop are fewer newcomers in Toronto because of reduced federal immigration targets, and young families moving out of the Greater Toronto Area as a result of affordability concerns.

But some leaders are questioning the reasons for the decline.

“There is very little tracking, actually, of why students are leaving our school system,” said Opposition leader Marit Stiles. “So, is it simply that numbers are down, or is it that students are going to be homeschooled, or moving into private education?”

TorontoToday has also previously reported that spokespeople for six Toronto private schools, including some of the city’s most exclusive, have said they’ve seen increased parent interest for admissions for September 2026.

While Harris said the board’s budget for next school year has not yet been finalized, she added that she was “proud” to report that families would not see a reduction in “school-based staffing for special education” next year.

TorontoToday asked the TDSB if it will still be able to maintain current special education staffing levels given the planned funding decrease, and what aspects of the board’s special education programming may see cuts.

In a statement, they said the board will maintain school-based special education supports district-wide, at the same levels as this year.

“Special Education funding is primarily based on the total enrolment of a school board. With 3,000 fewer students this year and 5,000 fewer students anticipated next year, we expected a change in per-pupil funding, which represents the majority of the funding amount,” they wrote.

Minister unconvinced more funding is needed

TDSB Trustee Michelle Aarts (Beaches-East York) said she is not clear on how the TDSB would maintain current staffing levels, as she noted staff salaries and benefits represent the largest special education expense.

In an interview with TorontoToday, Aarts said she believes the province’s planned spending reduction is demonstrative of the “chronic problem” with special education funding.

“It does not reflect need. It makes a one-size-fits-all assumption,” she said.

Asked about the recent auditor general’s report earlier this month, Education Minister Paul Calandra did not commit to increasing spending.

“Some boards are spending more than they’re allotted, and some boards are spending less on special education than they’re allotted. It’s fine — but what are the outcomes? That’s what’s most important,” he said.

“Ultimately, more needs to be done, more consistency, better data collection and ensuring that what we’re doing, the money that we’re spending, has the results that are required to have the best outcomes for students.”

Tension between disability advocates, supervisor

Word of the planned funding reduction comes amid heightened frustration among some disability advocates, parents and teachers over several other recent special education decisions made under the leadership of the board’s provincially-appointed supervisor, Rohit Gupta.

Last July, shortly after assuming his role, Gupta increased class sizes in diagnostic kindergartens, which serve disabled three- to five-year-olds — from a maximum of eight to ten students.

This spring, diagnostic kindergarten teachers told TorontoToday that choice has created “absolute chaos,” leading to more students harming themselves, peers and teachers.

In May, The Trillium subsequently reported that the board now plans to eliminate 15 diagnostic kindergarten classrooms next fall, citing declining enrolment.

Lepofsky told The Trillium the decision “does not make sense,” while Fraser said he believed the decision was about “cutting costs.”

Separately, Gupta has also drawn criticism from parents and disability advocates for a board decision to suspend Grade 9 enrolment next fall at two small Toronto high schools that specialize in supporting students with mild intellectual disabilities.

The decision has left parents of students at Eastdale Collegiate Institute in the city’s east end and Heydon Park Secondary School, in the city’s Baldwin Village neighbourhood, worried that the board plans to shutter the specialized schools.

Stiles noted decisions like this are impacting all students, not just those with special education needs.

“Other kids will also fall behind. Because they won’t be getting the attention maybe they need,” she said. “There are not enough adults, qualified adults in our schools to do this really important work.”

TDSB staff are expected to present an overview of the board’s complete 2026-27 budget on May 28 at 7 p.m. during a meeting of the board’s Parent Involvement Advisory Committee.

May 14, 2026 The Trillium

Originally posted at https://www.thetrillium.ca/news/education-and-training/tdsb-to-cut-15-specialized-kindergarten-classes-for-students-with-complex-needs-12283860

TDSB to cut 15 specialized kindergarten classes for students with complex needs

The board said declining enrolment means fewer diagnostic kindergarten classrooms are needed, but critics argue larger class sizes are allowing more students to be absorbed into fewer classrooms – placing more strain on vulnerable students and staff

Tina Yazdani

The Toronto District School Board is cutting 15 specialized kindergarten classes, The Trillium has learned, after making the controversial decision last year to increase the size of the classes for students with disabilities.

It is the latest in a wave of cuts and adjustments the board has made, citing a projected drop in enrolment.

The board explained it is expecting 5,000 fewer students in the 2026-27 school year, “with kindergarten being impacted most,” and, as a result, it doesn’t require as many of the classes.

Critics say the board can justify fewer classes on paper because more students are being absorbed into each room, rather than triggering a need for additional classrooms.

“This reduction does not make sense. Simple,” said David Lepofsky, who, despite being the chair of the TDSB’s special education advisory committee, said this is the first he’s heard about the change.

“This is illustrative of how we aren’t kept up to date on key things; it’s impossible to know what’s really going on,” Lepofsky said. “It’s covered in fog.”

The specialized classes being cut use lower student-teacher ratios to support three- to five-year-olds who have complex learning, developmental or medical needs.

Rohit Gupta, the Ford government-appointed TDSB supervisor, increased the maximum number of students permitted in the classes shortly after he was put in the role last July, raising the cap from eight to 10.

Gupta’s decision overturned a prior directive from TDSB trustees who had rejected the class-size increases after vocal opposition from educators and parents.

In the months since, teachers of diagnostic kindergarten classes have said the new classroom conditions are “absolute chaos,” leading to more injuries and less learning for some of the system’s most vulnerable students.

Lepofsky argued that the decision to also reduce the number of classes is proof that the board’s leadership isn’t listening to concerns.

“They’re trying not to hear them,” he said. “They’re being driven by budget.”

The Ford government put the TDSB under supervision almost a year ago, sidelining trustees with the stated goal of bringing spending under control.

But opposition leaders at Queen’s Park said the TDSB’s drastic measures to balance its budget are eliminating programs that families desperately need.

“This is going to be devastating news for parents, for families and for educators, and this means that a lot more children are going to fall through the cracks and not get the supports they need when they are in school,” said NDP Leader Marit Stiles.

Interim Liberal leader John Fraser said the bottom line is that the “education system is being starved.”

“I don’t think this government’s approach to education is about student success — it’s about cutting costs,” Fraser said. “Kids aren’t getting what they need in schools. We know that there aren’t enough adults in schools.… It’s not rocket science, the more time a teacher or an EA have to spend with a child, the more it helps their development.”

An auditor general’s report released this week revealed special education funding has kept up with inflation, but not the growth in special education needs — with the majority of school boards in the province spending millions more than they’re receiving in funding.

The auditor found that of Ontario’s 72 school boards, 46 spent more on special education in 2023-24 than the ministry provided them with funding for.

The education minister said the ministry needs to “step up and show leadership,” but stopped short of committing to more funding.

“The report highlights the inconsistency,” Calandra said on Tuesday. “Some boards are spending more than they’re allotted, and some boards are spending less on special education than they’re allotted. It’s fine — but what are the outcomes? That’s what’s most important.”

“It just shows you once again this government is completely abandoning children with special needs,” said Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner.

The TDSB maintained that the reduction in classes will “enable more students to access the program and provide additional support to other special education needs throughout the district,” but didn’t explain how.

“We will continue to support all students based on their individual needs and combination of needs within a class. In making this change we will improve access for students and reduce the waitlist for this valuable program,” it said in a statement.

When asked why waitlists for diagnostic kindergarten classes persist even as enrolment declines, the board said that even if demand exists, it may not meet the minimum required to form a class, which creates waitlists.

At the Legislature’s April 27, 2026 Hearings on Bill 101, There was Wide Agreement that Ontario Must Strengthen Supports in School for Students with Disabilities Part 2

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

At the Legislature’s April 27, 2026 Hearings on Bill 101, There was Wide Agreement that Ontario Must Strengthen Supports in School for Students with Disabilities Part 2

May 25, 2026

SUMMARY

On April 27 2026, the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy held a grossly insufficient single day of public hearings on the Ford Government’s Bill 101. That’s the legislation that largely guts the role of elected school board trustees. It’s a huge power grab by Education Minister Paul Calandra, who can dictate the details of how schools and school boards operate across Ontario, all from his office in downtown Toronto.

Of course, the core focus of the discussions at those public hearings was the dramatic changes proposed to how the education system will be governed from the top. However, disability advocates, including the AODA Alliance, injected a second issue into the hearings – one that got quite a lot of attention. The mainstream media has not covered this. You can learn about it from us!

In the May 24, 2026, AODA Alliance Update, we presented the text of the evidence given at those two hearings by the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition. In this update, we set out 19 passages from the evidence of other witnesses that touched on our issues. Read them all below. Each passage is followed by our comment on the importance of what was said from the perspective of students with disabilities and their parents.

What is especially compelling is that there was overwhelming agreement among witnesses and with the Education Minister himself that there needs to be reforms in the delivery of special education in Ontario. In a passage set out below, Minister Calandra says he’s going to be working on this.

On May 15, 2026, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky wrote the Minister. He asked the Minister to set up a meeting with David Lepofsky — a meeting to which the Minister had agreed.

How You Can Help

Get others to read the evidence we set out below and the evidence we set out in the May 24, 2026 AODA Alliance Update. Publicize this on social media.

Write Education Minister Paul Calandra at edu@ontario.ca to press him to schedule his meeting with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky.

Learn about our advocacy on Bill 101 by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Watch the AODA Alliance’s series of informative videos on the campaign to tear down the many disability barriers in Ontario’s education system facing students with disabilities.

MORE DETAILS

Key Excerpts Regarding the Needs of Students with Disabilities from Witnesses Giving Evidence at the Ontario Legislature’s April 27, 2026 Hearings on Bill 101

Full transcript originally posted at https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/committees/social-policy/parliament-44/transcripts/committee-transcript-2026-apr-27?utm_source=openai

Education Minister Paul Calandra was given 20 minutes to make an opening statement. He began by stating:

“When we started debate on this in the House, I mentioned that since 2018 the government has been moving quickly to make changes to the education system to refocus it on student achievement.”

AODA Alliance Comment: The Ford Government has not focused at all on focusing on student achievement for over one third of a million students with disabilities in Ontario schools. For example, it has enacted nothing in response to its receiving the comprehensive K-12 Education Standards Development Committee final report in January 28, 2026. That report gave an extensive review of the many disability barriers in Ontario schools, and detailed recommendations on what should be enacted in an Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to remove and prevent those barriers.

The Minister stated:

“The results have been quite spectacular, to be honest with you. “

AODA Alliance Comment: There has been no appreciable improvement for students with disabilities. In various ways, things have gotten worse over that time.

The Minister stated:

“The bill in front of you, colleagues, Bill 101, if passed, has a number of important measures in it, not the least of which are significant governance reforms. The bill, if passed, would strengthen oversight of trustees financially, and local decision-making would also be an element of this. “

AODA Alliance Comment: In his 20 minute statement and 40 minutes of answering questions, the Minister never listed what the powers of school board trustees would be under Bill 101. As the AODA Alliance brief on Bill 101, submitted to the Legislature, explained, nothing in the bill provides a list of these remaining powers. That hurts the day-to-day operations on school boards.

The Minister stated:

“Colleagues, in conclusion, I think this bill, in addition to Bill 33, puts us back on the right path. It is not the end; there is more that has to happen over the next number of years. So this isn’t the last bill that we’ll have before you.”

AODA Alliance Comment: This combined with his answer to an opposition question set out below, foreshadows that there is a real possibility that the Ford Government will later bring forward some sort of new legislation concerning education of students with disabilities.

The Minister had this exchange with NDP MPP Chandra Pasma:

“Ms. Chandra Pasma: Well, we certainly do look forward to your announcement on education funding, because the FAO has said that your government is cutting funding for education by $900 million. So I know that parents, teachers and education workers are certainly waiting with bated breath to see what will actually be coming into our schools next year.

Have you done any costing of the measures in this bill, particularly the new bureaucracy that will be required at the ministry and the fact that you’re adding a new layer of bureaucracy to school boards with now a CEO and a director of education?

Hon. Paul Calandra: There will be no additional costs, and there need not be any additional cost to boards. As I said, the director of education will be now called the CEO, and the chief educational officer can be appointed through the existing cadre of superintendents. The ministry will not be providing boards of education with any additional funding from administration.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: That sounds rather like magic. There’s going to be a CEO and a chief education officer, and somehow in all of this there’s not going to be a single penny added to the cost of the school board. What sounds more like—”

AODA Alliance Comment: It is unbelievable that Minister Calandra states that there will be no costs arising from this bill. As the AODA Alliance brief explains, this bill creates a great deal of new bureaucracy. For example, school boards will need to apply to the Minister for permission to take all sorts of actions. The Minister’s Office will need to process and review all those applications from 72 school boards. The money to pay for all of this has to come from somewhere. If the Minister takes the position that the bill creates no new costs, there is a serious risk that school boards will take money out of classrooms to cover these new costs. That does not put student achievement first.

The Minister had this exchange with Liberal MPP and Acting Leader John Fraser:

“Mr. John Fraser: I appreciate the answer. I would like to have heard something a bit more definitive. I believe when you look at student absenteeism, it’s a symptom of greater problems. I think the way you are addressing it in the bill is a blunt tool for something more complicated than that. I would have expected that you could give me at least what would be the top reason or what was the largest concern that would lead you to put this into the bill.

Kids should be in school, and we should help them be in school. What I’ve maintained is, right now, our schools aren’t safe places to learn or to work, and that’s for three reasons: Class sizes have grown, special education has been starved—kids aren’t getting what they need—and, as you said, Minister, there’s a mental health crisis in our schools that’s not being addressed.

When I look at Bill 101, I don’t see something that’s going to make one class size smaller, get one child the help that they need that they’re not getting right now. I don’t see anything that’s addressing the mental health crisis that you mentioned. I think those things are critical to solve, not just because of absenteeism, but our kids aren’t bad, and the carrot-and-stick approach—I don’t think that’s going to work. I think you have to go much deeper than that and address those issues. There are 1,000 classes between grades 4 and 8 of more than 30 kids in Ontario. We’re $800 million short in special education funding. And mental health, right now, is just reflective of what’s going on in our society, and our kids are suffering. They’re suffering because of social media. They’re suffering because of pressures. If we’re addressing what’s important in education, which is student achievement, I would think those things should be top of mind, or top of the list, when it comes to all of us here, and I don’t see that in this bill.

So, Minister, is this going to make one class size smaller?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Well, obviously—I appreciate that—the bill itself is about governance, how we govern the system. It is about listening to educators.

You’re talking about student attendance. This is something that was not necessarily on my radar, but every single classroom that I went into, every single educator told me that we have to get a handle on student attendance and that one of the biggest challenges they have in managing their classrooms, particularly at the secondary level, was the fact that 100% of the coursework determined the mark. Teachers felt that participation was important, that attendance was important.

I respect teachers. I think that, using their professional judgment, they’re able to ascertain which students are having challenges and which need more help and that they’ll be able to make that decision in the best interest of their students.

Mr. John Fraser: Respectfully, Minister, my question was, is it going to make one class size smaller? Are we going to eliminate having 1,000 grade 4 to 8 classes over 30 kids? That’s incredible. I’ve got one school that’s just got split grades all the way through.

What parents want to know is, “Is my kid’s class going to be smaller?”—not what’s going to happen to them if they’re not in school or how that’s going to affect their marks.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): One minute remaining.

Mr. John Fraser: What they want to know is that class sizes are going to be smaller.

What they also want to know is—“My son or daughter needs help in school. They don’t have an EA. They haven’t had help. They’ve got ADHD.” And what happens when a student’s needs aren’t addressed in the early development years—it follows them all the way through school. I would say it would be a likely cause of absenteeism in the future, if they didn’t feel they could participate in school in a meaningful way, or they were bad at school.

So the reason that I ask these questions is, Bill 101 is not going to fix any of the things I talked about. What I think people want to hear from their government is—“How are you going to make the class sizes smaller? How are you going to make sure that my son or daughter gets the help that they need?”

And do you know what? We have this mental health crisis and somehow we have to tackle it in our schools.

I’ll just leave it at that.”

AODA Alliance Comment: The Minister’s answer makes it clear that this bill is not actually about improving student achievement at all, despite the fact that the Government called it the “Putting Student Achievement First Act.” it is about “governance” i.e. how the school board will be governed.

The Minister had this exchange with Green Party MPP Aislinn Clancy:

“Ms. Aislinn Clancy: We know that the number one increase in mental health issues right now is social anxiety.

Can you tell me what you’ll be doing to address the root causes of absenteeism? Because this is not a recommended approach.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I respect a teacher’s ability to use professional judgment to understand each and every student they have in their classroom and the challenges that they face. I guess I’m just more optimistic that our teachers appreciate and understand the kids they have in front of them and the challenges that they are facing.

A student who is missing time because of a mental health issue—a regulation will ensure that that student does not face any challenges.

To be clear, though, we’re talking about a 90% standard, which allows the student at the secondary level to still miss 20 days without being penalized—it is those that come after that, and then in what proportion. Absenteeism and participation will form the basis of the final grade.”

AODA Alliance Comment: The Minister said that “I respect a teacher’s ability to use professional judgment to understand each and every student they have in their classroom and the challenges that they face.” Yet as explained further below, teachers’ unions spoke passionately at these hearings about how bad things can now be in school for students with disabilities. Yet the Government has not listened to that feedback and corrected the bill to address it.

In response to a question from Tory MPP Natalie Pierre, the Minister stated in part:

“In the York region Catholic school board, as I said, there were seven different directors of education over nine years. That causes challenges of leadership in a board.”

AODA Alliance Comment: Flying in the face of this, the Minister’s hand-picked provincial Supervisor fired TDSB’s Director of Education last fall. He would not have done that without the Minister’s approval That supervisor appointed an interim Director, and has now hired a new “CEO” to perform a comparable role. That means that thanks to the Minister’s interventions, Canada’s largest school boar has had the very kind of leadership chaos which he condemned at the Standing Committee, three different chief executives in under six months.

The Minister had this exchange with NDP MPP Chandra Pasma:

“Ms. Chandra Pasma: There has been some talk about absenteeism already this morning, but there’s one category of kids that hasn’t come up, which is children with disabilities.

The Ontario Autism Coalition found that 6% of kids with disabilities are completely excluded from schools. That’s over 20,000 students every day. Another one third are not allowed to attend school full days—we’re talking over 100,000 kids.

People for Education, in their survey, found that nearly two thirds of elementary school principals and 56% of secondary school principals have had to ask parents to keep their child with disabilities at home for the day.

Parents of these kids are begging for their children to be allowed to attend school full-time. They have repeatedly asked the Ministry of Education to track exclusions when their kids are not allowed to attend.

With this bill, you’re giving yourself the power to make attendance part of marks in Ontario. What are you going to do to ensure that every child in Ontario is allowed to attend school full-time every day?

Hon. Paul Calandra: First and foremost, there will be a number of exemptions that will be allowed within the attendance requirement, obviously, in addition to professional judgment from our teachers.

I tend to agree with you; I think that we have to do a better job of connecting not only my ministry but Minister Parsa’s ministry and the Ministry of Health with respect to how we deliver special education and certain needs. The level of special education across the province is different from school board to school board. I’m frankly unhappy with that. I’m unhappy with the disconnect between the three ministries that are responsible. I certainly think we can do a better job. I will be spending a significant amount of time over the next number of months seeing how we can better perform when it comes to special education.

I’m also hearing from a lot of teachers who have differences of opinions, often from their directors of education and from the board.

The nature of teaching is so different now. I was in a class where the grade 8 teacher had eight different IEPs—a class of 27 and eight different IEPs. I don’t think parents sometimes understand it’s not just one curriculum—it is one curriculum for 19 and then eight different curriculums.

I think we’ve got to get a handle on this, frankly, so we will be spending a great deal of time looking at special education, how it’s delivered in the province, and how we can deliver it more evenly across all boards and, frankly, how we can bring the ministries together.

Looking at what we also do well—we have provincial schools that do amazing, amazing work in the deaf and blind community.

It’s about outcomes. It’s not only about education and where they are, but it’s about them being able to lead productive, independent lives afterwards.

I’m hearing from a lot of educators that we have dropped the ball on this, so we’re going to be looking at that and we’re going to be seeing how we can do a better job with that, for sure. I don’t disagree with you.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: There’s so much in what you just said there, Minister.

First of all, kids with disabilities—their parents aren’t asking for them to be exempted from this attendance requirement. They are asking for their kids to be allowed to attend school.

And the provincial schools, other than the Centre Jules-Léger, are not a model for inclusion. Your government has paid out over $20 million in lawsuits—and there are still lawsuits—over the lack of inclusion, over the harassment, over the conditions in provincial schools. You should actually be providing them with elected boards, rather than controlling them yourself.

The supervisor you appointed in the OCDSB is cutting specialized class placements. He’s not taking kids with IEPs out of the classroom and giving them personalized support. He’s forcing kids with disabilities into mainstream classrooms. And now you’re going to have mini-me supervisors all across the province, with these new CEOs.

At the heart of it all is this massive underfunding of special education—$850 million: That’s what boards are spending, that you’re not giving them. Some 71 out of 72 school boards are running a deficit for a scenario where this many kids are being excluded every single day. So if you’re genuinely committed to ensuring that you do better by these kids and that they can attend school, will you commit to eliminating that $850-million deficit in this year’s core education funding?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Let me just correct one thing. The CEO, of course, will not be responsible for academic achievement in the boards; that will be—

Ms. Chandra Pasma: They can certainly make cuts.

Hon. Paul Calandra: —the Chief Education Officer, who will be responsible for academic achievement in the boards.

As I said, I want to ensure that we do a better job. Some boards are doing better than other boards. I’ve heard from parents across the province that they want the best for their kids, and I think we can do better, and that’s why we’ll be spending a lot of time on special education.”

AODA Alliance Comment: It is good that the Minister has finally publicly recognized that Ontario needs to do much better for students with disabilities/special education needs and that special education varies significantly from school board to school board. It is also good that he has committed to do a lot more in this area now.

There are, however very troubling elements in his statements. He appeared to treat the fact that special education varies from one school board to the next as some recent revelation to him. In fact, he, his predecessor minister Stephen Lecce and his Government has sat on the final report of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee for over four years. That report amply documents this problem and provides a detailed and practical roadmap for solving it. The Ford Government has enacted nothing in response to that report, earlier claiming that it is still studying it.

Moreover, his glowing endorsement of Ontario’s school for the blind shows that he is not aware of serious problems regarding education of students with vision loss in Ontario that the Ontario Parents of Visually Impaired Children has been trying to raise with his Ministry for over six years.

The Minister had this exchange with Liberal MPP John Fraser:

“Thank you again, Minister, for being here.

You said something a bit earlier in terms of—the parents did not understand the complexity of the classroom. I think what parents understand, especially parents of a student with an IEP, is that the needs aren’t being met, that they don’t have an EA, that thing that they need.

I told the story about Marigold, who is six years old now and has been in school for two years. She came in with an assessment that her family paid for and isn’t getting any services. When you’re six, two years is a long time in your development.

I think what parents understand is the underfunding that exists in special education. Kids aren’t getting what they need. So I’m surprised that the minister would say something like, “Parents don’t understand.”

It’s eight years in—you’ve been in government for eight years, and special education is in bad shape. Trustees had to find $800 million in money that they weren’t given somewhere else.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): One minute remaining.

Mr. John Fraser: How is this bill going to get one child who needs speech-language pathology or who needs some other form of intervention—how is it going to help them?

Hon. Paul Calandra: First, let me just say this: I fully understand the challenges that parents face when it comes to IEPs, and I think every parent, on their own, understands the challenges that their kids face when it comes to ensuring a quality education in the system.

At the same time, teachers don’t feel that often parents realize the complexity and the challenges that they are facing in delivering when there is more than one IEP in a class, and the ministry has to acknowledge this, so—…”

AODA Alliance Comment: Here the Minister claims that parents of students with disabilities/special education needs don’t understand the complexity of the classroom. Yet he did not consult their organizations in developing Bill 101. He did not take up offers to consult with their advocates, such as the AODA Alliance. (See further the March 11, 2026 Queen’s Park news conference. In which the AODA Alliance was one of the presenters)

The Minister had this exchange with Green Party MPP Aislinn Clancy:

“Ms. Aislinn Clancy: My hope is that, as opposed to individual by individual, you bring us together. We could be part of this together.

Your government underspent by $500 million last year. Why wasn’t this money spent to ensure that kids have access to special education? Inclusion without support is abandonment, and that’s what I see in our schools today.

Hon. Paul Calandra: It’s a per-student funding model—

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: Do you see problems with that, though?

Hon. Paul Calandra: —so as attendance decreases, so too does the amount that’s transferred.

I said that in the supervised boards I want supervisors to give me an assessment of the current funding formula to see if it’s meeting the needs of kids. I announced that when I assumed—…”

AODA Alliance Comment: since last September, TDSB’s provincial Supervisor has refused to attend any meetings of the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee, or, since the start of 2026, to meet with its Chair David Lepofsky. He is therefore cutting himself from an important source of information to advise the Minister on funding insufficiencies.

Green Party MPP Aislinn Clancy had this exchange with the president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association:

“Ms. Aislinn Clancy: What I hear is that the government isn’t paying their bills in certain buckets and then people have to pull from things like special education, building repairs.

I’d like to ask Mr. Tigani about what co-regulation means to your members. We know that relationships matter, and most EAs and other education workers are spread really thin, and it impedes their ability to actually help kids learn that muscle of regulation.

Mr. Joe Tigani: I think it goes back to even what René just alluded to. There are less caring adults in a building, so those levels of one-on-one support are almost non-existent now. When you look back 10, 15 years, you could provide that level of support. Now you have an EA who might have two, four, eight, 10 different students they’re supporting on a daily basis. So to have that connection, to see—..”

The president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation Martha Hradowy said the following:

“We are also seeing increasing centralization in decisions that should remain in the hands of educators. Teachers support having the professional judgment to use final exams where appropriate. Educators know how to equip their students for success and what tools and approaches work best. Students will thrive when given the conditions and resources they need to succeed.

Attaching marks to attendance and participation does not address that real issue. Students who are not attending are not motivated by marks. They may be dealing with bullying, mental health challenges, safety concerns, and a lack of supports in increasingly large classrooms. Students struggling to attend school are not asking for punishment; they’re asking for support. None of those root causes are addressed here.”

AODA Alliance Comment: This further shows that to address the problem of student absenteeism, the Minister should focus on the causes of the problem, rather than imposing a penalty in a student’s grades for absenteeism.

David Mastin, president of the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario said the following:

“Bill 101 concentrates power, reduces transparency, and weakens the role of communities in shaping their public schools. If the goal is truly to improve student achievement, the focus must be on what happens in classrooms. Students need smaller class sizes, more supports for special education, safer schools, adequate staffing and resources, and respect for the professional judgment of educators. These are the conditions that support learning. Structural changes that centralize power and weaken relationships do not address these needs.”

AODA Alliance Comment: This was yet another witness testifying that students with disabilities/special education needs need more supports. No one took a contrary position. No Government or opposition MPP disputed or challenged testimony to this effect.

Green Party MPP Aislinn Clancy had this exchange with ETFO president David Mastin:

“Ms. Aislinn Clancy: Thank you very much.

I want to turn it over to Mr. David Mastin from ETFO. You and I saw each other recently at a symposium about children’s mental health. I see that this isn’t something that’s being addressed in this bill. What would you like to see when it comes to working together with the government on addressing the crisis in mental health in our students?

Mr. David Mastin: Thanks so much for the question.

Just continuing on from where Martha was discussing—the government, if they care about what’s happening in our classrooms, need to consult with the individuals who are on the front lines, to consult with the individuals who are dedicated and passionate. And they care for, every single day, day in and day out, the students in their care.

I want to stress this: You can’t just pick a handful of individuals you have a phone conversation with, to warrant consultation.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): One minute remaining.

Mr. David Mastin: You have to have consultations with the bodies that represent those members. That’s the way it needs to be done, and that has not happened. As Martha said, this is the first opportunity we’ve had to represent our members—84,000 members’ voices here with this government, with this bill. And they need to do that. Their decisions need to be grounded on what students need. This is not addressing what students need.

That symposium that you attended was to talk about student mental health. Student mental health is at an all-time crisis level, and the actions that this government has taken in the last eight years have done nothing but actually diminish the state of student mental health in our schools. As Martha said, this is why they’re not attending school. They’re not having their needs met. It’s not a place where they feel whole. And it’s something this government needs to take more seriously.”

AODA Alliance Comment: Mental health conditions, also called psycho-social disabilities are disabilities within the meaning of the Ontario Human Rights Code. As such, these comments about a mental health crisis in schools is a disability issue, pure and simple.

Tory MPP John Jordan had this exchange with the OSSTF president:

“Mr. John Jordan: I’m going to direct my question to the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation.

We heard this morning that there are many reasons for poor attendance among students. And certainly, there’s no “easy” button; there’s no one solution to that problem. We also did hear about the importance of student attendance and participation towards student success.

So, given that, do you think rewarding students who do make that effort to attend and be in the classroom is an important part of this legislation?

Ms. Martha Hradowy: The kids who are showing up show up. We need to really turn our minds to the children who are not coming to school on a regular basis.

You’ll get no disagreement from me that attendance is an issue at the secondary level.

I’ll use my own experience: I come from the Greater Essex County District School Board, and I was a developmental service worker there. There was one time that the board used to employ attendance counsellors. Those attendance counsellors were tasked with reaching out to families and reaching out to children and finding out what was preventing them from coming to school and encouraging them to come back. Unfortunately, as I said in my presentation, when boards are forced to balance budgets, it’s those front-line supports that are often the first to go. There are no longer dedicated attendance counsellors in the employ of the Greater Essex County District School Board—those now lie within the responsibility of a qualified social worker. And those, too, are being unfortunately eliminated as well, or people are leaving to go to private practice.

If we’re serious and want to find solutions to really addressing attendance in secondary schools, we have to take a look at the causes which are preventing them—as I said in my presentation, it could be mental health challenges, safety concerns, or just a lack of supports.

So we’re willing to sit down and find solutions, but I think the government has missed the mark on attaching percentages to attendance.”

AODA Alliance Comment: Here again the high school absenteeism problem about which the Minister was so concerned requires an effective response to mental health causes of absenteeism, an unmet disability need.

NDP MPP’s exchanges with the OSSTF president included this:

“Ms. Chandra Pasma: Hear, hear.

So when we have the CEOs who have financial background but not experience in education—they’re going to be your bargaining partners across the table from you. I know for OSSTF, your focus in bargaining is on those student supports and outcomes—whether it’s having a professional support staff to address mental health or student learning, or whether it’s bringing down class sizes. What do you think is going to happen in bargaining when that’s your focus and on the other side of the table is somebody whose focus is cuts?

Ms. Martha Hradowy: I will say, it’s discouraging that this is where we’ve got to. We’re actually bargaining for supports for kids who need them. Kids are being asked to stay home because they don’t have an educational assistant in their classroom to give them the support that they need. It just baffles my mind that these are the issues that we have to bring to a bargaining table every four years. Kids need these supports.

We’re in a mental health crisis here in Ontario, and at the same time, we’re cutting child and youth workers, we’re cutting professional support personnel….”

AODA Alliance Comment: The OSSTF provided yet more evidence that in Ontario, there are students with disabilities who can be denied the right to be at school because there’s no educational assistant to support the student.

Anwar Knight, speaking for the Hold Schools Accountable organization, and a supporter of Bill 101, said this:

“When you talk about lack of resources for special education—100%. But the union rep from OPSEU 2100, in a recent news interview, stated—and this is for the PDSB: “We’ve seen an increase in middle- and upper-management positions, but this board still cuts EAs and early childhood supports, so students are not being supervised anymore.” So, on one hand, the board has money to give to middle management and upper management positions, but they’re starving the front lines. And that is a story that needs to be told.”

AODA Alliance Comment: Even one of the Government’s own pro-Bill 101 witnesses shared the criticism voiced by so many others at the hearings that education for students with disabilities/special education needs is underfunded in Ontario.

Judy Bornais, a vice president of the University of Windsor, was no doubt called by the Ford Government. Her presentation included:

“So I am here today to speak in support of the teacher education provisions in Bill 101, Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026.

The University of Windsor thanks Minister Quinn and Minister Calandra for their commitment to investing in teacher education across Ontario. The $152-million investment and 40,000 new seats represent a significant step for the sector. We’re grateful that the government has recognized the importance of training the next generation of educators.

My focus today is on the section of Bill 101 that looks to move to a 12-month bachelor of education program and what it will mean for our institutions, our students, our region and our Ontario classrooms. There are four key reasons our institutions see this change in teachers’ education as a positive step for Ontario and students:

The University of Windsor welcomes changes that would reduce financial costs for aspiring teachers. Candidates will save a term of tuition, plus an additional semester of living expenses. For a student weighing whether they can afford to enter the profession, this is not a trivial number.

The proposed model looks to strengthen and standardize practicum which is central to teacher candidates’ development. This emphasis is aligned with the University of Windsor’s approach of integrating strong pedagogical in-class learning with high-quality, hands-on experiential learning for our students. Our faculty of education looks forward to working with the government to identify practicum lengths, maintaining practicum requirements proportional to program length.

We acknowledge this change requires expanded practicum supports and incentives. The province has committed $16.8 million to support the associate teachers who mentor teacher candidates in their classrooms with honorariums. This commitment will help in supporting the effective supervision and assessment of education students’ practicum competencies. Current research supports the view that a high-quality practicum, focused on mentorship and reflective practice, matters more for teacher preparation than program length alone.

It gets qualified teachers into classrooms faster, at a time when Ontario needs them. We have an aging teaching workforce, with nearly 7,800 retirements expected by 2030-31, and real shortages in French, technological education, and in northern and rural communities.

Together, we feel these are student-centred changes, and combined with the investment of $150 million specifically for teacher education programs, 4,000 additional seats, and a 27% increase in per-student funding for these programs, we feel the investment gives the teacher education sector a solid foundation…”

AODA Alliance Comment: There is nothing in this major reform to teacher training will include a mandatory part on how to teach students with disabilities/special education needs. This is a huge gap in Ontario’s teacher training, unless a teacher sets out to be a specialized special education teacher. This reform is harmful for students with disabilities/special education needs because it shortens the required length of teacher’s college by an entire semester or term.

The problem in Ontario schools right now is not that our teachers get too much training in teacher’s college. The problem is that they don’t get enough training, especially as it relates to teaching diverse learners including students with disabilities/special education needs. The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s final report amply made this point.

The trend in Ontario is more and mor in the direction of placing students with disabilities/special education needs wherever possible in regular classes, rather than separate special education classes. If the teacher in a regular class is not properly trained to teach diverse learners, including students with disabilities/special education needs, this creates more and more problems for teachers and students.

Patrick Daly, speaking for the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association, included this in his evidence at the Standing Committee, referring to AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky:

“With regard to cost to taxpayers, we fully agree with and endorse David’s comments and those put forward by other associations that without considerable discussion and amendments, the bill, as written, threatens to substantially increase red tape, bureaucracy and place additional financial burdens on school boards.”

AODA Alliance Comment: Here, an organization representing all Catholic school boards in Ontario agrees with the AODA Alliance’s contention that Bill 101 creates substantial new costs and burdens the school system with substantial new bureaucracy.

Read What Advocates for Parents of Students with Disabilities Asked Legislature’s Standing Committee to Do to Fix Bill 101 – All of Which the Ford Government Ignored

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Read What Advocates for Parents of Students with Disabilities Asked the Legislature’s Standing Committee to Do to Fix Bill 101 – All of Which the Ford Government Ignored

May 24, 2026

SUMMARY

Earlier this month, the Ford Government used its majority in the Ontario legislature to dramatically shorten debates in the Legislature over its Bill 101. That is the bill that gives the Minister of Education dramatic new powers to micromanage schools and school boards across Ontario. It leaves in place school board trustees, rather than abolishing them. However, it dramatically weakens their capacity to oversee and govern local school boards. Bill 101 in effect puts Education Minister Paul Calandra in charge of micromanaging our schools and school boards, all from Queen’s Park.

The Ford Government then used its majority to pass Bill 101 over strong objections from the opposition parties. This bill is called the “Putting Student Achievement First Act.” The title alone is like something from George Orwell’s “1984.” Witness after witness at the Legislature’s April 27, 2026 public hearings on Bill 101 agreed that this bill does nothing to improve student achievement.

In this AODA Alliance Update and the following one, we catch you up on what was said during the one day that the Ford Government allowed for public hearings. We seriously regret that these hearings got scant media attention. They deserved substantial media attention, since Bill 101 and the issues it addresses have been in the headlines for weeks.

In this Update, we set out for you word-for-word the criticisms of this bill and the calls for amendments that were presented by the two community organizations that advocate for parents of students with disabilities, the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition. You can also watch the AODA Alliance’s testimony online.

During a full day of public hearings, only three of the organizations or individuals given time slots to present to the Standing Committee were there to give the parents’ perspective. The AODA Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition both sought improvements to Bill 101 for students with disabilities. A third organization, the “Hold Schools Accountable Parent Network” criticized school board staff and trustees for not being more accountable to the public, especially when a student has been the victim of bullying and violence. Oddly, it supported Bill 101, even though they will find school boards and staff less accountable under Bill 101. This has been proven to be the case at school boards like the Toronto District School Board when it is run by Education Minister Calandra through his provincial Supervisor that reports to him.

There are two things that are especially striking as you read the following. First, even though these presentations raised serious concerns with Bill 101 from the perspective of students with disabilities, absolutely no Conservative MPPs asked the AODA Alliance or the Ontario Autism Coalition a single question. They showed no interest in learning more about their evidence. If they doubted the information presented, they offered these witnesses no opportunity to address their doubts.

Second, when the bill came forward three days later for the Standing Committee to consider proposing amendments to the bill, the Tories proposed no amendments that would address any of the concerns that the AODA Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition identified. They did not vote for any opposition amendments that would have addressed any of these problems.

This comes in the context of the fact, confirmed at these hearings, that when developing Bill 101, the Education Minister did not consult the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition or many of the other witnesses who spoke against Bill 101 at these hearings. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky put on the public record at these hearings that Education Minister Calandra twice agreed that he’d have a meeting with Lepofsky. On May 15, 2026, we wrote the Education Minister, asking to schedule that meeting. A copy of that letter was emailed to every member of the Ontario Legislature. So far, the Minister’s office has not responded.

How You Can Help

Get others to read the evidence set out below presented to the Legislature by the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition. Publicize this on social media.

Write Education Minister Paul Calandra at edu@ontario.ca to urge him to schedule his meeting with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky.

Learn more about our advocacy on Bill 101 by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Check out the AODA Alliance’s series of informative videos on the campaign to tear down the many disability barriers in Ontario’s education system facing students with disabilities.

MORE DETAILS

Excerpts From Ontario Hansard of the Standing Committee on Social Policy on April 27, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/committees/social-policy/parliament-44/transcripts/committee-transcript-2026-apr-27?utm_source=openai

Evidence of AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky

We will now go to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. David, you have the floor.

Mr. David Lepofsky: My name is David Lepofsky. I’m speaking as chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. I also draw upon my experience for several years as the chair of the Toronto District School Board’s special education advisory committee.

Bill 101 is a disaster for students with disabilities and their parents. It does nothing—nothing—to make things better. It does lots risking that it will make things worse.

Listen to the whole day you’ve heard today, of your only day of hearings. Parents’ voices—we’re a sideshow. We’re a small minority of who was allowed to speak here. Listen to the arguments that were made in support of this bill—“Oh, it’s all about CEOs,” and all that kind of stuff. What they were talking about had no relationship with the world we live in. I daresay a parent, a student or a teacher listening to this would say, “Are they talking about schools at all?” This is, respectfully, ridiculous. But it gets worse.

Premier Ford is known to all of us as the guy who campaigned as the champion to cut red tape and get rid of bureaucracy. Well, this bill injects the greatest load of provincial red tape and bloated bureaucracy in our school system in our lifetimes. Look at the myriad of regulations by the minister, regulations by the cabinet, directives by the minister, guidelines that are binding by the minister, policies by the minister, decisions where you’ve got to get the approval of the minister, or where, if the director of education isn’t happy with the trustees, they can go to the minister. This is called bureaucracy soup.

If you pile it all up—the minister was asked today, “Well, what’s it going to cost?” He said, “It won’t cost school boards anything.” The reality is for school boards to figure out what all these rules are, and, of course, once they’re made, they could be changing and they don’t have to be consulted—figure out what they’ve got to do and where they’ve got to get permission, and then getting permission or trying to get permission from the minister. Have you ever tried to get a decision out of a minister’s office? I worked in the Ontario public service for 33 years. Respectfully, there are times you could die of old age—and it has nothing to do with which of your parties is in power. Everything here is decisions of the minister. Our kids will be graduating before their rights in kindergarten may get decided.

Then you’ve got to have a phalanx of bureaucrats in the minister’s office to come up with all the forms and then read all the applications from 72 school boards when they need to get directions on all of these things. That’s what will happen when you’re trying to have one minister at Queen’s Park essentially running the entire system. It’s going to be a ton of bureaucracy. It’s going to cost a whole lot more. It’s going to cause uncertainty and chaos. And it’s going to be really slow.

As a community advocate, if I go to any of your parties and say, “We want to propose a new piece of legislation”—any of you, left, right, centre, whatever—you ask two questions. “What is it going to cost? This hasn’t been costed.” We were told this morning that it doesn’t cost these school boards. Well, folks—oh, man—it’s going to cost. Since we’ve heard there’s no new money for it, we know where that money is going to come from: the classroom. Is that putting student achievement first—draining underfunded classrooms to fund more red tape and bureaucracy? I don’t think so. The second question that any of you would ask—left, right, or centre—is, “You need a new law? Well, isn’t there a law that can do this?” Here’s the thing: Before Bill 101 came forward as a means to solve a problem that we were told exists, we got a 300-plus-page Education Act that gives tons of power to the minister. Then, three years ago, we got Bill 98, which gave them more power. And then, last fall, we got Bill 33 that gave them even more power. There is no indication here that the minister has tried to use, much less exhaust, those powers to solve problems. Therefore, he’s got to come through with this kind of bulldozer legislation.

Just take the issue of absenteeism. Where’s the proof that the minister tried fixing this for eight years with all the powers he’s got? I don’t see any. Well, I don’t see anything, but that’s apart from the—okay. But the reality is—like, come on. The way they go about it is bizarre: “So we’re going to come up with a rule that requires them to show up.” That is a form of public policy—if we translated it to medicine, it would go like this: “How are we going to treat somebody with stomach flu? We’re going to put duct tape over their mouth and nose.” It makes the apparent symptom go away—not comfortably—but it doesn’t solve the problem at all.

Then the question comes: “Well, what about students with special education needs?” Afterwards, the minister said, “Oh, we’ll exempt them. So all we’ve got to do is make them ask for their exemptions.” Parents of kids with disabilities have tons on our plates, much less trying to go find out, go through a bureaucracy now to get an exemption from that.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): One minute remaining.

Mr. David Lepofsky: I’m going to give you one more problem that you’ve got to understand: If you tell kids with disabilities that they don’t have to meet the mandatory attendance requirement but the other kids do, you have now gifted a brand new source of bullying. And I thought that was a problem we want to solve.

We’ve got tons of recommendations, and I’d love to talk to you in my question-and-answer about how you fix this.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Thank you, sir.

John Fraser: Thanks to everyone who is here today for the last deputation of the day.

I’m going to start with Mr. Lepofsky. Thank you very much for your presentation. It was good that it came at the end of the day because I think it snapped us out of the end-of-the-day lull.

You expressed very clearly, I think, some of the challenges that are—I’m going to make a couple of comments, and then I’m going to let you tell me what you think we need to do.

(1) I think, if you want to point at anything about everything being run from a corner office somewhere in Queen’s Park, all you have to look at is the minister hanging on to the EQAO results for two and a half months while educators needed it, because he wanted to look at it and study it—evidently, can’t walk and chew gum.

(2) Absenteeism: I asked the minister this morning, “Can you tell me the three main causes of the increase in absenteeism in our schools?” I got an anecdotal answer: “It might be this here. It might be that there. We hear this.” I don’t understand how you think you’re going to solve a problem if you don’t understand the root causes of it.

I’ll leave the floor to you.

Mr. David Lepofsky: Thank you.

(1) Because this is, by the minister’s own statement, such a massive change, it should not be proclaimed enforced until at least 2030, to give school boards a chance to see all those regulations, all the policies, gear up, figure out what the heck is going on so we don’t cause chaos. Even though the bill isn’t enacted, the government can enact drafts.

(2) There should be an independent audit and a value-for-money audit by the Auditor General of this bill before it is proclaimed enforced, because telling us it’s not going to cost anything, at least as far as school boards are concerned, just is not plausible.

(3) We propose that it’s now completely unintelligible what the job of the trustee will be. I challenge our colleagues from the government to list for us what’s the job of the trustee—what are their powers? The bill should be amended to clearly define it.

(4) Next, the bill should require the government to consult before it adopts regulations, guidelines and so on—they didn’t on the bill. They didn’t consult us. Now, cornering him in the hall here, the minister has agreed to talk to me. In fact, he agreed twice when I talked to him, and he said we’ll meet soon. I’ll see if I can take him up on that. But we need that built into the law here.

(5) We need a requirement that all of these new policies and regulations do not create any more barriers for students with disabilities—because bureaucrats create barriers.

(6) The bill should set a clear path for the eight boards under supervision to get back to local democracy by November 15 of this year so people can know what they can do. The minister can have power to override that, but can we have some clear benchmarks? Just saying they’re on the right path—i.e., his own supervisors are not on the right path—isn’t good enough.

(7) Finally, the minister said we need to standardize; we have uneven practices in special education.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): One minute, 55 seconds.

Mr. David Lepofsky: Here’s a solution: The minister’s predecessor received a report in January of 2022, four years ago, which was the final report under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act of the kindergarten-to-grade-12-standards development committee. The government promised to enact an accessibility standard for education—strong support for it. They’re still, four years later, not doing it. They don’t need new legislation; they just need to take the responsibility they now have and actually do it.

1640

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you very much.

How much time do I have left?

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): You have one minute and 15 seconds.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s John Fraser, MPP for Ottawa South.

You mentioned earlier that you were the chair of SEAC, special education advisory committee at the Toronto District School Board.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): You have one minute remaining.

Mr. John Fraser: I’m trying to figure out how one child whose needs aren’t being met—are going to be met by enacting this bill. Do you have any comments on that?

Mr. David Lepofsky: Things have already gotten considerably worse at TDSB since the supervisor took over. He won’t even come to our special education advisory committee meeting.

Two weeks ago, we had a public town hall that invited parents of kids with disabilities and special-ed needs to tell us what their problems were. He wouldn’t even show up. It’s on YouTube, not because he allowed it—in fact, the minister banned that—but because the Ontario Autism Coalition livestreamed it. You could watch it online, and 1,000 people already have.

We’ve heard about the need for more accountability. With the absence of trustees, with all their foibles—and I could list them—

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Thank you, sir.

Chandra Pasma: Thank you.

Pat, with apologies, I’m going to go to David, because I don’t have much time.

David, you’ve mentioned you’re already seeing the behaviours of the supervisors—their decisions which are harming kids with disabilities and their families. Now this bill, Bill 101, is going to give them liability protection.

The Minister of Education was here this morning. He said he has no intention of adding any funding to school boards to cover all of these new responsibilities. He refused to say he would eliminate the shortfall in special education funding.

As you mentioned, there is absolutely nothing in here that provides any greater support to students with disabilities.

In light of all of that, do you have concerns that this bill is giving the minister and his appointees sweeping immunity protections?

Mr. David Lepofsky: I think there are several problems, one of which is that—the next problem is, for those who want more accountability, what this is actually going to create is more of a tyranny of the senior education bureaucrats at school boards because, having taken what are relatively weak trustees already, in terms of their current powers, and gutted them further and put the minister in this driver’s seat, there’s going to be virtually no oversight. So there’s going to be less accountability.

What we’re already finding at TDSB right now is that the budget process, which, by law, our special education advisory committee is supposed to be consulted on, is more secret than ever.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): One minute remaining.

Mr. David Lepofsky: It seems the bill is driven by the idea that we just don’t have enough secrecy around school board budgets.

Last point: Here, let’s just agree on one thing. Let’s just rename the bill “the putting red tape and bloated bureaucracy first act.” At least the title will be accurate.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: When we know there are thousands of kids who aren’t able to be at school every day, hundreds of thousands who aren’t allowed to be at school for the full day, did you find it very encouraging when the minister said they would be exempted from any attendance requirements?

Mr. David Lepofsky: We’ve been asking the minister—and his predecessors, since 2019—to use the ample powers he now has to rein in the arbitrary power of school principals to refuse to admit kids to school either at all or for the full school day. And so far, in seven years, they’ve done a grand total of nothing.

Evidence of Ontario Autism Coalition Board Member Kate Dudley-Logue

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Thank you very much for your presentation, sir.

We will now go to the Ontario Autism Coalition. Please state your name for the Hansard and you may begin.

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Kate Dudley-Logue, and I am vice-president of community outreach with the Ontario Autism Coalition. If you are unfamiliar with the OAC, we are a grassroots organization that represents a membership of almost 35,000 families, caregivers and autistic individuals.

I would like to discuss the potential impacts of Bill 101 in relation to students with special education needs and their families.

Oddly, Bill 101 doesn’t mention special education—not even once. There’s nothing in this bill that will make accessing supports easier for students with disabilities. There’s nothing in this legislation that will make schools safer for these students. And there is nothing in there that is addressing the crisis of exclusions and modified schedules that are being enforced on students with special education needs. This has become normalized throughout this province.

The OAC is in its second year of collecting data from families whose children are navigating the special education system in Ontario. Our now annual report will be released this Wednesday, but I would like to spend a few minutes discussing some of our key findings.

Families from 64 school boards across the province completed our survey, sharing their child’s experiences navigating special education during the 2024-25 school year. The findings show a system that is failing disabled students and placing unsustainable pressure on families, educators, school boards and communities.

Our data showed that 26% of disabled students were placed on modified schedules at some point in the school year. This means that these students were not attending school for full days—in fact, many of them were spending maybe an hour to two hours at school a day. With over 362,000 students with special education needs in Ontario schools, 26% represents over 94,000 students. The number one reason for students being put on modified schedules was that the schools lacked the resources to support the student safely.

Some 33% of disabled students are experiencing some form of exclusion. This 33% represents over 119,000 students who are frequently being sent home or are left out of parts of their school day due to lack of resources.

And 6% of disabled students are not in school at all. They’re either being fully excluded or their family has given up and pulled them out due to safety concerns or an inability to advocate for meaningful access. This 6% represents over 21,000 students who should be in school but do not attend at all.

Bill 101 puts a great deal of emphasis on attendance. In fact, Minister Calandra is painting a picture that declining attendance is affecting classroom learning. Meanwhile, disabled students who want to be in school are being told they can’t be, mainly due to lack of resources. Why are we not sounding the alarm on this? And why are we not looking at the reasons students aren’t in school and addressing them head-on?

Exclusions don’t just harm disabled students; they destabilize entire families. How are families supposed to work when their kids cannot attend school? Just today, a story in the Ottawa Citizen highlights a family pushed into homelessness, now living in a shelter, after their child was limited to just two hours of school per day due to a lack of resources. I ask again, why is Bill 101 not addressing this?

As you can see, families of students living with disabilities have to do a tremendous amount of advocacy. This comes at an extreme cost to families with already challenging demands being placed on them.

The OAC’s data showed that 29% of students with special education needs required their family to engage with their trustee at least once during the school year in order to advocate for the needs of their child in schools. This represents more than 102,000 points of contact with trustees.

While we are pleased that the changes in governance structure indicated in Bill 101 do not eliminate democratically elected trustees, it is deeply troubling that much of our trustees’ powers will now be shifted to the ministry.

As of today, eight Ontario school boards are under direct ministry supervision, with elected trustees sidelined. We can tell you unequivocally from what we hear in our community that access to safe and meaningful education for students with disabilities has not improved at these eight school boards; in fact, it has gotten much worse. Not only have many of these school boards overturned decisions previously made by trustees that protect what little special education supports and programming were already in place, but barriers and an extreme lack of transparency are leaving parents at these boards with nowhere to turn. The minister’s decision to stop live-streaming SEAC meetings is a great example. We’re creating barriers that are making it more and more difficult for parents to have voices in their children’s education. And this should be a warning sign to all school boards as to what they may face under Bill 101.

1530

We are recommending that the government engage in real consultation before moving forward with Bill 101. Families, students and educators should be at the forefront of decisions that affect our education system, and that is not what is happening here.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): One minute remaining.

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: Removing trustees’ decision-making powers must be scrapped from this bill. Democracy must be kept in place at our school boards so that families can have a voice.

This government needs to address our deteriorating special education system. Commitment to even collecting data on exclusions and analyzing the issue would be a good first step towards acknowledging the lack of supports and how we are increasingly underserving our most vulnerable students. Bill 101 certainly does none of the above. Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Thank you for your presentations.

Chandra Pasma: Thank you so much to all of the witnesses for being here this afternoon. I wish I had a lot more time to ask questions.

Kate, I’m going to start with you. Was the Ontario Autism Coalition consulted on this legislation?

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: No, not at all.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: And do you think that parents of children with disabilities have a pretty good grasp of what’s happening in our schools and should be included in any conversation about how we’re going to support and protect student achievement in Ontario?

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: One hundred per cent. Families of children with disabilities have to engage with their school boards, with their educators, with supervisors, superintendents. It’s probably well beyond more than your typical parent would have to engage. Most parents are very, very involved; they have to be, because they’re constantly fighting for supports.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: When the minister was here this morning, I asked him about the statistics that the OAC has provided about the number of kids who are excluded—that there are more than 20,000 children every day who aren’t allowed to attend school at all, and then tens of thousands of kids who are only attending for part of the school day, sometimes as little as one hour—and the minister’s response was, “We’ll exempt those kids from the attendance being included in the grade.” As a parent of kids with disabilities, is that reassuring to you?

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: No, not at all. And how kind of him for exempting them from an attendance-incentivized issue when these kids are not being allowed to be in school. So it would be disgraceful if that was held against them, when they’re being told they can’t be there. These are kids who want to be there.

Last week, I spoke with a family whose child was allowed to be at school for 40 minutes a day. She had to pick her kid up every day, with her kid crying because her child did not want to leave. The school didn’t have an EA to support this child for more than 40 minutes.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: The minister would not commit this morning to filling that $850-million funding shortfall, which—we know even that level of funding isn’t enough to allow our kids to be at school every day. But school boards are having to pull funds from elsewhere or cut specialized class placements and EAs in order to try to maintain that $850-million shortfall. He wouldn’t commit to eliminating that or any new funding.

As you mentioned, there’s nothing in this bill about student safety, about student supports, about full attendance.

So do you find it concerning that the bill does give the Minister of Education sweeping immunity and liability protections from the consequences of his own actions?

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: One hundred per cent. As I was discussing in my remarks, the situation at the school boards that are currently under supervision has only deteriorated since last summer, when that all started. We’re not seeing an increase in supports. We’re not seeing an increase in specialized classrooms. We’re actually seeing cuts happening. And they’re happening more at the school boards under supervision than we’re seeing in other school boards. So this can only leave us with the realization that moving forward with Bill 101 would mean a tremendous amount of cuts towards special education.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: You raise a really good point, because these new CEOs are going to be a lot like the supervisors. They’re not accountable to the people in the community. Only the Minister of Education can fire them—which is just like the supervisors. They’re going to be people with business or financial backgrounds, not people with educational experience or qualifications.

The trustees will still be there, and they can pick up the phone, call a superintendent, call a principal, mediate a conversation between parents and educators, but they won’t be able to come to the table with systemic solutions anymore.

The CEO can rule a motion out of order. They can prevent trustees from debating it. They can refuse to include something in the budget. And if the trustees don’t pass the budget, they can just turn to the minister for approval.

So when you mentioned just how much parents of kids with disabilities depend on their trustees—what does that loss of advocacy at the board table mean for kids with disabilities and their families?

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: It’s really alarming. I’ll use the example of Ottawa—and I know you know this quite well.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): One minute remaining.

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: Last year, prior to being put under supervision, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board was trying to implement a new elementary program review that was going to eliminate 39 special education classrooms. The trustees did a tremendous amount of listening; they did town halls, meetings with individual parents, meetings with groups of parents. They finally came to the conclusion, after listening to these parents, that this would be very detrimental to these students, and they voted against it.

Moving forward, under Bill 101, trustees aren’t going to have the power to say no to things that are harmful to the students and the families they represent. That’s a real problem. We’re losing our democracy in schools.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: What we’ve seen in the OCDSB is that the supervisor is now cutting those specialized class placements that the trustees protected after listening to parents, but parents have no mechanism to hold the supervisor accountable for that decision.

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: That’s right.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: In fact, the supervisor did not provide any clarity on what is happening until I reached out to him—

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Thank you for your comments.

We’ll now move on to the third party. I recognize MPP Fraser.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to thank everyone for being here today.

I want to start with Kate. We know each other, so we’ll use first names.

We had the minister in front of us here this morning, and what I asked him was about absenteeism—not in relation to exclusions, but absenteeism, and what the top three reasons were. He couldn’t answer my question. So—he gave an anecdotal answer, I should say. So they fundamentally don’t understand why it’s happening. It’s hard to solve a problem if you don’t fundamentally understand the root causes of it.

But one of the things—and I mentioned it this morning—is that special education is starved. Trustees and boards have had to find $850 million that’s not allocated for that. That translates into schools not being safe places, but it also translates into people’s everyday lives with their children. What they’re experiencing is creating a lot of hardship, as you described.

I do not see how Bill 101 is going to get one child who’s not getting the help they need the help that they need.

I don’t know if you want to add anything to that.

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: Yes, I will.

You touch on a good point about absenteeism. The irony, that this ministry is making such a big deal about attendance while telling—17% of the student body that is experiencing being told that they can’t attend school. There’s some real irony here.

Beyond that, for students with special education needs who are attending school full-time—they’re still dealing with a real lacking of support, and it can often, as they age, turn into mental health issues. When they’re not being supported properly, they’re feeling frustration, they’re falling behind, and that can lead to absenteeism.

Beyond the irony of students being excluded, we’ve now got families of children with special education needs who are feeling tremendous anxiety that their kids are going to be punished for not being at school, when the system isn’t creating an environment that is supporting them well enough to be there successfully.

So it’s a real problem that we’re making such a big deal about this.

Mr. John Fraser: It is a real challenge.

I do know that the OAC has been advocating for more direct services, more support. And now we have a policy of inclusion in the classroom, which is good, and it’s important. But what is happening—the supports aren’t there for kids.

I gave an example of Marigold, a student in my riding. She’s six years old—been there for two years, had an assessment, needs services and not getting them. Two years, when you’re six years old, is a really long time.

1540

I know that many of the families you work with and represent have a lot of concerns about their children falling further behind.

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: I didn’t write about this in my notes, but the Ontario Autism Program, as we all know, has a wait-list of close to 70,000 kids now who are waiting for more than five years to access therapies and services that could help them be so much more successful at school. The challenges that they face in school are amplified by the fact that they’re not accessing therapy. So we’re not helping them outside of school, while we’re cutting the services that are in school, and it’s creating—I often use the terminology “the perfect storm.”

How are these kids going to have the opportunity to develop skills to be successful in school, having not received the therapy that they need? And why are we downloading that onto educators? Educators are not therapists.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Thank you for your comments.

We’ll now move on to the independent party for three minutes.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’d like to direct my questions to Kate from the Ontario Autism Coalition.

Last year, the government underspent, so it had $500 million more to spend in our schools. You talked about almost 70,000 kids on the autism wait-list. What do you think the families would do with that money if they had access to the money that was meant to help kids?

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: Well, we certainly need to get that wait-list moving. There’s no such thing as early intervention in this province anymore for children with autism. They wait, often, two to three years to get a diagnosis, and then they’re put on a wait-list that’s a minimum of five years long. The $500 million could go a long way for getting that moving and expanding capacity so that there are more service providers. It could also go a long way in our schools, to provide more EAs to give supports.

So, yes, it’s alarming that there’s money there that’s not being spent.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I akin this to kind of like the emergency room—it’s like all the societal needs that go left unmet by other ministries, whether it’s housing and food and, in this case, therapies and supports for kids to have tools in their tool box so they can arrive at school ready to learn.

Can you speak a little bit about kindergarten? I hear that even our principals are doing a lot of diaper changes, because we don’t have that support to help kids with toileting. We end up with kindergarten classrooms where kids are showing up and we don’t know about the needs that they have. Tell us what we could do differently that this bill doesn’t cover to help kids start kindergarten with tools in their tool box so that they have what they need to function in that environment.

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: Certainly, any child who’s autistic and who has been diagnosed before kindergarten will not have been accessing therapy yet. They may have accessed some of the other pillars in the Ontario Autism Program, but not the core clinical funding that provides them one-on-one therapy.

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): One minute.

Ms. Kate Dudley-Logue: So, yes, they’re arriving in kindergarten, and they haven’t had an opportunity to develop a lot of skills—one of them might be toileting; others, routine-following, communication levels, being able to manoeuvre socially with peers.

What we’re seeing a lot in kindergarten is—again, we’re back at exclusions. There are schools that, before even meeting the child, and just hearing from the parent upon registration that the child is autistic and has a level of needs that will require more support—they’re immediately being put on modified schedules before the child has even had an opportunity to present whether they can make it through a school day. Schools are really at a point where this is becoming normalized. These kids are not going to be in school full-time.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: What I hear from families is that it creates an enormous amount of strain: stress on a marriage, on the mental health and well-being of parents who are left questioning and dealing with everything on their own—let alone financial, when somebody has to abandon work—

The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Thank you very much.

Episode 13 of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” is Part 2 of an Interview About the Fight for Accessible Housing for People with Disabilities with Housing Advocate Kate Chung

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Episode 13 of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” is Part 2 of an Interview About the Fight for Accessible Housing for People with Disabilities with Housing Advocate Kate Chung

May 23, 2026

SUMMARY

In the 13^th episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” you can hear the second part of host AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s interview with accessible housing advocate Kate Chung about the ongoing battle to address the crisis shortage of accessible housing.

Grab your smart phone, rush to your computer or call out to your Alexa to catch “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” Episode 13! You’ll enjoy Part 2 of an interview with unstoppable accessible housing advocate Kate Chung. She gives creative tips on how to advocate for governments at all levels to take seriously the crisis shortage of accessible housing for people with disabilities. You’ll enjoy it even more if you first listen to Part 1. Some podcast platforms, like Apple Music and Spotify, can produce captions where needed. Our podcast is available wherever you get your podcasts.

Episodes come out every three weeks. We have lots in store in upcoming episodes. If you are new to the podcast, we invite you to go back and listen to all of them. They give you practical tips on how to advocate for accessibility for people with disabilities or for any social justice issue that is close to your heart.

This podcast launched last fall. Most listeners are situated in Canada and the US. However, its issues, ideas and action tips are useful anywhere in the world. We’re delighted that the podcast has been downloaded in a total of 35 countries! Every new listener is a new potential disability rights advocate. Every new listener gives us a gateway to yet more listeners in their community. Here is a list of all the countries so far where we’ve had downloads: Canada, US, Israel, New Zealand, Mexico, Australia, UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Cyprus, Latvia, Chechnya, Costa Rica, Japan, Hong Kong, Austria, Singapore, Germany, Sweden, Dominican Republic, Greece, South Africa, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Denmark, Portugal, Italy, Nigeria, Ecuador, Bulgaria, Côte d’Ivoire, Switzerland, and India.

How You Can Help

Join the campaign for accessible housing for people with disabilities. Use Kate Chung’s action tips.
Encourage your friends and family to listen to this podcast. Listen while driving, cooking, going for a walk, working out, or enjoying the weather on a nice day.
If you have children, invite them to listen to it with you. Discuss the issues that the podcast covers. Get your child to do a project at school on an issue that the podcast addresses.
Post about the podcast on social media.
Send us feedback on the podcast to aodafeedback@gmail.com with reflections on topics covered and any suggestions for future episodes.

Education Minister Calandra Agrees to Meet with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky – The First Chance in Five Years to Meet with an Education Minister

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Education Minister Calandra Agrees to Meet with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky – The First Chance in Five Years to Meet with an Education Minister

May 15, 2026

SUMMARY

On April 27, 2026, Education Minister Paul Calandra agreed to hold a meeting with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. David Lepofsky approached him at the Legislature during the hearings on Bill 101 at the Standing Committee on Social Policy. He introduced himself to Mr. Calandra and asked if they could arrange a meeting. Mr. Calandra agreed.

Today, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky wrote Mr. Calandra, asking him to schedule the meeting. We set this letter out below.

The last time an Ontario Education Minister met with him was back in the spring/early summer of 2021. Because it was in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, it had to be a phone call. Now, an in-person meeting can occur, which is far better.

There has been a lot of news in our accessibility campaign over the last two or three weeks since our last AODA Alliance Update. Over the next days, we will get you all caught up!

How You Can Help

Spread the word to others that Education Minister Paul Calandra has agreed to meet with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky.

In this letter, we urge the Education Minister to watch the online video of the Toronto District School Board Special Education Advisory Committee’s April 13, 2026 public forum, where parents of students with disabilities/special education needs described barriers their children face at school. They gave recommendations on how to fix these barriers. You should watch it too! Over 1,000 people have already done so. Also, get others to watch it.

Watch AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s April 27, 2026 15-minute evidence on Bill 101 at the hearings conducted by the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy. During his presentation, he made public the Education Minister’s agreement to arrange a meeting with him.

MORE DETAILS

May 15, 2026 Letter from AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky to Ontario’s Minister of Education Paul Calandra

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com Twitter: @aodaalliance

May 15, 2026

To: The hon. Paul Calandra, Minister of Education minister.edu@ontario.ca

Ministry of Education

14th Floor, 315 Front Street West

Toronto, ON M7A 0B8

Canada

Dear Minister,

Re: Scheduling a meeting to discuss education for students with disabilities in Ontario schools

Thank you for agreeing to my request for a meeting with you when I spoke with you at the Legislature during the April 27, 2026 Standing Committee on Social Policy’s hearings on Bill 101. I look forward to meeting as soon as possible to discuss possible reforms to Ontario’s delivery of education in Ontario schools for over one third of a million students with disabilities.

When you addressed the Standing Committee during those hearings, you said this:

To address this, it is essential for you to speak extensively and directly with parents of students with disabilities/special education needs and organizations that speak for them, as well as those students themselves, about the many recurring disability barriers in our school system and what needs to be done to remove and prevent those barriers. We wish to be very involved in those discussions and would welcome the chance to help you reach out to these parents and students.

While I write you today in my capacity as Chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, I also happen to serve as the Chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Toronto District School Board, Canada’s largest school board. From that experience as well, I emphasize that it is important for you to hear directly in person, not through intermediaries, from the Special Education Advisory Committees at school boards around the province. They too can help you get an accurate and unfiltered picture of the reality facing these students.

We strongly encourage you to hold public forums for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs and students to speak directly to you. These can and should be hybrid. That would enable people to attend in person to meet you where it is feasible for them and/or take part over Zoom if it is not practicable for them to take time away from fulfilling their many parenting responsibilities.

On April 13, 2026 the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee held just such a hybrid public forum. It was organized using volunteer efforts. The feedback received speaks directly to your concerns as expressed to the Standing Committee on Social Policy. You can watch it at https://youtu.be/u0nEICBudoY as have over 1,000 people so far. It is profoundly regrettable that the provincially appointed TDSB Supervisor did not attend this event, though he was invited.

To address the concerns you expressed to the Standing Committee on Social Policy (quoted above), you have the huge benefit of having in hand a comprehensive review of the publicly funded school system in Ontario from the perspective of students with disabilities. It was conducted by a panel of experts appointed by the Government itself and drawn equally from the disability community and from educators.

The comprehensive final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee was delivered to your Government on January 28, 2022. It opened the door to your Government being empowered to enact an Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to provide consistent supports to students with disabilities. I was honoured that the Government appointed me to serve as one of the members of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. You can find that report at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/download-in-an-accessible-ms-word-format-the-final-report-of-the-k-12-education-standards-development-committee-on-what-the-promised-education-accessibility-standardshould-include/

You have the added advantage that your current deputy minister was the deputy minister of the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility when that report was being finalized. Thus, she brings to her current job familiarity with it.

Please have your office contact me to arrange a time to meet. We are eager to do whatever we can to assist you in bringing much-needed reforms – reforms for which the recent report of the Auditor General’s findings show are exceedingly pressing.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Twitter: @davidlepofsky

CC: Denise Cole Deputy Minister of Education Denise.A.Cole@ontario.ca

Learn About the Grassroots Battle for Accessible Housing by Listening to Episode 12 of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast”

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Learn About the Grassroots Battle for Accessible Housing by Listening to Episode 12 of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast”

April 30, 2026

SUMMARY

There is a critical lack of accessible housing in Canada. One in 5 Canadians have a disability and our population is aging. This problem isn’t going away; it’s going to get worse. With so much recent talk of nation-building projects, especially around addressing the wider housing crisis, accessible homes cannot be neglected.

Kate Chung is an unstoppable grassroots advocate for accessible housing. She is a driving force behind the Accessible Housing Coalition. In Episode 12 of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky learns from Kate Chung about the importance of accessible housing and what we can do to campaign for it. This is Part 1 of the interview. It will conclude in Episode 13, which drops in 3 weeks.

Subscribe to the podcast. It’s free. That will ensure that you get notified whenever a new episode is available. Use links below. Otherwise, just click here to play the episode.

More about Our Podcast

Each episode of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast will transport you to the front lines of disability rights advocacy! Listen to all episodes in any order you wish.

We investigate advocacy incidents and battles of all sorts. Some were waged by individuals. Others were advanced by groups and organizations. Each episode reveals action tips on how to be an effective advocate, whether you are advocating on a disability issue or any social justice topic.

The podcast is informative for listeners anywhere in the world, not just in Canada where the podcast is based. We have listeners all around the world.

New episodes drop every third Friday. Earlier episodes include:

Episode 1: “The 12-Year Fight for Automated Stop Announcements on the TTC” about Lepofsky’s long struggle to make transit in Toronto accessible for blind riders with host David Lepofsky.
Episode 2: “Beyond Building Codes: Designing Spaces for Everyone” with guest built-environment accessible design expert Thea Kurdi
Episode 3: “Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign, Part 1” covering how targeted advocacy resulted in policy change for autism therapies.” With guest autism advocate Bruce McIntosh.
Episode 4: “Turning Barriers into Headlines: Practical Tips from a Veteran News Reporter” with former journalist Michelle McQuigge.
Episodes 5 and 6: “How to get a Politician’s Attention” Part 1 and Part 2 with the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, former Ontario Premier.
Episode 7: Airline Accessibility: How Maayan Ziv Turned a Mangled Wheelchair into Real Change with Maayan Ziv.
Episode 8: “Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign, Part 2” covering how targeted advocacy resulted in policy change for autism therapies with guest autism advocate Bruce McIntosh.
Episode 9: “Why Must a Doctor with Disabilities Combat Accessibility Barriers in the Health Care System?” with physician Dr. Lisa Freeman.
Episodes 10 and 11: The Milestone Fight for Including Disability Rights in Canada’s Charter of Rights – With Yvonne Peters, Part 1 and Part 2

Find our podcast on major podcast platforms, other than YouTube:

Apple music: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/disability-rights-and-wrongs-the-david-lepodcast/id1838700161

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5WFLiSy99OJPMZ1ZSrkWCg

Ask your smart phone, Alexa, or Google Nest: “Play podcast ‘Disability Rights and Wrongs!’”

Listen to episodes on your computer. Use the links we provided above, or simply Google “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast.”

If you want a transcript of each podcast, Apple Music can generate transcripts. Spotify might do that as well. For iPhone users, you might prefer to use the live captioning feature that comes with your phone.

How You Can Help

Invite friends to check out this podcast. It’s great to listen to while driving, cooking, going for a walk, or working out! It’s great when you’re doing absolutely nothing.
If you have children, invite them to listen to it with you. Discuss the issues that the podcast covers. Maybe your child might want to do a project at school on an issue that the podcast explores.

Tories Today Propose Amendments to Bill 101 that Do Nothing for Students, Including Students with Disabilities – Tomorrow, will Tories Vote for or Against Opposition Amendments that Help Students with Disabilities?

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tories Today Propose Amendments to Bill 101 that Do Nothing for Students, Including Students with Disabilities – Tomorrow, will Tories Vote for or Against Opposition Amendments that Help Students with Disabilities?

April 29, 2026 Toronto: The AODA Alliance has just obtained the amendments that each Ontario political party will propose to Bill 101, the Ford Government’s bill to largely take over all Ontario school boards, at the Standing Committee on Social Policy tomorrow. We set out the 92 pages of dense legal text below so the public can see it.

We were only provided a PDF, which presents accessibility issues. Converting it has produced some formatting issues, evident below, for which we are not responsible and which we regret.

“It’s clear from a rushed first read of these proposed amendments that the Liberals, NDP and Greens listened to and acted on some important issues parents of students with disabilities have raised,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, who got 15 minutes to speak to the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy this past Monday. “On Thursday, we’ll see if the Tories will vote for or against opposition amendments that try to extend some modest protections for over a third of a million chronically underserved, vulnerable students with disabilities.”

On Monday, at the one day of Standing Committee public hearings on Bill 101, organizations from every perspective of the school system blasted this bill for giving the Education Minister massive, unbridled new power to micromanage all schools, while simultaneously giving him sweeping legal immunity from lawsuits. From an initial read of the Tories’ proposed amendments, it appears that that may not have been enough new power or legal immunity for the Ford Government.

“None of the Tories’ proposed amendments would do anything thing to improve student achievement, much less help vulnerable students with disabilities,” said Lepofsky. “We urge the Tories not to use their majority to defeat the opposition parties’ amendments that would help students with disabilities.”

Opposition amendments that especially help students with disabilities and their families would:

Require the Minister, when making or amending any guidelines, orders, directions or regulations under the bill to consult aSpecial Education Advisory Committee and parents among many others and ensure that an impact assessment is done to ensure there are not anti-Black impacts or negative impacts for students with disabilities resulting from the guideline, order, direction or regulation;
Require that when making one of these, the Minister must:

consider the needs of students with disabilities and ensure that the guideline, order, direction or regulation,
enable students with disabilities to have equal benefit of education at a school board,
not create or continue any disability barriers that would adversely impact students with disabilities; and
provide a public statement with respect to how the Minister reached their conclusion under the previous clause

Require that when the Minister approves a school board’s construction project “…the Minister shall ensure that the approval or confirmation will not negatively impact the accessibility of the facility to students, staff and other members of the community.”
Require that the Minister shall ensure that any school building that is constructed after the day the bill comes into force complies with,

any accessibility requirements set out in the Ontario Building Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005;
any relevant recommendations set out in the Final Report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, dated January 28, 2022.

Require annual publication of data on absenteeism, broken down on disability among other grounds.

“Premier Ford’s Education Minister froze us out of his consultations before introducing this bill and froze us and our kids out of the bill itself,” said Lepofsky. “We’re asking not to also be frozen out of the amendments to the bill made after the public hearings.”

The Tories used their majority to allow only one day of Standing Committee debate over these amendments, which is far too little time for so many amendments issues to be properly discussed.

For more information on the serious problems with Bill 101 from the perspective of more than one third of a million students with disabilities:

Watch the April 27, 2026 Queen’s Park news conference convened by the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and Ontario Parents for Education Support.
Watch AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s 15 minute appearance at the Standing Committee on Social Policy.
Read the AODA Alliance’s April 23, 2026 brief on Bill 101 submitted to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy.
Watch the April 13, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee’s Town Hall for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs for a glimpse of what’s in store for all school boards under Bill 101.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Text of Proposed Amendments to Ontario Bill 101 that the Political parties Filed on April 29, 2026 with the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy of

Liberal

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

move that section 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill be struck out and the following substituted:

Subsection 54 (1) of the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014 is amended by striking out “and” at the end of clause (b) and by adding the following clauses:

provide services to support operators of child care and early years programs and services and service system managers in carrying out their functions and duties under this Act; and
develop a full continuum of French-language education that is adapted to the reality of francophone communities.

NDP

Related motions: [Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that Schedule 1 to the Bill be amended by adding the following section:

The Act is amended by adding the following section:

Information and Privacy Commissioner

1 (1) The Information and Privacy Commissioner may set requirements regarding the collection, use, disclosure and production of a person’s Ontario education number.

Same

If requirements set by the Information and Privacy Commissioner under subsection (1) conflict with the requirements of section 73, the requirements set under subsection (1) shall prevail.

Same

The Information and Privacy Commissioner may, from time to time, review the collection, use, disclosure and production of Ontario education numbers by the Ministry of Education.

Projet de loi 101

Loi modifíant diverses lois relatives á l’éducation et á la garde d’enfants

Motion á proposer au comité

Proposée par :

Je propose que ¡’annexe 2 du projet de loi soit modifíée par adjonction de Particle suivant:

La Loi est modifíée par adjonction de Particle suivant:

Respect des droits linguistiques

(1) L’exercice des pouvoirs conférés au ministre en vertu de la présente loi et de ses réglements doit se faire dans le respect des droits garantis aux titulaires des droits liés au franjáis.

Idem

II est entendu que les droits visés au paragraphe (1) comprennent le droit á la gestión et au controle des établissements d’enseignement de langue fran^aise.

NDP

Related motions: [Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

(0.1) Subsection 8 (1) of the Act is amended by adding the following paragraph:

reports

request a report.

from the Auditor General with respect to any costs to the Province of Ontario that would result from the passage of Schedule 2 to the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026, and
from the Ombudsman with respect to any actions the Minister takes or intends to take under an authority under this Act that resulted from the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026;

NDP

Related motions: [Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 2 (1) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding striking out paragraph 3.3 of subsection 8(1) of the Education Act and substituting the following:

policies, guidelines: assessment of student achievement

3.3 after taking reasonable steps to facilitate student attendance, including steps with respect to special education, mental health, transportation, class sizes and alternative high schools, establish policies and guidelines for the assessment of student achievement with respect to pupils attending schools under the jurisdiction of a board and require boards to comply with the policies and guidelines;

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

Subsection 8 (1) of the Act is amended by adding the following paragraph:

policies, guidelines: student absenteeism

establish policies and guidelines to address frequent absences by pupils and, for the purpose, the Minister shall,

require communication strategies and team-based supports for pupils and families of pupils experiencing attendance challenges,
require a board to annually collect and publish data on the number and types of absences by pupils attending schools under the jurisdiction of the board, and

require a board to annually publish the data collected under subparagraph ii broken down by race, ethnicity and students with disabilities;

Projet de loi 101

Loi modiñant diverses lois relatives a ¡’education et á la garde d’enfants

Motion a proposer au comité

Proposée par :

Je propose que le paragraphe 2 (2) de l’annexe 2 du projet de loi soit modifié par adjonction de la sous-disposition suivante á la disposition 3.7 du paragraphe 8 (1) de la Loi sur I “education :

tiennent compte des réalités géographiques, linguistiques et représentatives qui sont propres aux conseils scolaires de langue

NDP

Related motions: [Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

move that section 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
Paragraph 6 of subsection 8 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “approve for use” and substituting “approve, but not require, for use”.

Liberal

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 2 (3) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out paragraph 7.1 of subsection 8 (1) of the Education Act and substituting the following:

policies and guidelines: educational materials

establish and require boards to comply with policies and guidelines,

respecting the use of educational materials approved under paragraph 6, such as textbooks and other learning materials, in instruction,
respecting the establishment, content and adoption of rules and procedures, by boards, to govern the selection and use of educational materials for instructional purposes,

requiring consultation with francophone teachers and educational professionals on educational materials, and

requiring that any policies, evaluations and resources for French-language education be developed and adapted for and by the French-language education system;

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 2 (5) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be struck out.

Liberal

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 2 (5) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be struck out.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

move that section 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
Section 8 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

Restriction

A policy or guideline established under paragraph 3.3 shall not require the assessment of student achievement to include attendance at school as a component of a pupil’s final grade.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

Section 8 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:

Consultations

Before establishing policies and guidelines under paragraph 7.1 or 27.4 of subsection (1), the Minister shall hold public consultations and publish the rationale for each policy and guideline on a Government of Ontario website.

Policies or guidelines re board’s public communications

A policy or guideline established under paragraph 27.4 of subsection (1) shall not limit,
public communications on the fiscal policy of the Government of Ontario or on the policies and directives of the Ministry; or
the content of public communications made by individual board members.

Projet de loi 101

Loi modifíant diverses lois relatives á l’éducation et á la garde d’enfants

Motion á proposer au comité

Proposée par :

Je propose que Particle 2 de ¡’annexe 2 du projet de loi soit modifíé par adjonction du paragraphe suivant:

L’article 8 de la Loi est modifíé par adjonction des paragraphe suivants :

Evaluation des impacts sur Ies conseils scolaires de langue fran^aise

(Id) Avant d’établir une politique ou une ligne directrice en vertu de la disposition 7.1 du paragraphe (1), le ministre évalue les impacts de celle-ci sur les conseils scolaires de langue fran^aise et fait en sorte qu’elle n’ait pas pour effet de réduire leur capacité d’exercer leurs fonctions de gestión et de gouvernance.

Adaptation du matériel scolaire aux réalités francophones

Les politiques ou lignes directrices établies en vertu de la disposition 1 du paragraphe (1) doivent prévoir que :
le matériel scolaire destiné aux conseils scolaires de langue franfaise est élaboré par et pour les francophones en fonction de leur réalité linguistique et culturelle;
ce matériel ne peut étre imposé de maniere uniforme lorsqu’une telle obligation compromet ¡’adaptation pédagogique aux besoins des éléves

page 3 ^ ^

Communications publiques des conseils scolaires

Les politiques ou ligues directrices établies en vertu de la disposition 27.4` ne peuvent limiter la capacité des conseils scolaires de langue fran^aise de représenter etttt de défendre les intéréts de leurs communautés.

Government

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

Section 8 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

Expenses

A policy or guideline made under paragraph 3.7 of subsection (1) may provide that, despite anything in this Act, a board shall not pay certain expenses of a member or reimburse a member for certain expenses or that such payment or reimbursement shall be restricted in accordance with the policy or guideline.

NDP

Related motions: [Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

Section 8 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

Duties of Minister

(3.1) Before making or amending any guidelines, orders, directions or regulations under an authority under this Act that resulted from the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026, the Minister shall,

consult with, and consider the feedback of, the public, parents, teachers and other educators and their associations, special education advisory committees and such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate;
ensure that an impact assessment is done to ensure there are not anti-Black impacts or negative impacts for students with disabilities resulting from the guideline, order, direction or regulation;
ensure that the guideline, order, direction or regulation complies with the recommendations set out in the Dreams Delayed action plan, dated March 27, 2025;
at least 90 days before making or amending the guideline, order, direction or regulation, post a draft of such document on a website of the Government of Ontario that is accessible to the public;
consider any feedback received as a result of a posting under clause (d);
consider the needs of students with disabilities and ensure that the guideline, order, direction or regulation,
enables students with disabilities to have equal benefit of education at a school board, and
does not create or continue any disability barriers that would adversely impact students with disabilities; and
provide a public statement with respect to how the Minister reached their conclusion under clause (f).

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

Section 8 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

Use of digital textbooks, etc.

A policy or guideline established under paragraph 7.1 may provide that digital textbooks and learning materials are available for a teacher’s use but shall not require digital textbooks and learning materials be used in instruction or for instructional purposes.

NDP

Related motions: [Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

Section 8 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

Information and Privacy Commissioner

The Information and Privacy Commissioner may,
set requirements regarding the collection and use of student information related to the prescription of educational materials under paragraph 7.1; and
from time to time, review the collection and use of student information related to the prescription of educational materials under paragraph 7.1.

NDP

Related motions: [Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 3 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection

Section 11 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

Same

Before the Minister provides an approval or confirmation in respect of clause (6) (a.l) that may impact a facility of the school board, the Minister shall ensure that the approval or confirmation will not negatively impact the accessibility of the facility to students, staff and other members of the community.

Partí liberal

Projet de loi 101

Loi modifiant diverses lois relatives a ¡’education et á la garde d’enfants

Motion a proposer au comité

Proposée par :

Je propose que Particle 3 de ¡’annexe 2 du projet de loi soit modifié par adjonction du paragraphe suivant:

L’article 11 de la Loi est modifié par adjonction du paragraphe suivant:

Obligation de consultation

Le ministre consulte les conseils scolaires de langue fran^aise ou leurs associations representatives avant de prendre un réglement en vertu du present article qui pourrait avoir des répercussions sur leur gouvernance ou leurs activités.

NDP

Related motions: [Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 6 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

Clause 58.1 (2) (k) of the Act is amended by adding the following subclause:

(i. 1) the determination of the roles and responsibilities of members of district school boards,

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

move that subsection 6 (3) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out subsection 58.1 (10) of the Education Act and substituting the following:

Number of members on a district school board

A regulation under subclause (2) (k) (i) shall not provide for a number of members of a district school board that is less than one member for each electoral district, as determined under the Representation Act, 2015, within the area of jurisdiction of the district school board.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

move that subsection 6 (3) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be struck out and the following substituted:
Subsections 58.1 (10) to (11) of the Act are repealed and the following substituted:

Number of members on a district school board

A regulation under subclause (2) (k) (i) shall not provide for a number of members of a district school board that is less than 5 or more than 12.

If number of members is 12 or fewer

(10.1) A regulation made under subclause 2 (k) (i) that provides for a number of members of a district school board that is 12 or fewer has no effect until January 1, 2030.

Certain persons not included

The numbers referred to in subsection (10) or (10.1) do not include any person elected or appointed to a district school board under section 188, a student trustee or the director of education of an English-language district school board.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 7 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

(0.1) Subsection 169.1 (1) of the Act is amended by adding the following clause:

(e. 1) report annually to the public on the effectiveness of policies developed by the board to promote the goals in clauses (a.l) and (a.2), incorporating the feedback collected from surveys from its pupils and staff, and parents and guardians of its pupils, with respect to the effectiveness of those policies,

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

NOTICE

The Independent member recommends voting against section 7 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.

Reason for notice rather than motion: If the Committee wishes to remove an entire section from the Bill, the rules of parliamentary procedure require that the Committee vote against the section, rather than pass a motion to delete it.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

NOTICE

The Ontario Liberal Party recommends voting against section 7 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

NOTICE

The Ontario Liberal Party recommends voting against section 7 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 7.1 be added to Schedule 2 to the Bill:

The Act is amended by adding the following section:

Publication of policy list

.1.1 (1) The Minister shall publish a list to a Government of Ontario website that describes the policies that a board may make decisions on without oversight from the Ministry.

Timing

The first version of the list described in subsection (1) must be published within one month after the day the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 receives Royal Assent.

No limitation on powers of board

For greater certainty, nothing in subsection (1) limits the powers of a board.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 8 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following clause to section 191 of the Education Act:

(f) specifying circumstances in which section 191.3 does not apply.

Related motions:

[Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

Section 195 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

Approval by Minister

The Minister shall not give an approval under subsection (1.2) or (2) unless the Minister has determined that the approval will not negatively impact the accessibility of any school site to students, staff and other members of the community.

Related motions: [Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

Section 195 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

New construction

The Minister shall ensure that any school building that is constructed after the day subsection 9 (4.1) of the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 comes into force complies with,
any accessibility requirements set out in the Ontario Building Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005;
any relevant recommendations set out in the Final Report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, dated January 28, 2022.

NDP

Related motions:

[Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 9 (5) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 195 of the Education Act:

Approval of Minister

The Minister shall not give an approval under subsection (6) unless the Minister has determined that the approval will not negatively impact the accessibility of any building to students, staff and other members of the community.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 9 (5) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following clause to subsection 195 (7) of the Education Act.

(O.a) the activities that constitute additions, erections, alterations or improvements that require the Minister’s approval under subsection (5) or (6) and any requirements that boards must fulfil in order to obtain an approval;

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 9 (5) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 195 of the Education Act:

Accessibility

(7.1) A policy established under subsection (7) must provide details about how the policy ensures the accessibility of the school site, land or building and complies with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

move that subsection 9 (5) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 195 of the Education Act:

Needs of francophone community to be taken into account

The Minister must take into account the specific needs of the francophone community when making any decision under this section.

Projet de loi 101

Loi modifiant diverses lois relatives á l’éducation et á la garde d’enfants

Motion á proposer au comité

Proposée par :

Je propose que le paragraphe 9 (5) de Fannexe 2 du projet de loi soit modifié par adjonction du paragraphe suivant á l’article 195 de la£w sur Veducation :

Prise en compte des réalités francophones

Dans le cas d’un conseil scolaire de langue fran^aise, le ministre exerce les pouvoirs qui lui sont conférés par le présent article dans l’objectif de préserver la croissance et la vitalité des communautés francophones et en tenant compte des besoins qui découlent de leur dispersion géographique.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

NOTICE

The Ontario Liberal Party recommends voting against section 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.

Projet de loi 101

Loi modifiant diverses lois relatives á l’éducation et á la garde d’enfants

Motion á proposer au comité

Proposée par :

Je propose que Particle 10 de Pannexe 2 du projet de loi soit modifíé par adjonction du paragraphe suivant á Particle 195.0.1 de la Loi sur Leducation :

Obligation de consultation

Avant de donner une directive ou de prendre un arrété visant un conseil scolaire de langue francaise en vertu du present article, le ministre consulte de fa^on sérieuse le conseil en

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

move that section 10 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out subsection 195.0.2 (1) of the Education Act and substituting the following:

Board vicariously liable

If a board is subject to an order under clause 195.0.1 (1) (b), any current or former member of the Executive Council, deputy minister, employee, officer or agent of the Crown, or a current or former trustee, employee or officer of another board selected for the purposes of clause 195.0.1 (1) (b), is deemed to be an officer of the board and not an employee, officer or agent of the Crown or of the selected board, for the purposes of any cause of action against the person and any claim for vicarious liability in relation to the person’s acts or omissions under section 195.0.1 in managing or administering the addition to, or erection, alteration, improvement or repair of, the board’s buildings.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

move that section 10 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out the portion of subsection 195.0.3 (1) of the Education Act before clause (a) and substituting the following:

Extinguishment of causes of action

No cause of action arises against the Crown or any current or former member of the Executive Council, deputy minister, employee, officer or agent of or advisor to the Crown, or another board selected for the purposes of clause 195.0.1 (1) (b) or any current or former trustee, employee or officer of the selected board, as a direct or indirect result of.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

NOTICE

The Ontario Liberal Party recommends voting against section 10 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.

pogeioí^-

Independent

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 10.1 be added to Schedule 2 to the Bill:

1 The Act is amended by adding the following section:

Oversight evaluation committee

3.4 (1) The Minister shall establish a committee to evaluate the creation of mechanisms for the independent oversight of members of district school boards.

Composition

2) The committee shall be composed of,
experienced teachers and early childhood educators, including,
teachers and early childhood educators with knowledge of special education, and
teachers and early childhood educators that represent all areas of Ontario;
representatives from each teachers’ bargaining unit;
a representative of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association;

p^tsoe a

a representative of the Women of Ontario Say No organization; and
the Integrity Commissioner appointed under the Members ’ Integrity Act, 1994.

Plan

3) The committee shall prepare a plan respecting,
enhancements to district school boards’ codes of conduct;
adequate training for members of district school boards regarding a board’s code of conduct; and
procedures and remedies for breaches of a board’s code of conduct.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 12 (2) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsections to section 230.3 of the Education Act:

List of criteria

The notice required by subsection (5) must include a list of criteria that the board can satisfy in order to have the order revoked.

Publication of list

The Minister shall publish the list of criteria described in subsection (5.1) on a Government of Ontario website.

Automatic revocation if list not provided or published

The order is immediately revoked if,
the list of criteria described in subsection (5.1) is not included in the notice; or
the Minister fails to publish the list to a Government of Ontario website within one month after the day the order is made.

Transition

The following rules apply with respect to any order that was made and not revoked before the day the Putting Student Achievements First Act, 2026 received Royal Assent:

The Minister must provide a list of criteria to the board that the board must satisfy in order to have the order revoked.
The Minister must publish the list of criteria on a Government of Ontario website.
The order is immediately revoked if the Minister does not comply with paragraphs 1 and 2 within one month after the day the Putting Student Achievements First Act, 2026 received Royal Assent.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 12 (2) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out subsection 230.3 (11) of the Education Act and substituting the following:

Regulations

The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing circumstances for the purposes of paragraph 3 of subsection (1).

Government

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 13 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be struck out and the following substituted:

. Section 230.4 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:

No proceedings against board without leave of Minister

4 (1) Subject to the regulations, after notice has been published in The Ontario Gazette under clause 2303 (3) (b),
no proceeding against the board shall be commenced or continued in any court without leave of the Minister; and
no order of any court shall be enforced against the board without leave of the

Minister.

Suspension of limitation period

Subject to subsection (3), where the commencement or continuance of any proceeding or the enforcement of a court order is prevented under this section,

page ^^5-

the running of any limitation period relating to the proceeding or enforcement is suspended until the Minister gives leave to commence or continue the proceeding or to enforce the court order, as the case may be; and
the person having the right to commence or continue the proceeding or to enforce the court order shall, immediately after the leave is given, have the same length of time within which to commence or continue the proceeding or enforce the court order, as the case may be, as the person had when the notice was published in The Ontario Gazette under clause 230.3 (3) (b).

Same

Subsection (2) does not apply unless application is made to the Minister for leave to commence or continue the proceeding or to enforce the order within the relevant limitation period and the Minister refuses to give the leave.

Effect of order

Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a board that is subject to an order under subsection 230.3 (1) after the Minister makes an order of a type described in clause 230.5.1 (2) (b) or (i) with respect to the board.

Regulations

The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,
prescribing circumstances in which leave of the Minister is not required under clause 230.4 (1) (a) or (b);
providing that clause (1) (a) does not apply in respect of any proceeding against a board or that clause (1) (b) does not apply in respect of any order of a court against a board.

Bril 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

NOTICE

The Ontario Liberal Party recommends voting against section 14 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 15 (1) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be struck out and the following substituted:

Subsection 230.15 (2) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:

Appointment of Minister

Where a board is subject to an order under subsection 230.3 (1), the Minister may appoint a person, who may be an officer or employee of the board, to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the board that the Minister may provide, and the person so appointed shall be paid the salary and allowed the expenses that the Minister may determine.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 15 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

Section 230.15 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

Publication of salaries and expenses paid

All salaries, fees, remuneration and expenses paid under subsection (4) must be published on a Government of Ontario website on the first day of each month in which an order

made under subsection 230.3 (1) is in force.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 15 (2) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be struck out.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 16 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out ‘‘Minister” in subsection 230.15.1 (1) of the Education Act and substituting “member of the Executive Council”.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 16 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out subsection

(4) of the Education Act and substituting the following:

Proceedings barred

proceeding shall be commenced against any individual specified in subsection (1) in respect of a matter referred to in that subsection.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 16 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out “or employee” in the portion before clause 230.15.2 (1) (a) of the Education Act and substituting “deputy minister, employee”.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

NOTICE

The Ontario Liberal Party recommends voting against section 16 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

NOTICE

The Ontario Liberal Party recommends voting against section 17 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.

page |<f St

Government

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 18 (2) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out subsections 232 (5.1) and (5.2) of the Education Act and substituting the following:

Same Minister’s approval of estimates

A board is required to obtain the Minister’s approval of its estimates in the prescribed circumstances and, if such approval is required, the estimates approved by the Minister are deemed to have been approved by the board for the purposes of this section unless otherwise specified by regulation.

Same

The Minister’s approval of a board’s estimates may be subject to any conditions that, in the Minister’s opinion, are necessary or desirable, and the Minister may require the board to comply with the conditions.

Same

The Minister may approve a board’s estimate under subsection (5.1) only if it

would result in the board being in compliance with subsections (3) and (4).

pC^ o( of ^*

Same

For greater certainty, an approval of a board’s estimates under subsection (5.1) does not constitute an approval of an in-year deficit as described in subsection (5) or vice versa.

Motions package draft 6

NDP

Related motions:

[Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 18 (2) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 232 of the Education Act:

Same

The Minister shall not give an approval under subsection (5.1) unless the Minister has determined that the approval will not negatively impact the accessibility of any facility of the board to students, staff and other members of the community.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

NOTICE

The Ontario Liberal Party recommends voting against section 18 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 19 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out “a board” in clause 233 (3) (d) of the Education Act and substituting “an English-language public district school board”.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

NOTICE

The Ontario Liberal Party recommends voting against section 19 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 23 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out “unless the board has obtained the prior written approval of the Minister” in subsection 280 (2) of the Education Act and substituting “without cause”.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 24 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out “The director of education of an English-language district school board” in subsection 283.0.1 (3) of the Education Act and substituting “An English-language district school board”.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 24 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out subsections 283.0.1 (3) to (6) of the Education Act.

Government

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 24.1 be added to Schedule 2 to the Bill:

1 The Act is amended by adding the following section:

Chief education officer

.1.1 (1) The director of education of an English-language district school board shall appoint an employee of the board as the chief education officer of the board.

Same

The director of education may be appointed under subsection (1) as the chief education officer of a board.

Qualifications

A person shall not be appointed as the chief education officer under subsection (1) unless the person is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers or has equivalent qualifications as may be prescribed by regulation, and meets any other qualifications as may be prescribed by regulation.

Regulations

The Minister may make regulations.

page ©W^

prescribing the powers, duties, responsibilities and qualifications of chief education officers in English-language district school boards;
governing performance appraisals of chief education officers, including the frequency and timing of appraisals and the standards, methods, processes, timelines and steps to be followed and the input and material to be taken into account when conducting the appraisals.

Government

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 25 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out “clauses 169.1 (1) (g) and (h)” in subsection 283.0.2 (2) of the Education Act and substituting “clause 169.1 (l)(h)”.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 25 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out section 283.0.3 of the Education Act.

Liberal

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsections 26 (2), (3) and (4) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be struck out and the following substituted:

Subsection 294 (8) of the Act is amended by adding “and to the French Language Services Commissioner” after “to the group”.
Subsection 294 (9) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:

Referral by group to the French Language Services Commissioner

(9) On receipt of a refusal and the reasons for it under subsection (8), the French-language rights holder group may refer the matter to the French Language Services Commissioner by sending the French Language Services Commissioner,

a written request for consideration of the matter; and
the written proposal of the group.
Subsection 294 (10) of the Act is amended by striking out “the Commission” and substituting “the French Language Services Commissioner”.

Projet de loi 101

Loi modifíant diverses lois relatives á l’éducation et á la garde d’enfants

Motion á proposer au comité

Proposée par :

Je propose que Particle 27 de Pannexe 2 du projet de loi soit modifié par remplacement de chaqué occurrence de «s’il estime que» au paragraphe 295 (3) de Loi sur l’éducation par «s’il existe des motifs raisonnables et fondés sur des éléments probants démontrant que».

Projet de loi 101

Loi modifiant diverses lois relatives á Péducation et á la garde d’enfants

Motion á proposer au comité

Proposée par :

Je propose que Particle 27 de Pannexe 2 du projet de loi soit modifié par adjonction du paragraphe suivant á Particle 295 de lafoz sur réducation :

L’article 295 de la Loi est modifié par adjonction du paragraphe suivant:

Mécanisme indépendant de réglement des différends

Le ministre met en place un mécanisme indépendant chargé de régler les différends relatifs aux droits linguistiques en matiére d’éducation, y compris les différends liés á la langue d’enseignement.

Projet de loi 101

Loi modifiant diverses lois relatives á l’éducation et á la garde d’enfants

Motion á proposer au comité

Proposée par:

Je propose que le paragraphe 31 (2) de Fannexe 2 du projet de loi soit modifié par insertion de «pourvu que ces mesures soient nécessaires, proportionnelles et respectueuses des droits garantís par 1’article 23 de la Charle canadienne des droits et libertés» á la fin du paragraphe 299 (2) de la Loi sur I Education.

Partí libéral

Projet de lo¡ 101

Loi modifiant diverses lois relatives á ¡’education et á la garde d’enfants

Motion á proposer au comité

Proposée par :

Je propose que le paragraphe 31 (2) de ¡’annexe 2 du pro jet de loi soit modifié par remplacement de «lequel n’est pas tenu de donner á qui que ce soit 1’occasion de présenter des observations ou d’etre entendu» au paragraphe 299 (3) de la Loi sur ¿Education par «mais ce dernier est tenu de donner aux parties concernées l’occasion de présenter des observations et d’etre entendues».

Parti libéral

Projet de loi 101

Loi modifiant diverses lois relatives á [’education et á la garde d’enfants

Motion á proposer au comité

Proposée par :

Je propose que le paragraphe 31 (2) de 1’annexe 2 du projet de loi soit modifié par adjonction du paragraphe suivant á Particle 299 de lafoz sur Véducation :

Arrété motivé

L’arrété que prend le ministre en application du paragraphe (2) doit étre accompagné de motifs écrits et détaillés que le ministre doit rendre publics dans un délai raisonnable.

Partí libéral

Projet de loi 101

Loi modifíant diverses lois relatives a Péducation et á la garde d’enfants

Motion á proposer au comité

Proposée par :

Je propose que Particle 31 de Pannexe 2 du projet de loi soit modifié par adjonction du paragraphe suivant:

1) Le paragraphe 299 (4) de la Loi est modifié par suppression de «, sans les motifs, le cas échéant,».

Motions package draft 6

Related motions: [Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 33 of Schedule 2 to the Bill be struck out and the following substituted:

Commencement

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, this Schedule comes into force on the later of January 1, 2030 and the day the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 receives Royal Assent.
Subsection 2 (0.1) comes into force on the later of December 1, 2029 and the day the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 receives Royal Assent.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 33 (2) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be struck out.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 33 (3) of Schedule 2 to the Bill be amended by striking out

“sections 24” and substituting “sections 24J”.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

NOTICE

The Independent member recommends voting against Schedule 2 to the Bill.

Reason for notice rather than motion: If the Committee wishes to remove an entire Schedule from the Bill, the rules of parliamentary procedure require that the Committee vote against the Schedule, rather than pass a motion to delete it.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

NOTICE

The Independent member recommends voting against Schedule 3 to the Bill.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

move that subsection 1 (2) of Schedule 4 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 40 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996:

Consultation

The Council must consult with members of the College, teachers’ unions and school boards on the proposed text of a regulation before making any regulation that relates to the matters described in subsection (1.1).

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

move that subsection 1 (2) of Schedule 4 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 40 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996:

Consultation on francophone education system

Before making any regulation that relates to the matters described in subsection (1.1), the Council must consult with teachers’ associations on the proposed text of the regulation and integrate any feedback from them on the realities of the francophone education system.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 6 of Schedule 5 to the Bill be amended by striking out subsections 22.1 (1) and (2) of the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014 and substituting the following:

Substitution if CODE unable, etc., to act

If the CODE provides written notice to the Minister that the CODE is unable or unwilling to exercise its rights and privileges or perform its duties as an employer bargaining agency under this Act, the Minister may, by regulation, designate a person or a body of persons or establish a body of persons to exercise the rights and privileges and perform the duties on its behalf until central bargaining is completed.

Same

If the CODE is a member of a council designated by or under section 21 and the CODE provides written notice to the Minister that the CODE is unable or unwilling to exercise its rights and privileges or perform its duties as a member of the council, the Minister may, by regulation, designate a person or a body of persons or establish a body of persons to exercise the rights and privileges and perform the duties on its behalf until central bargaining is completed.

Related motions: [Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 6 of Schedule 5 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 22.1 of the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014:

Same

The Minister shall ensure that a person or body of persons designated under subsection (1) remains independent and free from political intervention.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that subsection 10 (1) of Schedule 5 to the Bill be amended by striking out subsection 39 (2.1.1) of the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014 and substituting the following:

Same

A memorandum of settlement of local terms shall only be considered to have been ratified by a school board once the memorandum has been approved by the board’s trustees.

NDP

Related motions:

[Text]

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 12 of Schedule 5 to the Bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 52 of the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014:

Compliance with Charter

(1.1) For greater certainty, the actions of the committee shall not adversely affect any right or privilege guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 12 of Schedule 5 to the Bill be amended by striking out subsections 52 (7) and (10) of the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014.

Bill 101

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of education and child care

Motion to be moved in Committee

Moved by:

I move that section 12 of Schedule 5 to the Bill be amended by striking out clauses 54 (1) (a) and (b) and subsection 54 (2) of the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014.

Watch AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s Testimony at Legislature’s Standing Committee to See how Premier Ford’s Gutting Local Democracy at School Boards Creates Even More Problems

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Watch AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s Testimony at the Legislature’s Standing Committee to See How Premier Ford’s Gutting Local Democracy at School Boards Creates Even More Problems

April 28, 2026 Toronto: Legislative public hearings on the Ford Government’s Bill 101 yesterday revealed that, apart from the few Government’s hand-picked cheerleaders, there’s overwhelming opposition to Ford’s scheme to take over all of Ontario’s 72 school boards.

Only a small fraction of invited presenters spoke for parents. To get a flavour of their many objections, watch AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s evidence (15 minutes ). No Tory MPP even asked Lepofsky any questions to learn about the serious concerns he identified with Bill 101.

Emerging at the hearings were additional new major problems about the bill. For example, Education Minister Calandra wants the bill so he can order that high school students can be penalized for absenteeism by lowering their grades. Witness after witness said that it’s far more effective for the Government to instead target and remedy the causes of absenteeism. Lepofsky argued that the Government’s wrong-headed solution is akin to treating a person for stomach flu by simply duct-taping shut their mouth and nose.

When the Minister was earlier challenged that new absenteeism grades penalty could hurt students with disabilities, Calandra said they’d exempt special education students. Yet Lepofsky warned the Standing Committee yesterday that the Minister’s improvised solution would cause more bullying of students with disabilities for what to others might look to them like preferential treatment.

There are yet more problems that this legislation will create for students with disabilities. The AODA Alliance did not have enough time before the Standing Committee on Social Policy to raise one. Several witnesses who did not speak for parents applauded the Minister’s plan to reduce the length of teacher’s college by one full term. The Minister applauded this measure in part because it helps train teachers more quickly.

Yet this is terrible for students with disabilities. At present, Ontario’s teachers too often don’t know how to effectively teach students with disabilities. Mandatory teacher training must be substantially expanded to require this. For years, parents have advocated for this. The Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s final report made detailed recommendations to this effect over four years ago. The Government has ignored those recommendations.

Shortening teacher training exacerbates this problem. Ontario’s problem is not that we train teachers too much. By comparison, Ontario has a doctor shortage. The solution is not to slash the length of medical school by 25 percent!

A minority of witnesses at the Standing Committee who the Ford Government put forward to support Bill 101 did not address or even acknowledge the serious problems that this bill creates for students with disabilities. Instead, the Government and its supporters have set up locally elected school trustees as their all-purpose punching bag who they blame for everything wrong in our schools.

Making this worse, on the morning after these hearings, Education Minister Calandra again announced more money for new school construction without ensuring that these new schools will be fully accessible to students with disabilities. For years, the AODA Alliance has demanded that the Government ensure that new school construction be fully accessible. The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s final report shows how to do this.

For more information on the serious problems with Bill 101 from the perspective of more than one third of a million students with disabilities:

Watch the April 27, 2026 Queen’s Park news conference convened by the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and Ontario Parents for Education Support.
Read the AODA Alliance’s April 23, 2026 brief on Bill 101 submitted to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Bill 101 is a Disaster for Students and Parents, But a Boon for Red Tape and Bureaucracy, Disability Advocates Told Queen’s Park Today

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Bill 101 is a Disaster for Students and Parents, But a Boon for Red Tape and Bureaucracy, Disability Advocates Told Queen’s Park Today

April 27, 2026 Toronto: Premier Ford’s Bill 101 is a disaster for students with disabilities and their parents, and should be renamed the “Putting Red Tape and Bloated New Bureaucracy First Act,” according to disability advocates speaking at Queen’s Park today. Speaking from the perspective of parents of students with disabilities, the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and Ontario Parents for Education Support held a Queen’s Park news conference before the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy held a paltry one day of public hearings on a bill which Education Minister Calandra aims to transform Ontario’s school system. Watch the news conference online.

The Ontario Autism Coalition addressed the Standing Committee at 3 PM. The AODA Alliance gave evidence at 4 PM. The Ontario Parents for Education Support was shut out of the hearings. The Government allowed the hearings to be dominated by anyone except parents, who were only allotted a small percentage of speaking time. Yet parents and students aren’t some marginalized side show. Theirs is the most important voice.

“Bill 101 provides no new rights, no new educational programs, and no new services or supports for students. It barely even uses the word “student,” And it weakens parents’ voice,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, a parent of a child with disabilities and also Chair of TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee. “This bill does nothing to address the chronic disadvantage that over one third of a million vulnerable students with disabilities face at school. It will make “student achievement” worse for these students, just as things for them have gotten worse at school boards like TDSB which the Ford Government has been running for months.”

Doug Ford promised to cut red tape and bureaucracy. Yet Bill 101 makes the greatest injection of red tape and bloated bureaucracy that our school system has ever experienced. Money for this will be siphoned out of classroom education.

This bill authorizes a dizzying maze of new Ontario Government regulations, guidelines, orders and policies. The Education minister will need an army of bureaucrats to draft and enforce them, to explain them to 72 school boards, and then to read, review and make the endless decisions that this bill assigns to the Minister for board after board. None of that bureaucracy and the delays it creates helps a single student.

“The Minister wants an avalanche of new powers, but hasn’t shown that his many existing powers, supplemented by Bill 98 in 2023 and by Bill 33 last year, aren’t enough, said Lepofsky. “For example, where’s the proof he first exhausted all those many powers trying to solve the student absenteeism problem that he’s now talking about?”

The AODA Alliance submitted a brief that calls for the Auditor General to publicly cost this bill. Will Ontario get value for money? It calls for the bill to be amended to list the powers of elected trustees. The Minister said he wants to reduce them, but neither he nor his bill have made clear what powers the trustees will have.

The Minister complaints about local school board budgets. Yet this bill will drive the budgeting process behind closed doors, with a shocking lack of public accountability. It appears that the Government thinks that the problem with school board budgeting is that there’s just not enough secrecy.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Read the AODA Alliance’s April 23, 2026 brief on Bill 101 to the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy.

For a troubling glimpse of what education will be like for students with disabilities across Ontario if Bill 101 is passed, watch the April 13, 2026 Town Hall for parents of special education students held by the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee.

Please Write Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy Fast to Support the AODA Alliance’s Brief on Bill 101 to Protect Students with Disabilities – and — AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s Monthly Metroland Column

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Please Write the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy Fast to Support the AODA Alliance’s Brief on Bill 101 to Protect Students with Disabilities – and — AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s Monthly Metroland Column

April 24, 2026

SUMMARY

1. Please Write the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy Now!

You have until 6 pm this Monday, April 27, 2026 to tell the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy that you support the AODA Alliance’s April 23, 2026 brief on Bill 101. That’s the Ford Government’s bill that guts local democracy at school boards across Ontario. You can submit any written message or submission, formal or informal, to the Standing Committee on Social Policy by going to the general link at the Ontario legislature.

All you need to say is that you support the criticisms of Bill 101 and the recommendations in the AODA Alliance’s April 23, 2026 brief. Of course, feel free to add any other thoughts you wish to share.

2. Please Circulate AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s April Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky writes a monthly column on disability issues in the Toronto Star’s 25 Metroland publications around Ontario. This month’s column, set out below, is about gut-wrenching barriers that students with disabilities/special education needs face at the Toronto District School Board.

Please circulate it to people you know. It reports on what the Toronto District School Board’s students with disabilities/special education needs can face in class. It is a glimpse into what can be expected if the Ford Government’s Bill 101 is passed. You can watch the video of the April 13, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee Town Hall for parents online.

Watch Online the April 27, 2026 4 PM Evidence that AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky Will Give the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy regarding Bill 101

The AODA Alliance has been granted a time slot at 4 PM on Monday April 27, 2026 to give evidence to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy during its one day of public hearings on Bill 101. Watch it live online.

You can also watch online the 9:30 AM Queen’s Park news conference by the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and Ontario Parents for Education Support on April 27, 2026, just before the Standing Committee begins its hearings.

MORE DETAILS

Inside Halton April 22, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.insidehalton.com/life/special-education-parents-reveal-hardships-and-highlights/article_e16627c4-c3b9-5606-bf8c-a978d2d90a42.html

Special education parents reveal hardships and highlights in Ontario schools

Everyone paid to run Ontario school boards needs to hear from parents about what is going on in classrooms, the advocate urges.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is the chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford is blazing ahead with proposed legislation to radically revamp how school boards are run.

The public must have a say in our schools’ future. Look closely at what is happening in classrooms that Education Minister Paul Calandra now runs.

How have the most vulnerable and chronically underserved students, such as special education students, fared?

Here is information from the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) — Canada’s largest and one of eight the education minister is running.

On April 13, the TDSB’s special education advisory committee (which I chair) held a public forum.

Parent after parent of special education students told gut-wrenching stories of hardships their children face at schools. They offered thoughtful ways TDSB could improve.

Although the education minister banned supervised school boards from livestreaming such committee meetings, a community group streamed it. You can watch Ontario Autism Coalition’s recording here.

The TDSB supervisor did not attend this event or hear parents from diverse backgrounds speak about their children, reflecting the experiences of a wide spectrum of disabilities. For example:

Long delays getting special education needs assessed, or following assessment, getting the school board to act on it.

Parents having to purchase aids for their child’s disability-related learning needs.

The school board not addressing a child’s ADHD until another recognized disability was also diagnosed.

Children needing more staff support than the school board said it had available.
A case of a child who did very well at a special education high school — one the board now appears to be gradually closing by first eliminating Grade 9 enrolment.

A slow reduction in the overall level of staff supports for special need students.

Added mental health harms for a child when their special education needs were not effectively accommodated.

Parents whose experience with the board at different levels led them to believe that staff need substantial new training on meeting the needs of special education students.

Parents who were discouraged and exhausted from dealing with their child’s needs and from difficulties in dealings with the school board.

Parents who got no answer or no solution after contacting the board’s new Student and Family Support Office.

Parents who believed that the school board fell far short of its broad commitments to special education students.

Parents also related success stories, but some feared upcoming cuts.

The message from these parents was not that everything is always bad for special education students.

Front-line educators want to teach all learners. They are handcuffed by a school board full of barriers and bureaucracy.

Everyone paid to run our school boards needs to hear from parents like these about what is going on in our classrooms.

It’s inexcusable that senior school board staff strenuously opposed our committee holding a town hall for parents of special needs students. They refused to even announce our upcoming event in a regular school board newsletter to parents of special education students.

In a future column, I’ll describe how Ford’s new bill, as it now stands, will make things worse for vulnerable students with disabilities.

As a vital first step, the province must agree that the legislature will hold public hearings on this bill and allow time at those hearings for all who ask to speak.

Public hearings on a topic this important are central to true democracy. I encourage everyone to let the province know that holding open public hearings on its education legislation is essential.

David Lepofsky is a retired lawyer who chairs the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance and the Toronto District School Board’s special education advisory committee. He is a visiting professor of disability rights at the law schools at Western, Queen’s and the University of Ottawa, and hosts a podcast, “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast.”

Parents of students with disabilities to Hold Queen’s Park News Conference Monday, April 27, 2026 9:30 AM to Show How Bill 101 Puts Student Achievement Last, Especially Hurting Students with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Ontario Autism Coalition

Ontario Parents for Education Support

MEDIA ADVISORY

April 24, 2026

Parents of students with disabilities to Hold Queen’s Park News Conference Monday, April 27, 2026 9:30 AM to Show How Bill 101 Puts Student Achievement Last, Especially Hurting Students with Disabilities

What: the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, Ontario Autism Coalition and Ontario Parents for Education Support will hold a 9:30 AM news conference in the Queen’s park Media Studio right before public hearings on Bill 101 begin. They will describe how the Ford Government’s Bill 101 puts massive red tape and bloated new bureaucracy first and puts student achievement last, contrary to the bill’s name. They will show how it particularly Hurts chronically underserved vulnerable Students with Disabilities, who number over 330,000.

When: Monday, April 27, 2026 at 9:30am

Where: Queen’s Park Media Studio

Streaming live at https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/video/media-studio

At least one third of a million students with physical, sensory, physical, intellectual, learning, mental health, neurological, communication and other disabilities suffer from well-documented recurring disability barriers in publicly-funded schools. The Ontario Autism Coalition, AODA Alliance and Ontario Parents for Education Support all applied to appear before the rushed one day of public hearings that the Ford Government has allowed for Bill 101, which begin at 10 AM on April 27, 2026. The Ontario Autism Coalition has been permitted to appear at the hearings at 3 PM, and the AODA Alliance was invited to speak at 4 PM. Inexplicably, the Ontario Parents for Education Support was denied a slot to speak at the hearings.

At this news conference, Bruce McIntosh (Ontario Autism Coalition board member and founding president), David Lepofsky (AODA Alliance Chair) and Elizabeth Garkowski (co-chair of Ontario Parents for Education Supports), all parents of students with disabilities, will explain why the bill is so harmful. They will describe amendments that will be sought at the hearings if the Ford Government insists on proceeding with the bill.

The AODA Alliance has submitted a detailed brief that details the bill’s many serious problems, and lists 8 amendments that the AODA Alliance seeks.

Contact: Bruce McIntosh 416-451-8315, bruce.mcintosh@ontarioautismcoalition.com

David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

Elizabeth Garkowski ontarioparentsforeducation@gmail.com

Learn more about the advocacy efforts of the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and the Ontario Parents for Education Support.

Disability Advocates Call on Ford Government to Scrap or Amend Bill 101, But Will the Ford Government Let Them Speak at Next Monday’s Hearings on the Bill?

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Disability Advocates Call on Ford Government to Scrap or Amend Bill 101, But Will the Ford Government Let Them Speak at Next Monday’s Hearings on the Bill?

April 23, 2026 Toronto: The non-partisan AODA Alliance calls for the Ford Government’s Bill 101 to be withdrawn or amended. Bill 101 is called the “Putting Student Achievement First Act,” but it promises nothing good for students, according to a comprehensive brief just filed with the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy. The brief is available online. A summary of its damning findings and eight constructive recommendations is set out below.
“Bill 101 creates no new rights, educational programs, services or supports for students. It will make things worse for chronically disadvantaged and vulnerable students with disabilities,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. “It creates the biggest injection of enormous burdensome new red tape and bureaucracy into the school system in generations, draining money from classrooms.”
To raise the serious concerns of parents of students with disabilities, the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition, and the Ontario Parents for Education Support will hold a news conference in the Queen’s Park Media Studio at 9:30 AM this Monday, April 27, 2026. The news conference will take place just before the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy holds its only day of public hearings on Bill 101 that the Ford Government will allow. All three community groups applied to appear before the Standing Committee. They don’t know if the Ford Government will let them give evidence at those hearings.
Much of the media coverage of Bill 101 has understandably focused on the reactions to the bill from school board trustees. However, the impact of this bill on over 300,000 students with disabilities across Ontario and their parents is equally important information for the public to receive.
A disturbing glimpse into what’s in store for these students if the Ford Government largely takes over micromanagement of classrooms across this province can be obtained by watching the online video of the April 13, 2026 Public Forum for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs that the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) held. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky also chairs TDSB’s SEAC. For almost three hours, parent after parent gave gut-wrenching stories of hardships facing their children at school. TDSB has been under provincial supervision since the end of last June.

Contact: David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

Summary of Findings and Recommendations in the April 23, 2026 AODA Alliance Brief on Bill 101 to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy

We summarize our concerns with Bill 101 as follows:

Despite its name, this bill has nothing to do with student achievement
Bill 101 doesn’t help vulnerable students with disabilities but instead makes things worse for them
Bill 101 is a massive unnecessary and counterproductive provincial power grab creating costly red tape but with no plan of action
Bill 101 creates enormous burdensome new red tape and bureaucracy, draining money from classrooms
The Ford government announced no public and comprehensive plan of action for all of the bill’s many new provincial powers
Bill 101 doesn’t spell out what powers are left for elected trustees to exercise
Bill 101 reduces much-needed local democratic oversight of unelected senior school board officials
Bill 101 lacks proper safeguards to limit sweeping powers it gives the education minister and cabinet
Bill 101 seriously reduces assistance to parents of students who have unresolved problems with school officials
Bill 101 makes it less likely that people would want to run for the position of trustee
Bill 101 creates harmful secrecy around school budgets
The minister’s plan for student absenteeism under the bill ignores needs of students with disabilities
Bill 101 improperly targets the Ontario public school boards association, seemingly attempting to silence criticism of some provincial policies
Bill 101 and the government’s failure to properly consult the public on it is a slap in the face for parents, including parents of students with disabilities

We propose amendments to the bill to:

Specify that the bill does not go into effect (except regarding the duty to enact the promised education accessibility standard under the accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) at least until 2030, and only after the auditor general has released a public costing of the bill and after the government has released draft regulations, guidelines, directions and orders needed to enable school boards to prepare for it.
List in clear and detailed terms the powers of school board trustees.
Require all new school construction to be accessible to people with disabilities, beyond the inadequate requirements of the Ontario Building Code.
Require the education minister to consult the public and key education stakeholders when developing any regulations guidelines, orders or directions provided for in the bill.
Require that before the government makes or amends any regulation, policy, guideline, direction or orders under the bill, it must publicly post a draft of it for public input.
Require that no regulation, guideline, order, policy or other direction under this bill may create or perpetuate disability barriers against students with disabilities.
Set clear benchmarks for deciding when any of the eight school boards now under provincial supervision is restored to local democratic self-government.
Require the restoration of those eight school boards to local democratic self-government by November 15, 2026 unless the minister orders no later than September 1, 2026 that a school board is to remain under provincial supervision.
Prescribe clear grounds for ordering that a school board remain under provincial supervision after November 15, 2026.
Not limit the power of any person to apply to the divisional court of Ontario for judicial review of a minister’s order stopping the restoration of local democratic governance of a school board now under provincial supervision.
Require that the government enact an education accessibility standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by November 1, 2026 taking into account the recommendations it received in 2022 from the government-appointed K-12 education standards development committee.

A Disaster for Students with Disabilities — Bill 101 Puts Student Achievement for Students with Disabilities Last! — Brief to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy Submitted by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

A Disaster for Students with Disabilities — Bill 101 Puts Student Achievement for Students with Disabilities Last! — Brief to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy Submitted by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

April 23, 2026

To: The Ontario Legislature Standing Committee on Social Policy

Via email: scsp@ola.org

Introduction and Summary

Bill 101 is fatally flawed. It should be withdrawn. It will cause substantial damage to Ontario’s publicly funded K-12 school system and to local democracy. It is a disaster for students, including vulnerable and chronically underserved students with disabilities in Ontario schools. A vote for this bill is a vote to harm students, especially those with disabilities.

In this brief, we explain what is wrong with Bill 101 and why it should be withdrawn. In the case that the bill proceeds despite our objections, we list eight proposed amendments to the bill which we seek.

Founded in 2005 shortly after the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act was passed, the AODA Alliance is a voluntary non-partisan grassroots coalition of individuals and community organizations. Our mission is:

“To contribute to the achievement of a barrier-free Ontario for all persons with disabilities by promoting and supporting the timely, effective, and comprehensive implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.”

To learn about us, visit the AODA Alliance website. Our coalition is the successor to the non-partisan grassroots Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA) Committee. The ODA Committee advocated for more than 10 years, from 1994 to 2005, for the enactment of strong, effective disability accessibility legislation. Our coalition builds on the ODA Committee’s work. We draw our supporters from the ODA Committee’s broad grassroots base. To learn about the ODA Committee’s history, visit the ODA Committee’s legacy website.

Our volunteer non-partisan coalition has within it the fullest institutional memory about the AODA available in Ontario. Our extensive advocacy efforts over the past two decades have included extensive efforts to get an AODA Education Accessibility Standard enacted. We have devoted massive non-partisan volunteer efforts to tearing down the many disability barriers in Ontario schools. This is documented on the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Each party in the Legislature has made election commitments to the AODA Alliance in several Ontario elections. We have been quoted, cited and commended by MPPs from all parties. We have also been widely consulted on disability issues by the Federal Government, several other provinces, and other countries ranging from as far away as New Zealand and Israel.

We summarize our concerns with Bill 101 as follows:

Despite its name, this bill has nothing to do with student achievement
Bill 101 doesn’t help vulnerable students with disabilities but instead makes things worse for them
Bill 101 is a massive unnecessary and counterproductive provincial power grab creating costly red tape but with no plan of action
Bill 101 creates enormous burdensome new red tape and bureaucracy, draining money from classrooms
The Ford government announced no public and comprehensive plan of action for all of the bill’s many new provincial powers
Bill 101 doesn’t spell out what powers are left for elected trustees to exercise
Bill 101 reduces much-needed local democratic oversight of unelected senior school board officials
Bill 101 lacks proper safeguards to limit sweeping powers it gives the education minister and cabinet
Bill 101 seriously reduces assistance to parents of students who have unresolved problems with school officials
Bill 101 makes it less likely that people would want to run for the position of trustee
Bill 101 creates harmful secrecy around school budgets
The minister’s plan for student absenteeism under the bill ignores needs of students with disabilities
Bill 101 improperly targets the Ontario public school boards association, seemingly attempting to silence criticism of some provincial policies
Bill 101 and the government’s failure to properly consult the public on it is a slap in the face for parents, including parents of students with disabilities

We propose amendments to the bill to:

Specify that the bill does not go into effect (except regarding the duty to enact the promised education accessibility standard under the accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) at least until 2030, and only after the auditor general has released a public costing of the bill and after the government has released draft regulations, guidelines, directions and orders needed to enable school boards to prepare for it.
List in clear and detailed terms the powers of school board trustees.
Require all new school construction to be accessible to people with disabilities, beyond the inadequate requirements of the Ontario Building Code.
Require the education minister to consult the public and key education stakeholders when developing any regulations guidelines, orders or directions provided for in the bill.
Require that before the government makes or amends any regulation, policy, guideline, direction or orders under the bill, it must publicly post a draft of it for public input.
Require that no regulation, guideline, order, policy or other direction under this bill may create or perpetuate disability barriers against students with disabilities.
Set clear benchmarks for deciding when any of the eight school boards now under provincial supervision is restored to local democratic self-government.
Require the restoration of those eight school boards to local democratic self-government by November 15, 2026 unless the minister orders no later than September 1, 2026 that a school board is to remain under provincial supervision.
Prescribe clear grounds for ordering that a school board remain under provincial supervision after November 15, 2026.
Not limit the power of any person to apply to the divisional court of Ontario for judicial review of a minister’s order stopping the restoration of local democratic governance of a school board now under provincial supervision.
Require that the government enact an education accessibility standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by November 1, 2026 taking into account the recommendations it received in 2022 from the government-appointed K-12 education standards development committee.

2. Bill 101 is Fatally Flawed and Should Not Be Passed

Despite Its Name, This Bill has Nothing to do with Student Achievement

Bill 101 is called the “Putting Student Achievement First Act.” Yet it provides virtually nothing for or about student achievement. The word “student” appears only a handful of times in the 75 pages of dense, hard-to-decode legislation, apart from references to the bill’s title.

This bill provides no new rights, educational programs, services or supports for students. The bill’s title and the rhetoric promoting the bill distract from its contents.

Bill 101 Doesn’t Help Vulnerable Students with Disabilities but Instead Makes Things Worse for Them

This bill does absolutely nothing to address the chronic disadvantage that over one third of a million vulnerable students with disabilities/special education needs face in Ontario schools. To the contrary it risks making “student achievement” worse for these students. The bill does not even include the words “disabilities” or “special education.” By “students with disabilities,” we refer to disability as defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code. We do not limit ourselves to the unjustifiably narrower and outdated term “exceptional pupils” under the Education Act. That term and the related term “exceptionalities” governs who is entitled to special education under the Education Act. The Ontario Human Rights Code requires every school board and the Ontario Government to effectively accommodate the disability-related learning needs of all students with disabilities, whether or not their disability falls within the narrower term “exceptionality” within the Education Act and regulations enacted under it.

Just two years ago, a Trenton high school student, Landyn Ferris, died all alone in his school’s isolation room. His body was found, cold and unsupervised by staff. There has been no coroner’s inquest or other independent investigation. The Ontario Government has enacted nothing to prevent this from happening again.

We have repeatedly asked for the Government to enact the promised Education Accessibility Standard, To date, it has refused to enact any of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s recommendations. Over the past four years, the Ford Government has continued leaving a plethora of disability barriers in place in local school boards, while allowing new ones to be created.

This bill inexcusably misses major and glaringly obvious opportunities to promote accessibility for students, staff and family members with disabilities. For example, the bill gives the Education Minister sweeping authority over real estate dealings by school boards, including building construction and renovation. Yet nothing in the bill requires the Minister to ensure that any such construction is fully accessible to students, staff and parents with disabilities. The Government has a long track record of spending public money on new construction with accessibility problems, thereby creating new disability barriers that could have been prevented. See for example the mess the Government made of the new Toronto courthouse that was recently opened, which the AODA Alliance revealed in a widely viewed online video.

Over the past half decade, the AODA Alliance has called on the Government time and again to require that new school construction funded by the billions of dollars it has announced in this area be required to meet the full accessibility requirements that the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s final report recommended. The Government has not announced any action in response to those requests. See for example the June 16, 2021 AODA Alliance Update and the April 8, 2024 AODA Alliance Update.

As discussed further below, the bill gives the Minister of Education and Cabinet massive new highly discretionary powers. It does not require the Minister or Cabinet to ensure that their use of those discretionary powers creates no new barriers impeding students with disabilities. People with disabilities have a long history of suffering from governments that create new disability barriers when they have unchecked sweeping discretionary powers. Students with disabilities and their parents learned this the hard way in the school system during the Ford Government’s response to COVID-19 pandemic. See the AODA Alliance website’s COVID-19 page.

We have ample proof of what to expect for students with disabilities at school boards where the Ontario Government and the Minister of Education can micromanage the minutia at those boards. The Minister has not demonstrated and cannot show that there have been any major improvements at the eight school boards he now runs through his appointed supervisors. Those boards serve over one third of all Ontario students. The AODA Alliance and others have shown that for students with disabilities, things have gotten worse under provincial supervision. This was detailed at a January 28, 2026 Queen’s Park news conference and the recent April 13, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee Public Forum for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs. It is noteworthy that the Minister’s TDSB Supervisor (who reports directly to the education minister did not even attend that forum to listen to parents’ gut-wrenching accounts.

When parents encounter a systemic disability barrier at school, it is virtually impossible to get the Ministry of Education to do anything about it. A parent’s only hope, or that of a parents’ organization, would be to get a trustee to raise it as a recurring policy matter at the board and for the trustees to vote for action to fix the problem. This bill does nothing to make this easier. It does a great deal to make it harder, as the analysis throughout this brief demonstrates.

Bill 101 is a Massive Unnecessary and Counterproductive Provincial Power Grab Creating Costly Red Tape but with No Plan of Action

Bill 101 is a massive provincial power grab. The education minister clearly wants to abolish elected trustees altogether, based on what he’s been saying for months. Yet there has been ample public pressure against their abolition.

It appears as if the Minister was forced to keep trustees in place in some form. His solution is to leave them and local school boards with much less power to do anything without provincial approval.

This bill gives the minister of education enormous control over the fine details of the operations of school boards across Ontario. It amounts to provincial micromanagement of classes all over Ontario.

Neither the bill nor the Minister’s extensive April 13, 2026 news conference shows what the Minister needs or wants to achieve in the classroom that he cannot do under his existing powers. The Minister has many powers given to him by the Education Act, supplemented by the new powers the Ford Government gave him in 2023 under its Bill 98. He got even more powers in 2025 under the controversial Bill 33.

In addition, for years, the Ministry of Education has issued and updated a wide range of “Program and Policy Memos” to school boards. The Minister has not claimed that school boards are not following these, nor has he shown that they are an insufficient way to put student achievement first.

Bill 101 Creates Enormous Burdensome New Red Tape and Bureaucracy, Draining Money from Classrooms

The bill creates a dizzying maze of new regulations that the Ford Cabinet can enact and yet more regulations the education minister can create on their own. On top of that, it mandates a veritable blizzard of other new policies, directives, guidelines and orders that the Minister can issue. Just keeping track of them will be an administrative nightmare.

This bill could be better entitled “Putting Red Tape and Bloated Bureaucracy First.” The education minister will need to greatly expand his staff and/or his Ministry’s staff to draft all these regulations, orders, guidelines and directives, to explain them all to 72 school boards, and then to make the many decisions that this bill assigns to him over each board.

As it is, school boards are annually required to file a detailed Special Education Plan with the Ministry of Education. A school board can spend a great deal of time on developing this provincial filing.

Each board’s Special Education Advisory Committee must be consulted every year on the board’s Special Education Plan. School board trustees must approve the Special Education Plan before it can be filed with the Ministry. Yet it appears that no one at the Ministry actually reads each school board’s Special Education Plan to ensure that it is sufficient to meet the needs of the board’s students with disabilities/special education needs. The Ministry does not monitor to make sure it actually implements its Special Education Plan.

Imagine school board officials having to fill out a blizzard of new provincial forms and filings under Bill 101 to seek the Minister’s approval for decision after decision that used to be made locally without all that red tape. Someone in the Minister’s office has to review all those forms, ask for more information if they feel they need it, and then advise the Minister on how to respond to each request. It is fair to expect bureaucratic delays in getting a decision from the Minister. All this red tape will only work to the disadvantage of students.

To put student achievement first, the Government needs to allocate more funding to the classroom, not to mountains of new provincial bureaucracy at the Minister’s beck and call that drains money from the classroom.

Making this bill’s red tape even more costly, without a dime of added benefit in the classroom, school boards will have a nightmare figuring out when they need to get Ministry approval and what rules, guidelines or directions apply to any specific action they are considering. Just the training costs alone are worrisome. School boards will fear that they need to consult lawyers time and again to figure out what they can do, more than ever before.

This makes Bill 101 a troubling barrier to efficiency in the operation of school boards. If you want a law to change what people do and not cause any adverse collateral damage, the law must be clear and easy to read, navigate and use. Bill 101 is an abject failure on that score.

The Ford Government Announced No Public and Comprehensive Plan of Action for all these New Provincial Powers

The Ford Government has not announced any comprehensive plans of what it intends to do with all these sweeping new powers. It has only made public statements about a few measures. A Government would not go to such lengths to grant itself so many new powers unless it had an agenda of what it plans to do with them. The public deserves to see those plans before any votes on this bill. The bill should not go into force until school boards have a great deal of lead time to prepare for massive changes.

Bill 101 Doesn’t Spell Out What Powers are Left for Elected Trustees to Exercise

When he publicly announced the bill at his April 13, 2026 news conference, Education Minister Calandra announced as a bedrock feature that the bill substantially reduces the power of elected school board trustees. Yet the long, highly technical bill makes it very hard if not impossible to figure out what powers are left to school board trustees.

No provision in this complex bill lists the powers of trustees. In his lengthy April 13, 2026 news conference, Education Minister Calandra never offered a clear and comprehensive description of what trustees can do if Bill 101 is enacted. It’s quite possible Mr. Calandra genuinely does not know.

It is usual for legislation to spell out the powers and duties of a specific board, commission, office or public official. Bill 101 never does so for trustees in over 75 pages of detailed provisions. That is extremely bad legislative planning. It creates problems in 72 school boards.

How is a member of the public to be able to decide whether it is worth their time and expense to run for the position of school board trustee? The first question they’d ask themselves is: “What can a school board trustee do?” Even if they paid a lawyer handsomely to wade through this legislative maze, they’d be left totally confused and uncertain.

How is a trustee in office or school board senior officials to know what lies within the proper mandate of the trustees? This is an invitation to chaos.

From the Minister’s statements over the past months vilifying elected trustees as a whole, one would have thought that trustees up to now were granted a great deal of power under the Education Act. In fact, their mandate has been gradually whittled down over the years. The last Conservative Ontario Government under Premier Mike Harris reduced their powers.

In addition, school board senior staff have further whittled away at what trustees can do. It is not unusual for school board senior staff to tell trustees that they may not make decisions on “operational matters.” They can tell trustees that a concern that they are raising is an “operational matter.” This has included matters of board policy which trustees were elected to formulate and oversee. This power has become a magic wand that unelected senior staff can wave whenever they wish to try to block trustees from overriding something that the senior staff want to do. It is contrary to fundamental principles of democratic accountability.

Nothing permits such a massive incursion into what elected trustees may do. Of interest, Bill 101’s massive provincial power grab lets the Minister dictate a great deal about “operational matters” at school boards.

Even if Bill 101 leaves the trustees with presumptive authority to deal with an issue, the bill lets the school board chair or the unelected Director of Education override the trustees’ decision. Section 25 of Schedule 2 of the bill says this, in the following terms:

“283.0.3 (1) The Minister may make regulations prescribing,

the circumstances in which a resolution or motion passed by an English-language district school board is required to be confirmed by the chair of the board, director of education or any other prescribed board official, and the circumstances in which such confirmation shall not be given;
the rules and procedures for the confirmation of a resolution or motion;
the form and manner of the confirmation of a resolution or motion and the records to be kept of the resolution or motion in the minute books of the board.

If a regulation is made under subsection (1) requiring the confirmation of a resolution or motion passed by an English-language district school board, the board resolution or motion is not effective unless the confirmation has been made in accordance with the regulation.”

Bill 101 Reduces Much-Needed Local Democratic Oversight of Unelected Senior School Board Officials

Even before this bill, and despite the efforts of elected trustees, the unelected senior school board officials had disproportionate power over the education of our children without sufficient local democratic oversight. No matter how well-intentioned those officials may be, this always produces a risk of arbitrary and unfair action.

Bill 101 makes this much worse. We have seen signs of this at some if not all of the eight school boards that are now under provincial supervision. Because the provincial supervisor reports directly to the education minister, there appears to be a risk of a culture of fear among senior staff. If they do anything that might anger or displease the Minister, they can fear that their job could be in jeopardy. This fear is a predictable result of the fact that at the TDSB and the Ottawa Carleton District School boards, the Minister-appointed Supervisors summarily fired the Directors of Education at those boards. This culture of fear puts student achievement last.

Bill 101 Lacks Proper Safeguards to Limit Sweeping Powers It Gives the Education Minister and Cabinet

As stated above, Bill 101 gives the education minister and Cabinet a vast amount of highly discretionary power. Yet it imposes few if any legislative guardrails limiting or constraining how these sweeping and arbitrary powers are to be used. In large government bureaucracies such power too often risks bad decisions and troubling abuses.

At the same time, this bill is replete with unnecessary and harmful provisions that are designed to insulate Ontario Government officials and some others as much as possible from legal liability in the courts for their actions. This substantially reduces the important checks and balances that the court system provides in a democracy. It is a cruel irony that Bil 101 aggressively protects the power of the Ontario Government to sue others.

Bill 101 Seriously Reduces Assistance to Parents of Students Having Unresolved Problems with School Officials

Targeting the Toronto District School Board, this bill reduces the number of TDSB trustees from 22 to 12. Most of the remaining 12 trustees will each have to be available to help almost twice the number of parents of the over 40,000 TDSB students with disabilities/special education needs than at present.

The trustee position is part-time. That means in effect that there will be substantially less trustee time available to help these families battle the many disability and bureaucratic barriers at Canada’s largest school board. Dozens of parents recounted in painful detail how those barriers hurt their children at the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee’s April 13, 2026 public forum.

Bill 101 Makes It Less Likely that People Would Want to Run for the Position of Trustee

At his April 13, 2026 news conference, Education Minister Calandra stated that people could run for school trustee in this fall’s elections. Yet at the eight school boards that are now under provincial supervision, they may be elected as trustees but have no role at all to play in the governance of their school board. The board may still be under provincial supervision, with no publicly announced benchmarks or timelines for returning the trustees to office.

Why would anyone invest the time and money to run for an office that is under indefinite provincial suspension? Minister Calandra summarily dismissed concerns about this at his news conference.

Minister Calandra stated that if no one runs for these positions, he can appoint trustees. Of course, he’d select those appointees on a politically partisan basis. One is left wondering if that is his plan. If so, it would just be more of what he has already been doing by other means. At eight school boards, he ousted trustees elected by the public and replaced them with far more powerful provincial supervisors who report directly to him.

Bill 101 Creates Harmful Secrecy Around School Budgets

It is essential for the school board budgeting process to be as public as possible. From this bill, it would seem that the Ford Government thinks that the problems with school board budget processes is that there was just not enough secrecy around them. This bill will drive the budget process further from public scrutiny. At the eight school boards that the education minister now runs, the school board budget process is shrouded in secrecy. The budget process at school boards was much more public before the Ford Government took over those eight boards. It is especially fundamental in a democracy that budgeting decisions over the public’s money be discussed, debated and decided in public.

The education minister’s arguments in favour of this legislation and his attacks on elected trustees over the past months have focused for the large part on school board budgets. He has blasted trustees for passing budgets that have deficits. These chronic deficits are, however, due to provincial underfunding of education.

That the Minister’s attacks are so dubious is proven overwhelmingly by the fact that at TDSB, the Provincial Supervisor has not altered the budget that the trustees passed last spring before they were ousted. It had a projected deficit, to which the Minister objected. TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee was publicly told at its January 12, 2026 meeting by TDSB’s senior budget official that TDSB was still operating under the trustees’ latest budget. This discussion can be found 30 minutes into the video of that meeting. In other words, after many months in office, the provincially appointed Supervisor had not changed the trustees’ budget. Yet that budget was supposedly so problematic that it led the Minister to oust the trustees from office.

The Minister’s Plan for Student Absenteeism Ignores Needs of Students with Disabilities

The education minister received a great deal of public attention with his April 13, 2026 news conference’s announced plan to address student absenteeism. Yet his plan and Bill 101 fail to address critical unmet needs of students with disabilities, for which the Ontario Government is responsible.

Hidden in the Minister’s student absenteeism figures are the absences of some students with disabilities for which the Ford Government is ultimately responsible. We provide two examples.

First, his figures include students with disabilities who have been excluded from school by their principal, using the unfair, arbitrary power given them by section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act. Section 265(1) (m) provides:

“265. (1) It is the duty of a principal of a school…

… (m) subject to an appeal to the Board, to refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils; …”

This is different from a school’s power to impose discipline on a student for misconduct, such as suspending or expelling a student from school. Those disciplinary powers are carefully restricted by Ontario’s detailed regime for discipline of students. Section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act does not impose any of those safeguards when a principal refuses to admit a student to school.

Almost six years ago, the AODA Alliance made public its comprehensive July 23, 2020 report on this power. It proves that each principal in Ontario is a law unto themselves when it comes to the right to exclude these students from school. There is a shocking lack of due process or accountability, and policies vary widely from school board to school board. The Ford Government has never disputed anything reported in that report.

Reports and surveys by Community Living Ontario, People for Education, and the Ontario Autism Coalition each show that principals are prone to exclude a student with disabilities from school if their educational assistant is away from school. This violates the Ontario Human Rights Code and the board’s duty to accommodate students with disabilities. It shows that these exclusions from school are at least in some cases due to ongoing provincial underfunding of special education.

The Ministry does not require school boards to collect and report data on how often students are excluded from school. The Ontario Government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach allows the Ministry and the Minister to hide behind their own ignorance by design about the magnitude of this problem.

Disability advocates including the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and others, as well as the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s final report all call for provincial standards to govern this issue. The Government has power to do this but has refused for years to act.

For years, successive Ministers of Education have been spinning their wheels on this issue. The December 4, 2024 AODA Alliance Update reported that we had just learned via the grapevine that the Ministry of Education was considering the possibility of issuing a “Policy and Program Memorandum” to every school board giving directions for the first time that could regulate or limit how this sweeping power is used. The Government had scheduled some sort of a consultation on this. The AODA Alliance was not invited to this consultation, nor did the government tell the AODA Alliance or some key disability advocacy organizations about it.

On December 4, 2024, the AODA Alliance wrote a strong letter to the Ministry of Education officials who appear to be responsible for this consultation. No authoritative response was received. We heard from others that after this was made public, the Ministry postponed that meeting. There has been no public indication that it was ever rescheduled.

A second illustration of how student absenteeism is traceable to chronic provincial underfunding of special education was highlighted at the April 13, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee Public Forum for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs. At that forum, some parents reported that their child’s special education needs were not being effectively accommodated at school. In some cases, this caused mental health problems for the child, leading them to be absent from school.

The Minister’s April 13, 2026 announcement and Bill 101 do nothing to address these systemic causes of absenteeism. That problem would be papered over by a new provincial requirement that a student’s absenteeism be held against them when it comes to their grades. Even if the Minister were to exempt students with disabilities from that new grading requirement, this is no solution. Such a policy shifts a burden to these students or their families to take action to get out from under an arbitrary one-size-fits-all provincial approach.

At his April 13, 2026 news conference, the Minister did not demonstrate that he lacks sufficient authority under existing legislation to tackle the student absenteeism issue. He did not enumerate any efforts by him to work collaboratively with school boards to try to solve it. Instead, he now intervenes with a huge unnecessary legislative sledgehammer.

Bill 101 Improperly Targets the Ontario Public School Boards Association, Seemingly Attempting to Silence Criticism of Some Provincial Policies

This bill guts the Ontario Public School Boards Association. That Association has been outspoken in raising concerns about the Ford Government’s recent plans. Abolishing the Association reflects a gradual dimming of the lights in our democratic system at a time when we need those lights brightly shining.

Bill 101 is a Slap in the Face for Parents, Including Parents of Students with Disabilities

In several ways, Bill 101 and the Government’s process for developing and legislating it are a slap in the face for parents. It is especially so for parents of students with disabilities who too often must advocate at their local school board to get their child’s disability-related learning needs accommodated.

The Ford Government’s ousting elected trustees at eight school boards, comprising over one third of the entire school system, has already hurt these parents. They need access to elected trustees as their final resort within the school board to advocate for getting their child’s unmet disability-related needs met. Bill 101, by substantially reducing the powers and role of trustees, can only undermine this important function.

In November 2025, the Ford Government rushed to announce the establishment of a Student and Family Support Office at each school board to fulfil this role. This came after the Ontario Autism Coalition, the AODA Alliance, and Ontario Parents for Education Support held a news conference unveiling their “Better Call Paul” campaign. They urged frustrated parents to take their child’s issue directly to Education Minister Paul Calandra, because he was gradually taking over all these school boards.

Feedback since the opening of Student and Family Support Offices at five provincially supervised school boards shows that they are at best cosmetic window dressing. They are not designed, empowered, or sufficiently staffed to be effective dispute resolvers for these beleaguered parents.

The reduction of the number of trustees at TDSB and the weakening of the mandate of trustees at all boards together weaken parents’ voices. Trustees are a major avenue for parents to voice their concerns. To the extent that senior school board staff feel they don’t have to listen to the trustees, parents and their children will be the ultimate losers.

Making this worse, the Ford Government has systematically shut out parents’ voices from the development of Bill 101. Efforts to reach out our collective hand and to be consulted were in effect swatted away.

Finally, Bill 101’s weighty new red-tape encrusted bureaucracy amplifies and protects the Minister’s voice but does nothing in 75 pages of legislative provisions to give effective voice to parents.

The stifling of parents’ voices, especially for parents of students with disabilities, is demonstrated in a worrisome way at the school boards that the Ford Government is now running via its supervisors. The Minister directed last fall that any school board under such supervision may no longer livestream its Special Education Advisory Committee meetings. This makes it harder to reach parents. Members of these Special Education Advisory Committee are themselves either parents or representatives of parents’ organizations.

Finally, the Government’s rushed timetable for Bill 101 at the Legislature further impedes parents’ voices. The Ford Government used its majority to speed through Second Reading before most could have time to read this bill, rushed public hearings to take place days later, and allows an insufficient one day for public hearings. Most will be shut out of the process.

3. Proposed Amendments to Bill 101

We strongly urge that Bill 101 be withdrawn. The Minister of Education should undertake an open, accessible and inclusive consultation with school boards, parents, trustees (including ousted trustees), students, unions and others, preferably bringing the different stakeholders to a shared table in search for common ground.

However, if the Government does not withdraw the bill, we propose eight important amendments.

The public deserves to know what this bill will cost the taxpayer, before it is proclaimed in force. Moreover, there will need to be a great deal of work done by the Minister, the Ministry and school boards before they are ready to engage in the massive work required by the bill’s implementation.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to provide that it does not go into effect (except regarding the duty to enact the promised Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) until a date after January 1, 2030, and only once the following two conditions are met:

At least 30 days after the Auditor General has prepared and made public a comprehensive report on the cost of the additional bureaucracy and red tape that Bill 101 creates.
No less than six months after the Minister has made public proposed draft regulations that the Cabinet or the Minister has authority to make and directions or orders to school boards to implement the startup of this bill, so that school boards have time needed to prepare for the bill’s implementation.

Trustees, potential candidates for the office of trustee, voters and school board officials all need to know in clear terms what the powers of the elected trustees will be under Bill 101.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to list in clear and detailed terms the powers of school board trustees. It should give the Minister power by regulation to add to those powers but not to reduce those powers below what the legislation’s list of those powers.

Because the bill shifts responsibility over the construction of new and renovated schools to the Minister, it is essential to ensure that that construction is accessible to students, staff, family members and the public with disabilities. Some wrongly think that the Ontario Building Code now covers this. However, its requirements, and regulations enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to date, fall far short of what is needed to ensure that new construction is truly accessible, and does not merely meet the inadequate accessibility requirements in the Ontario Building Code.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to require all new school construction to be disability accessible, beyond the inadequate accessibility requirements of the Ontario Building Code and the limited Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act accessibility standards enacted to date. It should adopt and implement the recommendations for accessible school built-environment design in the January 28, 2022 final report of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.

The public, as well as school boards, educators’ associations, and others should have a chance for meaningful input into the myriad of new regulations, orders, directives and guidelines that the Ontario Government can make under the bill.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to require the Minister to consult the public, including parents, teachers and other educators, associations of any of these, and school boards’ Special Education Advisory Committees, when developing any of the regulations, guidelines, orders or directions provided for in Bill 101.

The bill should be amended to require that before the Cabinet or Minister makes or amends any regulation, policy, guideline, direction or order under powers granted or expanded by Bill 101, they must publicly post it in draft form and afford the public 90 days to submit feedback thereon, and that they must consider public feedback received before finalizing the regulation, guideline, order, direction or other measure.

It is vital that any of the regulations, guidelines, directives or orders made under the bill not create or perpetuate any barriers against students with disabilities.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to:

require the Minister/Cabinet to take into account the need to ensure that students with disabilities get the equal benefit of education at a school board whenever they make or amend a regulation, order, direction, or policy under the powers provided or expanded under Bill 101.
require that no regulation, guideline, order, policy or other direction made under this bill may create or perpetuate any disability barriers in a school or school board that may adversely affect any students with disabilities.
require the Minister to issue a public statement when making any such regulation, policy, order or direction that states in specific terms how they took this consideration into account.

It is essential for a clear path and benchmarks to be established for returning the eight school boards under provincial supervision to local democracy. Voters deserve clarity as do trustees and potential candidates long before the fall municipal/school board elections this year.

It is grossly insufficient for the Minister to state, as he did at his April 13, 2026 news conference, that he will restore them when they are on “the right track.” That term is devoid of meaning. It lacks objective and manageable standards.

Moreover, the Minister has been in sole and direct control of those eight school boards now for months. If things are not yet on “the right track,” that would be his responsibility.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to

set clear criteria and benchmarks that the Minister must use for deciding when any of the eight school boards now under provincial supervision is restored to local democratic self-government.
require the restoration of these eight school boards to local democratic self-government by November 15, 2026 unless the Minister orders on a date no later than September 1, 2026 that a school board is to remain under provincial supervision.
prescribe clear grounds that the Minister must use for ordering that a school board remain under provincial supervision after November 15, 2026, supported by concrete factual findings, and requiring the Minister to make a public written statement setting out their findings and reasons for keeping that school board under provincial supervision after that date.
not permit anything in the Act to be construed as limiting the power of any person to apply to the Divisional Court of Ontario for judicial review of a Minister’s order stopping the restoration of local democratic governance of a school board now under provincial supervision.

The Ford Government has had well over four years to study the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s final report. School boards as well as students with disabilities and their families should not have to wait any longer for the Government to enact the promised Education Accessibility Standard. It is needed to tear down the many disability barriers in Ontario schools. School boards should no longer each have to wastefully duplicate efforts as they each try to reinvent the same accessibility wheel.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to require that the Government enact an Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by November 1, 2026 taking into account the recommendations it received in 2022 from the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.

Send Us Feedback by April 23on the Draft AODA Alliance Brief on Bill 101, which Guts Local Democracy at School Boards

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Read our draft brief at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/a-disaster-for-students-with-disabilities-bill-101-puts-student-achievement-for-students-with-disabilities-last-draft-brief-to-the-ontario-legislatures-standing-committee-on-social-pol/

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Send Us Feedback by April 23on the Draft AODA Alliance Brief on Bill 101, which Guts Local Democracy at School Boards

April 20, 2026

SUMMARY

There’s just one week before the Ford Government’s rushed deadline for submitting any written brief or submission on Bill 101. That is the bill that lets the Ontario Minister of Education essentially take over managing the smallest details in all schools across Ontario. It injects massive new red tape and bureaucracy into our school system, which will not help students.

Under extreme time pressure, we have prepared a draft brief. We want your feedback on it. Send your feedback to us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

Below we set out a summary of the brief’s critique of the bill. It incorporates and builds on the AODA Alliance’s preliminary analysis of the bill that we made public in the April 17, 2026 AODA Alliance Update.

Our brief calls for the bill to be withdrawn and for the Ford Government to start all over. If the Government insists on pressing ahead with the bill, our brief offers a list of amendments, provided in the summary below.

We need your feedback by this Thursday, April 23, 2026. We will use your feedback to finalize this brief and submit it to the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy, hopefully by the end of this week. We’d love to give you more time, but we are ourselves struggling with the outrageous rushed deadline that the Ford Government has imposed.

How You Can Help

Send us any ideas about this bill you have. How do you like our brief, or the summary of it we set out below? Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

Don’t wait for our final brief before you send the Government your feedback on Bill 101. Feel free to use any passages you like from our brief. You can just write to the Standing Committee and say if you endorse the recommendations in the AODA Alliance’s April 20, 2026 draft brief on Bill 101. To send the Standing Committee your feedback on Bill 101, go to the Legislature’s public feedback web page and fill out the online form.

MORE DETAILS

Summary of the April 20, 2026 AODA Alliance Draft Brief to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy on Bill 101

Despite its name, this bill has nothing to do with student achievement
Bill 101 doesn’t help vulnerable students with disabilities but instead makes things worse for them
Bill 101 is a massive unnecessary and counterproductive provincial power grab creating costly red tape but with no plan of action
Bill 101 creates enormous burdensome new red tape and bureaucracy, draining money from classrooms
The Ford government announced no public and comprehensive plan of action for all these new provincial powers
Bill 101 doesn’t spell out what powers are left for elected trustees to exercise
Bill 101 reduces much-needed local democratic oversight of unelected senior school board officials
Bill 101 lacks proper safeguards to limit sweeping powers it gives the education minister and cabinet
Bill 101 seriously reduces assistance to parents of students having unresolved problems with school officials
Bill 101 makes it less likely that people would want to run for the position of trustee
Bill 101 creates harmful secrecy around school budgets
The minister’s plan for student absenteeism under the bill ignores needs of students with disabilities
Bill 101 improperly targets the Ontario public school boards association, seemingly attempting to silence criticism of some provincial policies
Bill 101 and the government’s failure to properly consult the public on it is a slap in the face for parents, including parents of students with disabilities

We propose amendments to the bill that would:

Specify that the bill does not go into effect (except regarding the duty to enact the promised education accessibility standard under the accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) at least until 2030, after the auditor general has released a public costing of the bill and after the government has released draft regulations, guidelines, directions and orders needed to enable school boards to prepare for it.
List in clear and detailed terms the powers of school board trustees.
Require all new school construction to be accessible to people with disabilities
Require the education minister to consult the public and key education stakeholders when developing any regulations guidelines, orders or directions provided for in the bill.
Require that before the government makes or amends any regulation, policy, guideline, direction or orders under the bill, it must publicly post a draft of it for public input.
Require that no regulation, guideline, order, policy or other direction under this bill may create or perpetuate disability barriers against students with disabilities.
Set clear benchmarks for deciding when any of the eight school boards now under provincial supervision is restored to local democratic self-government.
Require the restoration of those eight school boards to local democratic self-government by November 15, 2026 unless the minister orders no later than September 1, 2026 that a school board is to remain under provincial supervision.
Prescribe clear grounds for ordering that a school board remain under provincial supervision after November 15, 2026.
Not limit the power of any person to apply to the divisional court of Ontario for judicial review of a minister’s order stopping the restoration of local democratic governance of a school board now under provincial supervision.
Require that the government enact an education accessibility standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by November 1, 2026 taking into account the recommendations it received in 2022 from the government-appointed K-12 education standards development committee.

A Disaster for Students with Disabilities — Bill 101 Puts Student Achievement for Students with Disabilities Last! — Draft Brief to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy Submitted by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

DRAFT ONLY

Send feedback by April 23, 2026 to aodafeedback@gmail.com

A Disaster for Students with Disabilities — Bill 101 Puts Student Achievement for Students with Disabilities Last! — Brief to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy Submitted by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Introduction and Summary

Bill 101 is fatally flawed. It should be withdrawn. It will cause substantial damage to Ontario’s publicly funded K-12 school system and to local democracy. It is a disaster for vulnerable and chronically underserved students with disabilities in Ontario schools. A vote for this bill is a vote to harm students, especially those with disabilities.

We summarize our concerns with Bill 101 as follows:

Despite its name, this bill has nothing to do with student achievement
Bill 101 doesn’t help vulnerable students with disabilities but instead makes things worse for them
Bill 101 is a massive unnecessary and counterproductive provincial power grab creating costly red tape but with no plan of action
Bill 101 creates enormous burdensome new red tape and bureaucracy, draining money from classrooms
The Ford government announced no public and comprehensive plan of action for all these new provincial powers
Bill 101 doesn’t spell out what powers are left for elected trustees to exercise
Bill 101 reduces much-needed local democratic oversight of unelected senior school board officials
Bill 101 lacks proper safeguards to limit sweeping powers it gives the education minister and cabinet
Bill 101 seriously reduces assistance to parents of students having unresolved problems with school officials
Bill 101 makes it less likely that people would want to run for the position of trustee
Bill 101 creates harmful secrecy around school budgets
The minister’s plan for student absenteeism under the bill ignores needs of students with disabilities
Bill 101 improperly targets the Ontario public school boards association, seemingly attempting to silence criticism of some provincial policies
Bill 101 and the government’s failure to properly consult the public on it is a slap in the face for parents, including parents of students with disabilities

We propose amendments to the bill that would:

Specify that the bill does not go into effect (except regarding the duty to enact the promised education accessibility standard under the accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) at least until 2030, after the auditor general has released a public costing of the bill and after the government has released draft regulations, guidelines, directions and orders needed to enable school boards to prepare for it.
List in clear and detailed terms the powers of school board trustees.
Require all new school construction to be accessible to people with disabilities
Require the education minister to consult the public and key education stakeholders when developing any regulations guidelines, orders or directions provided for in the bill.
Require that before the government makes or amends any regulation, policy, guideline, direction or orders under the bill, it must publicly post a draft of it for public input.
Require that no regulation, guideline, order, policy or other direction under this bill may create or perpetuate disability barriers against students with disabilities.
Set clear benchmarks for deciding when any of the eight school boards now under provincial supervision is restored to local democratic self-government.
Require the restoration of those eight school boards to local democratic self-government by November 15, 2026 unless the minister orders no later than September 1, 2026 that a school board is to remain under provincial supervision.
Prescribe clear grounds for ordering that a school board remain under provincial supervision after November 15, 2026.
Not limit the power of any person to apply to the divisional court of Ontario for judicial review of a minister’s order stopping the restoration of local democratic governance of a school board now under provincial supervision.
Require that the government enact an education accessibility standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by November 1, 2026 taking into account the recommendations it received in 2022 from the government-appointed K-12 education standards development committee.

2. Bill 101 is Fatally Flawed and Should Not Be Passed

Despite Its Name, This Bill has Nothing to do with Student Achievement

This bill provides no rights for students. It establishes no new educational programs, services or supports for students. The bill’s title and the rhetoric promoting the bill distract from its contents.

Bill 101 Doesn’t Help Vulnerable Students with Disabilities but Instead Makes Things Worse for Them

We have repeatedly asked for the Government to enact the promised Education Accessibility Standard, yet it has refused to do so. It has enacted none of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s recommendations. Over the past four years, the Ford Government has continued leaving a plethora of disability barriers in place in local school boards, while allowing new ones to be created.

This bill inexcusably misses major and glaringly obvious opportunities to promote accessibility for students, staff and family members with disabilities. For examples, the bill gives the Education Minister sweeping authority over real estate dealings by school boards, including building construction and renovation. Yet nothing in the bill requires the Minister to ensure that any such construction is fully accessible to students, staff and parents with disabilities. The Government has a long track record of spending public money on new construction with accessibility problems. See for example the mess the Government made of the new Toronto courthouse that was recently opened, which the AODA Alliance revealed in a widely viewed online video.

As discussed further below, the bill gives the Minister of Education and Cabinet massive new highly discretionary powers. It does not require the Minister or Cabinet to ensure that their use of those discretionary powers creates no new barriers impeding students with disabilities. People with disabilities have a long history of governments creating new disability barriers when they have unchecked sweeping discretionary powers. Students with disabilities and their parents learned this the hard way in the school system during the Ford Government’s response to COVID-19 pandemic. See the AODA Alliance website’s COVID-19 page.

Bill 101 is a Massive Unnecessary and Counterproductive Provincial Power Grab Creating Costly Red Tape but with No Plan of Action

It appears as if the Minister was forced to keep trustees in place in some form. His solution is to leave them and local school boards with much less power to do anything without provincial approval.

Bill 101 Creates Enormous Burdensome New Red Tape and Bureaucracy, Draining Money from Classrooms

The bill creates a dizzying maze of new regulations the Ford Cabinet can enact and yet more regulations the education minister can create. On top of that, it mandates a veritable blizzard of other new policies, directives, guidelines and orders that the Minister can issue. Just keeping track of them will be an administrative nightmare.

To put student achievement first, the Government needs to allocate more funding to the classroom, not to mountains of new provincial bureaucracy at the Minister’s beck and call.

The Ford Government Announced No Public and Comprehensive Plan of Action for all these New Provincial Powers

The Ford Government has not announced any comprehensive plans of what it plans to do with all these sweeping new powers. It has only made public statements about a few measures. A Government would not go to such lengths to grant itself so many new powers unless it had an agenda of what it plans to do with them. The public deserves to see those plans before any votes on this bill. The bill should not go into force until school boards have a great deal of lead time to prepare for massive changes.

Bill 101 Doesn’t Spell Out What Powers are Left for Elected Trustees to Exercise

How is a trustee in office or school board senior officials to know what lies within the proper mandate of the trustees? This is an invitation to chaos.

“283.0.3 (1) The Minister may make regulations prescribing,

the circumstances in which a resolution or motion passed by an English-language district school board is required to be confirmed by the chair of the board, director of education or any other prescribed board official, and the circumstances in which such confirmation shall not be given;
the rules and procedures for the confirmation of a resolution or motion;
the form and manner of the confirmation of a resolution or motion and the records to be kept of the resolution or motion in the minute books of the board.

If a regulation is made under subsection (1) requiring the confirmation of a resolution or motion passed by an English-language district school board, the board resolution or motion is not effective unless the confirmation has been made in accordance with the regulation.”

Bill 101 Reduces Much-Needed Local Democratic Oversight of Unelected Senior School Board Officials

Bill 101 makes this much worse. We have seen signs of this at some if not all of the eight school boards that are now under provincial supervision. Because the provincial supervisor reports directly to the education minister, there appears to be a risk of a culture of fear among senior staff. If they do anything that might anger or displease the Minister, their job could be in jeopardy. This fear is a predictable result of the fact that at the TDSB and the Ottawa Carleton District School boards, the Minister-appointed Supervisors summarily fired the Directors of Education at those boards. This culture of fear puts student achievement last.

Bill 101 Lacks Proper Safeguards to Limit Sweeping Powers It Gives the Education Minister and Cabinet

Bill 101 Seriously Reduces Assistance to Parents of Students Having Unresolved Problems with School Officials

Bill 101 Makes It Less Likely that People Would Want to Run for the Position of Trustee

Why would anyone invest the time and money to run for an office that is under indefinite provincial suspension? Minister Calandra summarily dismissed concerns about this at his news conference.

Bill 101 Creates Harmful Secrecy Around School Budgets

The Minister’s Plan for Student Absenteeism Ignores Needs of Students with Disabilities

Hidden in the Minister’s student absenteeism figures are the absences of some students with disabilities for which the Ford Government is ultimately responsible. We provide two examples.

“265. (1) It is the duty of a principal of a school…

The December 4, 2024 AODA Alliance Update reported that we had just learned via the grapevine that the Ministry of Education was considering the possibility of issuing a “Policy and Program Memorandum” to every school board giving directions for the first time that could regulate or limit how this sweeping power is used. The Government had scheduled some sort of a consultation on this. The AODA Alliance was not invited to this consultation, nor did the government tell the AODA Alliance or some key disability advocacy organizations about it.

Bill 101 Improperly Targets the Ontario Public School Boards Association, Seemingly Attempting to Silence Criticism of Some Provincial Policies

Bill 101 is a Slap in the Face for Parents, Including Parents of Students with Disabilities

3. Proposed Amendments to Bill 101

However, if the Government does not withdraw the bill, we propose eight amendments.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to provide that it does not go into effect (except regarding the duty to enact the promised Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) until a date after January 1, 2030, and only once the following two conditions are met:

At least 30 days after the Auditor General has prepared and made public a comprehensive report on the cost of the additional bureaucracy and red tape that Bill 101 creates.
No less than six months after the Minister has made public proposed draft regulations that the Cabinet or the Minister has authority to make and directions or orders to school boards to implement the startup of this bill, so that school boards have time needed to prepare for the bill’s implementation.

Trustees, potential candidates for the office of trustee, voters and school board officials all need to know in clear terms what the powers of the elected trustees will be under Bill 101.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to list in clear and detailed terms the powers of school board trustees. It should give the Minister power by regulation to add to those powers but not to reduce those powers below what the legislation’s list of those powers.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to require all new school construction to be disability accessible, beyond the inadequate accessibility requirements of the Ontario Building Code and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act accessibility standards enacted to date. It should adopt and implement the recommendations for accessible school built-environment design in the January 28, 2022 final report of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.

The public, as well as school boards, educators’ associations, and others should have a chance for input into the myriad of new regulations, orders, directives and guidelines that the Ontario Government can make under the bill.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to require the Minister to consult the public, including parents, teachers and other educators, associations of any of these, and school boards’ Special Education Advisory Committees, when developing any of the regulations, guidelines, orders or directions provided for in Bill 101.

The bill should be amended to require that before the Cabinet or Minister makes or amends any regulation, policy, guideline, direction or order under powers granted or expanded by Bill 101, they must publicly post it in draft form and afford the public 90 days to submit feedback thereon, and that they must consider public feedback received before finalizing the regulation, guideline, order, direction or other measure.

It is vital that any of the regulations, guidelines, directives or orders made under the bill not create or perpetuate any barriers against students with disabilities.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to:

require the Minister/Cabinet to take into account the need to ensure that students with disabilities get the equal benefit of education at a school board whenever they make or amend a regulation, order, direction, or policy under the powers provided or expanded under Bill 101.
require that no regulation, guideline, order, policy or other direction made under this bill may create or perpetuate any disability barriers in a school or school board that may adversely affect any students with disabilities.
require the Minister to issue a public statement when making any such regulation, policy, order or direction that states in specific terms how they took this consideration into account.

Moreover, the Minister has been in sole and direct control of those eight school boards now for months. If things are not yet on “the right track,” that would be his responsibility.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to

set clear criteria and benchmarks that the Minister must use for deciding when any of the eight school boards now under provincial supervision is restored to local democratic self-government.
require the restoration of these eight school boards to local democratic self-government by November 15, 2026 unless the Minister orders on a date no later than September 1, 2026 that a school board is to remain under provincial supervision.
prescribe clear grounds that the Minister must use for ordering that a school board remain under provincial supervision after November 15, 2026, supported by concrete factual findings, and requiring the Minister to make a public written statement setting out their findings and reasons for keeping that school board under provincial supervision after that date.
not permit anything in the Act to be construed as limiting the power of any person to apply to the Divisional Court of Ontario for judicial review of a Minister’s order stopping the restoration of local democratic governance of a school board now under provincial supervision.

The Ford Government has had well over four years to study the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s final report. School boards as well as students with disabilities and their families should not have to wait any longer for the Government to enact the promised Education Accessibility Standard. School boards should no longer each have to wastefully duplicate efforts as they each try to reinvent the same accessibility wheel.

We therefore recommend that:

The bill should be amended to require that the Government enact an Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by November 1, 2026 taking into account the recommendations it received in 2022 from the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.

Sign Up Fast for Public Hearings on Ford Government’s Education Legislation Bill 101 and Submit Your Feedback Fast on the Bill – and – Preliminary Reflections on Bill 101

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Sign Up Fast for Public Hearings on the Ford Government’s Education Legislation Bill 101 and Submit Your Feedback Fast on the Bill – and – Preliminary Reflections on Bill 101

April 17, 2026

SUMMARY

Are you concerned about our school system’s future, especially for but certainly not limited to students with disabilities? Please read this important information.

On Monday April 13, 2026, the Ford Government Introduced Bill 101 into the Ontario legislature for First Reading. The Government calls it the “Putting Student Achievement First Act.” The Ford Government is rushing to pass this bill.

The bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy. That Committee is only holding one day of hearings, on Monday, April 27, 2026 10:00am – 12:00pm and 1:00pm – 5:00pm.
Anyone who wants to make a presentation to that Standing Committee must apply to the Standing committee by 4 pm on Wednesday April 22, 2026.
It is likely that most people who want to speak at the Committee will not be given a chance to do so. Whether or not you speak to the Committee, you can always submit written submissions. Written submissions about the bill can be submitted up to 6 pm on Monday, April 27, 2026.
Clause-by-clause debate on the bill will be limited to one day, Thursday April 30, 2026 from 10:00am – 12:00pm and 1:00pm – 6:00pm.

The AODA Alliance will be applying to speak at the hearings and will be submitting a written brief. We have a very busy few days ahead of us. Send us any feedback as we prepare that brief. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

We strongly urge as many individuals and community organizations as possible to apply to speak at the hearings and/or to submit written feedback. You will find our brief a helpful source of ideas, but first we have to write it! In the meantime, you can get some help from the preliminary analysis of Bill 101 below. Please feel free to use any of the contents of our preliminary analysis. We’ll no doubt have more to say after further study of the bill under brutal time pressure. As well, check out the April 13, 2026 AODA Alliance news release.

All we found so far about where to sign up for these hearings and submit feedback is this general link at the Ontario legislature.

Here is a summary of our preliminary analysis of Bill 101:

Despite its name, this bill has nothing to do with student achievement.
This bill does nothing for vulnerable students with disabilities.
This bill is a massive unnecessary provincial power grab creating costly red tape with no plan of action.
This bill creates enormous burdensome new red tape and bureaucracy, draining money from classrooms.
The Ford government announced no public and comprehensive plan of action for all these new provincial powers.
Under this bill, what on earth will trustees have remaining authority to do?
This bill reduces local democratic oversight of unelected senior school board officials.
This bill creates a real risk of arbitrary abuse of provincial power.
This bill’s new bureaucracy creates more barriers to school boards efficiently conducting their daily work of educating students than under the current system.
This bill seriously reduces assistance to parents of students having unresolved problems with school officials.
This bill makes it less likely that people would want to run for the position of trustee.
This bill risks more harmful secrecy around school budgets.
This bill targets the Ontario public school boards association in what could be an attempt to silence criticism of some provincial policies.

MORE DETAILS

AODA Alliance’s Preliminary Reflections on Bill 101

Despite Its Name, This Bill has Nothing to do with Student Achievement

The Ford Government’s Bill 101 is called the “Putting Student Achievement First Act.” Yet it provides virtually nothing for or about student achievement. The word “student” appears only a handful of times in the 75 pages of dense, hard-to-decode legislation, apart from references to the bill’s title. It provides no rights for students, nor any new educational programs, services or supports for students.

This Bill Does Nothing for Vulnerable Students with Disabilities

This bill does nothing to address the chronic disadvantage that vulnerable students with disabilities/special education needs face in Ontario schools. It does not require the Government or the Education Minister to include a focus on the needs of these students when exercising any of the many new powers that this bill gives him. The bill does not even include the word “disabilities or “special education.”

For example, this bill inexcusably misses a major and glaringly obvious opportunity to promote accessibility for students, staff and family members with disabilities. The bill gives the Education Minister sweeping authority over real estate dealings by school boards, including building construction and renovation. Nothing in the bill requires the Minister to act proactively to ensure that any such construction is fully accessible to students, staff and parents with disabilities. The Government has a long track record of spending public money on new construction with accessibility problems. See for example the mess the Government made of the new Toronto courthouse that was recently opened, which the AODA Alliance revealed in a widely viewed online video.

For well over four years, this Government has had a comprehensive, practical roadmap for removing the many disability barriers in the K-12 school system. It received the final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee on January 28, 2022. For all this time, the Government has had full power to enact any or all of those recommendations with any variations it wishes under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The Ford Government has enacted none of them. Instead, it’s now rushing to enact new legislation that doesn’t do anything for achievement at all for over a third of a million Ontario K-12 students with disabilities. To the contrary, it risks making things worse for them.

This Bill is a Massive Unnecessary Provincial Power Grab Creating Costly Red Tape but with No Plan of Action

This bill is a massive provincial power grab. The Education Minister had clearly wanted to abolish elected trustees altogether, based on what he’s been saying for months. There was ample public pressure against their abolition.

It looks like the Minister was forced to keep trustees in place in some form. His solution in this bill is to leave them and local school boards with much less power to actually do anything themselves without provincial approval.

This bill gives the Minister of Education enormous control over the fine details of the operations of school boards across Ontario, amounting potentially to provincial micromanagement of classes all over Ontario. Neither the bill nor the Minister’s news conference shows what the Minister needs or wants to do now, but cannot do under his many existing powers. The Minister has many such powers given to him by the Education Act, supplemented by the new powers the Ford Government gave him in 2023 under its Bill 98. He got even more powers in 2025 under the controversial Bill 33.

For years, the Ministry of Education has issued and updated a wide range of “Program and Policy Memos” to school boards. The Minister has not claimed that school boards are not following these, nor has it shown that they are an insufficient way to put student achievement first.

This Bill Creates Enormous Burdensome New Red Tape and Bureaucracy, Draining Money from Classrooms

The Ford Government has many times said it is committed to cutting red tape and eliminating bureaucracy. Yet Bill 101 creates enormous new and costly red tape and bureaucracy in the administration of schools and school boards across Ontario. The bill creates a dizzying maze of new regulations the Ford Cabinet can enact and yet more regulations the Education Minister can create. On top of that, it mandates a veritable blizzard of other new policies, directives and orders that the Minister can issue.

The Minister will need to widely expand his staff and/or his Ministry’s staff to draft all these regulations, orders and directives, to explain them all to 72 school boards, and then to make all the many decisions that this bill assigns to him over each board. Imagine school board officials having to fill out a blizzard of new provincial forms to seek the Minister’s approval for decision after decision that used to be made locally without all that red tape.

Someone in the Minister’s office has to review all those forms, ask for more information if they feel they need it, and then advise the Minister on how to respond to each request. The obvious predictable delays in getting through all this red tape will only work to the disadvantage of students.

A fiscally responsible Government insists on costing new programs and new bureaucracy before they decide whether to create it. Has the Ford Government costed all this new bureaucratic burden on the Ontario Government and on 72 school boards? Is it planning to allocate more budget to cover all these new costs? Otherwise, this new hefty cost burden will come out of classrooms. That is hardly putting student achievement first. “Putting student achievement first” would lead the Government to allocate more funds to the school system, and to require that this new money go into classrooms rather than mountains of new provincial bureaucracy at the Minister’s beck and call.

While the bill gives the Education Minister sweeping powers of minutia at school boards, he has not demonstrated that there have been any major improvements at the 8 school boards he now runs through his appointed supervisors. Those boards serve over one third of all Ontario students. The AODA Alliance and others have shown that for students with disabilities, things have gotten worse under provincial supervision, as was detailed at a January 28, 2026 Queen’s Park news conference.

The Ford Government Announced No Public and Comprehensive Plan of Action for All These New Provincial Powers

When he publicly announced the bill at an April 13, 2026 news conference, Education Minister Calandra stated that the bill substantially reduces the power of elected school board trustees. Yet the long, highly technical bill makes it very hard if not impossible to figure out what powers are left to school board trustees.

There is no provision in this long, complex bill that lists the powers of trustees. In his lengthy April 13, 2026 news conference, Education Minister Calandra never offered a clear and comprehensive description of what trustees can do if Bill 101 is enacted. It’s quite possible Mr. Calandra genuinely does not know.

It is very typical for legislation to spell out the powers and duties of a specific board, commission, office or public official. Bill 101 never does so for trustees in over 75 pages of detailed provisions. That is extremely bad legislative planning.

How is a member of the public to be able to decide whether it is worth their time and expense to run for a position of school board trustee? The first question they’d ask themselves is: “What can a school board trustee do?” Even if they paid a lawyer handsomely to wade through this legislative maze, they’d be left totally confused and uncertain.

From the Minister’s statements over the past months vilifying elected trustees as a whole, one would have thought that trustees up to now were granted a great deal of power under the Education Act. In fact, their mandate had been gradually whittled down over the years. The last Conservative Ontario Government under Premier Mike Harris reduced their powers.

In addition, school board senior staff have further whittled away at what trustees can do. It is not unusual for school board senior staff to tell trustees that they may not make decisions on “operational matters.” They can tell trustees that a concern that they are raising is an “operational matter.” This becomes a magic wand that senior staff can wave whenever they wish to try to block trustees from overriding something that the senior staff want to do.

However, nothing in the Education Act permits this massive incursion into what elected trustees may do. Of interest, Bill 101’s massive provincial power grab lets the Minister dictate a great deal about “operational matters” at school boards.

“283.0.3 (1) The Minister may make regulations prescribing,

the circumstances in which a resolution or motion passed by an English-language district school board is required to be confirmed by the chair of the board, director of education or any other prescribed board official, and the circumstances in which such confirmation shall not be given;
the rules and procedures for the confirmation of a resolution or motion;
the form and manner of the confirmation of a resolution or motion and the records to be kept of the resolution or motion in the minute books of the board.

If a regulation is made under subsection (1) requiring the confirmation of a resolution or motion passed by an English-language district school board, the board resolution or motion is not effective unless the confirmation has been made in accordance with the regulation.”

This Bill Reduces Local Democratic Oversight of Unelected Senior School Board Officials

Bill 101 makes this much worse. We have seen signs of this at some if not all of the 8 school boards that are now under provincial supervision. Because the provincial supervisor reports directly to the Education Minister, there appears to be a risk of a culture of fear among senior staff. If they do anything that might anger or displease the Minister, their job could be in jeopardy. This fear is a predictable result of the fact that at the TDSB and the Ottawa Carleton District School boards, the Minister-appointed Supervisors summarily fired the Directors of Education at those boards. This culture of fear risks putting student achievement last.

What this bill clearly does do is to give the Minister a vast amount of highly discretionary power. Yet there are few if any legislative guardrails limiting how these sweeping and arbitrary powers are to be used. In large government bureaucracies such power too often risks bad decisions and troubling abuses.

At the same time, this bill is replete with provisions that are designed to insulate Ontario Government officials and some others as much as possible from legal liability in the courts for their action. This substantially reduces the oversight of these sweeping public powers by the courts. Yet the bill aggressively protects the power of the Ontario Government to sue others.

This Bill’s New Bureaucracy Creates More Barriers to School Boards Efficiently Conducting Their Daily Work of Educating Students

Making the cost burdens of this bill on the taxpayer even higher, without a dime of added benefit in the classroom, school boards will have a nightmare figuring out what they need to get minister’s approval for and what rules or directions apply to any specific action they are considering. Just the training costs alone are worrisome. School boards will fear that they need to consult lawyers time and again to figure out what they can do, more than ever before.

If you want a law to change what people do and not to cause any adverse collateral damage, the law must be clear and easy to read, navigate and use. Bill 101 is an abject failure on that score.

This Bill Seriously Reduces Assistance to Parents of Students Having Unresolved Problems with School Officials

Targeting the Toronto District School Board, this bill reduces the number of trustees at that board from 22 to 12. This means that the remaining trustees will each have to be available to help almost twice the number of parents of the over 40,000 TDSB students with disabilities/special education needs than they do now.

This Bill Makes It Less Likely that People Would Want to Run for the Position of Trustee

At his April 13, 2026 news conference, Education Minister Calandra stated that people could run for school trustee in this fall’s elections. Yet at the 8 school boards that are now under provincial supervision, they may be elected as trustees but have no role at all to play in the governance of their school board. The board may still be under provincial supervision, with no publicly announced benchmarks or timelines for returning the trustees to office.

Why would anyone invest the time and cash in running for an office that is under indefinite provincial suspension? Minister Calandra summarily dismissed concerns about this at his news conference.

Minister Calandra stated that if no one runs for these positions, he can appoint trustees. Of course, he’d select those appointees on a politically partisan basis. One is left wondering if that is his plan. If so, it would just be more of what he has already been doing by other means. At 8 school boards, he ousted trustees whom the public elected and replaced them with far more powerful provincial Supervisors who report directly to him.

This Bill Risks More Harmful Secrecy Around School Budgets

The Education Minister’s arguments in favour of this legislation and his attacks on elected trustees over the past months have focused for the large part on school board budgets. He has blasted trustees for passing budgets that have deficits. These chronic deficits are, however, due to provincial underfunding of education.

That the Minister’s attacks are so dubious is proven overwhelmingly by the fact that at TDSB, the Provincial Supervisor has not altered the budget that the trustees passed last spring before they were ousted. It had a projected deficit. TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee was publicly told at its January 2026 meeting by TDSB’s senior budget official that TDSB was still operating under the trustees’ latest budget. In other words, after many months in office, the provincially appointed Supervisor had not re-written the trustees’ budget – a budget that was supposedly so problematic that it led the Minister to oust the trustees from office.

It is essential for the school board budgeting process to be as public as possible. From this bill, it would seem that the Ford Government thinks that the problems with school board budget processes is that there was just not enough secrecy around them. This bill will drive the budget process further from public scrutiny. At the 8 school boards that the Education Minister now runs, the school board budget process is shrouded in secrecy. The budget process at school boards was much more public before the Ford Government took over those 8 boards.

This Bill Targets the Ontario Public School Boards Association, in What Could be an Attempt to Silence Criticism of Some Provincial Policies

This bill guts the Ontario Public School Boards Association. That Association has been outspoken in raising concerns about the Ford Government’s recent plans. This reflects a gradual dimming of the lights in our democratic system at a time when we need those lights brightly shining.

11th Episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” Concludes a Two-Part Interview About One of the Most Important Disability Advocacy Wins in Canada

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

The 11^th Episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” Concludes a Two-Part Interview About One of the Most Important Disability Advocacy Wins in Canada

April 16, 2026

Check out the 11^th episode of the AODA Alliance podcast “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast.” It is available wherever you get your podcasts. It is entitled: “The Milestone Fight for Including Disability Rights in Canada’s Charter of Rights – With Yvonne Peters, Part 2.”

In this episode, you can enjoy the second and concluding part of host AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s interview with human rights advocate Yvonne Peters on the successful campaign in 1980 and 1981 to get equality for people with disabilities added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Peters and Lepofsky campaigned for the disability amendment. They were much younger and knew little about how to do this advocacy.

They discuss what they each tried, and extract lessons we can learn from their experience. You can listen to Episode 10 to hear the first part of their discussion.

You can subscribe to the podcast for free, using links below, or just click here to play the episode.

How to Learn More

David Lepofsky wrote a book/memoir about these events, entitled “Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” It is available online for free download from the AODA Alliance Website’s publications page, in pdf, MS Word, e-pub formats, and as a free audio book. It is also available for purchase as a hard copy book from Amazon or as a Kindle e-book from Kindle.

Take a look at the AODA Alliance’s online video series about the birth of Canada’s national accessibility legislation, the Accessible Canada Act. That series includes videos about the 1980-81 battle for the disability amendment to the Charter of Rights.

More about Our Podcast

Our 11 podcast episodes to date and future ones transport you to the front lines of disability rights advocacy! We invite you to listen to them all, in whatever order you wish.

We investigate advocacy incidents and battles of all sorts. Some were waged by individuals. Others are advanced by groups and organizations. We find action tips on how to be an effective advocate, whether you are advocating on a disability issue or any social justice issue.

The podcast is designed to be informative for listeners anywhere in the world, not just in Canada where the podcast is based. We have listeners all around the world.

New episodes drop every third Friday. Earlier episodes include:

“The 12-Year Fight for Automated Stop Announcements on the TTC” about Lepofsky’s long struggle to make transit in Toronto accessible for blind riders” with host David Lepofsky.
“Beyond Building Codes: Designing Spaces for Everyone”” with guest built-environment accessible design expert Thea Kurdi
“Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign, Part 1” covering how targeted advocacy resulted in policy change for autism therapies.” With guest autism advocate Bruce McIntosh.
“Turning Barriers into Headlines: Practical Tips from a Veteran News Reporter” with former journalist Michelle McQuigge.
“How to get a Politician’s Attention” Part 1 and Part 2 with the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, former Ontario Premier.
Airline Accessibility: How Maayan Ziv Turned a Mangled Wheelchair into Real Change
“Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign, Part 2” covering how targeted advocacy resulted in policy change for autism therapies with guest autism advocate Bruce McIntosh.
“Why Must a Doctor with Disabilities Combat Accessibility Barriers in the Health Care System?” with physician Dr. Lisa Freeman.
The Milestone Fight for Including Disability Rights in Canada’s Charter of Rights, Part 1 with Yvonne Peters

Discover our podcast on major podcast platforms:

Apple music: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/disability-rights-and-wrongs-the-david-lepodcast/id1838700161

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5WFLiSy99OJPMZ1ZSrkWCg

Ask your smart phone, Alexa, or Google Nest: “Play podcast ‘Disability Rights and Wrongs!’”

You can also listen to episodes on your computer. Use the links we provided above, or simply Google “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast.”

How You Can Help

Help us get more listeners! Invite friends to give it a listen!
Urge K-12 students to listen to this podcast. There are tons of school projects they could invent using issues that the podcast covers.

Parent After Parent Recounts Gut-Wrenching Hardships Facing Children with Special Needs in TDSB Schools at Public Forum TDSB Staff Didn’t Want its Special Education Advisory Committee to Hold

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Parent After Parent Recounts Gut-Wrenching Hardships Facing Children with Special Needs in TDSB Schools at Public Forum TDSB Staff Didn’t Want its Special Education Advisory Committee to Hold

April 15, 2026 Toronto: Last Monday, parents of students with disabilities/special education needs told gut-wrenching stories of hardships their children face at TDSB schools at a rare public forum called to hear their concerns. The forum was convened by TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC), a provincially mandated Committee made up of parents and organizations of parents of special needs students, but TDSB staff opposed holding this forum.

Education Minister Paul Calandra ordered school boards like TDSB which are under provincial supervision not to continue livestreaming SEAC meetings. Thankfully, the Ontario Autism Coalition livestreamed this deeply moving forum. The recording is available at https://youtu.be/u0nEICBudoY

Many people from diverse backgrounds spoke about their children having a wide spectrum of disabilities. For example:

Long delays at the TDSB getting special education needs assessed, or following assessment, getting the TDSB to act on it.
Parents having to themselves purchase aids for their child’s disability-related learning needs.
TDSB not addressing a child’s ADHD until another recognized disability was also diagnosed.
Children needing more staff support than TDSB said it had available.
A case of a child who did very well at a special education high school that TDSB now appears to be gradually closing by first eliminating Grade 9 enrollment.
A child’s intellectual or developmental disability making it impossible for the child to navigate a large school, but for whom there is a diminishing number of small school options.
A slow reduction in the overall level of staff supports for special need students.
Added emotional and psychological hardships for a child when their special education needs were not effectively accommodated.
Parents whose experience with TDSB at different levels led them to believe that TDSB staff need substantial new training on meeting the needs of special education students.
Parents who were discouraged and exhausted from dealing with their child’s needs and from difficulties in dealings with TDSB.
Parents contacting TDSB’s new Student and Family Support Office but got no answer or no solution.

Parents who believed from their dealings with TDSB that TDSB fell far short of its broad commitments to special education students in its Special Education Plan

SEAC provided these parents with the rare if not unique chance to speak directly to TDSB’s Interim Director of Education, Associate Director of Education and Executive Superintendent for Special Needs. These three top Board executives could direct action to remove the systemic barriers to which their narratives all point. Minister Calandra’s hand-picked provincial TDSB Supervisor did not take the time to attend this meeting to hear what these parents had to say.

Last summer, the Education Minister ousted TDSB’s elected trustees. There are no public trustees’ meetings or town halls where parents can speak. The provincially appointed Supervisor’s work takes place behind closed doors.

“Everyone the public pays to run our school boards needs to hear from parents like these about what is going on in our classrooms,” said Lepofsky. “It is inexcusable that TDSB senior staff repeatedly and categorically opposed SEAC’s holding a Town Hall for parents of special needs students. They even refused to email TDSB parents to inform them about this event.”

Parents also related success stories, but some threatened by feared upcoming cuts. The message from these parents was not that everything is always bad for TDSB’s special education students. Frontline educators want to teach all learners, but are handcuffed by a school board full of barriers and bureaucracy.

In a callous move, TDSB decided that any parent who spoke to the hybrid SEAC meeting over Zoom rather than in person would not be allowed to listen over Zoom to other parents before or after them as they made their presentations. TDSB forced those parents of special needs children to languish, isolated in a Zoom waiting room for up to 2.5 hours, rather than letting them hear about the experiences that other parents reported to SEAC. SEAC unanimously objected to TDSB’s action.

“TDSB should be prepared to accommodate the well-known fact that parents of special education students often have enormous pressures to juggle at home and may not have child care available to let them spend an evening at TDSB headquarters,” said Lepofsky. “This flies in the face of TDSB’s repeated commitments to respect ‘parents as partners.’”

TDSB’s SEAC will use these parents’ feedback to formulate recommendations that will be presented to the school board. TDSB has over 40,000 students with disabilities/special education needs. There are over 330,000 such students in Ontario’s K-12 schools around the province.

As the Ontario Government presses ahead with its proposed legislation to revamp school board governance, it is important for all Ontarians to look closely at what is happening in classrooms that the Education Minister is now running, such as those at TDSB. The AODA Alliance has cautioned that the plight of students with disabilities risks getting worse under the Ford Government’s proposed new legislation introduced earlier this week. It has called on the Government to ensure there are public hearings on that bill so parents can have their say.

Contact: David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

Learn more by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Ford Government’s New Education Legislation Does Nothing to Help Vulnerable Under-served Special Education Students, But Makes Things Worse For Them

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ford Government’s New Education Legislation Does Nothing to Help Vulnerable Under-served Special Education Students, But Makes Things Worse For Them

April 13, 2026 Toronto: There’s absolutely nothing in Education Minister Paul Calandra’s April 13, 2026 announcement about new legislation governing Ontario’s school boards that will help over 330,000 Ontario K-12 students with disabilities/special education needs, and lots that will make things worse, according to a major disability advocacy coalition. The AODA Alliance is one of the many community groups that Ontario’s Education Minister refused to consult in crafting today’s announcement.

“Arbitrarily cutting in half the number of TDSB trustees means half the access to battle the many barriers that students with disabilities/special education needs face at TDSB,” said David Lepofsky, AODA Alliance Chair and one of these parents himself. “We need trustees to have stronger authority to fix the disability barriers that Ontario’s Education Minister and Ministry have left festering for years, but instead Minister Calandra wants to substantially weaken the mandates of school board trustees.”

Parents of students with disabilities need far stronger oversight of the unelected senior school board bureaucrats who are the true centre of power running school boards. Yet Calandra’s reforms give those senior school board bureaucrats even more free reign, unconstrained by effective democratic oversight.

As but one example, TDSB’s senior staff have repeatedly and arbitrarily opposed its Special Education Advisory Committee from holding an open Town Hall to hear directly from parents of students with disabilities/special education needs about their children’s challenges at school. Tonight at 7 pm, TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee holds such a public forum at 505 Yonge Street despite that opposition from TDSB.

At today’s news conference, Minister Calandra did not provide a specific roadmap or benchmarks for school boards to achieve in order to get out from under provincial supervision. He said they need to get on “the right track” (whatever that means) and get their finances in order. Yet the Minister’s hand-picked supervisors have been running these boards for months. If they aren’t yet on the “right track,” that would be solely the responsibility of the Minister. Paradoxically, TDSB, while running under the Minister-appointed supervisor since last summer, is still operating under the very same budget that the trustees passed last spring—the supposedly unacceptable budget that led the Minister to oust TDSB’s trustees.

A major governance reform that would help all TDSB students, including its 40,000 students with disabilities/special education needs, would be to divide the board up into a group of smaller boards. Each could readily be governed by a properly mandated group of 12 trustees. TDSB is far too large and bureaucratic, with a quarter of a million students.

Since Premier Mike Harris restricted school boards over two decades ago, the Ontario Government has been stripping powers from trustees and yet blaming them for all that’s wrong in the school system. This must not distract from chronic underfunding of public education, including education for students with disabilities, a chronically disadvantaged underclass in Ontario-funded schools.

“One month ago, on March 11, 2026, an unprecedent summit of school boards, teachers’ unions, student trustees and parents of students with disabilities united at a Queen’s Park news conference,” said Lepofsky, who was one of the speakers at that event. “We reached out our collective hand to Minister Calandra to work with us all on how to reform the school board system. He has ignored our offer, and instead disregarded our concerns in developing today’s announcement.”

The AODA Alliance calls on the Ford Government to commit to hold open, accessible public hearings on its education reform bill. It did not do so when it passed its Bill 33, that began this process last fall. The AODA Alliance also calls on the Ford Government to ensure that everyone who wants to speak at those legislative public hearings will be afforded an opportunity to do so.

Contact: David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

Learn more by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

1 Week Left to Sign Up to Speak at TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee’s April 13, 2026 “Listening to Parents’ Voice” Meeting

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

One Week Left to Sign Up to Speak at TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee’s April 13, 2026 “Listening to Parents’ Voice” Meeting

April 6, 2026

It is extremely important for every school board to hear from parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs about their children’s experience at school. Since the Ford Government took over eight school boards representing over one third of Ontario’s K-12 school system, the chances for this have been massively reduced at the boards that have no elected trustees. . Here’s a rare opportunity not to be missed.

This is a final reminder to any and all parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs at the Toronto District School Board, which has been under Ontario Government direct control since last summer. One week from today, on April 13, 2026 starting at 7 pm, the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee is dedicating an entire meeting to hearing from you. Is your child experiencing any disability barriers at TDSB or difficulties getting their disability-related learning needs met at school? Do you have any suggestions on how TDSB could make things better for students with disabilities/special education needs? Take this opportunity to have your say.

Please sign up to speak to the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) at this meeting. You can come in person or take part via Zoom. SEAC is being flexible about the sign-up deadline so that this SEAC can hear from as many families as possible.

To sign up, just send a request to Lianne Dixon Lianne.Dixon@tdsb.on.ca and briefly say in a few short sentences what you’d like to say about your family’s experience. Be sure it relates to education of students with disabilities/special education needs at the TDSB.

To accommodate all participants, each speaker will get 3 minutes to share their experiences and ideas. To protect privacy when you speak to SEAC, please do not use the names of any student, teacher, other TDSB staff member, or school.

SEAC itself cannot investigate specific incidents. It will use this information to formulate recommendations to senior TDSB officials, the provincially appointed Supervisor, and to elected trustees once they are returned to office.

Parents can no longer make public delegations to TDSB trustees at school board meetings. The SEAC public forum is one of the only opportunities parents have to raise their issues in public regarding students with disabilities/special education needs, and it may indeed be the only such opportunity. This is because the Ontario Government ousted the trustees and appointed a Supervisor to run the TDSB on behalf of the Education Minister.

TDSB’s SEAC is inviting the provincially appointed Supervisor to attend and hear from you. It is very concerning that he has not accepted past invitations to attend any TDSB SEAC meetings. It is therefore possible that he will not attend this meeting.

How You Can Help

Please widely post and circulate this update. Encourage parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs to sign up to speak at the April 13, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee meeting.

Urge your local school board to hold a similar open Special Education Advisory Committee meeting to listen to the voices of parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs. TDSB’s SEAC has publicly stated that it is willing to offer its advice and tips on how to hold a successful event.

If you are a member of a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee, please propose to your SEAC that it hold an open meeting to listen to parents’ voices.

Check out the AODA Alliance’s online video that offers practical tips to members of a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee and members.

Let us know what you do. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

Learn about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy to improve education for students with disabilities by visiting the AODA Alliance Website’s education page.

Binge-watch the videos in the recently updated series of AODA Alliance videos on education for students with disabilities.

At a Glance, Check Out All the Different Series of AODA Alliance Online Videos, Compiled in One Place

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

At a Glance, Check Out All the Different Series of AODA Alliance Online Videos, Compiled in One Place

March 24, 2026

SUMMARY

Over the past dozen years, the AODA Alliance has posted quite a number of online videos to help with our non-stop campaign for accessibility for people with disabilities. This collection of videos continues to grow. Taken together, these videos have been viewed over 100,000 times. They have been used in college and university courses, community and professional education programs, both inside and outside Canada. Several have triggered great media coverage.

We have wanted to make it much easier for you to find videos that are on a topic that interests you. We’ve collected them into nine video series. They are finished and updated. We’ve announced each video series as they became available. You can always find them all on the AODA Alliance website’s videos page.

We’re delighted to now provide you with a guide to all these video series. Accompanying the description of each video is a list of related resources if you want to learn more about the topic that the video addressed.

List of the AODA Alliance Video Series

We invite you to dive into these videos. If you teach a course in school, college, university or anywhere else, feel free to use them whenever you wish. You don’t need our permission. We are ecstatic when we hear that they are being put to good use.

We’ll have more videos coming in the future. If you want to be notified as soon as we post a new video on YouTube, just subscribe to the AODA Alliance’s YouTube channel.

How You can Help

If you know a teacher or professor who could use any of our videos in their courses or research, please forward this Update to them.
Are you out of good things to watch on Netflix or Prime Video? Binge watch our videos for free!
We always welcome feedback on these videos. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

Education Minister Calandra Wrong to Only Consider Two Options, Abolishing Elected School Board Trustees or Simply Maintaining the Status Quo Unchanged

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Education Minister Calandra Wrong to Only Consider Two Options, Abolishing Elected School Board Trustees or Simply Maintaining the Status Quo Unchanged

March 22, 2026

SUMMARY

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s monthly column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications for March 2026 explains why it is so important for Premier Doug Ford and his Education Minister Paul Calandra to broadly consult on the future of elected trustees to govern school boards. Read that article below.

How You Can Help

Send this article to your member of the Ontario Legislature. Tell them how the message in this article matters to you.
If you are the parent/guardian of any students with disabilities/special education needs at the Toronto District School Board, and if your child has encountered any difficulty getting their disability-related education needs met, sign up to attend and speak at the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee’s 7 pm April 13, 2026 public forum for parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs. Information on how to sign up, and attend in person or on Zoom, is available in the February 10, 2026 AODA Alliance Update.
Watch the March 11, 2026 Queen’s park news conference of leaders from school boards, teachers’ unions, students, and parents of students with disabilities. See why it is so important for the Education Minister to halt his creeping takeover of the Ontario school system, now at over one third of that system. Learn why the Government needs to hold a robust public consultation on how school boards should be governed. Urge others to watch the news conference.

MORE DETAILS

Inside Halton March 20, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.insidehalton.com/opinion/columnists/ontario-trustee-system-needs-change/article_faed095f-1348-5ea4-a857-ddfefb2fd6e1.html

Ontario’s school boards need an overhaul to better aid our children, not complete cancellation

Role of school board trustee should be improved through reform, not abolished, David Lepofsky writes.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

As a volunteer advocating for people with disabilities, and as a parent of a child with disabilities, I found the Education Leaders Summit on March 11 to be a day like no other.

This is for reasons important to communities big and small throughout Ontario.

I’ve been passionate about ensuring kids with disabilities are better served in our schools ever since my mother successfully fought our school board in 1971 to enable me to remain in my local school, as my dwindling eyesight plummeted. We didn’t want me being sent to the school for the blind in Brantford, as our school board insisted.

Decades later, I find myself, with many others, battling for equal educational opportunities for one-third of a million students with disabilities.

My column last month highlighted how things are getting worse for these underserved students at the boards seized by the Ford government. The province, or a single education minister’s office, is not competent enough or equipped to directly run any school board, much less eight of them.

On that March day, a news conference at Queen’s Park united a veritable summit of Ontario’s K-12 school system’s major players.

Leaders from the school boards and teachers’ union as well as students and I spoke on behalf of parents of students with disabilities.

These sectors can at times be in conflict and not smiling in unison. It was wonderful for students with disabilities and their parents to have a key role.

We had three simple asks:

The government should put on hold any new legislative reforms to school board governance until a comprehensive public consultation has been held.
This consultation should fully include parents’ voices, including parents of students with disabilities, school boards, education staff and education experts. It should consider the recurring unmet needs of students with disabilities.
The government should make public a detailed plan for the return to local democracy at those school boards now under provincial supervision, with a path to its restoration with clear goals and benchmarks.

At this event, I shared an open letter to Education Minister Paul Calandra from 12 major disability organizations, who also endorsed these requests. We extended our hand to Premier Doug Ford to work with us.

How did Ford react? With what I believe was an effort to distract reporters from our news conference, he cobbled together his own media event timed an hour before ours on the other side of Toronto.

He announced cash for elementary teachers to cover some classroom expenses that the government had failed for years to properly finance.

Avoiding us is a frustrating response to our offer to work with the premier.

Meanwhile, Calandra keeps seizing more school boards and things keep getting worse for students with disabilities.

An article published by TorontoToday the day before the news conference shared how increasing the size of some special education classes at the Toronto District School Board, including diagnostic kindergartens, has been harmful for vulnerable students with disabilities in those classes.

We fought against that change last spring when elected trustees voted with us to prevent it.

After the province assumed responsibility for the board, the supervisor overturned that decision and ordered an increase in the maximum size of classes without speaking to the Special Education Advisory Committee — which I chair.

The premier now says he’s not made up his mind whether to abolish or retain local democratic oversight of Ontario’s 72 school boards.

Our message at the news conference, available on YouTube, was this: There is ample room to reform the school board trustees system, to make it strong and effective, and to target past shortcomings.

At this March 11, 2026 news conference at the Ontario Legislature, Queen’s Park, leaders from the major players in Ontario’s K-12 education system united to call for the Ontario Government not to abolish locally elected trustees to govern Ontario’s 72 school boards. This included leadership representing school boards, teachers’ unions, students and parents of students with disabilities On the panel was the president of the Ontario Public School Boards Association Kathleen Woodcock, a student trustee Carter Peios, the president of the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario David Mastin, and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky (who is also chair of the Toronto District School Boards Special Education Advisory Committee.

Calandra has wrongly made it sound like Ontario only has a simple and false choice of either retaining the status quo or totally abolishing local democracy for school boards.

There is good middle ground here, a quintessentially Ontario solution: Mend it. Don’t end it.

Strengthen and reform the role of elected school board trustees to avoid past problems and make them more effective.

David Lepofsky is a retired lawyer who chairs the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance and the Toronto District School Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee. He is a visiting professor of disability rights at the law schools at Western, Queen’s and the University of Ottawa, and hosts a podcast: Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast.

Video Series on Tackling the Many Recurring Accessibility Barriers that People with Disabilities Face in the Justice System

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Link to Video: https://youtu.be/0Cl4RjU1wp4?si=R0rzHY3-leduIxQw

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Video Series on Tackling the Many Recurring Accessibility Barriers that People with Disabilities Face in the Justice System

March 21, 2026

SUMMARY

People with disabilities face many recurring accessibility barriers in all aspects of the justice system. That includes when they go to court, or must appear before some sort of an administrative tribunal, or take part in less formal processes like mediation. In terms of court alone, people with disabilities can participate as a party to a case, an accused or crime victim, a witness, a juror or prospective juror, a judge or justice of the peace, a lawyer, a member of the court staff, or as a member of the public who has the fundamental right to come to court and observe court proceedings.

This video series, and the additional resources listed under each video, gives several different insights into the barriers that people with disabilities can face in the justice system, and creative strategies for addressing these. There have been interesting developments in Ontario Canada and elsewhere. The goal is a fully accessible and barrier-free justice system.

This video series begins with a series webinars that the Law Society of Ontario (then called the Law Society of Upper Canada) provided for lawyers and paralegals between 2012 and 2017 as continuing professional development programs on removing barriers facing people with disabilities in the court process. They remain highly relevant today. They were each hosted/moderated by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. These six videos were created under the auspices of the Ontario Courts Accessibility Committee of which he is a member. That is a joint initiative of the Ontario Courts and the Ontario Government to tear down disability barriers in the courts. It works to implement the landmark report entitled “Making Ontario’s Courts Fully Accessible to Persons with Disabilities.” Link to playlist (videos 1-6): https://tinyurl.com/enhanceaccess

All these videos listed here will interest you if:

You work in any capacity in the justice system, e.g., as a judge or justice of the peace, court staff, policy planner, administrative tribunal member.
You want to learn about disability rights, disability advocacy or the history of our disability rights movement.
You want to advocate for disability rights, and want to see our grass roots advocacy in action, to learn how it is done.
You are a lawyer, law student, or future lawyer or law student, who wants to learn about disability rights legal issues.
You work in the field of disability accessibility.
You are involved in any social justice, equity or social justice advocacy or campaigning and want to learn from our experience and/or want your efforts to fully include people with disabilities as an equality-seeking group.
You work at a disability community organization of any sort.
You teach law, politics, public or social policy, disability issues, human rights and discrimination, social justice, social work, history, political science, architecture and other areas of design, public planning, and other topics that can touch on disability accessibility, disability inclusion or disability rights.
You live outside Ontario Canada and would like to see what’s going on here to compare with practices and efforts elsewhere in the world.

Some of our videos have been used in schools, and in college and university and other courses. Disability organizations in Ontario and elsewhere around the world have used them. We are delighted. Any teachers should feel free to use them as much as they wish! You don’t need to ask us in advance, but we would love to know when they are being used, if possible.

Below you will find a Quick Guide that lists all the videos catalogued here. After that, we include a fuller description of each video, including its title, the link to it, a description of it, and a list of additional resources on the topic that the video covers. Anyone using these videos to teach a course, or to write a paper for a course, will find that background information helpful.

Over time, we will create more videos. We will add them to this list when relevant. To find out what’s new, just jump to the end of this web page, and then scroll up.

Many of our videos are on the AODA Alliances YouTube channel. Others are on the YouTube channels of other organizations. Please sign up to follow our YouTube channel so you can get notified whenever a new video is posted there.

How to Learn More

Visit the AODA Alliance website’s videos page to see other series of videos that we have created, and a mega-list of all our videos together. More video series will be posted over time.
Send us your feedback. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com and tell us what you think of these videos and how you have used them. For more information about our disability advocacy:
- Go to the AODA Alliance website’s home page and sign up to receive our newsletter. We announce each new video series in our AODA Alliance Updates.
- Check out the AODA Alliance’s podcast called: Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast. It is available on the major podcast platforms like Apple Music and Spotify.

Quick Guide

Enhancing Access to the Courts for People with Disabilities 2012

Enhancing Access to Courts for People with Disabilities 2013: Practical Strategies for Accommodation

LSO CPD Enhancing Access to the Courts 2014

Enhancing Access to the Courts: Accommodating Mobility, Learning and Communication Disabilities

Enhancing Access to the Courts for People with Disabilities 2016

Ensuring Access to Your Law Office and Services for People with Disabilities

Access to Justice for People with Disabilities – What Canada and Jamaica Can Learn From Each Other

Making Courts and Mediations Accessible for People with Disabilities

A New Approach to Resolving Disability Accessibility Discrimination Claims – Structured Negotiations, A Winning Alternative to Law Suits By Lainey Feingold February 10, 2017

A Champion for Disability Rights– Lainey Feingold on TVOntario’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” February 13, 2017

Controversial 2006 Changes to the Enforcement of Human Rights (Anti-discrimination) Legislation in Ontario – The Important Debate around Bill 107’s Privatization of Human Rights in Ontario February 6, 2017

Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse: Long Version

Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse: Short Version

Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse: 4 Minute Trailer

Detailed Guide

Video 1) Title: Enhancing Access to the Courts for People with Disabilities 2012

Description: When people with disabilities are involved in the court system as litigants, witnesses, jurors, judges, lawyers, court services workers or as members of the public, they can encounter barriers to participation. This on demand webcast outlines what steps are being taken to create a fully accessible court system, and what you can do to break down accessibility barriers.

Panel 1: Overview of enhancing access to the courts. Speaker: David Lepofsky – 5:57

Panel 2: Staff at the Ministry of the Attorney General that deal with accessibility of court services discuss how to make use of their services. Speakers: Laurie McEvcoy and Janette Sprovieri – 35:57

Panel 3: Judges discuss their experiences with accessibility of court services and offer tips. Speakers: The Honourable Anne Molloy, The Honourable Howard Borenstein and The Honourable Stanley Sherr – 1:05:05

Video 2) Title: Enhancing Access to Courts for People with Disabilities 2013: Practical Strategies for Accommodation

Link to Video: https://youtu.be/9N1SjbGQ-94?si=YUnNORgxrHtBTmMt

Ted Kelly, Joe Wright, Marsha Swadra, Joanne Cohen, Laurie McEvoy and Justice Beverly Brown (26:55)

Description: Learn how to help clients, witnesses, counsel, and other court participants with disabilities overcome the many barriers that impede full access to Ontario’s courts. This On Demand Webcast focuses on specific strategies you can use in your practice, in particular, with respect to issues relating to hearing and mental health.

Panel 1: Accommodating people with hearing loss. Speakers: Bonnie Rittersporn and Kimberly Neeson – 8:13

Panel 2: Accommodating people with mental health issues. Speakers: Ted Kelly, Joe Wright, Marsha Swadra, Joanne Cohen, Laurie McEvoy and Justice Beverly Brown – 26:55

Video 3) Title: LSO CPD Enhancing Access to the Courts 2014

Link to Video: https://youtu.be/etP9je7LFhw?si=2uFRSWekO3QauMJs

Description: Be proactive and learn how to help clients, witnesses, counsel, and other court participants with disabilities overcome the many barriers that impede full access to Ontario’s courts. This On-Demand Webcast focuses on enhancing access for people with vision loss and intellectual disabilities.

Panel 1: Meeting the needs of people with vision loss. Speakers: Shonagh Pickens and Alexandra Papaiconomou – 12:58

Panel 2: Meeting the needs of people with intellectual disabilities in the court process. Speakers: Graeme Leach, Deborah Richards, June Hvalica and Anna Marie Dodge – 1:05:55

Video 4) Title: Enhancing Access to the Courts: Accommodating Mobility, Learning and Communication Disabilities

Link to Video: https://youtu.be/4_4T6IwJbZ8?si=nCepuU6eIMEG9BXE

Description: Ontario courts should be open to everyone. But clients, witnesses, counsel, and other participants with disabilities often encounter barriers to full access. Do you know what accommodation tools are already available in the courts? This On-Demand Webcast focuses on enhancing access for people with physical or mobility issues and people with learning and communication disabilities, highlighting the strategies and approaches you can use in court to facilitate their accommodation.

Panel 1: Physical disabilities and barriers to people with mobility limitations. Speakers: Steven Christianson, Harley Nott and Jill Sawchuk – 8:36

Panel 2: Learning disabilities. Speakers: Stacey Brooks, Mitchell Curci – 40:26

Panel 3: Communication disabilities. Speaker: Pamela Cross – 1:10:54

Q&A with all speakers – 1:36:11

Video 5) Title: Enhancing Access to the Courts for People with Disabilities 2016

Link to Video: https://youtu.be/fUxpfpGpHz4?si=XWuyIKp7v3lty5hr

Description: Everyone has a legal right to fully participate in court proceedings, both to defend their rights and to pursue the recognition of their rights in the appropriate court or tribunal. As a lawyer or paralegal, you have a special responsibility to protect the dignity of individuals and to respect human rights in Ontario. In this fifth installment of this important series, our presenters branch out to cover outstanding issues and share insights in dealing with more complex or unusual disability situations, as well as addressing the needs of lawyers, paralegals, and judges with disabilities. This On-Demand Webcast benefits first-time viewers as well as those who have watched the earlier webcasts in this series.

Panel 1: Accommodating multiple sclerosis, autism spectrum disorder, and people with traumatic brain injuries in the courtroom. Speakers: Angela Covert, Stephanie Moeser, Gail Simpson – 12:55

Panel 2: How the Ministry of the Attorney General is accommodating individuals in the courtroom. Speakers: Jill Sawchuk and Laurie McEvoy – 1:08:54

Panel 3: Perspective from decisionmakers. Speakers: Justice Howard Borenstein, Justice Anne Molloy and David Wright – 1:31:38

Video 6) Title: Ensuring Access to Your Law Office and Services for People with Disabilities

Link to Video: https://youtu.be/zrmH9Qsk0H8?si=RZPkgUsMoUPa4dzb

Description: Almost two million Ontarians have a disability, whether physical, mental, sensory or learning. On average, that’s one person in every seven. Can your firm accommodate them? No law firm or paralegal practice can operate effectively without ensuring that its office and services are fully accessible to people with disabilities. This On-Demand Webcast offers practical strategies for both public and private sector practitioners to make their workplace and client services compliant. Learn what you need to do, who it will benefit, and what the law requires.

Panel 1: Practical tips for accommodation in the built and digital environments. Speakers: Geordie Gibbon, Thea Kurdi and Sambhavi Chandrashekar – 12:15

Panel 2: A broader range of barriers clients with disabilities face. Speakers: Robert Lattanzio, Joanne Silkauskas and Colleen Bauman – 1:07:12

Video 7) Title: Access to Justice for People with Disabilities – What Canada and Jamaica Can Learn From Each Other

Link to Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWZkyg_iU8s

Description: This is AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s November 13, 2024 speech at Jamaica’s Social Justice Conference focusing on access to justice for people with disabilities, held in Kingston Jamaica on November 13 and 14, 2024.

Related resources:

The AODA Alliance website’s courts accessibility page.
Video: Making Courts and Mediations Accessible for People with Disabilities
Video: Introduction to the duty to accommodate people with disabilities
Law journal article: People With Disabilities Need Lawyers Too! A Ready-To-Use Plan for Law Schools to Educate Law Students to Effectively Serve the Legal Needs of Clients With Disabilities as Well as Clients Without Disabilities
Six webinars by the Law Society of Ontario on how to accommodate people with disabilities in the court system:
The Weiler Committee Report: “MAKING ONTARIO’S COURTS FULLY ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES”
David Lepofsky and Martha Simmonds, Handbook for Mediators on Accommodating People with Disabilities in the Mediation Process
ARCH Disability Law Centre: Tips for Lawyers and Paralegals on Providing Accessible Legal Services to Persons with Disabilities:

Video 8) Title: Making Courts and Mediations Accessible for People with Disabilities

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3d73LGpGXY&feature=share&list=PLDGgB77j2ZYrl_rtpe32nSjOXfrDAGvnn&index=7

Description: In this captioned January 21, 2014 lecture to Osgoode Hall Law School’s Negotiations and Mediation Seminar taught by Prof. Martha Simmons, David Lepofsky describes specific strategies for ensuring that persons with disabilities can fully participate in court proceedings and in mediation and negotiations processes connected with litigation.

Related resources:

To learn more about the barriers that impede many persons with disabilities from full access to and participation in court proceedings, and strategies for removing and preventing these barriers, read “Making Ontario’s Courts Fully Accessible to Persons with Disabilities – the December 2006 Report of the Ontario Courts Disabilities Committee (The Weiler Report), available at this link.

Video 9) Title: A New Approach to Resolving Disability Accessibility Discrimination Claims – Structured Negotiations, A Winning Alternative to Law Suits By Lainey Feingold February 10, 2017

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkNw65JEeyI

Description: In this captioned lecture to the first year class at the Osgoode Hall Law School, introduced by David Lepofsky, leading U.S. disability rights lawyer Lainey Feingold describes “Structured Negotiations”, a novel and highly successful new approach she has invented for resolving disability discrimination and accessibility cases. She explains how structured negotiations work and how they succeed.

Related resources:

Lainey Feingold’s website at this link.
Lainey Feingold’s book “Structured Negotiations – A Winning Alternative to Law Suits”, published by the American Bar Association, available here.
Lainey Feingold’s February 13, 2017 appearance on TVOntario’s program The Agenda with Steve Paikin, later in this video series (and available at this link), where she explains to the public how structured negotiation has worked in the US, to advance the rights of people with disabilities.

Video 10) Title: A Champion for Disability Rights– Lainey Feingold on TVOntario’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” February 13, 2017

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WOsT1Ppf44

Description: In this TV interview on TVOntario’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin”, US disability rights lawyer Lainey Feingold explains her novel approach to resolving disability accessibility and human rights claims, which she calls “structured negotiations”. This is especially important in Ontario, where enforcement of accessibility remains a serious deficiency.

Related resources:

Lainey Feingold’s February 10, 2017 lecture to the first year class at the Osgoode Hall Law School, included in this video series (and available at this link, and the documents and resources listed there for more information.

Video 11) Title: Controversial 2006 Changes to the Enforcement of Human Rights (Anti-discrimination) Legislation in Ontario – The Important Debate around Bill 107’s Privatization of Human Rights in Ontario February 6, 2017

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH4xCi5Ye_g&t=6s

Description: In this captioned lecture, given to a first year State and Citizen course at the Osgoode Hall Law School, David Lepofsky explores the controversial changes that the Ontario Government made in 2006 to the way a discrimination victim enforces his or her human rights in Ontario, through the enactment of Bill 107. Before that change, discrimination complaints were brought to a public law enforcement agency, the Ontario Human Rights Commission. After the 2006 reforms imposed under Bill 107, an amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code, human rights enforcement was privatized. Discrimination victims had to privately investigate and present their own case before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, without a public law enforcement agency. David Lepofsky took active part in that 2006 debate on behalf of the AODA Alliance, which vigourously opposed these reforms.

Related resources:

The history of the unfolding debate over Bill 107 in 2006, and its aftermath, recounted in detail on a special part of the AODA Alliance’s website, available at this link.
The November 27, 2006 AODA Alliance brief, calling for substantial amendments to Bill 107 before the Legislature passed it, available at this link.
The March 1, 2012 AODA Alliance brief to the Andrew Pinto Review which the Ontario Government appointed to review the effectiveness of Bill 107, available at this link.
The April 12, 2012 supplemental AODA Alliance brief to the Pinto Review (link here), which the Pinto Review refused to read (link here).
The November 2012 final report of the Andrew Pinto Review of Bill 107, available at this link.
The November 16, 2012 AODA Alliance analysis of the Andrew Pinto Bill 107 Review final report, available at this link.

Video 12) Title: Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse: Long Version

Link to Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvo9jYIUvSc

Description: The new Toronto Armoury Street Courthouse, which opened in the first half of 2023 and which cost almost 1 billion dollars, has serious disability accessibility problems, as this video reveals. Said to be Canada’s largest courthouse, this mega-courthouse, which includes some 63 criminal courtrooms, totally or partially replaces 6 criminal trial courthouses around Toronto. Narrated by blind Toronto lawyer and disability rights advocate David Lepofsky, Chair of the non-partisan Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, this video shows that this is a billion dollar accessibility bungle. This video will interest anyone concerned with disability rights, architecture, design of the built environment, equality or social justice. This long version provides detailed explanations of just some of this courthouse’s disability accessibility problems. A short version of this video more briefly summarizes these disability accessibility problems.

Related Resources:

Video: The Billion Dollar bungle – Serious Disability Barriers in the New Toronto Courthouse 14 minute version
4 minute trailer.
The AODA Alliance’s August 8, 2024 news release, making this video public.
Video: The August 20, 2024 Global News report on disability barriers in the new Toronto Courthouse.
The AODA Alliance website’s courts accessibility page.
Video: Making Courts and Mediations Accessible for People with Disabilities
Video: Introduction to the duty to accommodate people with disabilities
The Weiler Committee Report: “MAKING ONTARIO’S COURTS FULLY ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES”
September 13, 2024 column by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications about the disability barriers in Toronto’s new Armoury Street courthouse.
Front page news coverage of the AODA Alliance’s video about the new Toronto courthouse in the September 17, 2024 edition of the Toronto Star.

Video 13) Title: Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse: Short Version

Link to Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6XNVMoUmB8

Description: Toronto’s new Armoury Street courthouse, which opened in the first half of 2023 and which cost almost 1 billion dollars, has serious disability accessibility problems, as this video reveals. Said to be Canada’s largest courthouse, this mega-courthouse, which includes some 63 criminal courtrooms, totally or partially replaces 6 criminal courthouses around Toronto. Narrated by blind Toronto lawyer and disability rights advocate David Lepofsky, Chair of the non-partisan Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, this video shows that this is a billion dollar accessibility bungle. This video will interest anyone concerned with disability rights, architecture, design of the built environment, equality or social justice. This short version is a summary of just some of this building’s accessibility problems. A long version is also available, which provides a more detailed description of just some of this building’s accessibility problems. This is a 14 minute summary of the long version of this video.

Related Resources:

Video: The Billion Dollar bungle – Serious Disability Barriers in the New Toronto Courthouse long version.
4 minute trailer
The AODA Alliance’s August 8, 2024 news release, making this video public.
Video: The August 20, 2024 Global News report on disability barriers in the new Toronto Courthouse.
The AODA Alliance website’s courts accessibility page.
Video: Making Courts and Mediations Accessible for People with Disabilities
Video: Introduction to the duty to accommodate people with disabilities
The Weiler Committee Report: “MAKING ONTARIO’S COURTS FULLY ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES”
September 13, 2024 column by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications about the disability barriers in Toronto’s new Armoury Street courthouse.
Front page news coverage of the AODA Alliance’s video about the new Toronto courthouse in the September 17, 2024 edition of the Toronto Star.

Video 14) Title: Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse: 4 Minute Trailer

Link to video: https://youtu.be/hViGUVoj_iM

Description: The new Toronto Armoury Street Courthouse, which opened in the first half of 2023 and which cost almost 1 billion dollars, has serious disability accessibility problems, as this video reveals. Said to be Canada’s largest courthouse, this mega-courthouse, which includes some 63 criminal courtrooms, totally or partially replaces 6 criminal trial courthouses around Toronto. Narrated by blind Toronto lawyer and disability rights advocate David Lepofsky, Chair of the non-partisan Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, this video shows that this is a billion dollar accessibility bungle. This video will interest anyone concerned with disability rights, architecture, design of the built environment, equality or social justice. This long version provides detailed explanations of just some of this courthouse’s disability accessibility problems. A short version of this video more briefly and a longer version more extensively reveal these disability accessibility problems.

Related Resources:

Video: The Billion Dollar bungle – Serious Disability Barriers in the New Toronto Courthouse 14 minute version or 50 minute version.
The AODA Alliance’s August 8, 2024 news release, making this video public.
Video: The August 20, 2024 Global News report on disability barriers in the new Toronto Courthouse.
The AODA Alliance website’s courts accessibility page.
Video: Making Courts and Mediations Accessible for People with Disabilities
Video: Introduction to the duty to accommodate people with disabilities
The Weiler Committee Report: “MAKING ONTARIO’S COURTS FULLY ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES”
September 13, 2024 column by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications about the disability barriers in Toronto’s new Armoury Street courthouse.
Front page news coverage of the AODA Alliance’s video about the new Toronto courthouse in the September 17, 2024 edition of the Toronto Star.

The Issue of the Plight of Students with Disabilities at School Boards that Education Minister Paul Calandra Runs is Not Going Away!

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

The Issue of the Plight of Students with Disabilities at School Boards that Education Minister Paul Calandra Runs is Not Going Away!

March 20, 2026

SUMMARY

A penetrating March 16, 2026 report in the Ontario-based Schools Magazine once again shines the spotlight on the harm to students with disabilities taking place at the Toronto District School Board for some of its 40,000 students with disabilities/special education needs. TDSB is one of the 8 Ontario school boards that is now being run by Ontario’s Education Minister Paul Calandra. He has turfed their elected school board trustees. You are encouraged to read that article below.

At the March 2, 2026 meeting of TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee, TDSB staff were pressed on why the school board is gradually draining two special education high schools of students by not placing any incoming students in Grade 9. This appears like an obvious formula for eventually closing those schools down as bereft of students.

TDSB senior staff’s response at that meeting was very disturbing. They said that there was no consultation with parents in advance of these enrollment decisions because this was part of the ordinary process of deciding where special education programs and classes would be located each year. TDSB no doubt thought that this was a good defence for its actions. It’s actually the very problem.

Openness of government conduct at all levels is a key part of democracy. Before last October, you would have been able to watch that SEAC meeting on a TDSB livestream, or afterwards, archived on YouTube. However, since last October, Education Minister Paul Calandra took the unprecedented step of ordering school boards under his supervision not to livestream these meetings any longer. That, of course, helps insulate Minister Calandra from public scrutiny of his actions and those of his Government while running those school boards. He has no objection to livestreaming Special Education Advisory Committee meetings at school boards that are run by elected trustees, and not by him.

The cruel irony of this became even more evident. Earlier this week, Premier Doug Ford publicly stated that he wants bail hearings in criminal courts to be livestreamed, to facilitate more public scrutiny of them. Contrast the Ford Government’s opposition to livestreaming Special Education Advisory Committee meetings at school boards it directly runs.

By the way, the Ontario Government has no say over whether bail hearings are livestreamed. The Criminal Code bans the media from reporting on the evidence, arguments or reasons for decision at bail hearings when an accused requests that ban. People charged with crimes who have a bail hearing virtually always request those bans to protect their right to a fair trial.

The irony gets even more stunning. Those bail hearing Criminal Code publication bans are only temporary. They expire at the end of the trial. However, Paul Calandra’s ban on school boards’ streaming Special Education Advisory Committee meetings is permanent, not temporary. Last fall, Minister Calandra defended his action because he wants to ensure that SEAC meetings are focused on student achievement, not politics. There had been no evidence that this had even been a problem at any SEAC meetings in Ontario. There are archives of livestreamed meetings of SEAC at TDSB and some other boards that Minister Calandra could have scoured for proof that such a problem had ever arisen.

Be that as it may, Minister Calandra could have allowed SEAC meetings at the school boards he runs to be recorded, but not livestreamed. He could allow the video to be posted on YouTube right afterwards so long as they focused on student achievement. Had he done so, we are confident that every SEAC meeting at the 8 school boards that Minister Calandra runs would now be readily available to all on SEAC. Instead the Minister prevents the school boards he manages from being posted on YouTube, even if the entire discussion at those SEAC meetings is focused on improving education for students with disabilities/special education needs. The reasonable conclusion is that this is not the real reason for his banning school boards under his management from streaming those SEAC meetings.

Is there a pattern here? The Ford Government is proposing to use its majority in the Legislature to amend Ontario’s Freedom of Information legislation to insulate the Premier’s Office and the Cabinet from Freedom of Information applications. Ontario’s Freedom of Information legislation has been an important tool in our advocacy for accessibility for people with disabilities.

The plight of students with disabilities in Ontario’s schools is an issue that is not going away. I am going to confront MPPs on March 23, 2026 as they return to Queen’s Park after a very long winter break. The Ontario Autism Coalition is holding a demonstration at Queen’s Park that morning that will focus on this topic.

How You Can Help

If you are the parent/guardian of any students with disabilities/special education needs at the Toronto District School Board, and if your child has encountered any difficulty getting their disability-related education needs met, sign up to attend and speak at the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee’s 7 pm April 13, 2026 public forum for parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs. Information on how to sign up, and attend in person or on Zoom, is available in the February 10, 2026 AODA Alliance Update.
Watch the March 11, 2026 Queen’s park news conference of leaders from school boards, teachers’ unions, students, and parents of students with disabilities. See why it is so important for the Education Minister to halt his creeping takeover of the Ontario school system, now at over one third of that system. Learn why the Government needs to hold a robust public consultation on how school boards should be governed. Urge others to watch the news conference.
Contact your member of the Ontario Legislature. Tell them they must save local democracy at school boards. The provincial government is ill-equipped to competently run one third of Ontario’s schools, much less all of them. The March 12, 2026 Toronto Today article illustrates this in painful detail.
Read more about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy for a barrier-free school system for students with disabilities by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

MORE DETAILS

School Magazine March 16, 2026

Originally posted at https://educationactiontoronto.com/articles/why-is-toronto-dsb-trying-to-erase-high-schools-for-special-needs-kids/

Why is Toronto DSB trying to erase high schools for special needs kids?

The TDSB is committed to identifying, removing, and preventing barriers that create disproportionate outcomes for underserved students. The TDSB’s goal is to provide an equitable, accessible, and inclusive education experience for all students according their unique needs…

~ TDSB Multi-Year Strategic Plan

This bureaucratic utterance doesn’t exactly ring with hope and promise. But it’s just hollow when you stack it up against recent announcements to cut off enrolment for grades 9 and 10 next year at Heydon Park SS and Eastdale CI. Parents of the vulnerable students who attend these two small schools are worried for the future of their children and they’re angry about it. The Toronto DSB, operating under its cone of silence, has no response. There has been no consultation about the decision and of course, no challenge from elected TDSB trustees whose work and access to the Board was halted when they were suspended by Education Minister Paul Calandra last year.

Falling through the cracks

The TDSB is failing its students with special needs. I think the reasons for this are varied but stem largely from the Ministry of Education (MOE) as a report from Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (ETFO) explained last spring about conditions for special needs kids across the province.

The TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) held a Town Hall meeting in November 2024 so that parents of the board’s roughly 41 000 special needs students could air troubling stories about the treatment of their kids: lack of appropriate help, exclusion from school used as part of a safety plan, lack of staff support, years of waiting for a needs assessment. As SEAC chair David Lepofsky said: “It was a game changer” – so much so that the Board refused his request to have another.

A board as huge as the TDSB represents all kinds of young people with physical, social, cognitive, mental health and developmental variations. For years, there’s been a debate about how to best help young people without cutting them off from their peers: what’s called the least restrictive environment. Inclusion in the regular classroom has long been held up as the highest standard who despite their needs, should learn alongside their peers.

But if inclusion really means diminished support for young people, it is the most restrictive environment. It leads to all the problems above: students unable to manage in regular classrooms because there is so little help available. For instance, MOE funds about enough for a classroom teacher with 3 special needs students in their class to get help from an educational assistant about once a week.

Imagine what it must feel like to be an adolescent with extremely complex needs. These are kids who haven’t succeeded in regular schools or have been unable to attend at all. They are isolated and frightened to be there. These are kids for example, with mild intellectual differences combined with autism, physical and mental health issues – all of which interact with each other to make life in a regular school terrifying. These are LGBTQ and transgendered kids trying to figure out who they are. They need a haven, not a bean counters’ version of inclusion. Imagine, what it’s like to be a parent searching for such a place.

These schools are havens

For years Heydon Park SS and Eastdale CI have fit the bill for these kids. Their smaller enrolment of about 130 and 120 students, helps. They offer individualized programmes leading to a high school diploma or certificate, teach students life and employment skills in areas like fashion, culinary arts and photography, have small classes and parents say, a dedicated staff: “angels.” Parents from both schools told me about the remarkable progress their children had made. One spoke of their son who had struggled in a full-time Mild Intellectual Disabilities (MID) class for middle school who is now thriving at Eastdale. This is a young man who presents with MID, Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and anxiety. He’s now working towards his secondary school diploma. A Heydon Park parent described their child as having a range of intellectual deficits – able to read at a grade 4 level, but completely unable to manage in a large secondary school. Teachers at Heydon Park help her deal with physical needs and understand enough about kids like her to help her learn things that weren’t possible before she arrived at the school.

One parent explained that because of psychiatric issues, their daughter hadn’t even been able to attend school before she arrived at Heydon Park; since then she’s been there every day. There’s no chance of her negotiating her way through the hallways of a regular secondary school, but she feels at home and safe at the smaller school. Another student was tolerated at elementary school, but didn’t make friends because she was different. She presents with physical disabilities, PTSD, ADHD, cognitive issues and anxiety. She’s made friends at Heydon Park, where her parent says she is “100% supported”. Teachers found her a walker, then another device to help her stand up. This isn’t something teachers normally do. The school is the “best kept secret” in the Board.

Crickets from the Board

The TDSB has little explanation to offer parents worried about the future of these schools and what will happen to their children. Superintendent Anastasia Poulos sent a letter to Eastdale parents outlining its low “utilization rate” and only 4 students registered for grade 9 next year. She assures parents that “staff will offer placements at other schools where more program choices will be available.” Parents asked: “What does that mean?” Likewise, Jennifer Chan, superintendent for Heydon Park cited “very low registration numbers” as the reason for cutting off enrolment. Not much comfort there.

The Board’s media department is sticking to this narrative. There were no answers to my questions about who made the decision to cut off enrolment or whether it was related to MOE spending priorities. The same was true for information about “placements at other schools.” How would the Board would deal with students who likely wouldn’t do well with the change?. What about encouraging more enrolment at the two schools? Surely with 41 000 special needs kids across the TDSB, there might be some more of them who could be helped at Eastdale and Heydon Park?

The parents with whom I spoke certainly aren’t buying what the Board is saying: Why does the Board not promote these schools? Why has it cut off open houses, so parents can see what the schools have to offer? Why do they have to find the schools themselves or hear about them from someone else? Why not promote the schools at Identification Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) meetings held each year to plan for the future as special needs students approach secondary school age?

Trustee Michelle Aarts told me that in discussions over the Secondary Alternative School (SAS) Review, Eastdale had been identified as a possible venue for faltering alternative schools that needed another space. The 2024 report on their status noted that they tend to “engage a higher proportion of students with Special Education Needs, 2SLGBTQ+IA students, students with mental health concerns, and students looking for a less traditional school to support their graduation goals. In many instances, students noted that SAS is a lifeline for them and is the main reason they have continued in school learning.”¹ Since then, no other work has been done. All reviews are on hold.

What’s really going on here?

As with so many issues the TDSB faces like removing class size caps and the inadequacy of the Family Service Office, speculation naturally moves into the spaces left by the Board’s unremitting silence. What is actually going on here?

Are these schools going to be sold? Currently there is a moratorium on closing schools, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen under a government that does as it pleases. There is some fine reporting by journalist Gabe Oatley of Toronto Today describing a November 2025 meeting in which TDSB supervisor, Rohit Gupta, signalled a possible change to the mandate of the Toronto Lands Corporation(TLC). This is a wholly owned subsidiary of the TDSB that manages its real estate portfolio worth between $15 and $20 billion. In the past, real estate sales were supposed to serve the interests of local communities. Now that could change. Trustees no longer sit on the TLC board and it doesn’t report to them. A recent regulation under the Education Act gives more control to the Education Minister regarding the circumstance of land sales, particularly to whom board properties might be sold. This is a government currently under investigation by the RCMP over cronyism related to land acquisitions across the Greenbelt.

Is education for special needs students being lost in the Paul Calandra’s power play against school boards across the province? He has placed 8 school boards under supervision now, leaving trustees with no influence to support their constituents. His boss, Doug Ford says the Tories haven’t decided whether or not to remove trustees as a level of government. But, as things stand, they cannot provide a voice for parents worried about their children being lost in the maw of TDSB bureaucracy.

The Board’s SEAC chair, David Lepofsky wrote last week: “TDSB’s Supervisor (Rohit Gupta) has implemented none of the recommendations that TDSB’s SEAC forwarded to him to improve education for students with disabilities/special education needs and has not given SEAC an opportunity to be heard on them before making his decision.” Instead, Gupta has raised the cap on class size for both regular and special education classes and put out a budget survey asking parents to prioritize the need for special education supports and resources; this a requirement under the Education Act not an optional extra. He does not attend SEAC meetings which are no longer live-streamed; the community cannot see what the TDSB is doing to support special needs or those of any other young people in its community.

What future is unfolding?

How much does the Ford government care about any people who are different, who don’t have enough money for a post-secondary education, who can’t find affordable housing or sufficient food, who are drug-addicted? While he cuts Ontario Student Award Programme grants, he admonishes the students who can scrape together funds to attend college or university to avoid “basket weaving” courses because Ontario needs engineers, coders and tradespeople. Where do the kids from Heydon Park and Eastdale fit into this dystopia?

Sara Ehrhardt, trustee for Eastdale asks what will happen to kids who can no longer find a safe place at that school. How will we even hear about what comes of them? It’s what powerful politicians and their friends do that’s so significant – through their silence and lack of transparency. Deborah Williams is the trustee for Heydon Park who has fought to keep the school viable and thinks that it benefits, not just the students who go there, but the public good. The province she says, is focused on privatization and austerity. It is “treating our students like widgets in a grand machine. They’re not widgets.”

More Proof Things Get Worse for Vulnerable Students with Disabilities When Education Minister Calandra Takes Over and Runs a School Board, as Revealed in a Wrenching Toronto Today Report

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

More Proof Things Get Worse for Vulnerable Students with Disabilities When Education Minister Calandra Takes Over and Runs a School Board, as Revealed in a Wrenching Toronto Today Report

March 14, 2026

SUMMARY

Here is ample clear proof of the harm to students with disabilities under provincial supervision. That provincial supervision is traced directly to the Minister of Education Paul Calandra, who took over the Toronto District School Board. It is a very disturbing March 10, 2026 article appearing in the Toronto Today publication, which you can read below.

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky raised this issue in his remarks at a March 11, 2026 Queen’s Park news conference organized by the Ontario Public School Boards Association.

Last spring, Toronto District School Board senior staff proposed that TDSB should increase the maximum size of two categories of special education classes. One of those categories is called Diagnostic Kindergarten.

At its May 12, 2025 meeting and its June 9, 2025 meeting, TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) strongly objected. They argued that this would lead to less support for students with disabilities in those classes. TDSB senior staff disagreed. They said this was not a cost-saving measure, and that staffing supports would remain sufficient to meet the needs of students in those classes.

TDSB needed to get a vote of the TDSB’s trustees to approve this measure. The issue came up at the June 18, 2025 meeting of the TDSB’s elected trustees. TDSB SEAC Chair David Lepofsky (who is also Chair of the AODA Alliance) argued that the trustees should not approve this increase in the maximum permissible class size of these special education classes. TDSB senior staff tried to convince the trustees to give their approval, arguing in opposition to the TDSB’s SEAC.

A majority of the trustees voted against the increase to the size of these classes. They rejected the TDSB senior staff’s arguments. This was the first time the trustees ever overruled the TDSB senior staff at the request of TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee at least in the past decade.

However, this victory was painfully short-lived. It was just days later that the Education Minister Paul Calandra seized control of TDSB and several other boards, alleging financial issues. He appointed a provincial supervisor, Rohit Gupta, to replace the trustees and run TDSB. Mr. Gupta reports directly to and serves the Minister, and clearly operates to implement the Minister’s wishes.

Shortly after taking on this role, Mr. Gupta overturned the trustees’ decision on this class size issue. He authorized TDSB staff to increase the maximum size of classes in these two categories of special education classes. No doubt, he did so at the request of TDSB senior staff.

The TDSB Supervisor did not consult TDSB’s SEAC before making this decision, or give that SEAC an opportunity to be heard. Under mandatory provincial regulations, a school board’s trustees must give their SEAC a chance to be heard before reaching a decision on a SEAC recommendation. It was very public that TDSB’s SEAC had been opposed to this hike in class size. TDSB senior staff knew it. The May 12, 2025 SEAC meeting where it was discussed and the June 18, 2025 trustees’ meeting were held in public, livestreamed and archived on YouTube.

The March 10, 2026 Toronto Today news report shows in vivid detail that TDSB’s increase in the maximum size of Diagnostic Kindergarten classes has been harmful for the young and vulnerable students with disabilities in those classes. Yet parents of students with disabilities/special education needs and the TDSB’s SEAC cannot take this issue to the trustees at a public meeting, and try to get some relief for these kids. This is because Education Minister Paul Calandra has ousted them and taken control of running the TDSB.

From his remarks at a March 11, 2026 news event that the Government staged, Minister Calandra made it clear that he is in no hurry to restore the trustees. It could be up to ten years, he mused, vis a vis all school boards under provincial supervision.

How You Can Help

Watch the March 11, 2026 Queen’s park news conference of leaders from school boards, teachers’ unions, students, and parents of students with disabilities. See why it is so important for the Education Minister to halt his creeping takeover of the Ontario school system, now at over one third of that system. Learn why the Government needs to hold a robust public consultation on how school boards should be governed. Urge others to watch the news conference.

Contact your member of the Ontario Legislature. Tell them they must save local democracy at school boards. The provincial government is ill-equipped to competently run one third of Ontario’s schools, much less all of them. The March 12, 2026 Toronto Today article illustrates this in painful detail.

Read more about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy for a barrier-free school system for students with disabilities by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Today March 10, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.torontotoday.ca/local/education/special-ed-class-size-tdsb-supervisor-decision-absolute-chaos-teachers-11984580

TDSB supervisor’s decision to enlarge some special ed classes causing ‘absolute chaos,’ teachers say

A TDSB superintendent has said having larger diagnostic kindergarten classes increases access for students, but some teachers say it’s making classrooms less safe

Gabe Oatley

Teachers of specialized kindergarten classes for students with disabilities at the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) say a decision to permit larger class sizes this year is leading to more injuries and less learning for some of the system’s most vulnerable students.

Diagnostic kindergarten is a specialized, intensive TDSB support program that uses lower student-teacher ratios to support kids three to five years old who have complex learning, developmental or medical needs.

However, instead of working one-on-one with students to help them learn to say their first words or take off their own snowsuit, some diagnostic kindergarten teachers say they are increasingly focused only on trying to keep students safe amid larger class sizes.

Last July, shortly after being appointed supervisor of the TDSB, Rohit Gupta approved an increase to the number of students permitted in diagnostic kindergarten classrooms — pivoting from a maximum of eight to 10 students.

The decision, among Gupta’s first at the board, overturned a prior directive from TDSB trustees, which had rejected the proposed class size increase after an outcry from educators and parents.

In March, seven months into the school year, TorontoToday spoke with four current diagnostic kindergarten educators who said Gupta’s decision has resulted in exactly what they warned of: less learning and more students harming themselves, peers and teachers. (TorontoToday is not naming these educators over their fear of workplace reprisals.)

One current TDSB diagnostic kindergarten teacher said the new classroom conditions are “absolute chaos.”

“All I do is remove children from climbing the furniture, and then I go help someone who’s upset … and then I go stop someone from smearing poop all over the floor,” she said.

“It feels like we’ve become a daycare,” said another. “I never feel good about my day.”

Boy bitten after class increased to 10 students

TDSB parent Jennifer Loaiza said her family has seen the impact of the larger diagnostic kindergarten class sizes firsthand.

This fall, Loaiza enroled her four-year-old son, who has autism and down syndrome, in a diagnostic kindergarten program at Fairbank Memorial Community School, near their home.

At first, Loaiza said she was thrilled with the program and the progress her son was making. In the fall, the class had just six students, which Loaiza said gave her son’s teacher and educational assistant enough time to help him start learning how to communicate his needs.

“He started to use his finger to point at the things that he wants,” said Loaiza, with pride. “[Now], when he wants me to sing to him, he points to my mouth.”

However, as in other diagnostic kindergarten classrooms boardwide, more students were added to her son’s class throughout the school year, bringing the student count to 10.

Loaiza said the change has been noticeable in the time teachers have to educate her son and to ensure he remains safe.

One day last week, Loaiza said her son, who she said is normally quiet and calm, was crying when she picked him up from school.

An educator told Loaiza her son had been bitten on the head by another student. When Loaiza went home, she noticed blood on his scalp and in his hair.

Loaiza said this was the worst injury her child has experienced at school so far, and said the shift in his class circumstances is upsetting. “Ten students is too many,” she said.

Workplace violence reports up 45 per cent: union

All four diagnostic kindergarten educators who spoke with TorontoToday said since their classes have grown to beyond eight students, they have seen more instances of aggression, such as kicking, biting, punching, hitting and pushing, in their classrooms.

As the number of students has increased, so has the noise level in the classroom, educators said, causing students with auditory sensitivities to become more frequently dysregulated.

Educators also said more students means more conflicts over shared toys.

One teacher, whose classroom now has 10 students, said that last week, a student threw a metal cookie sheet (typically used by kids for arranging magnetic letters) at another child’s face.

“I don’t think his intention was to throw a cookie sheet at another child,” she said. “I think he was frustrated that the alphabet letters weren’t available.”

In an emailed statement, Helen Victoros, president of the Elementary Teachers of Toronto, said the number of violent incidents reported by elementary teachers boardwide has increased 45 per cent as of February, when compared to the same period last year.

“Many of the incidents we’re hearing about are from classrooms like these where the province has cut the supports that are so critical for our youngest learners who need supports the most,” said Victoros.

The union president noted that the diagnostic kindergarten program formerly had a cap of six students, before it was increased to eight, and subsequently 10, all without any corresponding staff increase.

One teacher who spoke with TorontoToday said she needed to take time off this year because of an injury suffered at the hands of a student. Another educator said a peer was recently head-butted by a student, causing a nose bleed.

TorontoToday asked the TDSB if the board has seen more student and teacher injuries in diagnostic kindergarten classrooms this year compared to last, but did not receive a response prior to publication.

Last year, in defending the proposed increase to diagnostic kindergarten class sizes, TDSB special education system superintendent Debbie Donsky said the change would help the board “align” with the province’s existing class caps, and increase “access” to the specialized program by allowing students to get off existing waitlists faster.

In an interview with TorontoToday, one diagnostic kindergarten teacher said she was disgusted by the rationale.

“It’s just bulls—t,” she said. “It was just a way that they thought they could [increase] quantity over quality.”

In an emailed statement, Leo Lagnado, a member of the board’s special education advisory committee, said more spaces for students in diagnostic kindergarten classrooms is only a win if the “integrity of the program is maintained.”

“If children are admitted to larger classes that cannot meet their needs, the result could be soft exclusion,” Lagnado said, such as behavioural crises, or parents choosing to no longer send their children to school.

TorontoToday recently reported that some local private schools are seeing an increase in interest for admission next fall. Among them is a North York independent school that offers support to children with disabilities and class sizes as low as six students.

Teachers fear for students’ long-term futures

Diagnostic kindergarten educators who spoke with TorontoToday said they are fearful about how a loss of quality one-on-one learning time will impact students long-term.

In diagnostic kindergarten classrooms, teachers are expected to follow the typical kindergarten curriculum. While that was always a tall task, one teacher now said it’s a “joke.”

The educator said in order to support her students making meaningful literacy strides — for example, learning to trace out the letters of their name or sound out a letter of the alphabet — she needs to be working with a child one-on-one, while other kids are playing independently.

However, with more students in her class, the teacher said there is simply less time for individualized instruction. Now, students who are getting personalized attention are also more easily distracted by their more numerous peers playing nearby, she said.

Still, the teacher said it’s fear of her students moving to yet-larger classes next year that causes the most stress.

Next year, some senior diagnostic kindergarten students will be in larger Grade 1 classes for students with mild intellectual disabilities, which have a class cap of 12 students.

“Is the teacher going to be able to meet their needs? Probably not,” she said. “And then what happens from there — are they ever going to do any substantial learning or life skills? It’s just not happening.”

Research shows early intervention and support for students with autism can help children reach their full potential.

With that in mind, the teacher said it’s frustrating to see the TDSB supervisor make decisions that could mean students are less likely to be able to work or volunteer when they’re older — and more likely to need to be on social assistance, such as the Ontario Disability Support Program.

“Why not focus more on early intervention?” she asked. “They’re being set up for failure.”

Educators who spoke with TorontoToday said they want Gupta to come to their classes to see what it’s really like — and whether he believes his decision to increase the class size cap was right.

TorontoToday endeavoured to reach Education Minister Paul Calandra to inquire whether he will intervene to reconsider the diagnostic kindergarten class cap increase, but did not receive a response prior to publication.

The 10th Episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” Came Out Today, Addressing One of the Most Consequential Disability Advocacy Wins in Decades

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

The 10^th Episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” Came Out Today, Addressing One of the Most Consequential Disability Advocacy Wins in Decades

March 13, 2026

SUMMARY

Today, the 10^th episode of the AODA Alliance podcast “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” has been released, and is available wherever you get your podcasts. It is entitled: “The Milestone Fight for Including Disability Rights in Canada’s Charter of Rights – With Yvonne Peters – Pt 1.”

In this episode, host AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky interviews lawyer and lifelong human rights advocate Yvonne Peters on the successful campaign back in 1980 and 1981 to get equality for people with disabilities added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both Yvonne Peters and David Lepofsky actively campaigned for the disability amendment when they were much younger and knew very little about how to do this advocacy.

Yvonne Peters and David Lepofsky did not know each other as these events unfolded. They compare notes on what each of them tried, and discuss what lessons we all can learn today from their experience. This episode includes the first part of their discussion. Episode 11, which comes out in three weeks, will give you a chance to hear the second part of their exchange.

Far too few people know about the events discussed in these episodes. Yet they underpin most if not all disability advocacy that has gone on in Canada since then.

You can subscribe to the podcast for free, using links below, or just click this link to play the episode.

How to Learn More About This Topic

David Lepofsky has written a memoir about these events, entitled “Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” It is available online for free download from the AODA Alliance Website’s publications page, in pdf, MS Word, e-pub formats and as a free audio book. It is also available for purchase as a hard copy book from Amazon or as a Kindle e-book from Kindle.

Check out the AODA Alliances online video series about the birth of Canada’s national accessibility legislation, the Accessible Canada Act. That series includes videos about the 1980-81 battle for the disability amendment to the Charter of Rights.

More about Our Podcast

Our growing series of podcasts transport you to the front lines of disability rights advocacy, boldly going where we want more people to go! If you are just starting, we invite you to listen to them all, in whatever order you wish.

We explore advocacy incidents and battles of all sorts. Some were waged by individuals. Others are advanced by groups and organizations. We find action tips on how to be an effective advocate, whether you are advocating on a disability issue or any social justice issue.

Enjoy these stories whether or not you ever thought you’d have to advocate on a disability issue. At some point in everyone’s life, they will have to do this. Everyone is bound to eventually get a disability as they age, if not sooner.

Episodes are designed to be informative for listeners anywhere in the world, and not just in Canada where the podcast is based. We have listeners in countries all around the world.

New episodes drop every three Fridays. Earlier episodes include:

“The 12 Year Fight for Automated Stop Announcements on the TTC” about Lepofsky’s long struggle to make transit in Toronto accessible for blind riders” with host David Lepofsky.
“Beyond Building Codes: Designing Spaces for Everyone”” with guest built environment accessible design expert Thea Kurdi
“Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign Part 1” covering how targeted advocacy resulted in policy change for autism therapies.” With guest autism advocate Bruce McIntosh.
“Turning Barriers into Headlines: Practical Tips from a Veteran News Reporter” with former journalist Michelle McQuigge.
“How to get a Politician’s Attention” Part 1 and Part 2 with the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, former Ontario Premier.
Airline Accessibility: How Maayan Ziv Turned a Mangled Wheelchair Into Real Change
“Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign Part 2” covering how targeted advocacy resulted in policy change for autism therapies with guest autism advocate Bruce McIntosh.
“Why Must a Doctor with Disabilities Combat Accessibility Barriers in the Health Care System?” with physician Dr. Lisa Freeman.

Find our podcast on major podcast platforms:

Apple music: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/disability-rights-and-wrongs-the-david-lepodcast/id1838700161

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5WFLiSy99OJPMZ1ZSrkWCg

Ask your smart phone, Alexa, or Google Nest: “Play podcast ‘Disability Rights and Wrongs!’”

You can also listen to episodes on your computer. Just use the links we provided, or simply Google “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” and take it from there.

To read a transcript of each podcast, Apple Music can generate transcripts. Spotify might do that as well. For iPhone users, you might prefer to use the live captioning feature that comes with your phone.

How You Can Help

Help us get more listeners! Tell friends to give it a listen!
Urge K-12 students to listen to this podcast. There are tons of school projects they could invent using issues that the podcast covers.

Watch March 11, 2026 Queen’s Park News Conference on the Future of Democracy at Ontario’s School Boards and Read News Coverage

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.outube.com/user/aodaalliance
TikTok: @AODAAlliance

Watch March 11, 2026 Queen’s Park News Conference on the Future of Democracy at Ontario’s School Boards and Read News Coverage

March 12, 2026

SUMMARY

1. Watch the 33-Minute Video of the March 11, 2026 “Education Summit” at Queen’s Park in which the AODA Alliance Took Part

Watch the 33-minute archived video of the March 11, 2026 Queen’s Park news conference, where school boards, teachers’ unions, K-12 students and parents of students with disabilities/special education needs united to call for Education Minister Paul Calandra to halt changes to the local democratic election school board trustees until there is a broad public consultation. This video is available on the AODA Alliance’s YouTube channel.

This news conference was called in response to the Ford Government’s repeated indication that it is considering the elimination of elected school boards to govern our local schools. Speaking at this news conference in defence of local democracy were Kathleen Woodcock (president of the Ontario Public School Boards Association OPSBA), Carter Peios (a student school board trustee), David Mastin (president of the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario) AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky (who is also Chair of the Special Education Advisor Committee of the Toronto District School Board).

We thank and congratulate OPSBA for convening this news conference and for including the AODA Alliance in it.

2. This News Conference was an Amazing “First”

It is rare if ever that representatives of parents, school boards, students, and teachers’ unions agree on an agenda for the K-12 school system. That is what happened at this news conference.

They agreed on this three-point plan.

1. The Government should put on hold any new legislative reforms to school board governance until a comprehensive public consultation has been held.
2. This public consultation should include the voices and perspectives of parents, including parents of students with disabilities, school boards, education staff, and subject-matter experts. It should take into account the recurring unmet needs of students with disabilities.
3. The Government should make public a detailed plan for the return to local democracy at those school boards now under provincial supervision, with a path to its restoration including clear goals and benchmarks.

Twelve disability organizations also backed this plan, as revealed in the March 11, 2026 open letter to Education Minister Calandra.

At the end of this Update, you can read the OPSBA’s March 11, 2026 news release. It further shows the unity achieved from so many perspectives.

It was also an incredible “first” for us to have the voice of parents of students with disabilities included on the rostrum at this summit. At this news conference, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky said that Ontarians have a strong long-term preference for finding middle ground, rather than an extreme position. He argued that the “Ontario option” in this case is not one extreme, abolishing elected trustees, or the other extreme, leaving the existing system in place with no changes. He said the news conference participants are reaching out their hand to Premier Doug Ford to find a middle ground that keeps school boards governed by locally elected representatives and that reforms the system to address problems with the status quo.

3. Very Good Media Coverage

This Queen’s Park news conference resulted in a gratifying number of news reports. Below you can find reports in the Toronto Star, CTV News, Global News, the Canadian Press and Innisfil Today.

4. Education Minister Paul Calandra Tries to Eclipse Our News Conference by Holding One of His Own, but it Backfires

On learning of the plans for this 11 a.m. March 11, 2026 Queen’s Park news conference, Education Minister Paul Calandra and Premier Ford rushed to schedule a rival news conference for 10 a.m. the same morning to make an announcement of their own. They announced a plan to give each elementary teacher $750 for school supplies.

They held their event in Etobicoke. This was no doubt aimed to distract the media’s attention from our event, and to draw reporters out to Etobicoke so they would not be able to get to Queen’s Park in time for our 11 a.m. Queen’s Park news conference. This is a distraction tactic that the Ford Government and other governments have used in the past.

Their tactic backfired. Reporters could easily attend the 10 a.m. event in Etobicoke and then watch our 11 a.m. event on live stream, or when archived right afterwards. Some of the news reports set out below were written by reporters who were not physically present at our 11 a.m. Queen’s Park news conference.

Second, some of the news articles that reported on the Calandra announcement also included coverage of our 11 a.m. news conference. Therefore, we ended up piggybacking on their story.

Third, and most important, at the Government’s 10 a.m. event, reporters asked Premier Ford and Education Minister about the core message we were about to address at our 11 a.m. Queen’s Park news conference, namely whether they plan to abolish elected school board trustees. Both politicians said they have not yet decided and made further comments on the topic. At the 11 a.m. Queen’s Park news conference, reporters asked the presenters to respond to the Government’s statement on point minutes before. The media picked up on all of this, as seen in the articles below.

Governments often like to avoid being called on to comment on an emerging story. Often the current Government simply does not reply at all to a reporter’s inquiry. The Government cannot do that at a live news conference.

Moreover, the Government does not like to afford us an opportunity to give the media a response to its answer to our claims. Here, those speaking at the 11 a.m. Queen’s park news conference were afforded a golden opportunity to do just that.

Had the Government not held its 10 a.m. news conference, we would not have had this opportunity at 11 a.m. Their attempted distraction backfired.

5. How You Can Help

- Please widely post and circulate the link to the March 11, 2026 Queen’s Park News Conference. The link is: https://www.outube.com/watch?v=oeoal37Cv7o
- Urge other people to watch this news conference and to read the contents of this AODA Alliance Update.
- Contact your member of the Ontario Legislature. Tell them it is very important to preserve democratic elections for the people who run our school boards.

MORE DETAILS

Global News March 11, 2026

Originally posted at: https://globalnews.ca/news/11726020/ontario-school-board-supervision-timeline/

Ford government could keep school boards under supervision for ‘years’

By Isaac Callan & Colin D’Mello Global News
Ontario’s education minister says he will keep school boards in the province under supervision for years if necessary and won’t feel pressure to hand them back to elected trustees until he is confident they’re being well-run.

Paul Calandra has put eight school boards under supervision over the past year, sidelining trustees at some of the province’s largest boards.

Both Toronto public and Catholic, as well as the two English-language boards in Peel Region, are now being run by provincial supervisors. The eight supervised boards represent some 750,000-plus students.

“Almost 40 per cent of the student population in Ontario is under the control of the Ministry of Education right now,” Calandra said. “That ostensibly is to ensure that classroom funding is maximized to lower down the temperature we’d seen in advance of supervision.”

Supervision is something that has concerned some in the education space, including parent groups and unions. An open letter sent to the Ford government asked for a clear plan on how boards would return to trustee-led governance.

Calandra, however, suggested he was in no hurry to reverse course.

“With respect to the boards that we have under supervision, they’re not going to be turned back until they’re on the right path, full stop,” he said. “If it takes us one year, two years, three years, 10 years — I don’t care.”

Calandra has also mused over months about the future of trustees, pointing out he has the power to abolish English public school trustees if he chooses.

David Maston, president of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, said giving the provincial government control of day-to-day decisions at school boards is a mistake.

“Comments about potentially eliminating them altogether, concentrating decision-making power at Queen’s Park, should concern us all,” he said.

“These actions raise serious concerns about the minister acting without meaningful consultation from those directly involved: the families of students, educators and education workers.”

Calandra has pointed to a trip to Italy taken by trustees at one board and an excursion to the Toronto Blue Jays’ hotel by another board as examples of mismanagement from elected trustees.

David Lepofsky, a disability advocate and chair of the AODA Alliance, said it was a “false dilemma” to suggest trustees must exist in their current form or be abolished.

“Mend it, don’t end it,” he suggested.

Among Lepofsky’s concerns is the danger that eliminating trustees could reduce the options for parents of children with disabilities. He said supervision at the Toronto District School Board had hurt children with special educational needs.

“What we’ve seen from the point of view of kids with disabilities and special education needs is that after six or more months under their supervision, things have not gotten one bit better,” he said.

“In fact, things have gotten appreciably worse.”

While Calandra seemed to be moving full steam ahead with the removal of trustees a few months ago, Premier Doug Ford would not commit to the plan on Wednesday.

“I can’t confirm it right at this second, everything’s on the table,” he said. “What we want to do is focus in the classroom, what we don’t want to see is mismanagement.”

Calandra said he still planned to recommend changes.

“I haven’t given the premier my suggestions yet for reform -I’ll do that very soon,” he said. “A whole host of options for the premier and then to my cabinet colleagues.”

The lack of a decision so far is something Kathleen Woodcock, president of the Ontario Public School Board Association, hopes means the idea could be scrapped.

“I hope the premier has decided to listen to all of the education sector, saying this is not a path that really makes any sense for our students,” she said.

The Canadian Press March 11, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/ontario/ontario-giving-elementary-teachers-750-cards-to-buy-classroom-supplies/article_e422c24b-4e54-5fc2-845d-a826d402afed.html

Ontario giving elementary teachers $750 cards to buy classroom supplies
Allison Jones and Liam Casey The Canadian Press

A teacher’s desk in a classroom is seen at Wazoson Public School of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB) in Ottawa, on Friday, Dec. 5, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

TORONTO – Ontario elementary school teachers will be getting $750 purchasing cards starting in the next school year for classroom supplies, Premier Doug Ford announced Wednesday.

Ford said he has on numerous occasions encountered teachers at the dollar store who were buying supplies using their own money, and they shouldn’t have to do that.

“The days of teachers having to put their hands in their own pockets to pay for school supplies, those days are done,” he said at a press conference about the $66-million fund.

“I’m just so proud,” Ford added later. “I think this is the greatest thing I think we’ve ever done for public education.”

Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario president David Mastin said teachers will be pleased to see the investment in classroom supplies, but the government shouldn’t toot its own horn too much, as having classrooms well stocked with tissues and pencils should just be a given.

“The government is trying to make us believe that this is a gift that’s being given prior to what is going to be probably a very contentious round of central bargaining,” he said.

“We shouldn’t even be talking about this. This should be a foregone conclusion.”

Education Minister Paul Calandra said the ministry does provide funding that boards use for classroom supplies.

“There are some resources that have been given to our boards to provide funding, on average about $300, but it doesn’t always get to the teachers,” he said.

The province is setting up a website through which homeroom teachers can make their purchases of supplies such as arts and crafts materials, stationery and paper products, posters and classroom decor, and paper towels and tissues. Those materials will come at a reasonable cost, due to the bulk purchasing power of the province, Calandra said.

Teachers can carry over unused portions of their $750.

The government will send teachers a survey Wednesday so they can give input on which supplies they would like to be available through the purchasing website, he said.

Interim Liberal Leader John Fraser said the website won’t provide teachers with what they actually need.

“There’s no website that is going to get that young girl in school who needs an (educational assistant) – they can’t click on that,” he said.

“They can’t click on making a class size smaller.”

Calandra has been making waves in the year since he became education minister, putting eight school boards under government supervision and raising the possibility of eliminating the role of trustees at English public boards.

He said Wednesday that he has not yet brought a final plan on trustees or school board governance to the premier or cabinet, but that the eight boards are unlikely to have their supervision lifted any time soon.

Officials from school boards, teachers’ unions, disability advocacy groups and others connected to the education system gathered separately Wednesday calling on Calandra to consult with them before proceeding with governance changes.

“The lack of certainty about school board elections is creating immediate instability for the upcoming election period,” said Kathleen Woodcock, president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association.

“We’re here to invite the government to work with us to strengthen public education, develop stronger public policy together and maintain the trust our communities place in our world-class education system.”

Debbie King, chair of a provincial Black Trustees’ Caucus, said trustees provide a direct connection to the communities they serve.

“We bring lived experience, professional experience that’s very valuable in representing the issues that are affecting our children and our communities directly,” she said.

Calandra said he is not interested in hearing from trustees advocating to maintain their positions.

“I would suggest to all of those vested interests, the trustee associations, put first students, put parents first, and then give me your advice based on that,” he said.

“If it’s just about saving your job, that’s a non-starter. If it’s about how we can make the system better, then we’ll listen. But it has to be about student achievement, full stop. Without that, then no, I’m just simply not going to listen.”

David Lepofsky, a disability advocate and chair of the Toronto District School Board’s special education advisory committee, said eliminating trustees removes an avenue parents use to pursue accommodations for their children’s disabilities.

If there are problems with the education system, the status quo and abolishing trustees are not the only two options, Lepofsky said.

“Mend it, don’t end it,” he said.

“Let’s find that reasonable middle. Let’s put on hold takeovers of more boards right now. Let’s give a chance for all of us to have some input, and Ontarians to have a say, and let’s give those boards under supervision an orderly, predictable path to restore local democracy.”

Innisfil Today March 11, 2026

Originally posted at: https://www.innisfiltoday.ca/local-news/premier-stays-coy-on-whether-school-board-trustees-will-be-elected-this-fall-11988347#google_vignette

Premier stays coy on whether school board trustees will be elected this fall

‘We’ll come out with an answer on that shortly,’ Doug Ford said when asked a yes-or-no question by a reporter Wednesday morning

Sneh Duggal

Ford-clapping-for-calandra

Ontario Premier Doug Ford applauds as Long-Term Care Minister Paul Calandra answers a question the legislature resumes at Queen’s Park in Toronto on Feb.

Frank Gunn/The Canadian Press

Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on

The Trillium,

a Village Media website devoted exclusively to covering provincial politics at Queen’s Park.

Premier Doug Ford won’t say whether or not school board trustees will be on the ballots in this fall’s municipal elections — but he’s promising to share an answer on that question soon.

“We’ll come out with an answer on that shortly,” the premier said Wednesday morning, when a reporter asked him for a yes-or-no answer to the question about

whether or not trustees will be elected this fall.

Earlier in the morning, groups representing school board and union leadership, Indigenous trustees, students with disabilities and civil liberties advocates had issued a statement calling on the government to hold broad consultations before making changes to school board governance.

“Groups representing all aspects of publicly funded education in Ontario are expressing concerns about recent comments from Education Minister Paul Calandra regarding the potential elimination of elected school board trustees — a system of governance that has been in place longer than Canada has been a country,” they said.

“This change, if implemented, would remove one of the most important ways that families and communities have a say in how their schools are governed. It

would also mean that important decisions about education could be made without appropriate public discussion, debate, and awareness.”

The issue is becoming more urgent, they said, as nominations for municipal council and school board elections are scheduled to open on May 1.

Asked about the group’s call for consultation, Calandra replied that his job as minister “isn’t to listen to people who want to advocate to maintain their position.”

“If it’s just about saving your job, that’s a non-starter, but if it’s about how we can make the system better, then we’ll listen,” he said.

Pressed on the government’s plans for trustees, Calandra said he hadn’t yet given the premier his suggestions for reform, adding that he would have a “whole host of options” for his cabinet colleagues to review.

“So that has yet to be decided,” he said. “But full-stop, if it’s not in the best interest of students, it’s not in the best interest of teachers delivering, then it is not a direction we’ll go in.”

The back-and-forth follows months of concerns being raised within the education sector about the possible elimination of trustees. It also comes after

dozens of trustees have been sidelined at several Ontario school boards placed under supervision.

Calandra has made a steady stream of changes since taking on the education file nearly one year ago.

About a month into his tenure, in April 2025, he issued a warning to school boards to focus “on what matters,” saying he would be “relentless in ensuring that our boards remain accountable to those that it matters most.”

A little over a week later, Calandra announced

he was taking control of the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB) — the first of eight boards he’d place under provincial supervision within a

year — after officials used board funds for a nearly $40,000 stay at the Toronto Blue Jays stadium hotel during a three-day retreat in Toronto in August 2024.

The other boards that have since been taken over by the province include the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (DPCDSB), Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB), Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB), Toronto District School Board (TDSB), Near North District School Board (NNDSB), Peel District School Board (PDSB) and York Catholic District School Board (YCDSB).

Calandra has defended his government’s decision to allow school board supervisors to bill for up to $350,000 per year, saying “it is the appropriate amount of money given the challenges that all of these boards face.”

Then last May, Calandra tabled Bill 33, the Supporting Children and Students Act, which passed in November and makes it easier for the education minister to take control of school boards by removing the need for him to wait for a third-party recommendation to do so.

Education unions, advocates and opposition parties spoke out against the legislation, saying it weakened transparency, removed democratic oversight and sidelined trustees, whom they called a “lifeline” for families.

By August, Calandra was musing about eliminating school trustees — again sparking backlash.

Accusing trustees of “wasting money,” Calandra has said boards “took massive surpluses that were supposed to be spent … in (the) classroom, and they turned those surpluses into deficits, they turned their school systems into battlegrounds between parents, teachers and students.”

The premier has also slammed school boards on different occasions, referring to them in September as “Taj Mahal school boards” and decrying expenses he said they were filing, including trips and “a pack of gum.”

Calandra criticized specific school board trustee expenses, telling reporters last fall about a TCDSB trustee “expensing meals at casinos” and downloading an Elvis Presley song.

The trustee, Maria Rizzo, who said she uses a wheelchair, is legally blind and has a hearing disability, denied that she “knowingly” downloaded the song.

While he originally said he hoped to share his decision on school board governance “by the end of this year,” Calandra indicated in December that a decision would come sometime early in 2026.

“I will be, obviously, in a position, when the legislature resumes, after the new year, to provide absolute clarity on where we’re going, but nothing has changed my mind right now that trustees are in any way the best way to deliver a $43-billion educational system,” Calandra said on Dec. 3, adding that

he wanted to ensure he’d done his “homework when it comes to Charter and constitutional rights” related to French-language and Catholic boards.

Ford and Calandra made the comments at a press conference at an Etobicoke school on Wednesday morning about giving elementary teachers their own $750 purchasing cards for school supplies.

Ford previously mused about giving Ontario teachers purchasing cards last November, saying it would allow educators to “actually go out and buy pencils and pens and paper, because the school board’s too busy wasting the money.”

“We know that many teachers have been paying out of pocket for supplies. That isn’t fair for teachers or students,” said Calandra in a news release. “While school boards receive funding for classroom resources, we have not always seen those dollars consistently reach every classroom. That is why we are putting funds directly in the hands of teachers to ensure their classrooms are equipped to support student achievement.”

The cards will allow teachers to buy supplies from the government’s central procurement agency, Supply Ontario, through a new provincial website.

Meanwhile, education unions are preparing for the next round of negotiations, with collective agreements for Ontario teachers and education workers expiring on Aug. 31 this year.

Asked if the cards were meant to “placate” teachers ahead of the negotiations, Ford replied that he found the question “insulting.”

“We don’t placate anyone,” he said.
— With files from Steve Cornwell and Jessica Smith Cross

Toronto Star March 12, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.google.ca/search?q=toronto+star+Ford+gives+trustees+hope+they+will+remain
Ford gives trustees hope they will remain
Nothing ruled out on board reform, premier insists

Kristin Rushowy Senior Writer Rob Ferguson Queen’s Park Bureau
Premier Doug Ford says “everything is on the table” when it comes to school board reform, a comment that could give trustees hope they will remain a part of the system.

Education Minister Paul Calandra had initially planned to announce changes to school governance by the end of last year, warning that could include getting rid of elected trustees, although he later said he needed more time to ensure the constitutional rights of Catholic and French trustees would not be affected.

Calandra – who has also stripped trustees of power and sent in provincial supervisors to an unprecedented eight school boards – said Wednesday he hasn’t “given the premier my suggestions yet for reform, so I’ll do that very soon, a whole host of options for the premier, and then to my cabinet colleagues.”

He added, “it depends on what we decide, but, full stop, if it’s not in the best interest of students, it’s not in the best interests of teachers … then it is not a direction we’ll go in.”

Kathleen Woodcock, president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, said this is a good sign for Ontarians concerned about losing local voices and accountability in the operation of schools.

“I hope the premier has decided to listen to all the education sector when they’re saying this is not a path that really makes any sense for our students,” Woodcock told a news conference at the legislature.

She urged the government to “ensure any changes strengthen public education” and hold “broad consultations before advancing any legislative reforms” on school board governance.

At a time when several boards are under the ministry’s supervision, “without elected trustees, we are seeing critical decisions in several of our boards happening behind closed doors,” she said, adding the issue needs to be cleared up soon because nominations open May 1 for municipal elections being held across the province on Oct. 26.

A teacher union president at the news conference with Woodcock said if the government is backing down on any plan to cut trustees, it’s because word is spreading on the perils of doing so.

“It’s more than just pushback from the people in this room, it’s pushback from ordinary citizens in this province,” said David Mastin of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

“Parents sometimes don’t know where to turn, and their only avenue is through their locally elected trustees.”

Trustees are particularly important to parents of children with disabilities and can help with any accommodations needed, said David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

Calandra, who was with Ford at an Etobicoke elementary school announcing spending accounts for teachers on Wednesday morning, said “a lot of work” needs to happen at the eight boards now being run by provincial supervisors before local control is returned.

Those under supervision include five in the GTA – Toronto public and Catholic, Peel public, Dufferin-Peel Catholic and York Catholic.

“They are not going to be turned back until they are on the right path,” Calandra said.

“If it take us one year, two years, three years, 10 years – I don’t care. When they’re on the right path, when they are doing what’s in the best interest of our teachers, students and parents, and if there are still trustees, (then) we’ll turn them over.”

CTV News March 11, 2026

Originally posted at: https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/ford-wont-say-whether-ontario-school-board-trustees-will-be-on-the-ballot-in-the-fall/

Ford won’t say whether Ontario school board trustees will be on the ballot in the fall
By Joshua Freeman

Ontario Premier Doug Ford visits students at Highfield Junior Public School in Toronto on Wednesday, March 11, 2026. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette
Ontario Premier Doug Ford is refusing to say whether school board trustees will be on the ballot when people across the province vote in municipal elections this coming fall.

“We’ll come out with an answer on that shortly,” Ford told reporters when asked about the matter at a news conference at an Etobicoke school Wednesday morning.

When asked if his government will move to eliminate trustees altogether, he said “I can’t confirm it right at this second. Everything’s on the table.”

Eight school boards in the province are currently under provincial supervision.

Education Minister Paul Calandra seized control of the boards – including the Toronto District School Board – over a variety of allegations, including financial mismanagement, infighting, and wasteful spending.

In the fall, the government passed legislation making it easier for the education minister to take over school boards, leading some to speculate the province could be looking to make sweeping changes to the school board system.

Calandra has promised that he will give certainty around the school board model when MPPs return to Queen’s Park later this month.

He said Wednesday that a decision is still being made.

“I haven’t given the premier my suggestions yet for reform, so I’ll do that very soon – a whole host of options for the premier and then to my cabinet colleagues” Calandra said at the same news conference.

“So that has yet to be decided, where we go from there. So it depends on what we decide. But full stop; if it’s not in the best interest of students, it’s not in best interest of teachers delivering, then it is not a direction we’ll go in.”

Asked how long the supervision of boards will continue, Calandra said it will not end until the ministry is satisfied that they are back on track.

“If it takes us one year, two years, three years, 10 years, I don’t care,” Calandra said. “When they are on the right path, when they are doing what’s in the best interest of our teachers, students and parents, and if there are still trustees, we’ll turn them over (to them).

“But regardless of what happens with the governance changes, I don’t see a world in which these eight boards that we have under our jurisdiction right now are turned over anytime. There’s a lot of work that has to happen in in these in these eight boards.”

Ontarians typically cast a ballot for local school board trustees when they vote for a city councillor and mayoral candidate. Local elections are set to be held across the province on Oct. 26.

Things getting worse for students under supervision: advocates
Meanwhile, a group of public education stakeholders held a news conference at Queen’s Park Wednesday, calling on the government to ensure democratic representation in the school system.

Minister Calandra’s, decisions to place school boards under supervision have significantly reduced the authority and role of democratically elected trustees, and comments about potentially eliminating them altogether, concentrating decision making power at Queen’s Park should concern us,” said ETFO President David Mastin said.

David Lepofsky, the chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Toronto District School Board, said the ministry is slowly seizing more direct control over students, cutting out local accountability.

“750,000 Ontario students now have their education under the direct management of the minister’s office with no local democracy,” Lepofsky said. “That’s over a third of Ontario’s students in publicly funded schools. This is a form of creeping takeover.”

He said that instead of things getting better at those schools that have lost trustee representation, parents have been left with nowhere to turn if they are having difficulty getting proper school supports for their children.

“What we’ve seen from the point of view of kids with disabilities and special education needs is after six or more months under their supervision, things have not gotten one bit better. In fact, things have gotten appreciably worse,” Lepofsky said.

The group called on Calandra to undertake broad consultations with education partners before moving forward on reforms on school board governance. They said those consultations should include students and parents as well as families with students who have disabilities and subject matter experts. They said they also want to see the government table a detailed plan with clear goals for the return to regular oversight for schools under supervision.

MARCH 11, 2026 POST-NEWS CONFERENCE NEWS RELEASE BY THE ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION

SCHOOL BOARDS AND STAKEHOLDERS CALL FOR BROAD PROVINCE-WIDE GOVERNANCE CONSULTATION

DECISIONS THAT REMOVE LOCAL DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATION MUST SUPPORT STUDENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES

Toronto, March 11, 2026 – Groups representing all aspects of publicly funded education in Ontario are expressing concerns about recent comments from Education Minister Paul Calandra regarding the potential elimination of elected school board trustees – a system of governance that has been in place longer than Canada has been a country. This change, if implemented, would remove one of the most important ways that families and communities have a say in how their schools are governed. It would also mean that important decisions about education could be made without appropriate public discussion, debate, and awareness.

The groups mentioned here above, are united in calling for the following:

The government and Minister Calandra should undertake broad consultations with education partners before advancing any legislative reforms to school board governance.
The consultation should include the voices and perspectives of students and parents – including parents of students with disabilities, school boards, education staff, and subject matter experts, and
The government should outline a detailed plan with clear goals and benchmarks for the return to local democratic oversight at school boards currently under supervision.

“When decisions are being made about our children and their education, they must be made in public, open to public scrutiny,” said OPSBA President Kathleen Woodcock, also a trustee with the Waterloo Region District School Board. “The people making these decisions should be directly accountable to you, the public.”
The urgency of this issue increases daily, as nominations for municipal council and school board elections are slated to open on May 1, 2026.

Trustees have a key role in Ontario’s four publicly funded education systems. Without elected trustees, decisions about school closures, special education priorities, student supports, and the use or sale of public school land would be made behind closed doors, further away from the communities they affect. For example, in school boards currently under supervision, important decisions are regularly being made by a provincially appointed supervisor, who is accountable only to a minister at Queen’s Park, not to local families.

Public education shapes Ontario’s economy, communities, and future. Decisions about curriculum priorities, equity policies, mental health supports, and long-term capital planning require democratic oversight.

OPSBA has long stated its willingness to partner with the government in any dialogue or discussion about possible governance changes, and the groups making this statement share this approach. When government and partners in the sector come together to discuss and debate ideas openly and work through challenges collaboratively, we arrive at stronger public policy – and that is exactly the point of a healthy democracy.

Additional Quotes

“Ontario’s publicly funded education system depends on transparent governance, meaningful consultation and the voices of the communities schools serve. Principals and vice-principals value local democratic representation in supporting high quality learning environments and student success.”
Jeff Maharaj, President, Ontario Principals’ Council

« Depuis 25 ans, les conseils scolaires francophones sont au cœur du développement et de la vitalité de nos communautés. Ils permettent une gouvernance par et pour les francophones afin d’offrir une éducation qui reflète les réalités et les besoins de nos élèves et de leurs familles. Nous sommes solidaires avec l’Ontario Public School Boards’ Association (OPSBA) et croyons qu’il faut entreprendre une consultation authentique auprès de toutes les parties prenantes. Nous réitérons notre appui aux conseils scolaires francophones et demeurons préoccupés par toute proposition qui pourrait affaiblir cette représentation démocratique essentielle. »
Gabrielle Lemieux, Présidente de l’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens

“For the past 25 years, Francophone school boards have been at the heart of the development and vitality of our communities. They ensure governance by and for Francophones to provide an education that reflects the realities and needs of our students and their families. We stand in solidarity with the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association (OPSBA) and believe that a genuine consultation with all stakeholders must take place. We reaffirm our support for Francophone school boards and remain concerned about any proposal that could weaken this essential democratic representation.”
Gabrielle Lemieux, President, Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens

“Trustees are a vital link parents and students rely on to advocate for their education needs. Important decisions that affect local schools should be made by local communities, not politicians at Queen’s Park. These school board takeovers are a distraction designed to hide years of severe underfunding that is having real impacts on Ontario classrooms.”
Chris Cowley, President, Ontario Teachers’ Federation

“Ontario has at least 330,000 K-12 students with disabilities. Too many are chronically vulnerable and underserved. Things have gotten worse for them at supervised school boards. Trustees were their last resort, short of litigation, for battling to get their child’s disability-related needs accommodated. The recently instituted Student and Family Support Offices are no replacement. The TDSB supervisor has raised permissible class sizes in ways that especially hurt students with disabilities. Without democratic accountability via trustees, school boards risk becoming more bureaucratic for parents and their children with disabilities.”
David Lepofsky, Chair, AODA Alliance, and Chair, Special Education Advisory Committee of the Toronto District School Board

“I personally experienced the negative impacts of government actions biased under the guise of knowing what is best for us as First Nations, as both my parents attended Residential School and I attended an Indian Day School. The Minister of Education’s proposal to eliminate elected school board trustees, which would sideline First Nation-appointed trustees represents a consequential retreat from reconciliation, democracy and due process on consultation. The Education Act, which allows for First Nation-appointed trustees on school boards, has recently been ignored as the minister has supervised school boards. First Nation-appointed trustees provide accountability for the financial transfer payments from First Nations to school boards and also provide oversight to ensure the negative impacts of the history of the Residential School system never happens again. Student well being, achievement and outcomes are important metrics that we should all aspire to achieve. I stand in solidarity with my elected trustee colleagues in a call to action to the Ontario government for appropriate consultation on how we can all improve on the most important work of student success and achievement in a democracy.”
Elaine Johnston, Chair, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Trustees’ Council

“Strong oversight and governance protect students. When trustees are removed from their roles and equity structures are paused or reduced, the system’s ability to identify and correct race-based disparities is weakened.”
Debbie King, Chair, Black Trustees’ Caucus

“Effective and responsive school board governance originates from local communities. While provincial standards are necessary, centralized policies aren’t able to respond to the local realities that Ontario’s strong and diverse communities face. Centralized provincial mandates remove local voices and local choices. Having navigated similar challenges in Manitoba, I’ve learned that the most effective, responsive and accountable solutions are found in the community, not in centralized provincial mandates. One-size-fits-all education isn’t just inefficient – it is a disservice to the specific cultural and regional identities of students and families.”
Alan Campbell, President, Canadian School Boards Association

“For many families of children with disabilities, school trustees are not an abstract level of government — they are the person they call when their child is unable to access needed supports, a problem facing a large proportion of our community. With more than 350,000 students with disabilities in Ontario schools, data collected by the Ontario Autism Coalition showed that over 28% of children with special education needs required their parents to advocate on their behalf with their trustee at least once last year. This adds up to over 100,000 points of contact with democratically elected trustees. That kind of community connection and accountability cannot be replaced by a centralized system.”
Kate Dudley-Logue, Vice President, Community Outreach, Ontario Autism Coalition

“Parents are essential partners in public education, particularly when it comes to advocating for students with disabilities who rely on appropriate supports to access their learning. Locally elected trustees help ensure families have direct connections to the decisions that shape their children’s education”
Elizabeth Garkowski and Julia Evangelisto, Ontario Parents for Education Support

“Public education is a cornerstone of a democratic society. Democratic accountability requires that those most affected by decisions have a real and respected say in how those decisions are made. When governments sideline elected school board trustees, democratic principles are weakened, education systems are destabilized, and communities are silenced.”
Harini Sivalingam, Director of Equality, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

For more information, please contact:

Shane Gonsalves
Managing Director, Government and Public Affairs, OPSBA
sgonsalves@opsba.org

T.J. Goertz
Manager of Strategic Communications, OPSBA
tgoertz@opsba.org

Carter Peios
President, OSTA-AECO
carter.peios@osta-aeco.org

Carla Pereira
Coordinator, Communications & Political Action Services, ETFO
cpereira@etfo.org

Caitlin Reid
Media and Communications Advisor, OSSTF
Caitlin.Reid@osstf.ca

Marianne Raina
Director of Communications, AEFO
613-218-3702 or mraina@aefo.on.ca

Lori Horan
Director of Communications, Ontario Principals’ Council
lhoran@principals.on.ca

Ian Pettigrew
Secretary-Treasurer, OTF
ian.pettigrew@otffeo.on.ca

David Lepofsky
Volunteer Chair, AODA Alliance
aodafeedback@gmail.com

Kate Dudley Logue
Vice President, Community Outreach, Ontario Autism Coalition
Kate.Dudley-Logue@OntarioAutismCoalition.com

Elizabeth Garkowski and Julia Evangelisto
Co-founders, Ontario Parents for Education Support
ontarioparentsforeducation@gmail.com
Elizabeth: 647-225-8870
Julia: 647-992-2382

Canadian Civil Liberties Association
media@ccla.org

Open Letter from 12 Major Disability Organizations, Revealed at Today’s Queen’s Park News Conference, Call on Education Minister Calandra to Safeguard Locally Elected School Trustees and Ensure Parents a Genuine Voice in Their Future

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Learn more by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Open Letter from 12 Major Disability Organizations, Revealed at Today’s Queen’s Park News Conference, Call on Education Minister Calandra to Safeguard Locally Elected School Trustees and Ensure Parents a Genuine Voice in Their Future

March 11, 2026 Toronto: At least 120,000 chronically underserved and vulnerable students with disabilities at school boards that Education Minister Paul Calandra now runs face the real danger that things will get worse for them at school, an unprecedented Queen’s Park news conference was told today. Organized by the Ontario Public School Boards Association, speakers at this news conference included representatives of all major players in Ontario’s K-12 education system — school boards, teachers unions, representatives of parents of students with disabilities, and student leaders. Possibly a first, they united around the pressing need to protect and strengthen local democracy when it comes to governing school boards.

“Calandra’s ouster of elected trustees has stripped from stressed, beleaguered parents their last resort, short of years of costly human rights litigation, to get their child’s disability-related learning needs accommodated at school,” said David Lepofsky, who was invited to speak at this news conference on behalf of the AODA Alliance, which he chairs. He also chairs TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC), is a member of the board of Ontario Parents of Visually Impaired Children, has the disability of blindness himself, and is the parent of a child with disabilities. “I don’t recall such a diverse United Nations of Ontario’s education system ever being so united at a Queen’s Park news conference behind a single strong message! It’s an honour for a parent’s advocate regarding the unmet needs of students with disabilities to be invited to share this podium.”

At this news conference, the AODA Alliance made public a strong open letter to Education Minister Calandra, set out below, and co-signed by 12 major disability organizations. It emphasizes that students with disabilities and their families need school boards to be governed by open and publicly accountable local democratically elected representatives:

“The Ontario Government should put on hold any new legislative reforms to school board governance until a thorough public discussion and consultation has been held on this subject.

Any public consultation on the future governance of school boards should fully include the voices and perspectives of parents, school boards, education staff and any subject matter experts and should take into account the recurring unmet needs of students with disabilities.

The Ontario Government should establish and make public a detailed plan for the return to local democracy at those school boards now under provincial supervision, with a path to its restoration that sets out clear goals and benchmarks.”

“There is ample room to reform the school board trustees system, to make it strong and effective, and to target past shortcomings. It’s not a simple and false choice of either retaining the status quo or totally abolishing local democracy for school boards,” said Lepofsky. “Our simple message is: Mend it. Don’t end it.”

The AODA Alliance has highlighted some harms for students with disabilities at provincially supervised school boards, with a focus on TDSB. TDSB’s SEAC has also emphasized these problems:

TDSB’s supervisor raised the maximum permissible size of two categories of special education classes and the maximum permissible size of Grade 4 to Grade 8 classes. Both increases hurt students with disabilities. A wrenching March 10, 2026 Toronto Today article details how The TDSB provincially-appointed Supervisor’s raising the maximum size of diagnostic kindergarten has hurt students with disabilities.

Elected trustees regularly met in public and routinely welcomed parents’ public presentations about their concerns. In sharp contrast, the TDSB supervisor works behind closed doors. He has refused to attend any TDSB SEAC meetings. Previously, there were always some trustees in attendance at SEAC meetings.

TDSB’s Supervisor has implemented none of the recommendations that TDSB’s SEAC forwarded to him to improve education for students with disabilities/special education needs and has not given SEAC an opportunity to be heard on them before making his decision. This disregards regulations that require the trustees (whom the Supervisor replaces) to give SEAC a chance to be heard before deciding on a SEAC recommendation.

Under provincial supervision, it is harder for TDSB’s SEAC to reach and hear from parents of students with disabilities/special education needs. For example, Minister Calandra banned supervised boards from continuing to livestream SEAC meetings.

Parents are livid that TDSB is now surveying all parents to find out what should be its spending priorities in next year’s budget and listed special education as an option to rank high or low. This survey wrongly signals to parents that TDSB might deprioritize special education. It makes parents fear that they must battle to retain whatever supports their children now get. TDSB publicly apologized last May to SEAC for doing the same thing in last year’s budget survey. TDSB then committed to listen carefully to their objections in any upcoming surveys. They did the opposite.

TDSB’s Supervisor has not taken any actions that we can find that improved education for students with disabilities/special education needs.

Contact: David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

Open Letter to the Premier of Ontario and the Minister for Education for Ontario

March 11, 2026

To: The hon. Premier Doug Ford premier@ontario.ca

Room 281, Legislative Building

Queen’s Park

Toronto, Ontario

M7A 1A1

The hon. Paul Calandra, Minister of Education minister.edu@ontario.ca

Ministry of Education

14th Floor, 315 Front Street West

Toronto, ON M7A 0B8

Canada

Dear Premier and Minister,

Re: Meeting the Recurring Unmet Needs of K-12 Students with Disabilities

The undersigned community organizations and groups are deeply concerned about the recurring unmet needs of one-third of a million students with disabilities in Ontario-funded K-12 schools. They are concerned that things are not getting better for them and in some ways are getting worse for students with disabilities at the school boards that the Ontario Government has taken over.

Too many accessibility barriers have impeded students with physical, sensory, intellectual, mental health, learning, communication or other disabilities from full inclusion in and fully benefitting from educational opportunities in K-12 schools. They are among Ontario’s most underserved, vulnerable students.

It is too often hard for parents of students with disabilities to find out what programs, services and supports are available for their children at school and how to access them. School facilities and learning technology too often lack digital accessibility. Students with disabilities are too often told to stay home for all or part of the school day.

Parents of students with disabilities too often face bewildering and frustrating barriers when trying to get their school board to effectively accommodate their child’s disability-related learning needs. The education system has too many rigid bureaucratic barriers that handcuff teachers and principals who try to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

These disability barriers make it harder for students with disabilities to succeed. They perpetuate the high unemployment rate from which Ontarians with disabilities unfairly suffer.

Ontario has no Education Accessibility Standard enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. On January 28, 2022, the expert Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee submitted its final report to the Ontario Government. That report confirmed the existence of these and many other disability barriers at school. It recommended reforms needed to remove and prevent these barriers. The Government has to date enacted none of those recommendations.

Parents of students with disabilities need access to elected trustees to help them navigate the school system and to help them advocate for their children’s disability-related needs. The new Student and Family Support Offices are no replacement for the trustees as an avenue of last resort. These parents also need access to elected trustees to help battle recurring disability barriers at school.

The media has reported that the Ontario Government is considering eliminating elected school trustees altogether. There are certainly ways to improve the current system for governing local school boards through local democracy. The status quo is not the best system possible. However, for students with disabilities and their families, local democracy is important. Mend it. Don’t end it.

From the perspective of students with disabilities, locally elected governance of school boards should be retained and strengthened. We recommend:

The Government should put on hold any new legislative reforms to school board governance until a comprehensive public consultation has been held.

This public consultation should fully include the voices and perspectives of parents, including parents of students with disabilities, school boards, education staff and any subject matter experts. It should take into account the recurring unmet needs of students with disabilities.

The Government should make public a detailed plan for the return to local democracy at those school boards now under provincial supervision, with a path to its restoration with clear goals and benchmarks.

The undersigned are eager to help the Ontario Government with these activities.

Signed,

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance
Ontario Parents for Education Supports
Ontario Disability Coalition
Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
Citizens with Disabilities Ontario
ARCH Disability Law Centre
Ontario Parents of Visually Impaired Children OPVIC
Canadian National Institute for the Blind
Community Living Ontario
March of Dimes Canada
Ontario Autism Coalition
Autism Ontario

School Boards that Ford Government Runs to Survey Parents on Budget Priorities, but Survey Creates False Impression that Boards can Opt to Deprioritize Special Education

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

School Boards that Ford Government Runs to Survey Parents on Budget Priorities, but Survey Creates False Impression that Boards can Opt to Deprioritize Special Education

March 10, 2026

SUMMARY

Currently, Education Minister Paul Calandra directly runs 8 Ontario school boards. These boards serve 750,000 of Ontario’s 2 million K-12 students, well over one third of all Ontario K-12 students. That includes more than one third of Ontario’s students with disabilities.

All eyes are on how Paul Calandra-run school boards are treating students with disabilities. Last week, several news outlets covered one of many serious problems.

The Toronto District School Board is now conducting an online survey of parents of the 250,000 students at that school board. It asks parents to rate their 5 top budget priorities for the next school year out of a list of 10 possibilities. One of the 10 listed areas is: “Special Education Supports & Resources: Educational Assistants, specialized programs, and assistive technology.”

This creates the erroneous and harmful impression that educational supports for vulnerable, chronically underserved students with disabilities/special education needs is somehow an option that school boards can choose to deprioritize. It also gives all parents the false sense that such decisions can be subjected to some sort of popularity contest.

At its March 3, 2026 meeting, the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) learned of this survey, which it strenuously objected to. TDSB’s interim Director of Education Stacey Zucker announced that all school boards under Paul Calandra’s supervision are going to be doing similar surveys.

TDSB SEAC’s Chair, David Lepofsky (who is also Chair of the AODA Alliance) wrote Education Minister Paul Calandra’s overseer of the TDSB, Supervisor Rohit Gupta, to object to this survey. We set that letter out below. Mr. Gupta has not responded to this letter in the week since it was sent.

What makes this survey even more inexcusable is that last spring, TDSB did the same thing in a survey to all parents at the board. That survey asked what areas should be prioritized for budget cuts. TDSB was running a deficit that drew strong criticism from Education Minister Calandra. TDSB’s SEAC objected to that survey at its May 12, 2025 meeting. In response, the board’s Associate Director Louise Sirisko gave a strong apology. You can watch the SEAC members’ criticism of that earlier survey on YouTube, as well as Ms. Sirisko’s apology on behalf of the TDSB. That meeting took place before Education Minister banned school boards from livestreaming SEAC meetings at the school boards that he runs.

What did Associate TDSB Director of Education say to apologize? She noted that there is a difference between TDSB’s intent in composing that survey and its impact. She defended the 2025 survey’s intent but openly acknowledge the harmful impact identified by SEAC and other parents of students with disabilities/special education needs.

She acknowledged that TDSB removed the survey “to stop the hurt and the harm.” She stated in material part:

“…I do apologize for the unintended impact. And going forward, I will bring the experience of this year and the hurt that’s been expressed to any future surveys …they are an annual … I don’t want to say obligation…it’s an opportunity to engage with our parents. And all of your voices will be echoed by myself, by Nandy (i.e. the Executive Superintendent of Special Education), by the full special education team, so this is not repeated in the future. So please know that we’re listening deeply.”

TDSB’s 2026 budget survey certainly raises the question of whether TDSB violated that commitment and did not “listen deeply.”

At the June 2025 meeting of TDSB trustees, several of the elected trustees also apologized for the 2025 survey’s mistreatment of students with disabilities/special education needs. That was the last meeting of those elected trustees before Education Minister Calandra took over the TDSB and ousted them.

Last week, TDSB offered a transparently bogus justification for its new survey’s mistreatment of students with disabilities/special education needs in this 2026 survey of parents. TDSB said that the 2025 survey (for which an apology was given) dealt with what budget cuts should take place. In contrast, TDSB argued that the 2026 survey is about what budget areas should be priorities.

Yet this is obviously a distinction without a difference. In both cases, parents are asked whether special education should be a high or low priority when allocating budget. That TDSB offered this excuse reveals that there is no justification for what TDSB has done.

Media coverage of this issue included:

A Page A-3 article in the March 5, 2026 Toronto Star, set out below.
A March 5, 2026 interview with David Lepofsky on the CFRB 1010 Talk Radio Jerry Agar show.
A news item that ran during the day on City TV in Toronto on March 6, 2026, and
A news item on the 6 pm news on Global TV March 6, 2026.

How You Can Help

Tell your member of the Ontario Legislature that students with disabilities deserve better than the treatment they are receiving at the school boards that Education Minister Paul Calandra is now running through his hand-picked provincially appointed Supervisors that report directly to him.

Please widely publicize the information in this update. Urge the media in your community to cover this.

If you are a member of a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee, please propose to your SEAC that it hold an open meeting to listen to parents’ voices. TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee is doing this on April 13, 2026 and would be happy to offer tips on how to do it.

If you are a parent of students with disabilities who attend the Toronto District School Board, sign up to make a presentation at the April 13, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee meeting, a public forum to hear from parents of students with disabilities/special education needs. The February 10, 2026 AODA Alliance Update gives you the information you need on how to sign up.

Check out the AODA Alliance’s online video that offers practical tips to members of a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee and members

Learn about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy to improve education for students with disabilities by visiting the AODA Alliance Website’s education page.

Watch the videos in the recently updated series of AODA Alliance videos on education for students with disabilities.

Let us know what you do. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star March 5, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.google.ca/search?q=Parents+%27livid%27+at+special+education+as+an+optional+priority+on+survey+toronto+star

Parents ‘livid’ at special education as an optional priority on survey

Board staff accused of basing budget on ‘popularity contest’

Isabel Teotonio Toronto Star

Parents of children with special education needs and advocacy groups are “livid” over a Toronto public school board survey about which areas to prioritize in the upcoming budget.

The Toronto District School Board posted an online survey this week, open to community members for about two weeks, seeking input on what to prioritize next year.

It lists 10 key areas, such as classroom resources, reading and math supports and school maintenance. It also includes “Special education supports and resources: Educational Assistants, specialized programs and assistive technology.”

“We’re livid, this is appalling,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee, made up of members from organizations that represent parents of kids with disabilities or special education needs.

“The duty to provide effective (special education) funding is not an option, it’s not subject to a popularity contest,” he told the Star, noting it’s a requirement under the Education Act.

Lepofsky said this year’s survey is inexcusable because last year the board issued a similar one, with the same list, asking parents about possible areas for budget cuts. That generated outrage, prompting senior staff and the board of trustees to apologize.

The Star asked the TDSB why it launched this year’s survey, given last year’s backlash and apologies. A board spokesperson defended the move, saying last year’s survey was about “potential areas to reduce spending and find efficiencies,” whereas the current version is about “priorities.”

“This year’s survey asks respondents to identify and rank the priorities that they believe the board should focus spending on in the upcoming budget to support student achievement and well-being,” she said via email.

“Each year, a survey is shared with TDSB stakeholders to inform the annual budget process, and this year’s survey asks respondents to rank five of 10 priorities to identify how to place resources where they are needed most to help students succeed. Special education supports and resources … is one of these priority areas.”

Other supervised boards – there are now seven the province has taken over – have similar surveys.

At a Special Education Advisory Committee meeting this week, parent Leo Lagnado, who represents Autism Ontario on the committee, told senior staff “it doesn’t matter if the semantics of the survey are about cuts or about budget, when you prioritize something … you are trying to decide funding allocation.”

“You already apologized for this before and quite frankly this is appalling that special education is once again listed in a prioritization exercise,” said Lagnado. “It is insulting.”

In a letter to TDSB supervisor Rohit Gupta, sent Wednesday and shared with the Star, Lepofsky wrote on behalf of the committee, saying “it is wrong and palpably harmful” to include special education supports in a ranking-style budget survey. It signals to families of 250,000 TDSB students that spending on special education is “optional or open to being deprioritized.” And for parents of roughly 40,000 kids with special education needs “this can only instil fear that their child’s services and supports are at risk of being defunded or deprioritized, depending on public opinion.”

He said that fear is made worse given recent actions by the TDSB that include raising the maximum class size in two categories of special education classes, taking steps that appear to signal the eventual closing of two high schools for teens with special needs, and no longer live-streaming or archiving video from Special Education Advisory Committee meetings so parents must attend in-person.

Last year, facing a significant deficit, the TDSB issued its 2025-26 budget survey seeking input “on how to prioritize our spending” and asked parents to rank 10 areas in order of importance. At a May 2025 SEAC meeting, members called for an apology, and associate director Louise Sirisko apologized for the unintended harm. The next month, the board of trustees voted in favour of a formal apology.

March 4, 2026 Letter from TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee Chair David Lepofsky to TDSB Supervisor Rohit Gupta

David Lepofsky, Chair, TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee

March 4, 2026

To: Rohit Gupta

Office of the Provincial Supervisor

Toronto District School Board

5050 Yonge Street

North York, ON M2N 7H3

Via Email: supervisor@tdsb.on.ca

Dear Sir,

Re: TDSB’s 2026 Online Survey of Parents on TDSB Budget

I write as the Chair of the Toronto District School Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee. Provincial law mandates our committee to advise TDSB on “…any matter affecting the establishment, development and delivery of special education programs and services for exceptional pupils of the board.”

On March 2, 2026, TDSB launched a two-week online survey of parents of TDSB students regarding next year’s TDSB budget. I write to identify a serious problem with this survey, to ask that it be immediately corrected, and to ask to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss this.

This survey asks: “Of the 10 key areas outlined below, please rank the top 5 priorities you believe the Board should focus spending on in the upcoming budget to support student achievement and well-being.”

One of the ten listed areas is: “Special Education Supports & Resources: Educational Assistants, specialized programs, and assistive technology”

One of the other areas listed included among other things accessibility for people with disabilities. It states in full: “School Facilities & Maintenance: Building repairs, accessibility, and playground upgrades…”

It is wrong and palpably harmful to vulnerable TDSB students with disabilities/special education needs for TDSB have included these in this survey. On behalf of SEAC, I urgently request that these be removed from this survey.

TDSB Interim Director of Education Stacey Zucker announced this survey at The Monday, March 2, 2026 meeting of the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee. She announced that special education is listed among the possible priorities which parents can rank, as if this was a reassuring and positive action.

TDSB’s duty to make priority spending on these matters is not optional. It is part of TDSB’s fundamental duties to students with disabilities/special education needs under the Education Act and regulations and pursuant to the duty to accommodate students with disabilities. The duty to accommodate students with disabilities lies at the core of the TDSB’s obligations to them under the quasi-constitutional Ontario Human Rights Code and under the constitutional Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is all reinforced by the provisions and goals of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

This survey signals the families of 250,000 TDSB students that TDSB spending on these matters is somehow optional or open to being deprioritized. For the families of TDSB’s 40,000 students with disabilities/special education needs, this can only instill fear that their child’s services and supports are at risk of being defunded or deprioritized, depending on public opinion. Such a fear can only be made worse by recent actions at TDSB, such as

TDSB raising the maximum class size in two categories of special education classes;
TDSB removing the maximum size of any individual Grade 4 to 8 class;
TDSB taking steps that signal a likely eventual closing of the Eastdale High School and Heydon Park Secondary School and
Over-stretched parents of students with disabilities/special education needs no longer being able to watch and learn from meetings of TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee via TDSB online live stream or archived video.

This survey harmfully signals to the parents of students with no special education needs and to those students themselves that it is appropriate for them to think that spending on supports for students with disabilities/special education needs are optional and are a trade-off for more supports for students with no disability or special education needs. This risks promoting bullying of some students with disabilities/special education needs and harassment of some parents of those students.

This is all the more inexcusable because less than a year ago, TDSB issued a similar survey to TDSB parents that sought their priorities on spending and wrongly listed special education as amn option for deprioritization or budget cuts. At the May 12, 2025 TDSB SEAC meeting, SEAC members raised strong, heartfelt and thoughtful objections to this, drawing on feedback they had received. Under pressure, TDSB revised that survey to remove special education as an option for parents to choose.

At that May 12, 2025 meeting, TDSB Associate Director Louise Sirisko publicly apologized for special education having been included in that survey in the first place. SEAC passed a detailed recommendation at that meeting, which I later presented to the trustees at their June 2025 regular meeting. That SEAC resolution stated:

“Whereas:

On April 22, 2025, TDSB circulated a survey by email to parents on possible areas of budget cuts. It included special education as a potential area for cuts.

TDSB should not have included special education as a potential option for cuts in this survey, for the following reasons.

TDSB has a fundamental and overarching duty to accommodate students with disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights. If anything, students with disabilities are now being underserved at TDSB, as feedback at the November 2024 Parents’ Town Hall emphasized in wrenching detail.

Including this in the survey created significant worry and anxiety among parents of students with disabilities at TDSB. It generated a fear that there may be cuts to the services for their children.

Including this in the survey risks generating or reinforcing adverse attitudes towards students with disabilities at TDSB. Some parents may be led by the survey to think that funding for meeting the education needs of students with disabilities at TDSB can be traded off against other budget areas, and/or that cuts to other areas addressed in the survey would take place because of the funding for students with disabilities. Students with disabilities and their parents should not be exposed to any risk of a backlash against them.

Including this in the survey in any form flies in the face of commitments by TDSB senior staff at recent SEAC meetings in March and April to the effect that there would be no cuts to staffing for special education, except prorated staffing cuts commensurate with reductions in the actual number of students with disabilities/special education needs.

TDSB should establish a policy that there should be no cuts to supports and services for students with disabilities/special education needs.
TDSB should immediately advise all parents at TDSB in writing via email that there will be no cuts to supports or services for students with disabilities/special education needs.
TDSB should apologize for the inclusion of special education in the survey.”

At the June 2025 meeting of TDSB trustees, some individual trustees added their voices to Ms. Sirisko’s earlier apology. They too publicly apologized on behalf of TDSB.

In light of that past experience, TDSB should not have made the same mistake again in the current survey. Yet at the March 2, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee meeting, Interim Director of Education Stacey Zucker defended the current survey, stating that the 2025 survey asked which areas should be prioritized for budget cuts, whereas the 2026 survey does not address the topic of budget cuts.

SEAC members who spoke to the topic rejected this defence. In both surveys, parents are asked in essence the same thing from the perspective of students with disabilities/special education needs. In both cases, the harm caused by the survey to students with disabilities/special education needs and their families is the same. The fear of having to defend what they now get is no different. These are among TDSB’s most chronically underserved and vulnerable students.

As you know, you have a standing invitation to attend our monthly Special Education Advisory Committee meetings. Trustees, whom you replace, previously had seats on the Special Education Advisory Committee. We always had some trustees in attendance.

It is profoundly regrettable that you have not attended any of our meetings. I understand that at least some provincially appointed Supervisors in other boards that the Ontario Government has taken over have attended at least some meetings of their Special Education Advisory Committee.

It is especially regrettable that you did not attend our March 2, 2026 meeting. You could have learned from the feedback from various SEAC members and would have benefited from an opportunity to speak directly with them. It is no substitute for you to receive written summaries, letters, or reports from TDSB staff.

Interim Director Zucker stated that a comparable survey is being conducted at the six other school boards under provincial supervision, and TDSB sees benefits in being consistent. As was pointed out at the SEAC meeting last night, seven wrongs don’t make a right. Indeed, the fact that so many other school boards are taking action that is so harmful for students with disabilities/special education needs and their families is a cause for serious concern. These students and their families deserve better.

I would welcome a chance to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss this. You and I had two positive meetings last fall. When we last spoke, you suggested that our next meeting should take place in the new year, after the holidays. However, when I wrote your office to schedule that meeting, I was advised that I was instead to meet with Interim Director Zucker and one of your office’s staff, Ms. Laura Elliot.

I am always happy to meet either or both of them on any issues. However, that is no substitute for meeting with you. Only you have decision-making power as the TDSB Supervisor. Ms. Elliot, I understand, simply provides advice to you. Ms. Zucker reports to you.

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee

cc: The hon. Paul Calandra Minister of Education minister.edu@ontario.ca

Denise Cole, Deputy Minister of Education edu.dmo@ontario.ca

Stacey Zucker Interim TDSB Director of Education stacey.zucker@tdsb.on.ca

Louise Sirisko, Associate Director TDSB Louise.Sirisko@tdsb.on.ca

Nandy Palmer, Executive Superintendent, TDSB Nandy.Palmer@tdsb.on.ca

Mississauga City Council Again Drops the Ball on Protecting Vulnerable People with Disabilities and Others from the Silent Menace of Electric Scooters

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Originally posted at https://toronto.citynews.ca/2026/02/27/a-silent-meance-e-scooter-e-bike-debate-hits-another-gta-city/#:~:text=It’s%20a%20debate%20Ontario%20municipalities,of%20transportation%20becomes%20more%20popular.

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Mississauga City Council Again Drops the Ball on Protecting Vulnerable People with Disabilities and Others from the Silent Menace of Electric Scooters

March 1, 2026

SUMMARY

A February 27, 2026 City News report reveals how Mississauga City Council again dropped the ball when it comes to protecting vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors and others from the silent menace of electric scooters. Councillors rejected a motion that would have tip-toed in the direction of implementing at least some safeguards for the public. We applaud City TV for covering this story.

E-scooters are a silent menace endangering vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors and others, ridden by unlicensed, untrained, uninsured and unmonitored joy-riders on a powered motor vehicle that need not meet any safety standards.

The AODA Alliance and other disability organizations have been battling for years to get cities to ban e-scooters and to get these bans enforced. Canada’s largest city, Toronto, has twice voted to the ban, in 2021 and again in 2024. Some other cities, like Mississauga and Ottawa have permitted them, at least in some contexts. No city has effectively enforced any legal restrictions on their use, leaving pedestrians incredibly vulnerable to personal injuries or worse.

For example, on June 13, 2022, the AODA Alliance submitted a brief to Mississauga City Council on e-scooters. We only wish that City Council had taken it seriously.

Meanwhile, the Ford Government is responsible for this mess. In 2019, it opened the door for the first time to cities permitting e-scooters, responding we expect to connections with the e-scooter corporate lobbyists. The Ford Government has not taken seriously our repeated calls for effective protections for vulnerable pedestrians, such as people with disabilities and seniors.

How You Can Help

Learn all about our years of battling to protect people with disabilities and others from e-scooters, by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s e-scooters page.

If you live in Ottawa, Mississauga or one of the other cities where e-scooters are permitted, email or call your City Council member. Tell them to ban e-scooters.

If you live in Toronto or another city that doesn’t allow e-scooters, email your member of the City Council. Tell them to effectively enforce the ban on e-scooters, that far too often is ignored with impunity. Write the Chief of Police. Tell them to enforce the law on e-scooters.

Email your member of the Ontario Legislature. Tell them to protect vulnerable pedestrians like people with disabilities and seniors from the silent menace of e-scooters.

MORE DETAILS

City News February 27, 2026

‘A silent menace’: E-scooter, e-bike debate hits another GTA city

The question about what to do with electric bikes and scooters, has been facing municipalities across Ontario, for years and while a motion to ask the province for more regulation did not pass in Mississauga, it has started a discussion.

By David Zura

It’s a debate Ontario municipalities have been facing down for years, particularly in large urban centres like Toronto – what to do with e-bikes and e-scooters showing up on sidewalks, in bike lanes and on the roads, particularly as the mode of transportation becomes more popular.

That debate showed up in Mississauga on Wednesday as Coun. Dipika Damerla brought forth a motion, calling on the Ford government to regulate e-scooters and e-bikes like other motorized vehicles, specifically to look at licensing and registration.

“It’s really the wild west when it comes to bikes and scooters, and it’s time we started looking at a regulatory framework,” said Damerla, who says she’s all for e-mobility. But she has safety concerns when it comes to the mode of transportation.

While Damerla’s motion garnered the support of only one other councillor, she says it has sparked a very much-needed conversation. Coun. Stephen Dasko says he might be open to more provincial regulation in the future, but the city needs to do more work figuring out the specifics on what it wants to ask

“If her ask is going to the province and asking them to let us regulate e-bikes, and scooters, we need to know what we’re asking for, because if they say yes, and then ask us what we want that licensing to look like, we don’t have the background work done to answer those questions,” he says.

Coun. Alvin Tedjo says he’s not ready to create barriers for equipment that might have limits on where it can go, or how fast, but says he may be open to supporting more intervention from other levels of government that don’t have those built-in guardrails like the municipally-run network does, noting some e-bikes and scooters are capable of going upwards of 50 or 60 km/h.

“What the government needs to do, and this is both the federal government and the provincial government, who can create new regulations and new definitions – they need to define those vehicles as motor vehicles, like a motorcycle or something like that,” he says.

Disability rights advocate David Lepofsky says he’s all for the province becoming more involved, saying groups like his have deep concerns.

“They come at you out of nowhere, sighted people may not see them coming, blind people and sighted people can’t hear them coming because they are a silent menace, they race at all sorts of speeds, they’re ridden on the sidewalks, even when it’s prohibited, and law enforcement is asleep,” he says.

It’s worth noting that none of the councillors CityNews spoke with did not support an outright ban on e-bikes and e-scooters, acknowledging their popularity among young people.

Things Are Looking Worse for Vulnerable Students with Disabilities in School Boards that the Education Minister is Now Running, As the TDSB Illustrates

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Things Are Looking Worse for Vulnerable Students with Disabilities in School Boards that the Education Minister is Now Running, As the TDSB Illustrates

February 26, 2026

SUMMARY

If the Toronto District School Board is any guide, it certainly looks like things can get worse for vulnerable students with disabilities at school boards that the Ford Government has seized control over, ousting their elected trustees. Here is troubling information emanating from the TDSB.

David Lepofsky has just written Ontario’s Minister of Education Paul Calandra, in his role as Chair of the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee. His letter enumerates other illustrations of concerns arising for students with disabilities.

As well, a very troubling article was published on the Toronto Today news site on February 25, 2026, which we set out below. It describes how the TDSB is gradually whittling away at two high schools which provide needed supports for students with disabilities.

Because the provincially-appointed Supervisors who now run the seven Ontario school boards that the Ford Government seized do all their work behind closed doors, unlike elected school trustees, there is a large and sharp reduction in public accountability and oversight. Where there are fewer checks and balances, there is a danger of growing arbitrariness and unfairness, especially to those who are the most vulnerable, such as students with disabilities.

The Ford Government is now directly controlling and managing the schools at which over one third of all Ontario K-12 students study. That’s 700,000 Ontario students.

How You Can Help

Please widely publicize the information in this Update. Urge the media in your community to cover this.

If you are a member of a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee, please propose to your SEAC that it hold an open meeting to listen to parents’ voices. TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee is doing this on April 13, 2026, and would be happy to offer tips on how to do it.

Check out the AODA Alliance’s online video that offers practical tips to members of a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee and members

Learn about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy to improve education for students with disabilities by visiting the AODA Alliance Website’s education page.

Watch the videos in the recently-updated series of AODA Alliance videos on education for students with disabilities.

Let us know what you do. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

MORE DETAILS

Text of Letter from TDSB, Special Education Advisory Committee to Ontario Education Minister Paul Calandra

David Lepofsky, Chair, TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee

mdl.seac@gmail.com

February 25, 2026

To: The hon. Paul Calandra, Minister of Education minister.edu@ontario.ca

Ministry of Education

14th Floor, 315 Front Street West

Toronto, ON M7A 0B8

Canada

Dear Minister,

Re: Recurring Unmet Needs of K-12 Students with Disabilities/Special Education Needs

I write on behalf of the Toronto District School Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee SEAC. We seek your help for TDSB’s 40,000 students with disabilities/special education needs, because you are now the elected official with ultimate responsibility for TDSB operations while under provincial supervision.

Under longstanding provincial law, each school board must appoint a SEAC to advise it on the development and implementation of special education, including, among other things, on the board’s special education budget and Special Education Plan. Our SEAC members bring to bear extensive community connections and lived experience with the challenges in the school system facing students with disabilities/special education needs and their parents/guardians.

Too often, students with disabilities/special education needs face recurring barriers in Ontario’s K-12 schools. The Government received a comprehensive report over four years ago from a Government-appointed panel that extensively documented these barriers and recommended reforms to remove and prevent them. TDSB’s student population comes from Canada’s largest and most diverse city. The intersectional disadvantages that its students with disabilities/special education needs are thereby intensified.

Since the Government removed the TDSB’s school board trustees and appointed the provincial TDSB Supervisor, the situation facing TDSB students with disabilities/special education needs has not demonstrably improved. In several ways, things have gotten worse for them.

Please direct the TDSB Supervisor to attend TDSB SEAC meetings. The representatives of parents of students with disabilities/special education needs wish an opportunity to address him directly, to have him hear of their concerns and to work collaboratively with him on finding solutions.

Previously, we had trustees attending every SEAC meeting, some as members, and often, simply as interested trustees. At some of the school boards that the Ontario Government has taken control over, your appointed Supervisor has attended at least some of their SEAC meetings. In sharp contrast, the TDSB Supervisor has not attended any of the monthly TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee Meetings, even though he stepped into the shoes of the school board trustees. Several trustees were members of SEAC. The Supervisor has been invited to attend each of our monthly SEAC meetings since He assumed his role last year.

Since the Supervisor was appointed, we have raised several issues with him in writing that are major concerns for students with disabilities/special education needs. We have asked him to take action to address these concerns. He has not taken any of the actions that SEAC requested. He has given no reasons for this.

Under Ontario Regulation 464/97, the elected trustees must afford SEAC an opportunity to be heard before making a decision on a SEAC recommendation. Trustees make those decisions in public, after a SEAC representative gets a chance to address the trustees, also in public. Trustees’ discussions and decisions on any SEAC recommendation were conducted in public meetings, and live streamed to the public.

In contrast, in several cases, the provincial Supervisor has made adverse decisions on SEAC recommendations without affording SEAC a chance to be heard before the decision was made. Each such adverse decision was made behind closed doors. No reasons were given.

Making this worse, the provincial TDSB Supervisor has made decisions that are adverse to the needs of students with disabilities/special education needs, overturning earlier decisions of the trustees. He increased the maximum size of two categories of special education classes. He also overturned the ceiling of 32 students which the trustees had set for the size of any individual Grade 4 to 8 class. As long as TDSB maintains the overall average size of those classes, there is now no limit on the maximum size of any individual Grade 4 to 8 class. This can only hurt individual students with special education needs who are placed in a mainstream Grade 4 to 8 class.

TDSB’s SEAC has repeatedly emphasized that there is need for more staff to support the learning needs of students with disabilities/special education needs. TDSB budget officials have told SEAC every year that provincial funding for special education is less than the amount TDSB actually must spend to serve students with disabilities/special education needs. We have no indication that the provincial Supervisor has attempted to get any increase in provincial funding for TDSB.

It has become much harder for TDSB’s SEAC to reach parents of students with disabilities/special education needs. For years, TDSB live streamed SEAC meetings. This helped SEAC and TDSB staff reach more parents of students with disabilities/special education needs and get helpful feedback from them. It helped SEAC members, TDSB staff and members of the public who missed a SEAC meeting but want to see what happened at it. Last October, you banned TDSB from live streaming SEAC meeting. This has made things worse for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs.

Under the provincial Supervisor, TDSB has now cut back on the scope/content of its much-needed multi-year Special Education Review. This hurts students with disabilities/special education needs. SEAC was never consulted on this cutback, nor were parents of students with disabilities/special education needs. If anything, TDSB needs to far more inclusively involve SEAC in the plans for this Special Education Review and to expand that Review, not further limit it.

In SEAC’s experience, it is important for there to be broad public accountability for the management of TDSB. The removal of the trustees and the elimination of their public meetings substantially undermine this, to the disadvantage of all students, and especially to the disadvantage of vulnerable students with disabilities/special education needs. It would benefit students with disabilities/special education needs for there to be far stronger and more effective democratic oversight of the school board.

We urge you to broadly consult with parents of students with disabilities/special education needs, including with TDSB SEAC and other SEACs, about any future changes being considered to the governance and oversight of the publicly-funded school system. We are eager to work with you on this.

TDSB’s Student and Family Support Office requires important additions to ensure that it effectively serves the learning needs of students with disabilities/special education needs and the accessibility needs of parents with disabilities. A staff complement as low as two at the TDSB’s Student and Family Support Office, reported on City TV, is far too small to serve 250,000 students including 40,000 students with disabilities/special education needs. The Student and Family Support Office staff should have expertise in education of students with disabilities. The Student and Family Support Office should offer to accommodate the needs of parents with disabilities in using its services.

Any delay in rectifying this situation can only compound the disadvantages that these vulnerable students too often face. We seek your intervention now to repair this situation. We welcome any opportunity to assist you in doing so.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair Toronto District School Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee

CC: Chairs of each Ontario school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee.

Denise Cole Deputy Minister of Education denise.cole@ontario.ca

Stacey Zucker, Interim TDSB Director of Education Stacey.zucker@tdsb.on.ca

Rohit Gupta TDSB Supervisor supervisor@tdsb.on.ca

Toronto Today February 25, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.torontotoday.ca/local/education/tdsb-cuts-enrolment-2-high-schools-disabled-students-parents-alarmed-11925561

TDSB cuts enrolment at 2 high schools serving disabled students, alarming parents

Parents of students at Heydon Park Secondary School and Eastdale Collegiate Institute say the enrolment cuts will negatively impact some of the board’s most vulnerable learners

By Gabe Oatley

The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has suspended Grade 9 enrolment next fall at two small Toronto high schools that specialize in supporting students with mild intellectual disabilities — a move that has alarmed parents who fear it will limit options for some of the board’s most vulnerable learners.

Last week, parents of Eastdale Collegiate Institute, a high school in the city’s east end, learned of the halted enrolment via a letter from their local superintendent.

The school is one of several board-wide that offers a specialized program supporting students with mild intellectual disabilities (MID), such as autism and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Andrea Seaborn, Eastdale’s parent council chair, told TorontoToday on Tuesday she was very alarmed by the news, noting that the institution has been “game changing” for her son, who has an intellectual disability and has attended Eastdale for three years.

“He is a very introverted, shy guy, but this kind of close-knit environment has given him confidence,” she said. “He’s done credited courses, which we never thought he’d be able to do.”

In her letter to parents last week, local superintendent Anastasia Poulis said the decision was made due to low enrolment for the upcoming school year. Poulis said prospective students who wanted to attend Eastdale will be placed elsewhere within the board in order to better meet their needs.

Second school also sees enrolment suspension

Across town, parents at Heydon Park Secondary School, a small high school with a MID program in Baldwin Village, have separately learned there will be no new Grade 9 or 10 enrolment next fall.

In November, then-TDSB director of education Clayton La Touche sent an emailed response to Heydon Park’s parent council co-chair, informing her there “will not be a grade 9 or grade 10 cohort at Heydon Park in the next school year.”

La Touche did not provide an explanation for the enrolment suspension, noting only that the decision came amidst the board’s parallel choice not to run an open house for the school this fall. The event typically serves as a chance for the board to market the institution to parents for the upcoming academic year.

This will be the second year in a row Grade 9 enrolment was suspended at Heydon Park.

Last summer, despite the protests of students and parents, the TDSB chose to suspend fall Grade 9 admission at the school, which the board said was due to low enrolment.

Jennifer Beasley, a parent of a Grade 12 student at Heydon Park, told TorontoToday in an interview on Tuesday that she is devastated by the continued enrolment suspension.

After struggling to find success at three prior schools, Beasley said Heydon Park has been “life-changing” for her daughter, who is autistic.

Whereas previous educators treated her as if she was a “trouble” student, since she began attending Heydon Park this fall, Beasley said the teachers have offered her the patience she needs to thrive.

“It’s completely boosted her confidence. She’s believing in herself. She’s learning new things about herself — and it makes a future seem possible,” Beasley said.

This fall, Beasley said her daughter achieved the highest EQAO math test mark ever recorded by a Grade 10 student at Heydon Park. The Toronto parent said her daughter has also learned how to use public transportation.

“The teachers adore her. They said she’s a good role mode,” said Beasley. “She has never in her life heard that before.”

Concerns about the future

Both Toronto parents said they are fearful about how the TDSB’s enrolment suspensions could impact their children.

At most TDSB high schools, students graduate around 18, but at Heydon Park and Eastdale, many students remain until they’re 21 years old.

This provides extra time for students to develop crucial life skills and allows for additional time to obtain a high school certificate or diploma.

If the TDSB decides to suspend enrolment at Eastdale in subsequent years, Seaborn said she’s worried her son may have to transfer schools, as the number of courses on offer may dwindle.

“Teacher allocations are based on student numbers,” she said. “Once we start reducing those student numbers, the teachers start having to be relocated elsewhere.”

Seaborn said she believes this would be disastrous for Eastdale’s students.

“I don’t think most of our kids at our school would stay in school,” she said.

Seaborn noted that the next-closest high school with a MID program is Central Technical School, which has a population of about 1,000 students. This is far larger than Eastdale, which has about 120 students, or Heydon Park, which has about 130 students.

She said she believes Central Tech’s hallways would be “overwhelming” for many of Eastdale’s students who have sensory issues, and that the longer bus ride would also prove to be a major challenge.

Student population concerns at small schools

In her letter to parents last week, superintendent Poulis said enrolment at Eastdale is only currently about one-third of the total number of students that the school is capable of handling.

Separately, the TDSB has said enrolment at Heydon Park has been declining.

Last summer, in response to a question from TorontoToday, TDSB spokesperson Emma Moynihan said enrolment at Heydon Park Secondary School has dropped because Toronto’s neighbourhood schools are getting better at inclusionary practices and supporting a wider range of student needs.

However, parents dispute the characterization.

A website created by parents aiming to counter the enrolment suspension at the two schools says that both institutions aren’t “under-enrolled,” but rather “under threat.”

Beasley and Seaborn said the TDSB has insufficiently promoted the other two schools to prospective students and their parents.

In an interview with TorontoToday on Tuesday, David Lepofsky, chair of the TDSB’s special education advisory committee said the lack of sufficient promotion of programs supporting disabled students is a major concern he has raised for several years with the board.

“[The TDSB] is like a restaurant that won’t give you a menu,” he said. “Good luck ordering.”

School closure fears

Seaborn and Beasley said they’re concerned the suspension of enrolment at the two schools next year is the first step towards the board choosing to close the institutions entirely.

These concerns were echoed in two recent letters sent by local elected officials to the TDSB’s provincially-appointed supervisor, Rohit Gupta, who is responsible for the board’s governance since the province sidelined elected trustees last summer.

In a joint letter sent to Gupta on Wednesday, University-Rosedale’s local elected trustee Deborah Williams, Coun. Diane Saxe and MPP Jessica Bell asked the supervisor to reinstate Heydon Park’s admissions and to “keep the building.”

Their letter, which mirrored a separate missive sent by Toronto-Danforth elected officials to Gupta last week, noted that the province has made recent regulatory changes allowing the sale of school buildings without first considering other public uses.

“If there are any plans to relocate or alter the current programming at Heydon Park, we strongly request a fully public and transparent process for any change in use of the school building at 70 D’Arcy Street,” they wrote.

TorontoToday inquired with the Ministry of Education whether the admission suspensions are a preview to school closures. A ministry spokesperson redirected TorontoToday’s questions to the TDSB, while a TDSB spokesperson said no additional information would be provided beyond what’s already been shared with Heydon Park and Eastdale parents.

School closure moratorium

In her recent letter to parents, Poulis said discussions “about next steps for Eastdale CI will be continuing.”

She noted that under current provincial law, there is a moratorium on school closures.

“As you are aware, the provincial moratorium on Pupil Accommodation Reviews is still in effect and as a result the school will remain open and operating for the 2026-27 school year,” she wrote. “Eastdale CI will continue to focus on students in Grades 10-12 for the upcoming school year.”

However, for some parents with students at the two schools, that message offered little comfort.

Beasley said after years of seeing her daughter struggle, the enrolment instability at Heydon Park adds additional stress.

“It [is] just so disheartening to finally find [a school] that was working for our daughter after so many years, only to find it might be taken away from us,” she said.

More Good Media Coverage of Diverse Accessibility Issues

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

More Good Media Coverage of Diverse Accessibility Issues

February 23, 2026

SUMMARY

Our advocacy efforts are targeted at so many different issues, from education to health care to public transit, just to name a few. Here are two recent news reports which typify the spectrum of our advocacy efforts:

The February 22, 2026 edition of Whitby This Week, one of the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications, address the Ford Government’s failure to have any new plan of action on accessibility one full year after it failed to meet the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act’s deadline for leading Ontario to be an accessible province.
The February 17, 2026 Toronto Star included a report on the problems at Ontario’s 7 school boards that the Ford Government seized control over, which identifies just some of the many problems facing students with disabilities/special education needs there.

How You Can Help

Take your disability barriers to your local media. Urge them to cover them. Send us the coverage you are able to secure. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com
Get practical tips on how to get the media to cover a disability issue by listening to the fourth episode of the AODA Alliance’s new podcast: “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast.” Click here to get that episode.
Take a look at just some of the media coverage on these issues, available on the AODA Alliance website’s media page.

MORE DETAILS

Whitby This Week February 22, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.durhamregion.com/news/aoda-shows-no-signs-of-improvement-1-year-after-deadline/article_4cad9276-ae42-5c84-b35f-6eef4e601fe8.html

‘We should be doing better’: Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act shows no signs of improvement 1 year after deadline

Demands for change aren’t being heard at highest levels, claim those who live with a disability and watch for change

“The only change has been in the wrong direction.”

By Tim Kelly

David Lepofsky is a lawyer and advocate for people with disabilities in Ontario. He says things have only declined since the Ontario government missed the Jan. 1, 2025, deadline to make Ontario fully accessible for those with disabilities.

What’s changed more than a year after the Jan. 1, 2025, deadline came to make Ontario fully accessible for all?

Not much if you ask the experts, watchdogs and those who live with a disability.

David Lepofsky, who has been keeping his eye on accessibility issues and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) since its origins nearly 30 years ago, expresses frustration with the pace at which things get done.

“The only change has been in the wrong direction,” Lepofsky said in a recent interview.

“The government has announced absolutely no new actions on implementing and enforcing the AODA since it missed the deadline a year ago. In fact, it hasn’t even publicly acknowledged that it missed the deadline,” he said.

When the provincial election was held last February, Lepofsky, who runs the AODA Alliance, an up-to-date website that keeps track of Ontario accessibility issues, asked each party what they would do.

“Doug Ford didn’t even answer the request,” he said.

He said an all-candidates debate was organized to answer questions about disability issues, but the Ford Conservatives didn’t participate.

“What the Ontario government has to do is put in place a plan of action to get us to the goal of accessibility, which is still the law. It’s not only an obligation, it’s the law,” Lepofsky said.

The last time anything was enacted or revised in terms of accessibility standards was a decade ago, under the previous Liberal government, Lepofsky said.

During the decade since, he said, the government has received a series of recommendations to enact from government-selected panels on standards in employment, education, health care, information and communications, transportation and the built environment, Lepofsky noted.

“They have enacted nothing,” he said.

“With housing being such a big issue, they’ve enacted nothing in the area during an accessible housing crisis.

“On all of those fronts, they have done nothing, but when they receive one of those final reports from one of their government-appointed advisory committees, as a matter of law, they’re required to make it public upon receiving it. They have repeatedly withheld them, sometimes for years.”

Jim McEwen, a stroke survivor who lives in Clarington and uses a wheelchair, said he also has noticed no improvements in the past year, agreeing with Lepofsky’s assessment.

The one level of government he gives credit to is his local level. The Municipality of Clarington is looking into a measure to amend its traffic bylaw to exempt those with accessible permits from paid on-street or off-street parking.

It’s something Oshawa has done for years, according to Oshawa Reg. Coun. Brian Nicholson, but for McEwen, it’s a welcome improvement when it comes.

For McEwen, his personal pet peeve is inaccessible washrooms, but he’s been told time and time again that it’s an Ontario Building Code issue, not one that is covered under the AODA.

He doesn’t understand that thinking.

‘We should be doing better’

“There should be an accessible washroom in each restaurant and accessible doors to get in and out of washrooms,” he said.

McEwen said he sometimes has to ask another patron to come with him and hold a washroom’s outer door open so he can get in to use the facilities. Even if there is an accessible stall inside the men’s room, he then needs someone to help him get out.

It frustrates him that this is still the case in 2026, more than a year after the deadline for full accessibility for all Ontarians.

“We should be doing better,” he said.

Raymond Cho, who is the minister for seniors and accessibility, did not respond for a request for comment.

Tim Kelly

Tim Kelly is a reporter with durhamregion.com. He can be reached at tkelly@durhamregion.com.

Toronto Star February 17, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/why-is-ontario-taking-over-school-boards/article_86819dfb-d0b6-4f14-9c84-06051b232fc0.html

Ontario has taken over seven school boards. What’s behind the unprecedented power move by Education Minister Paul Calandra?

The minister said “immediate intervention” is needed when issues affect student learning. Is he laying the groundwork for a new governance model?

By Kristin Rushowy Senior Writer

Seven school boards stripped of power – and an eighth likely – in the past nine months alone.

Never before has the government taken over so many boards, including the two largest in the province, and the move has left families and observers wondering what’s next.

Some say Education Minister Paul Calandra is laying the groundwork for a system without elected trustees, and this is a trial run for a new governance model. Others believe he’s gone overboard in trying to control school boards.

His reasons for seizing control are typically financial – multi-year deficits, questionable budget decisions – though boards argue the main issue is years of underfunding.

But more recently, with additional powers granted to him under new legislation, Calandra has also stepped in or threatened to because of dysfunctional or incompetent leadership – which in one case saw students in Parry Sound learning in a half-demolished building – and, in the Peel public board, in part to prevent imminent teacher layoffs (a claim trustee David Green and others dispute).

Late last week, the York Catholic board submitted a letter to Calandra with its bid to avoid supervision, which the education minister threatened because of trustee infighting and overall ignorance of their roles and responsibilities – plus mounting legal fees as they battled each other in court, costing the public more than $320,000 – along with other financial concerns.

(Calandra is set to rule as early as this week whether to send in a supervisor.)

In an interview, Calandra said what’s happening with boards is not a test run, but “immediate intervention” that’s needed when students and learning are impacted.

“I suppose the easier thing to do, frankly, is just let it continue on the way it’s going – I’ve said right from the beginning, where we avoid responsibility for decision-making, that has to come to an end,” Calandra said. “The ministry has to step up – we have to step up to be able to provide a more consistent level of education across the province.”

But critics see it differently. New Democrat education critic Chandra Pasma said “every time he takes a board under supervision, he gets to do a media tour saying ‘well, the trustees were incompetent. That’s why I had to do it.’

“And board by board, he keeps repeating that narrative, and by the time he takes the next step of getting rid of elected boards altogether, he’s created this public perception that they had to go because they were not only outdated, but incompetent.”

With the Toronto public and Catholic, Peel public and Dufferin-Peel Catholic, Ottawa public, Thames Valley public and the Near North board now being run by a supervisor, that covers about one-third of all students in the province.

“Supervision should always be a last resort,” said Kathleen Woodcock, who heads the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, adding trustees want to work with the government and “all education partners to innovate, modernize, and strengthen Ontario’s publicly funded education system, but it is getting more and more difficult to do so with each passing week as classroom-level decisions continue to be made at Queen’s Park without local input.”

With widespread governance reforms on the horizon, Calandra reiterated that “school boards are still going to be in existence – but they all have to know what the expectation is, and the behaviour that we expect, regardless of what the governance model is.”

He wants more “clear, concise decision-making – decisions that put kids first. I want less conflict within the system and more focus on results and achievement and how the heck we get there.” He said when boards “fall off the rails, it’s so harmful to kids.”

What does the education minister want boards to do

Case in point, he added, is the Near North board, where construction delays and poor communication meant Parry Sound students didn’t start classes in a brand-new building last fall as planned, forcing some to learn online for two weeks and others to take classes in a half-demolished school.

“It’s kind of gross – we can’t allow this to happen,” he said. “I’ve never hidden the fact that it is my intention to step in when boards fall off the rails. It’s not a trial run for me in any way, shape or form – it really isn’t. These boards need immediate intervention to make sure they’re on the right path.”

Trustees in the seven boards have been shut out – save for Catholic boards, where they still have a say in denominational issues. In January, five of the supervised boards opened parent support offices.

The supervisor in Toronto has made some popular decisions – including reinstating a beloved principal at an arts high school after parent outrage and ending a controversial lottery system for specialty programs – but also controversial ones, such as removing class caps in grades 4 to 8 (though keeping an overall average of 24.5). In Ottawa, the supervisor put an end to an unpopular elementary school restructuring plan the board had been planning that would have changed school boundaries and uprooted thousands of kids.

But many frustrations remain, including why supervisors are needed – with $360,000 salaries – and complaints about less communication than when trustees were in charge.

“I know that the supervisor meets regularly with the province, and I’m smart enough to know that they are driving the bus,” said Ottawa parent Sarah Boardman. “He was brought in to address financial mismanagement; multiple independent audits found none.

“This was a control move by the province from the start.”

Alyson King, a political science professor at Ontario Tech University, said families expect to see the supervisors make a difference.

“They’re saying the words, but are they actually doing the actions that make them improve the lives of teachers?” she said. “We know that the resources going into the classrooms have not really increased, and the teachers themselves are under increasing stress with all the needs that students have.”

Budget troubles ahead

The toughest work has yet to happen, with most of the boards running deficits and spending more in areas than they receive from the government, and the supervisors expected to get boards to balanced budgets when things like school pools or daytime international language instruction are popular, but unfunded.

Supervisors are likely to close schools or sell off buildings to help balance the books, something boards themselves had asked permission to do.

“There is growing concern that these takeovers are part of a broader plan to seize control of school board finances and real estate across the province,” said David Mastin, president of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

He said that in the past, supervision has not made much difference in boards’ financial situations in the end, and what the government is doing “follows the same failed playbook Ontario has seen before.”

In Ottawa, supervisor Bob Plamondon sent a letter to parents saying he’s determined the deficit to be $11.5 million, but that “my objective is to find efficiencies within the system and reinvest some savings directly into student learning,” including more educational assistants in classrooms.

He wants to spend “less on solar panels without a clear financial return and more on classroom air conditioning and improving water quality in rural schools,” he wrote, adding he’s also “asked staff to move quickly to divest unused facilities.”

Calandra said supervisors were directed that “if our funding formula isn’t meeting the needs, then you’ve got to tell me and we’ll look at that … but we’ve also said to them, the goal is to put more money back in the classroom.”

He also said it’s time for the province to take over certain responsibilities, such as cybersecurity, in the wake of massive privacy breaches in a number of boards.

Communication issues

Parent involvement advisory committee co-chair Katrina Matheson said while still early, communications with the supervisor in the Toronto public board have improved and he has been providing updates and taking their questions.

“From our side, we see him as a co-operative partner so far, and we’re looking forward to more collaboration in the future,” she said.

But David Lepofsky, who heads the public board’s special education advisory committee, said it should have been advised of an “adverse” decision to increase the size of two types of special education classes.

Before the government considers doing away with public trustees, another union official, who has been critical of the elected officials in his board, said it could look to provide better training or ensure they have resumés with skills the boards need.

“Why such a drastic step?” said Mike Totten, head of the Catholic teachers union in York Region. “I think there are ways to make it better.”

Video Series on Controversial 2006 Reforms to How Ontario’s Anti-Discrimination Law is Enforced, the Ontario Human Rights Code

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Link to video: https://youtu.be/y32XvjWmDAQ

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Video Series on Controversial 2006 Reforms to How Ontario’s Anti-Discrimination Law is Enforced, the Ontario Human Rights Code

February 21, 2026

SUMMARY

So many people with disabilities continue to face so many disability barriers in Ontario. Because the Ontario Government has done such a poor job of implementing and enforcing the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, they too often must consider resorting to filing an individual human rights complaint under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The process for doing that is riddled with problems, as the AODA Alliance and others predicted as far back as 2006. Here’s an AODA Alliance video series on this very important topic that far too few people know much if anything about!

The Ontario Human Rights Code is Ontario’s law that bans discrimination in employment, housing, goods, services and other areas on a long list of grounds, including disability.

Not enough people know that in 2006, the Ontario Legislature passed very controversial reforms to that law. These dramatically changed how a discrimination claim can be enforced in Ontario. Those changes went into effect in 2008 and remain in effect.

Before these reforms, if you felt you were the victim of unlawful discrimination, you could file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission It had the duty to investigate cases, and try to mediate settlements. If the Commission felt that the case warranted a hearing, and could not affect a settlement between the parties, it could take the case to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The Tribunal would hold a hearing. The Ontario Human Rights Commission presented the case.

Before 2006, it took far too long to get these cases decided. The system was widely criticized from many vantagepoints and for varying reasons.

In 2006, the Ontario Government then in power decided to reform the system. It brought forward and eventually enacted Bill 107, which revised the Ontario Human Rights Code However, its reforms were very controversial. The AODA Alliance and a number of other allies agreed that reforms were needed, but strongly opposed the Government’s proposed reforms. The Government took the Ontario Human Rights Commission out of its primary law enforcement role. It privatized enforcement in this area. If you felt that you were a victim of discrimination, you had to investigate your own case and present it yourself at the Tribunal. Many claimants cannot afford a lawyer. The Government created a new Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre but that agency can only serve a small fraction of people bringing claims. The AODA Alliances advocacy on this issue, mainly between 2006 and 2008, is thoroughly documented on the AODA website’s Human Rights Reform page. This video series and the additional resources listed here all give a closer look at these changes. It begins with a talk that introduces to the duty to accommodate people with disabilities under human rights law in Canada. That duty lies at the core of many disability discrimination cases. A lecture by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky is then provided which explains the controversial debate over Bill 107 and its aftermath. This series also includes several news conferences at the Ontario legislature at Queen’s Park that took place surrounding these reforms, and a presentation in 2007 by the AODA Alliance to a Select Committee of the Ontario Legislature.

These videos will interest you if:

You work in any capacity in the justice system, e.g., as a judge, court staff, policy planner, administrative tribunal member.
You want to learn about disability rights, disability advocacy or the history of our disability rights movement.
You want to advocate for disability rights or freedom from discrimination more generally, and want to see our grass roots advocacy in action, to learn how it is done.
You are a lawyer, law student, or future lawyer or law student, who wants to learn about disability rights and human rights issues.
You work in the field of disability accessibility or anti-discrimination.
You are involved in any social justice, equity or social justice advocacy or campaigning and want to learn from our experience and/or want your efforts to fully include people with disabilities as an equality-seeking group.
You work at a disability community organization of any sort.
You teach law, politics, public or social policy, disability issues, human rights and discrimination, social justice, social work, history, political science, architecture and other areas of design, public planning, and other topics that can touch on disability accessibility, disability inclusion or disability rights.
You live outside Ontario Canada and would like to see what’s going on here to compare with practices and efforts elsewhere in the world.

Below is a Quick Guide that lists all the videos catalogued here. After that, we include a fuller description of each video, including its title, the link to it, a description of it, and a list of additional resources on the topic that the video covers. Anyone using these videos to teach a course, or to write a paper for a course, will find that background information helpful.

Over time, we will create more videos. We will add them to this list when relevant. To find out what’s new, just jump to the end of this web page, and then scroll up.

How to Learn More

Browse through the AODA Alliance website’s Human Rights Reform page.
Visit the AODA Alliance website’s videos page to see other series of videos that we have created, and a mega-list of all our videos together. More video series will be posted over time.
Send us your feedback. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com and tell us what you think of these videos and how you have used them. For more information about our disability advocacy:
Go to the AODA Alliance website’s home page and sign up to receive our newsletter. We announce each new video series in our AODA Alliance Updates.
Check out the AODA Alliance’s podcast called: Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast. It is available on the major podcast platforms like Apple Music and Spotify.

Quick Guide

Introduction to the Duty to Accommodate People with Disabilities

Controversial 2006 Changes to the Enforcement of Human Rights (Anti-discrimination) Legislation in Ontario – The Important Debate around Bill 107’s Privatization of Human Rights in Ontario February 6, 2017

9, 2006: Queen’s Park News Conference Human Rights Advocates Opposing Ontario Bill 107 Privatizing Enforcement of the Ontario Human Rights Code

28, 2006 Queen’s Park News Conference Opposing Bill 107 Privatizing Human Rights Enforcement

July 2, 2008: Queen’s Park News Conference Raising Concerns regarding Bill 107

September 7, 2007: AODA Alliance Queen’s Park News Conference on Bill 107 which Privatized Enforcement of the Ontario Human Rights Code

9 2009 AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky Addresses Select Committee on Government Agencies regarding the Implementation of Bill 107, which Privatized Enforcement of the Ontario Human Rights Code

Detailed Guide

Video 1) Title: Introduction to the Duty to Accommodate People with Disabilities

Description: Osgoode Hall Law School Visiting Professor of Disability Rights and Legal Education and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky provides this one hour, captioned presentation that explains the content, meaning, and limits of the duty to accommodate people with disabilities in employment, goods, services, and facilities, under human rights/anti-discrimination legislation and under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is aimed at people who don’t know much if anything about the details of the duty to accommodate people with disabilities.

Related resources:

The Ontario Human Rights Code.

Video 2) Title: Controversial 2006 Changes to the Enforcement of Human Rights (Anti-discrimination) Legislation in Ontario – The Important Debate around Bill 107’s Privatization of Human Rights in Ontario February 6, 2017

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH4xCi5Ye_g&t=6s

Related resources:

The history of the unfolding debate over Bill 107 in 2006, and its aftermath, recounted in detail on a special part of the AODA Alliance’s website, available at this link.
The November 27, 2006 AODA Alliance brief, calling for substantial amendments to Bill 107 before the Legislature passed it, available at this link.
The March 1, 2012 AODA Alliance brief to the Andrew Pinto Review which the Ontario Government appointed to review the effectiveness of Bill 107, available at this link.
The April 12, 2012 supplemental AODA Alliance brief to the Pinto Review (link here), which the Pinto Review refused to read (link here).
The November 2012 final report of the Andrew Pinto Review of Bill 107, available at this link.
The November 16, 2012 AODA Alliance analysis of the Andrew Pinto Bill 107 Review final report, available at this link.

Video 3) Title: Nov. 9, 2006: Queen’s Park News Conference Human Rights Advocates Opposing Ontario Bill 107 Privatizing Enforcement of the Ontario Human Rights Code

Link to video: https://youtu.be/0u7V0NXP8q4

Description: The AODA Alliance (David Lepofsky), Metro Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic (Avvy Go) and the African Canadian Legal Clinic (Margaret Parsons) spoke at a news conference on November 9, 2006 at the Ontario Legislature’s Queen’s park Media Studio. They outline serious grassroots problems with the Ontario Government’s proposed Bill 107. That bill would reform and privatize how human rights (anti-discrimination) legislation would be enforced in Ontario. They presented an alternative solution to backlogs in the Ontario human rights system.

Related resources:

The history of the unfolding debate over Bill 107 in 2006, and its aftermath, recounted in detail on a special part of the AODA Alliance’s website, available at this link.
The November 27, 2006 AODA Alliance brief, calling for substantial amendments to Bill 107 before the Legislature passed it, available at this link.
The March 1, 2012 AODA Alliance brief to the Andrew Pinto Review which the Ontario Government appointed to review the effectiveness of Bill 107, available at this link.
The April 12, 2012 supplemental AODA Alliance brief to the Pinto Review (link here), which the Pinto Review refused to read (link here).
The November 2012 final report of the Andrew Pinto Review of Bill 107, available at this link.
The November 16, 2012 AODA Alliance analysis of the Andrew Pinto Bill 107 Review final report, available at this link.

Video 4) Title: Nov. 28, 2006 Queen’s Park News Conference Opposing Bill 107 Privatizing Human Rights Enforcement

Link to video: https://youtu.be/XRP4Qtb8CV0

Description: On November 28, 2006, a news conference was held at the Ontario Legislature’s Queen’s Park Media Studio to oppose the McGuinty Government’s imposing closure to shut down further public hearings in the Ontario Legislature on its Bill 107. Bill 107 would privatize enforcement of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Speakers at the news conference included Ontario Progressive Conservative Party Leader John Tory, New Democratic Party Member of the Legislature Peter Kormos, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, and former Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission Keith Norton.

Related resources:

The history of the unfolding debate over Bill 107 in 2006, and its aftermath, recounted in detail on a special part of the AODA Alliance’s website, available at this link.
The November 27, 2006 AODA Alliance brief, calling for substantial amendments to Bill 107 before the Legislature passed it, available at this link.
The March 1, 2012 AODA Alliance brief to the Andrew Pinto Review which the Ontario Government appointed to review the effectiveness of Bill 107, available at this link.
The April 12, 2012 supplemental AODA Alliance brief to the Pinto Review (link here), which the Pinto Review refused to read (link here).
The November 2012 final report of the Andrew Pinto Review of Bill 107, available at this link.
The November 16, 2012 AODA Alliance analysis of the Andrew Pinto Bill 107 Review final report, available at this link.

Video 5) Title: July 2, 2008: Queen’s Park News Conference Raising Concerns regarding Bill 107

Link to video: https://youtu.be/VNqM9iIqY3w

Description: On July 2, 2008, David Lepofsky, Chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, and Avvy Go, executive director of the Metro Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, held a news conference at the Ontario Legislature’s Queen’s park Media Studio in Toronto. They identified serious problems in the launch of the recently enacted Bill 107. It privatized enforcement of Ontario’s anti-discrimination legislation, the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Related resources:

The history of the unfolding debate over Bill 107 in 2006, and its aftermath, recounted in detail on a special part of the AODA Alliance’s website, available at this link.
The November 27, 2006 AODA Alliance brief, calling for substantial amendments to Bill 107 before the Legislature passed it, available at this link.
The March 1, 2012 AODA Alliance brief to the Andrew Pinto Review which the Ontario Government appointed to review the effectiveness of Bill 107, available at this link.
The April 12, 2012 supplemental AODA Alliance brief to the Pinto Review (link here), which the Pinto Review refused to read (link here).
The November 2012 final report of the Andrew Pinto Review of Bill 107, available at this link.
The November 16, 2012 AODA Alliance analysis of the Andrew Pinto Bill 107 Review final report, available at this link.

Video 6) Title: September 7, 2007: AODA Alliance Queen’s Park News Conference on Bill 107 which Privatized Enforcement of the Ontario Human Rights Code

Link to video: https://youtu.be/gRpZ8ytbvCs

Description: On September 7, 2007, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance held a news conference at the Ontario Legislature’s Queen’s Park Media Studio. Speaking was acting AODA Alliance Chair Dorine Winkler and AODA Alliance Human Rights Reform Representative and future Chair David Lepofsky. Held during the 2007 Ontario election campaign, the AODA Alliance made public the written elections commitments it had received from the political parties on making Ontario accessible for people with disabilities.

Related resources:

The August 26, 2007 AODA Alliance Update, reporting on the election commitments that were requested of the three Ontario political parties in the 2007 election by the AODA Alliance.
The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party’s September 7, 2007 letter to the AODA Alliance, setting out its 2007 election commitments on accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities.
The Ontario New Democratic Party’s September 2007 letter to the AODA Alliance, setting out its election commitments on accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities.
The Ontario Liberal Party’s September 14, 2007 letter to the AODA Alliance, setting out its 2007 election pledges on accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities.

Video 7) Title: Feb. 9 2009 AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky Addresses Select Committee on Government Agencies regarding the Implementation of Bill 107, which Privatized Enforcement of the Ontario Human Rights Code

Link to video: https://youtu.be/G3pr9eXdx3w

Description: On February 9, 2009, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Chair David Lepofsky addressed the Ontario Legislature’s Select Committee on Government Agencies. He identified serious problems with the enforcement of Ontario’s anti-discrimination legislation, the Ontario Human Rights Code since its enforcement was privatized under Bill 107.

Related resources:

The history of the unfolding debate over Bill 107 in 2006, and its aftermath, recounted in detail on a special part of the AODA Alliance’s website, available at this link.
The November 27, 2006 AODA Alliance brief, calling for substantial amendments to Bill 107 before the Legislature passed it, available at this link.
The March 1, 2012 AODA Alliance brief to the Andrew Pinto Review which the Ontario Government appointed to review the effectiveness of Bill 107, available at this link.
The April 12, 2012 supplemental AODA Alliance brief to the Pinto Review (link here), which the Pinto Review refused to read (link here).
The November 2012 final report of the Andrew Pinto Review of Bill 107, available at this link.
The November 16, 2012 AODA Alliance analysis of the Andrew Pinto Bill 107 Review final report, available at this link.

How to Advocate for Accessible Health Care is the Topic of the Latest Episode of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

How to Advocate for Accessible Health Care is the Topic of the Latest Episode of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast

February 20, 2026

SUMMARY

The 9^th episode of the AODA Alliance ‘s “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” is now available for your listening pleasure. It features an interview with Canadian physician Dr. Lisa Freeman. Based on her experience as a physician and as a person with disabilities, she describes some of the many disability barriers that patients with disabilities can encounter when trying to use health care services. She offers practical tips on how people with disabilities can effectively advocate for themselves in an effort to overcome these barriers.

This episode is important for anyone who has faced disability barriers to health care in the past or who, as they age, may face these barriers in the future. That includes everyone!

The AODA Alliance has been active since 2009 in an effort to achieve a barrier-free health care system. We’ve been campaigning since then to get the Ontario Government to enact a Health Care Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to remove and prevent disability barriers to health care. We were promised a Health Care Accessibility Standard one decade ago. None has been enacted. The Ford Government has been sitting on the final report of the Government-appointed Health Care Standards Development Committee for four years. In the meantime, new disability barriers to health care keep being created, often using public money.

To Learn More

To learn more about disability barriers in the health care system and advocacy to remove and prevent these barriers, check out:

David Lepofsky’s fall 2019 lecture at Osgoode Hall Law School on disability barriers in health care.
The series of videos on the AODA Alliance website on disability accessibility issues in health care.
The final report on health care barriers by the Ontario Government’s Health Care Standards Development Committee.
The AODA Alliance’s August 3, 2021 brief to the Ontario Health Care Standards Development Committee.
The health care advocacy page on the AODA Alliance website.

More about Our Podcast

We delve into advocacy incidents and battles of all sorts. Some were waged by individuals. Others are advanced by groups and organizations. We extract action tips on how to be an effective advocate, whether you are advocating on a disability issue or any social justice issue.

You will enjoy these stories whether or not you ever thought you’d have to advocate on a disability issue. At some point in everyone’s life, they will have do this, since everyone is bound to eventually get a disability as they age, if not sooner. Episodes are designed to be informative for listeners anywhere in the world, and not just in Canada where the podcast is based. We have listeners spread in countries all around the world.

New episodes drop every third Friday. Earlier episodes include:

“The 12 Year Fight for Automated Stop Announcements on the TTC” about Lepofsky’s long struggle to make transit in Toronto accessible for blind riders” with host David Lepofsky.
“Beyond Building Codes: Designing Spaces for Everyone”” with guest built environment accessible design expert Thea Kurdi
“Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign Part 1” covering how targeted advocacy resulted in policy change for autism therapies.” With guest autism advocate Bruce McIntosh.
“Turning Barriers into Headlines: Practical Tips from a Veteran News Reporter” with former journalist Michelle McQuigge.
“How to get a Politician’s Attention” Parts 1 and 2 with the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, former Ontario Premier.
Airline Accessibility: How Maayan Ziv Turned a Mangled Wheelchair Into Real Change
“Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign Part 2” covering how targeted advocacy resulted in policy change for autism therapies.” With guest autism advocate Bruce McIntosh.

Find this podcast on major podcast platforms.

Apple music: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/disability-rights-and-wrongs-the-david-lepodcast/id1838700161

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5WFLiSy99OJPMZ1ZSrkWCg

Ask your smart phone, Alexa, or Google Nest:

“Play podcast ‘Disability Rights and Wrongs!’”

You can also listen to episodes on your computer. Just use the links we provided, or simply Google “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” and take it from there.

How You Can Help

Help us expand the audience for this podcast. Each new listener could later be a new disability advocate! Most people only learn about new podcasts when a friend or family member urges them to check it out. When you are talking to someone about it, encourage them to take their smart phone out then and there. Get them to open a podcast app, search for “David Lepodcast” and subscribe! It is that easy. Otherwise, they can forget to subscribe.
Tell your physician and other health care providers about this episode. Tell them it is worth a listen.
- - - - Do you know anyone who teaches in a medical school, nursing school, or program that trains other health care professionals? Tell them to put this new episode in their students’ mandatory curriculum.

- - - - Send us your feedback on the podcast. How did you like it? What topics should we cover in the future?

AODA Alliance’s Video Series on Accessibility Barriers that Still Plague People with Disabilities in the Built Environment

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Link to video: https://youtu.be/ZuxMCH6KY5Y

TikTok @AODAAlliance

AODA Alliance’s Video Series on Accessibility Barriers that Still Plague People with Disabilities in the Built Environment

SUMMARY

What accessibility barriers obstruct people with disabilities who want to get around in the built environment, inside and outside buildings? Why do these barriers persist? Most think it violates the Ontario Building Code to build a building that has accessibility barriers. Sadly this is not true.

The AODA Alliance has been campaigning for years to achieve an accessible built environment. This campaign has included creating videos that document accessibility blunders in the built environment.

Here is a list of all the videos that the AODA Alliance has publicly posted, and that are open to anyone to view, regarding recurring accessibility barriers that face people with disabilities in the built environment. This video series will help anyone who wants to learn about this issue and do something about it. It is especially important since design professionals, such as architects, landscape engineers, interior designers and urban planners don’t need to know how to design an accessible built environment to be qualified to work in those fields. That is a systemic problem that should have been corrected decades ago.

Below, you will first find a quick guide to the video series. It lists the titles of all the videos. Next, we give you a detailed video-by-video guide. For each video, we give you the title, a description of it, the link to the video, and a list of helpful resources for those who would like more information about it.

You can enjoy and use these videos, whether or not you are in Ontario or even in Canada, and whether or not you know much about disability issues.

These videos will interest you if:

You work in any capacity in the area of designing the built environment, such as architects, facilities departments of public or private sector organizations, urban planners, interior designers or landscape engineers.

You want to learn about disability rights, disability advocacy or the history of our disability rights movement.

You want to advocate on disability rights, or on the rights of people with disabilities, and want to see this advocacy in action, to learn how it is done.

You are a member of a municipal Accessibility Advisory Committee.

You are a lawyer, law student, or future lawyer or law student, who wants to learn about disability rights legal issues.

You work in the field of disability accessibility.

You work at a disability community organization of any sort.

You are involved in social justice or Equity, Diversity and Inclusion work, and want your efforts to fully include people with disabilities as an equality-seeking group.

You teach architecture, interior design, urban planning, landscape engineering or any other built environment design field, law, politics, public or social policy, disability issues, human rights and discrimination, social justice, social work, history, or political science.

Some of our videos have been used in schools, and in college and university courses. We invite anyone teaching in schools, colleges, universities or any continuing professional education to use all or part of these videos, in courses you teach. If you are looking for added reading materials for a lesson, check out the related resources we identify for each video.

How You Can Help

Watch any of these videos that may interest you and encourage others to do so.

Circulate this list of our video series to any organization, politician, or media that you think would benefit from them. Encourage teachers and professors to use them in courses.

Send us your feedback. We always like to hear what people have to say, and how they use resources like these. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

These videos are just part of the much larger collection of online videos in which we have been involved, and which, in combination have been viewed over 100,000 times. Look for them, for additions to this video series, and for future video series as we release them, by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s videos page.

Additional Useful Resources

In addition to the additional resources listed after each video, here are general resources that can help in this area:

The AODA Alliance website’s built environment page

The second episode of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast, featuring an interview with accessible built environment expert Thea Kurdi, available wherever you get your podcasts, such as Apple Music and Spotify.

Thea Kurdi’s 2019 TEDx article : Top insider secrets about what’s stopping full inclusion in design and how you can help fix them. An in-depth examination of how well we’re actually doing on accessible design and what’s getting in the way of progress.

Thea Kurdi’s LivABLE Design conference presentation: What is Adaptable, Visitable, and Universal Housing? And why this kind of housing is the best investment and most sustainable design solution we need. Content rich with practical tips and many free resources.

Thea Kurdi’s 2020 guest lecture webinar at the University of Waterloo School of Architecture: Applying Accessible Design Beyond Checklists. This lecture focuses on practical tips to creating usable design because accessible checklist compliance just creates islands or pockets of access, not actual inclusion.

Thea Kurdi’s a11yTO Conference webinar presentation, Dec 2020: Designing Functional Usable Accessibility. This presentation covers materials still not included in design education or required by building code legislation. Full of practical tips and experience informed strategies that also address the attitudinal barriers that too often sabotage successful accessibility from the start.

Thea Kurdi’s Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) Accessibility in Urban Planning webinar, Dec 2020: How do we create usable connections between accessible housing and workplaces, healthcare, shopping, education, and community? This free resource was made to help not only urban planners and landscape designers, but also policy writers, accessibility advisory members, activists and regular people. Too often our streets, transit, recreational paths create or include barriers that are easy to avoid and far less expensive to prevent.

Thea Kurdi’s free webinar: Understanding Canadian Legislation Accessibility History and the Built Environment Jan 2021. This covers the timeline of building legislation and reviews the problems and misunderstandings that got in the way from delivering what was promised.

Quick Guide

Tackling Disability Accessibility Barriers in the Built Environment February 7, 2017

The Agenda with Steve Paikin – Fighting for a Barrier-Free Ontario

Accessibility Problems at the Centennial College Culinary Arts Centre November 29, 2016 (6 Minute Version & 18 Minute Version)

Accessibility Problems at Ryerson University’s New Student Learning Centre October 29, 2017 (12 Minute Version, 30 Minute Version & 5 Minute Version)

Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (Short Version)

Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (Long Version)

Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (2 Minute Version)

Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (4 minute Version)

Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse: Long Version

Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse: Short Version

Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse: 4 Minute Trailer

Toronto’s New Dangerous Bike Path on a Midtown Sidewalk Inexcusably Endangers Blind Pedestrians

Introduction to the Duty to Accommodate People with Disabilities

Detailed Guide

Video 1) Title: Tackling Disability Accessibility Barriers in the Built Environment February 7, 2017

Description: In this captioned lecture to architecture students at the University of Waterloo Faculty of Architecture, David Lepofsky, along with accessibility specialist Thea Kurdi of DesignABLE Environments, address the pressing and too-often unmet need to ensure that those who design the built environment to ensure that full accessibility is designed in for people with disabilities. Practical examples are given. It would be great if all design professionals and all those studying to be design professionals would watch this video.

Related resources:

The AODA Alliance videos on accessibility problems in the Centennial College Culinary Arts Centre (link here), and the Ryerson University Student Learning Centre (link here), included in this video series.
The October 4, 2012 AODA Alliance brief on improvements needed in the Public Spaces Accessibility Standard to be enacted under the AODA, available at this link.
The March 25, 2013 AODA Alliance brief to the Ontario Government on needed improvements to the #accessibility provisions of the Ontario Building Code, available at this link.
The July 31, 2017 AODA Alliance/ARCH Disability Law Centre brief on needed improvements to the 2011 Transportation Accessibility Standard, part of the 2011 Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation, available at this link. That brief recommended, among other things, the enactment of requirements for the built environment in transportation stations and stops.

Video 2) Title: The Agenda with Steve Paikin – Fighting for a Barrier-Free Ontario

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8MDvJ3cGUE

Description: On the eve of the 25th anniversary of the birth of Ontario’s non-partisan grassroots movement campaigning for accessibility legislation Ontario’s flagship public affairs TV program, TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin, interviewed Osgoode Hall Law School visiting professor and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and Thea Kurdi, an accessibility consultant specializing in making the built environment accessible to people with disabilities (with DesignAble Environments). This interview focused in large part on disability barriers in the built environment.

Related resources:

Video 3) Title: Accessibility Problems at the Centennial College Culinary Arts Centre November 29, 2016

Link to the 6 minute version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRmVBmOy6xg&t=28s

Link to the 18 minute version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgfrum7e-_0&t=87s

Description: In this widely viewed captioned video, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky narrates a tour of significant accessibility problems in the brand-new Centennial College Culinary Arts Centre. This shows why Ontario needs strong accessibility provisions on the accessibility of the built environment in the Ontario Building Code and AODA accessibility standards. This video has secured great media coverage.

Related resources:

The November 29, 2016 AODA Alliance Update, unveiling this video, on the 22^nd anniversary of Ontario’s grassroots accessibility movement, available at this link.
Media coverage of this video in the Toronto Star (link here), and on CBC national TV news (link here).
The February 7, 2017 lecture by David Lepofsky and Thea Kurdi, later in this video series, at the University of Waterloo Faculty of Architecture, on disability barriers in the built environment (which included this video), available at this link.

Video 4) Title: Accessibility Problems at Ryerson University’s New Student Learning Centre October 29, 2017

Link to the 12 minute version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oe4xiKknt0&feature=youtu.be

Link to the 30 minute version: https://youtu.be/uqUZ6gK9N9k

Link to the 2.5 minute version: https://youtu.be/O9gCG33icCA (Edited by the Toronto Star)

Description: In this widely watched captioned video, released on October 29, 2017, David Lepofsky takes viewers on a narrated tour of serious accessibility problems at h Ryerson University’s new Student Learning Centre. This video, along with the video described earlier in this video series regarding the accessibility problems at the new Centennial College Culinary Arts Centre, shows that Ontario needs to strengthen the accessibility provisions regarding the built environment in the Ontario Building Code and AODA accessibility standards. This video has secured great media coverage and a great number of views on the internet.

Related resources:

The October 29, 2017 AODA Alliance news release, announcing this video on the 19^th anniversary of the Ontario Legislature’s landmark October 29, 1998 resolution, available at this link. That resolution unanimously adopted the disability movement’s 11 principles for a strong Ontario accessibility law.
CITY TV’s October 29, 2017 news report on the AODA Alliance video on the Ryerson Student Learning Centre, available at this link.
The Toronto Star’s November 2, 2017 article on the AODA Alliance video on the Ryerson Student Learning Centre, available at this link.
The November 3, 2017 Global TV news report on the AODA Alliance Ryerson Student learning Centre video, available at this link.
The AODA Alliance’s November 29, 2016 video on disability accessibility barriers at the new Centennial College Culinary Arts Centre, included earlier in this video series, and available at this link.
The February 7, 2017 lecture, earlier in this video series, by David Lepofsky and Thea Kurdi at the University of Waterloo Faculty of Architecture on designing an accessible built environment, available at this link.

Video 5) Title: Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (Short Version)

Link to video: https://youtu.be/za1UptZq82o

Description: AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky guides you through accessibility problems in a series of new and renovated public transit stations in Ontario. These show Ontario’s accessibility laws and Building Code are too weak and that design professionals need better accessibility training. This video has been used to alert senior public officials in Government and public transit, and design professionals, about the need to design the built environment to be fully accessible, well beyond what is required under the Ontario Building Code and current inadequate Ontario accessibility standards. This 16 minute video is also available in very condensed 2 minute, 4 minute versions and in a much more detailed 30 minute version.

Related resources:

Video 6) Title: Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (Long Version)

Link to video: https://youtu.be/2VZLGGfFg1g

Description: AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky guides you through accessibility problems in a series of new and renovated public transit stations in Ontario. These show Ontario’s accessibility laws and Building Code are too weak and that design professionals need better accessibility training. This video has been used to alert senior public officials in Government and public transit, and design professionals, about the need to design the built environment to be fully accessible, well beyond what is required under the Ontario Building Code and current inadequate Ontario accessibility standards. This 30 minute video is the most detailed version. It is also available in very condensed 2 minute, 4 minute versions and in a 16 minute version.

Related resources:

Video 7) Title: Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (2 minute Version)

Link to video: https://youtu.be/y7111_apq48

Description: AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky guides you through accessibility problems in a series of new and renovated public transit stations in Ontario. These show Ontario’s accessibility laws and Building Code are too weak and that design professionals need better accessibility training. Longer versions of this video have been used to alert senior public officials in Government and public transit, and design professionals, about the need to design the built environment to be fully accessible, well beyond what is required under the Ontario Building Code and current inadequate Ontario accessibility standards. This video is also available in 4 minute, 16 minute and 30 minute versions.

Related resources:

Video 8) Title: Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (4 minute Version)

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrk5jRYpmfA&feature=youtu.be

Description: AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky guides you through accessibility problems in a series of new and renovated public transit stations in Ontario. These show Ontario’s accessibility laws and Building Code are too weak and that design professionals need better accessibility training. This video has been used to alert senior public officials in Government and public transit, and design professionals, about the need to design the built environment to be fully accessible, well beyond what is required under the Ontario Building Code and current inadequate Ontario accessibility standards. This video is also available in a very condensed 2-minute version, as well as more detailed 16 and 30 minute versions.

Related resources:

Video 9) Title: Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse: Long Version

Link to Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvo9jYIUvSc

Related resources:

Video: The Billion Dollar bungle – Serious Disability Barriers in the New Toronto Courthouse 14 minute version
4 minute trailer.
The AODA Alliance’s August 8, 2024 news release, making this video public.
Video: The August 20, 2024 Global News report on disability barriers in the new Toronto Courthouse.
The AODA Alliance website’s courts accessibility page.
Video: Making Courts and Mediations Accessible for People with Disabilities
Video: Introduction to the duty to accommodate people with disabilities
The Weiler Committee Report: “MAKING ONTARIO’S COURTS FULLY ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES”
September 13, 2024 column by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications about the disability barriers in Toronto’s new Armoury Street courthouse.
Front page news coverage of the AODA Alliance’s video about the new Toronto courthouse in the September 17, 2024 edition of the Toronto Star.

Video 10) Title: Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse: Short Version

Link to Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6XNVMoUmB8

Related Resources

Video: The Billion Dollar bungle – Serious Disability Barriers in the New Toronto Courthouse long version.
4 minute trailer
The AODA Alliance’s August 8, 2024 news release, making this video public.
Video: The August 20, 2024 Global News report on disability barriers in the new Toronto Courthouse.
The AODA Alliance website’s courts accessibility page.
Video: Making Courts and Mediations Accessible for People with Disabilities
Video: Introduction to the duty to accommodate people with disabilities
The Weiler Committee Report: “MAKING ONTARIO’S COURTS FULLY ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES”
September 13, 2024 column by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications about the disability barriers in Toronto’s new Armoury Street courthouse.
Front page news coverage of the AODA Alliance’s video about the new Toronto courthouse in the September 17, 2024 edition of the Toronto Star.

Video 11) Title: Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse: 4 Minute Trailer

Link to video: https://youtu.be/hViGUVoj_iM

Description: The new Toronto Armoury Street Courthouse, which opened in the first half of 2023 and which cost almost 1 billion dollars, has serious disability accessibility problems, as this video reveals. Said to be Canada’s largest courthouse, this mega-courthouse, which includes some 63 criminal courtrooms, totally or partially replaces 6 criminal trial courthouses around Toronto. Narrated by blind Toronto lawyer and disability rights advocate David Lepofsky, Chair of the non-partisan Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, this video shows that this is a billion dollar accessibility bungle. This video will interest anyone concerned with disability rights, architecture, design of the built environment, equality or social justice. This long version provides detailed explanations of just some of this courthouse’s disability accessibility problems. A short version of this video more briefly and a longer version more extensively reveal these disability accessibility problems.

Related resources:

Video: The Billion Dollar bungle – Serious Disability Barriers in the New Toronto Courthouse 14 minute version or 50 minute version.
The AODA Alliance’s August 8, 2024 news release, making this video public.
Video: The August 20, 2024 Global News report on disability barriers in the new Toronto Courthouse.
The AODA Alliance website’s courts accessibility page.
Video: Making Courts and Mediations Accessible for People with Disabilities
Video: Introduction to the duty to accommodate people with disabilities
The Weiler Committee Report: “MAKING ONTARIO’S COURTS FULLY ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES”
September 13, 2024 column by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications about the disability barriers in Toronto’s new Armoury Street courthouse.
Front page news coverage of the AODA Alliance’s video about the new Toronto courthouse in the September 17, 2024 edition of the Toronto Star.

Video 12) Title: Toronto’s New Dangerous Bike Path on a Midtown Sidewalk Inexcusably Endangers Blind Pedestrians

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJuF8-EbOME

Description: A new sidewalk was built on a busy midtown Toronto street, with a dangerous bike path on the sidewalk, not at road level. This endangers blind pedestrians and others, flying in the face of the right to equality which several laws guarantee people with disabilities. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky shows why this sidewalk is so dangerous, and what must be done to fix it.

Related Resources:

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s May 2, 2024 deputation to the City of Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee, calling for a ban on building bike paths on sidewalks.
The AODA Alliance’s October 15, 2024 news release on Ontario’s proposed bike path legislation.
The AODA Alliance’s October 28, 2024 news release on Ontario’s bike path legislation.
AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofskys October 23, 2024 column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications.
The AODA Alliance’s April 30, 2024 brief to the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee
The AODA Alliance website’s built environment page

Video 13) Title: Introduction to the Duty to Accommodate People with Disabilities

Link to video: https://youtu.be/y32XvjWmDAQ

Related resources:

The Ontario Human Rights Code.

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s Monthly Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Calls on All School Boards to Host a Public Forum for Parents of Students with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s Monthly Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Calls on All School Boards to Host a Public Forum for Parents of Students with Disabilities

February 18, 2026

SUMMARY

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s latest monthly column in the Toronto Star’s 25 Metroland publications around Ontario addresses the critical need for families of one third of a million students with disabilities in Ontario’s K-12 schools to have a meaningful voice in the treatment of these too-often vulnerable students in our schools. Read it at the end of this Update.

This new column urges each of Ontario school boards’ Special Education Advisory Committee to hold a public forum for parents to describe the disability barriers their children face at school, and how to remove and prevent these barriers. As we reported in the February 10, 2026 AODA Alliance Update, the Toronto District School Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee is holding just such a public forum on April 13, 2026 in Toronto. That SEAC, which is chaired by David Lepofsky (who also chairs the AODA Alliance) has offered to help any other school board’s SEAC that wants to organize a parents’ public forum.

How You Can Help

Please circulate this new column to your family, friends and complete strangers. It is especially helpful to share it with families of students with disabilities.

If you are a member of a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee, share this column with your fellow SEAC members. Propose to your SEAC that it hold an open meeting to listen to parents’ voices.

Check out the AODA Alliance’s online video that offers practical tips to members of a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee and members

Watch the videos in the recently-updated series of AODA Alliance videos on education for students with disabilities.

Let us know what you decide to do. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

Learn about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy to improve education for students with disabilities by visiting the AODA Alliance Website’s education page.

MORE DETAILS

Inside Halton February 18, 2026

Originally posted at: https://www.insidehalton.com/life/students-with-disabilities-deserve-voice/article_c69875f5-4b06-5007-aaf1-f0f5d9a46e5e.html

Parents of students with disabilities deserve a voice, Ontario advocate urges school boards

Disabilities barriers and chronic underfunding handcuff teachers, David Lepofsky writes.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

It’s crept up on us. The province has gradually seized control of seven school boards — more than a third of K-12 students in publicly funded schools.

The public had no say in this.

This is especially worrisome for more than 120,000 students with disabilities. They are among Ontario’s most underserved, vulnerable students.

For years, schools too often did a poor job of letting parents of students with disabilities know what programs and services are available for their children and how to access them.

Schools’ learning technology too often lacks digital accessibility. The education system is full of rigid bureaucratic barriers that make it harder for schools to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

What a nightmare for overloaded parents trying to advocate for their kids.

Despite this, some students with disabilities succeed in our schools, but not enough.

Front-line teaching staff want to teach all learners. They are handcuffed by two provincial failings.

First, the education system is replete with disability barriers that the province perpetuates. Second, the province chronically underfunds supports for students with disabilities.

Doug Ford and Paul Calandra, education minister, have blamed everything on local school boards and trustees. But now that one third of students are under provincial control, they can only blame themselves.

Things are getting worse for students with disabilities. For example, the Toronto District School Board’s supervisor raised the maximum permissible size of two categories of special education classes, and the maximum permissible size of a Grade 4 to Grade 8 class. Both increases hurt students with disabilities.

While elected trustees met in public and routinely welcomed parents’ public presentations about concerns, the TDSB supervisor does his work behind closed doors.

He has yet to attend any of the monthly meetings of the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC), which I chair, to hear from representatives of parents of students with disabilities.

In contrast, we always had some trustees at our meetings.

The province summarily fired the education directors at the Toronto and Ottawa boards. Is it possible senior board staff now live in fear, lest they be next?

What can we all do?

Here’s a first step. Each of Ontario’s 72 school boards has a SEAC. It should each devote an entire monthly meeting to having parents of students with disabilities speak to them — a public forum for parents.

Invite parents to describe barriers their child faces at school and what should be done to fix them.

That’s what TDSB’s SEAC is doing on April 13. The committee successfully held such a meeting in November 2024, during which parents recounted wrenching stories, crying out for provincial action.

We’d be happy to help any school board that wants tips on how to hold a parents’ forum to hear the too-often marginalized voice of parents of students with disabilities.

David Lepofsky is a retired lawyer who chairs the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance and the Toronto District School Boards Special Education Advisory Committee. He is a visiting professor of disability rights at the law schools at Western, Queen’s and the University of Ottawa, and hosts a podcast: Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast.

Sign Up to Speak at TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee’s April 13, 2026 “Listening to Parents’ Voice” Meeting – Tell Other School Boards to Hold These Meetings!

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok: @AODAAlliance

Sign Up to Speak at TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee’s April 13, 2026 “Listening to Parents’ Voice” Meeting – Tell Other School Boards to Hold These Meetings!

February 10, 2026

SUMMARY

Parents of Ontario’s 330,000 or more students with disabilities need a public place where they can voice their concerns about disability barriers and problems their child faces in Ontario-funded schools. Here is one for parents of students with disabilities at Canada’s largest school board, the Toronto District School Board. We encourage each of Ontario’s 72 school boards to offer the same thing.

TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) is inviting parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs to come to their April 13, 2026 meeting. At this meeting, they can tell this Committee of parents’ advocates about the barriers their child is experiencing at school, and what should be done to fix this. A person who wants to speak at that meeting, in person or over Zoom, needs to register in advance. Below is the announcement of this meeting and how to register. Speakers will be accepted on a first come, first served basis.

We strongly encourage every school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee to hold such a meeting. TDSB’s meeting title says it all. It’s called “Listening to Parents’ Voice!”

It is troubling and inexcusable that TDSB senior staff are unwilling to do anything to publicize this event to parents, other than posting a notice about it on the TDSB website’s SEAC page – a web page that many of the families of the 40,000 students with disabilities/special education needs at TDSB likely don’t even know about. It would not cost TDSB to send out an email to parents alerting them to this event. TDSB’s unwillingness to help publicize this event, takes place at a school board that is under the direct control of the Ford Government. It is symptomatic of how things are getting worse.

Back in November 2024, TDSB’s SEAC held its first and only Town Hall for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs. It was very successful and exposed stark and troubling problems. TDSB senior staff have opposed SEAC holding another Town Hall in 2025 or 2026. TDSB’s senior staff have also opposed SEAC even calling its upcoming April 13, 2026 meeting a “Town Hall.” Students with disabilities and their parents/guardians deserve better.

How You Can Help

Please widely post and circulate the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee’s announcement set out below. Encourage parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs to sign up to speak at the April 13, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee meeting.

If you are a member of a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee, please propose to your SEAC that it hold an open meeting to listen to parents’ voices.

Check out the AODA Alliance’s online video that offers practical tips to members of a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee and members

Let us know what you do. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

Learn about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy to improve education for students with disabilities by visiting the AODA Alliance Website’s education page.

Why not binge-watch the videos in the recently-updated series of AODA Alliance videos on education for students with disabilities.

MORE DETAILS

TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) “LISTENING TO PARENTS’ VOICE” MEETING

Are you the parent or guardian of a student with disabilities/special education needs in the TDSB? The TDSB SEAC would like to hear from you.

Date: Monday, April 13, 2026 at 7:00 pm
Location: Virtual or In-person at TDSB Board Office, 5050 Yonge St., North York

The TDSB SEAC is a group that has volunteered to advise the TDSB on special education programs and services.

SEAC is always open to parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs making presentations to SEAC (called “delegations”). The entire SEAC meeting on Monday, April 13, 2026 will be made up of parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs speaking to SEAC. Please plan to comment on 2 key questions:

What barriers have you and your child encountered in school, if any?
What recommendations do you have to remove and prevent these barriers, and to enhance the experiences at school for students with disabilities/special education needs?

SEAC needs your input to help it develop recommendations for the TDSB for reforms and improvements. This meeting is not set up to help individuals navigate TDSB Special Education services. Families with concerns regarding their child’s services should contact their school’s principal and superintendent and if needed, TDSB’s new Student and Family Support Office.

The meeting starts at 7 pm and usually ends around 9 pm. We will fit in as many speakers as time permits. Speakers will be scheduled in the order their requests to speak are received. If we cannot fit in everyone that evening who has sent in a request to speak, SEAC will work to schedule the others at future monthly SEAC meetings. We will email those who request to speak to share all the details.

Format

Participants who would like to share their comments should plan to address the two questions listed above.

To accommodate all participants, each will get 3 minutes to share their experiences and ideas.

Please complete and email us the following registration form. Send it to Lianne Dixon Lianne.Dixon@tdsb.on.ca. Participants who would like to submit a pre-recorded video, written statement or artistic piece can email it to the same address.

To protect privacy, in your comments to SEAC, please do not use the names of any student, teacher, other TDSB staff member, or school.

Application to Speak at the April 13, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee “Listening to Parents’ Voices” Meeting

Your Name
Email address
Phone number
Accessibility needs, if any
Your Topic. Please summarize in two or three sentences what you would like to speak about.

Video Series on the History of the Development, Enactment and Implementation of the Accessible Canada Act, Canada’s National Accessibility Legislation

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrYzAAKXOrc&list=PLDGgB77j2ZYrl_rtpe32nSjOXfrDAGvnn&feature=share&index=1

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Video Series on the History of the Development, Enactment and Implementation of the Accessible Canada Act, Canada’s National Accessibility Legislation

February 9, 2026

Summary

What is the Accessible Canada Act that Canada’s Parliament enacted in 2019/ Where did it come from? What was it meant to achieve? How is it working? Here is a series of online videos that answer these questions, through lectures, Parliamentary presentations, an online expert policy conference and a sample of media coverage.

This is one of the growing list of video series that you can find on the AODA Alliance website’s videos page. Taken together, the many videos that the AODA Alliance has included in its total collection have secured over 100,000 views.

The Accessible Canada Act traces its origin back to the successful battle by people with disabilities in 1980 to 1981 to win an amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to add equality rights for people with disabilities to its new constitutional protections. This video series addresses that earlier battle, and then the efforts from 2015 to the present to get the Accessible Canada Act enacted and thereafter, effectively implemented.

You can enjoy and use these videos, whether or not you are in Ontario or even in Canada, and whether or not you know much about disability issues.

These videos will interest you if:

You want to learn about disability rights, disability advocacy or the history of our disability rights movement.

You want to advocate on disability rights, or on the rights of people with disabilities, and want to see this advocacy in action, to learn how it is done.

You are a lawyer, law student, or future lawyer or law student, or anyone else who wants to learn about disability rights legal issues.

You work in the field of disability accessibility.

You work at a disability community organization of any sort.

You are involved in social justice work, and want your efforts to fully include people with disabilities as an equality-seeking group.

You teach education, psychology, law, politics, public or social policy, disability issues, human rights and discrimination, social justice, social work, history, or political science.

Some of our videos have been used in schools, and in college and university courses. We invite anyone teaching in schools, colleges or universities to use all or part of these videos, in courses you teach. If you are looking for added reading materials for a lesson, check out the related resources we identify for each video.

How You Can Help

We encourage you to:

Watch any of these videos that may interest you and encourage others to do so.

Circulate this list of our video series to any organization, politician, or media that you think would benefit from them. Encourage teachers and professors to use them in courses.

Send us your feedback. We always like to hear what people have to say, and how they use resources like these. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

These videos are just part of the much larger collection of online videos in which we have been involved, and which, in combination have been viewed over 100,000 times as of late 2022. Look for them, for additions to this transportation video series, and for future video series as we release them, by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s videos page.

Learn more about our campaign for a barrier-free and accessible public transit system by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s transportation page.

Quick Guide

A Personal Retrospective on the 1980-82 Advocacy to Amend the Canadian Charter of Rights to Protect Disability Equality

What should Canada’s promised national accessibility legislation include?

2018-2019 Campaign to get Canada’s parliament to Pass a Strong Accessible Canada Act

Dec 12 1980 David Lepofsky at Parliamentary Committee on Constitution of Canada

David Lepofsky January 29, 1981 Interview on CBC Radio This Country in the Morning re Disability Amendment to Charter of Rights

David Lepofsky November 26, 1981 Interview on CBC Radio This Country in the Morning re Disability Amendment to Charter of Rights

What Should Canada’s Promised National Accessibility Law Include? – A Policy Experts’ Conference August 22, 2017

AODA Alliance Chair Presents to Federal Government’s February 8, 2017 Consultation on Forthcoming National Accessibility Legislation

AODA Alliance Presents to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Bill C-81, the Proposed Accessible Canada Act

AODA Alliance Opening Presentation to the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology regarding Bill C-81, the proposed Accessible Canada Act

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and Others’ Q&A on Bill C-81 At Senate Standing Committee

CTV Your morning- Does Canada’s Accessibility Legislation Go Far Enough?

March 19, 2024 – Testimony by AODA Alliance Chair on Horrific Barriers Experienced by Air Passengers with Disabilities

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s October 1, 2024 House of Commons testimony Accessible Canada Act 5-year review

Detailed Guide

Lectures

Video 1) Title: A Personal Retrospective on the 1980-82 Advocacy to Amend the Canadian Charter of Rights to Protect Disability Equality

Description: In this January 22, 2014 guest-lecture in Prof. Richard Haigh’s State and Citizen course at Osgoode Hall Law School, disability rights activist David Lepofsky recounts his volunteer advocacy efforts in 1980-82, as one of many who successfully campaigned to get Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms amended to protect disability equality. He was one of many who successfully fought to win the disability amendment to section 15 of the Charter of Rights. This captioned lecture gives his personal recollections of his own involvement in that campaign.

Video 2) Title: What should Canada’s promised national accessibility legislation include?

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzUKVs28T8U

Description: A lecture by AODA Alliance chair and Osgoode Hall Law School visiting professor David Lepofsky on what should be included in the new national accessibility legislation which Canada’s federal government has promised to introduce. Learning from the experience with detailed disability legislation in Ontario and in other jurisdictions, a framework is outlined which formed the basis for the campaign over the following months after this lecture, when the Accessible Canada Act made its way through Canada’s Parliament.

Related resources:

David Lepofsky’s memoir: “Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” Available online for free download at HYPERLINK https://www.aodaalliance.org/publicationsaodaalliance.org/publications in pdf, MS Word, e-pub formats and as a free audio book, or for purchase as a hard copy book from Amazon or as a Kindle
AODA Alliance website’s Canada page, which details advocacy efforts on the Accessible Canada Act.
Discussion Paper on what the law should include, published in the National Journal of Constitutional Law
Episodes 10 and 11 of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” to be published, available on many podcast platforms such as Apple Music and Spotify. In these episodes, podcast host David Lepofsky interviews Yvonne Peters about her advocacy efforts in 1980 to 1982 in support of a disability amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
AODA Alliance brief to the Parliament of Canada requesting amendments to Bill C-81, the proposed Bill C-81 (September 27, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s brief to the Senate on proposed amendments to Bill C-81 (March 29, 2019)
AODA alliance supplemental brief to senate standing committee on Bill C-81
Open letter (October 2018) to the House of Commons
Open letter (May 2019) to the Federal Government on passing the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-81
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (October 25, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs (April 11, 2019)
Bill C-81 as introduced at first reading on June 20, 2018
Bill C-81 as passed by the House of Commons on November 27, 2018
Final version of Bill C-81 (June 21, 2019) as passed by the Senate and then ratified by the House of Commons
Briefs submitted to the House of Commons on Bill C-81 by various organizations

Video 3) Title: 2018-2019 Campaign to get Canada’s parliament to Pass a Strong Accessible Canada Act

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMdC0wi5FlM

Description: Lecture by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and Osgoode Hall Law School visiting professor David Lepofsky (AODA Alliance chair and Osgoode Hall visiting professor) on the grassroots disability activism campaign when Bill C-81 (the Accessible Canada Act) was before parliament, to get this bill strengthened. Sequel to his lecture on what Canada’s national accessibility legislation needs to include. He discusses what was sought, what was gained, and the strategies used. Note: This lecture can be viewed alone, or can be used as a sequel to this video.

Related resources:

AODA Alliance website’s Canada page, which details advocacy efforts on the Accessible Canada Act.
Discussion Paper on what the law should include, published in the National Journal of Constitutional Law AODA Alliance’s brief to the House of Commons on Bill C-81 (September 27, 2018)
AODA Alliance brief to the Parliament of Canada requesting amendments to Bill C-81, the proposed Bill C-81 (September 27, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s brief to the Senate on proposed amendments to Bill C-81 (March 29, 2019)
AODA alliance supplemental brief to senate standing committee on Bill C-81
Open letter (October 2018) to the House of Commons
Open letter (May 2019) to the Federal Government on passing the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-81
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (October 25, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs (April 11, 2019)
Bill C-81 as introduced at first reading on June 20, 2018
Bill C-81 as passed by the House of Commons on November 27, 2018
Final version of Bill C-81 (June 21, 2019) C-81 as passed by the Senate and then ratified by the House of Commons
Briefs submitted to the House of Commons on Bill C-81 by various organizations
AODA Alliance’s call for Parliament to pass a new bill to strengthen the ACA (November 18, 2019)

Parliamentary Hearings, Public Forums and Media Coverage

Video 4) Title: Dec 12 1980 David Lepofsky at Parliamentary Committee on Constitution of Canada

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBdYFUtAslc

Description: December 12 1980 presentation by David Lepofsky on behalf of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to the Joint Special Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada on the need to include disability equality in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms This recording makes David Lepofsky’s voice sound higher pitch than it actually was at the time. 😉 (Smile!) Background on this presentation at www.odacommittee.net/ODA_Bill_125_news21.html.

Related resources:

David Lepofsky’s memoir: “Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” Available online for free download at HYPERLINK https://www.aodaalliance.org/publicationsaodaalliance.org/publications in pdf, MS Word, e-pub formats and as a free audio book, or for purchase as a hard copy book from Amazon or as a Kindle
Transcript of the three disability organizations’ presentationsin the 1980 fall to the Joint Committee calling for the Charter disability amendment.

Captioned video of the December 12, 1980 presentation by David Lepofsky to the Joint Committee, on behalf of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. He is now chair of the AODA Alliance.
Transcript of the initial refusal on January 12, 1981 by federal Justice Minister Jean Chretien to agree to the disability amendment, which he announced during his appearance before the Joint committee – a decision the Federal Government reversed forty years ago today.
Online captioned lecture at the Osgoode Hall Law School by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on the history of the campaign for the Charter disability amendment.

Episodes 10 and 11 of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” to be published, available on many podcast platforms such as Apple Music and Spotify. In these episodes, podcast host David Lepofsky interviews Yvonne Peters about her advocacy efforts in 1980 to 1982 in support of a disability amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Video 5) Title: David Lepofsky January 29, 1981 Interview on CBC Radio This Country in the Morning re Disability Amendment to Charter of Rights

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnqNpeGhWP0

Description: This captioned radio interview (audio only) took place on the morning after the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada held its historic vote to amend the proposed Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to add the constitutional right to equality for people with disabilities to section 15 of the Charter of Rights. In this interview, David Lepofsky, then age 23 and a law student finishing his Ontario Bar exams, spoke on CBC National Radio’s “This Country in the Morning” program with host Don Herron. They discussed the historic importance of that vote, and the long term expectations for people with disabilities. Introduction to this recording by David Lepofsky in late December, 2020, 40 years later.

Related resources:

David Lepofsky’s memoir: “Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” Available online for free download at HYPERLINK https://www.aodaalliance.org/publicationsaodaalliance.org/publications in pdf, MS Word, e-pub formats and as a free audio book, or for purchase as a hard copy book from Amazon or as a Kindle
Fight to Amend Canadian Charter of Rights to Protect Disability Equality at this link.
December 12, 1980: David Lepofsky at Parliamentary Committee on Constitution of Canada at this link.
What Did Disability Advocates Tell Canada’s Parliament 40 Years Ago This Fall to Help Win an Historic Amendment to the Charter of Rights to Protect Equality for People with Disabilities? AODA Alliance Update December 2020, at this link.
Episodes 10 and 11 of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” to be published, available on many podcast platforms such as Apple Music and Spotify. In these episodes, podcast host David Lepofsky interviews Yvonne Peters about her advocacy efforts in 1980 to 1982 in support of a disability amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Video 6) Title: David Lepofsky November 26, 1981 Interview on CBC Radio This Country in the Morning re Disability Amendment to Charter of Rights

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcn6mZcJeLc (Audio only)

Description: Canada was debating whether to add a provision to the proposed new constitutional Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the “notwithstanding clause”, that would allow Parliament and Legislatures to override some of the new constitutional rights set out in the Charter of Rights. In this captioned interview (audio only), David Lepofsky (then 24 years old, a first-year lawyer studying for his Masters of Law at the Harvard Law School) was interviewed on CBC national radio’s “This Country in the Morning” program by host Peter Gzowski. They discussed objections from the disability perspective to the proposed notwithstanding clause being applicable to the Charter’s provision guaranteeing equality rights.

Related resources:

David Lepofsky’s memoir: “Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” Available online for free download at HYPERLINK https://www.aodaalliance.org/publicationsaodaalliance.org/publications in pdf, MS Word, e-pub formats and as a free audio book, or for purchase as a hard copy book from Amazon or as a Kindle
Fight to Amend Canadian Charter of Rights to Protect Disability Equality at this link.
December 12, 1980: David Lepofsky at Parliamentary Committee on Constitution of Canada at this link.
What Did Disability Advocates Tell Canada’s Parliament 40 Years Ago This Fall to Help Win an Historic Amendment to the Charter of Rights to Protect Equality for People with Disabilities? AODA Alliance Update December 2020, at this link.
Episodes 10 and 11 of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” to be published, available on many podcast platforms such as Apple Music and Spotify. In these episodes, podcast host David Lepofsky interviews Yvonne Peters about her advocacy efforts in 1980 to 1982 in support of a disability amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Video 7) Title: What Should Canada’s Promised National Accessibility Law Include? – A Policy Experts’ Conference August 22, 2017

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94PEEbhI4TU

Description: In the 2015 Canadian federal election, Canada’s Liberal Party promised to enact a national accessibility law. On August 22, 2017, the Alliance for an Accessible and Inclusive Canada held a 3-hour online virtual conference of policy experts, on what the promised national accessibility law should include. This conference was moderated and its contents were organized by David Lepofsky. This conference is meant to be useful for anyone designing or advocating for an accessibility law’s enactment or improvement, whether it is national or provincial, anywhere in the world. Taking part in the audience and at times, at the table, was Canada’s first Minister for People with Disabilities, the honourable Carla Qualtrough, then responsible for developing Canada’s promised national accessibility law. Speaking at this conference were policy experts from Canada, the U.S. Israel and Switzerland. You can hear, from example, from the former cabinet ministers who led the enactment of Ontario’s 2005 accessibility law and Manitoba’s 2013 accessibility law, from the two experts whom the Ontario Government appointed to conduct independent reviews of the implementation of Ontario’s accessibility law, from the director of the U.S. Access Board and the former director of the Office of Disability Rights at the US Justice Department, from an Israeli Department of Justice official involved in enforcement of Israel’s accessibility law, and from the lawyer who wrote Israel’s Customer Service Accessibility Regulation. During the first few minutes of this conference, David Lepofsky’s voice is a bit over-modulated, but still understandable. It clears up shortly afterwards for the rest of the conference. The other speakers are all clear throughout and the video includes captioning and ASL interpretation.

Related resources:

The ‘AODA Alliances revised Discussion Paper on what Canada’s promised national accessibility law should include, written by David Lepofsky, to be published in the National Journal of Constitutional Law, available on request by emailing aodafeedback@gmail.com.
The Government of Canada’s May 2017 report on the results of its public consultation on what the promised national accessibility law should include (available at this link) and the June 13, 2017 AODA Alliance analysis of the Federal Government’s consultation report (available at this link).

Video 8) Title: AODA Alliance Chair Presents to Federal Government’s February 8, 2017 Consultation on Forthcoming National Accessibility Legislation

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d4S7h3TYbo (Audio only)

Description: In the 2015 federal election, the federal Liberal Party promised to enact national accessibility legislation. In the winter and spring of 2017, the Federal Government held a public consultation on what that legislation should include. At the February 8, 2017 Toronto public consultation session (captioned), AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky made this presentation to that public forum.

Related resources:

AODA Alliance website’s education web page, at this link.
Joint OAC AODA Alliance January 30, 2019 news release on AODA Alliance website, at this link.
July 23, 2020 AODA Alliance report on the power of school principals to refuse to admit students to school (on AODA Alliance website, at this link).
July 24, 2020 report of the COVID-19 subcommittee of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee on school-reopening during the COVID-19pandemic, on the AODA Alliance website, at this link.
MS Word format the AODA Alliance’s June 18, 2020 finalized brief to the Ontario Government on what needs to be done to meet the needs of students with disabilities during the transition to school re-opening, at this link.
May 4, 2020: Virtual Townhall on Students with Disabilities During COVID, at this link.

Video 9) Title: AODA Alliance Presents to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Bill C-81, the Proposed Accessible Canada Act

Link to video: https://youtu.be/T_nkPeSUPHg

Description: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s 11-minute presentation to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Bill C-81, the proposed Accessible Canada Act, then before the Committee for public hearings. Two other organizations presented at the same time and then were open to questions from the Members of Parliament on that Standing Committee. Video of the entire 2 hours is available at this link.

Related resources:

Transcript of the October 25, 2018 meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
AODA Alliance news release on its presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee to Propose Amendments to Bill C-81 (October 3, 2018)
AODA Alliance website’s Canada page, which details advocacy efforts on the Accessible Canada Act.
Discussion Paper on what the law should include, published in the National Journal of Constitutional Law
AODA Alliance brief to the Parliament of Canada requesting amendments to Bill C-81, the proposed Bill C-81 (September 27, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s brief to the Senate on proposed amendments to Bill C-81 (March 29, 2019)
AODA alliance supplemental brief to senate standing committee on Bill C-81
Open letter (October 2018) to the House of Commons
Open letter (May 2019) to the Federal Government on passing the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-81
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (October 25, 2018)
Transcript of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (October 25, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs (April 11, 2019)
Bill C-81 as introduced at first reading on June 20, 2018
Bill C-81 as passed by the House of Commons on November 27, 2018
Final version of Bill C-81 (June 21, 2019) C-81 as passed by the Senate and then ratified by the House of Commons
Briefs submitted to the House of Commons on Bill C-81 by various organizations
AODA Alliance’s call for Parliament to pass a new bill to strengthen the ACA (November 18, 2019)
For a contrast, see the video of David Lepofsky’s December 12, 1980 presentation to the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, which is referred to 38 years later in this presentation to the House of Commons, available at this link.

Video 10) Title: AODA Alliance Opening Presentation to the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology regarding Bill C-81, the proposed Accessible Canada Act

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FERCAljHbrw&feature=em-uploademail

Description: Opening presentation by Osgoode Hall Law School visiting professor and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on April 11, 2019 to the Standing Committee of the Senate of Canada regarding Bill C-81, the proposed Accessible Canada Act. Following this opening statement, and statements by two other organizations, the Senators asked questions of the presenters, available here.

Related resources:

AODA Alliance’s brief to the House of Commons on Bill C-81 (September 27, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s brief to the Senate on proposed amendments to Bill C-81 (March 29, 2019)
Open letter (October 2018) to the House of Commons
Open letter (May 2019) to the Federal Government on passing the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-81
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human
Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (October 25, 2018)
Transcript of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (October 25, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs (April 11, 2019)
Bill C-81 as introduced at first reading on June 20, 2018
Bill C-81 as passed by the House of Commons on November 27, 2018
Final version of Bill C-81 (June 21, 2019) C-81 as passed by the Senate and then ratified by the House of Commons
Briefs submitted to the House of Commons on Bill C-81 by various organizations
AODA Alliance’s call for Parliament to pass a new bill to strengthen the ACA (November 18, 2019)
For a contrast, see the video of David Lepofsky’s December 12, 1980 presentation to the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, which is referred to 38 years later in this presentation to the House of Commons, available at this link.
Question and Answer between David Lepofsky and the Senate on April 11, 2020 about the need to strengthen the weak Bill C-81

Video 11) Title: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and Others’ Q&A on Bill C-81 At Senate Standing Committee

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr0fCtB_cyw

Description: Question and answer session with Senators who sit on the Senate’s Standing Committee on April 11, 2019 regarding Bill C-81, proposed Accessible Canada Act, available here. This came right after the opening statement by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and other organizations. David Lepofsky’s opening statement is available here.

Related resources:

AODA Alliance’s brief to the House of Commons on Bill C-81 (September 27, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s brief to the Senate on proposed amendments to Bill C-81 (March 29, 2019)
Open letter (October 2018) to the House of Commons
Open letter (May 2019) to the Federal Government on passing the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-81
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human
Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (October 25, 2018)
Transcript of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (October 25, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs (April 11, 2019)
Bill C-81 as introduced at first reading on June 20, 2018
Bill C-81 as passed by the House of Commons on November 27, 2018
Final version of Bill C-81 (June 21, 2019) C-81 as passed by the Senate and then ratified by the House of Commons
Briefs submitted to the House of Commons on Bill C-81 by various organizations
AODA Alliance’s call for Parliament to pass a new bill to strengthen the ACA (November 18, 2019)
For a contrast, see the video of David Lepofsky’s December 12, 1980 presentation to the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, which is referred to 38 years later in this presentation to the House of Commons, available at this link.
Question and Answer between David Lepofsky and the Senate on April 11, 2020 about the need to strengthen the weak Bill C-81

Video 12) Title: CTV Your morning- Does Canada’s Accessibility Legislation Go Far Enough?

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1_iqbrqJkY&t=12s

Description: 3-minute appearance by Osgoode Hall Law School visiting professor and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on CTV national television’s morning program “Your Morning” after Bill C-81, the proposed Accessible Canada Act, had been passed by Canada’s House of Commons and before it was to be debated by Canada’s Senate. Lepofsky summarizes in three minutes why Bill C-81needed to be strengthened.

Related resources:

AODA Alliance’s brief to the House of Commons on Bill C-81 (September 27, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s brief to the Senate on proposed amendments to Bill C-81 (March 29, 2019)
Open letter (October 2018) to the House of Commons
Open letter (May 2019) to the Federal Government on passing the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-81
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human
Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (October 25, 2018)
Transcript of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (October 25, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs (April 11, 2019)
Bill C-81 as introduced at first reading on June 20, 2018
Bill C-81 as passed by the House of Commons on November 27, 2018
Final version of Bill C-81 (June 21, 2019) C-81 as passed by the Senate and then ratified by the House of Commons
Briefs submitted to the House of Commons on Bill C-81 by various organizations
AODA Alliance’s call for Parliament to pass a new bill to strengthen the ACA (November 18, 2019)
For a contrast, see the video of David Lepofsky’s December 12, 1980 presentation to the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, which is referred to 38 years later in this presentation to the House of Commons, available at this link.
Question and Answer between David Lepofsky and the Senate on April 11, 2020 about the need to strengthen the weak Bill C-81

Video 13) Title: March 19, 2024 – Testimony by AODA Alliance Chair on Horrific Barriers Experienced by Air Passengers with Disabilities

Link to Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5EV5zJTDDI

Description: In the first quarter of 2024, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities held hearings on what the Federal Government must do to ensure that Canadian airlines stop their recurring serious mistreatment of air passengers with disabilities. At its March 19, 2024, hearings in Ottawa, the Standing Committee invited experts to testify, including AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. This video includes his opening statement, and the question and answer exchanges that Members of Parliament on the Standing Committee had with David Lepofsky.

Related resources:

The AODA Alliance’s March 19, 2024 news release.
The AODA Alliances March 18, 2024 brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport.
The AODA Alliance’s November 9, 2023 response to limited measures that Air Canada announced in the fall of 2023 to address recurring mistreatment of passengers with disabilities.
The March 19, 2024 report in the Canadian Press.
2024 Final Report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
The AODA Alliance website’s Canada page and transportation page.

Video 14) Title: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s October 1, 2024 House of Commons testimony Accessible Canada Act 5-year review

Link to Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F9X28Oz6c8

Description: Opening remarks and answers to MPs’ questions by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky during his October 1, 2024 testimony at the House of Commons of Canada Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Parliament was conducting its mandatory 5-year review of the Accessible Canada Act.

Related resources:

September 29, 2024 AODA Alliance brief to the House of Commons for its 5-year review of the Accessible Canada Act.
The AODA Alliance’s October 1, 2024 news release.
Text of the Accessible Canada Act.
Discussion Paper on what the Accessible Canada Act should include, published in the National Journal of Constitutional Law
AODA Alliance brief to the Parliament of Canada requesting amendments to Bill C-81, the proposed Bill C-81 (September 27, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s brief to the Senate on proposed amendments to Bill C-81 (March 29, 2019)
AODA Alliance supplemental brief to Senate Standing Committee on Bill C-81
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (October 25, 2018)
AODA Alliance’s presentation on Bill C-81 to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs (April 11, 2019)
AODA Alliance website’s Canada page, which details key advocacy efforts since 2015 on the Accessible Canada Act.

New Video Series on Tearing Down Disability Barriers in Transportation

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Link to video: https://youtu.be/y32XvjWmDAQ

TikTok @AODAAlliance

New Video Series on Tearing Down Disability Barriers in Transportation

February 8, 2026

SUMMARY

Transportation services in Canada are replete with disability barriers. These make it harder for passengers with disabilities to use airlines, passenger trains, conventional municipal public transit (like subways, buses and streetcars) and paratransit public transit systems that are intended to serve the needs of passengers with disabilities who cannot access conventional transit services due to their accessibility barriers.

How do transportation services impede passengers with disabilities? Why is the situation in some cases getting worse? What is the content of the fundamental duty to accommodate people with disabilities, including transportation passengers with disabilities?

Here is a series of captioned videos that all address this important subject. We have made these videos public in the past. However, for the first time, we are compiling them together in a handy and easy-to-use package.

The videos in this series highlight AODA Alliance’s ongoing advocacy to make transportation accessible, including as an example, the Toronto transit system TTC (Canada’s largest public transit provider). This includes, among other things, major highlights of the winning 2005 and 2007 human rights cases requiring Toronto Transit Commission to audibly announce all bus and streetcar stops.

These videos are all public. They can be used by the media, by schools and post-secondary course instructors and teachers, and by anyone else interested in these issues. We hope that this video series will interest anyone concerned with disability rights, human rights, social justice and activism, community organizing, public law, constitutional law, anti-discrimination law and policy, urban planning, history, or political science. We welcome your feedback on these videos. Send your feedback on these videos to aodafeedback@gmail.com.

This update first gives a short listing of the videos in this series. After that, each video is described in more detail, with helpful links to additional information and background relative to each video.

Check out the many other videos that the AODA Alliance has posted by visiting the AODA Alliance website videos page, including a growing list of video series like this on other accessibility topics. You can learn all about the AODA Alliance’s campaign to make public transit accessible to passengers with disabilities by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s transportation page.

Quick Guide

Introduction to the Duty to Accommodate People with Disabilities

Ontario’s Slow Progress Toward Fully Accessible Transportation for People with Disabilities -The Challenge of Getting Accessibility Barriers in Ontario’s Transportation System Removed and Prevented

Using the Ontario Human Rights Code to Force the Toronto Transit commission to Reliably Announce all Bus & Subway Stops for Blind Riders – Lepofsky v TTC

David Lepofsky September 8, 1994 Interview on CBC Radio Toronto Metro Morning Re Toronto Transit Commission Not Announcing Subway Stops

David Lepofsky December 9, 1994 Interview on CBC Radio Toronto Metro Morning Re Toronto Transit Commission Agreeing to Announce Subway Stops

Audio David Lepofsky January 16, 2006 Interview on CBC Radio Toronto Metro Morning Re Need for Toronto Transit Commission to Audibly Announce All Bus and Streetcar Stops

TTC Chair Howard Moscoe January 17, 2006 Interview on CBC Radio Toronto Metro Morning Re David Lepofsky’s Case Calling for Toronto Transit Commission to Audibly Announce All Bus and Streetcar Stops

July 26, 2007 CBC Radio Metro Morning Interview with Toronto Transit Commission Chair Adam Giambrone on the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Ruling in Lepofsky v. TTC #2 Requiring TTC to Announce All Bus and Streetcar Stops

David Lepofsky July 27, 2007 Interview on CBC Radio Toronto Metro Morning Re Winning Human Rights Case requiring Toronto Transit Commission to Audibly Announce All Bus and Streetcar Stops

Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (Short Version)

Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (Long Version)

Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (2 Minute Version)

Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (4 Minute Version)

March 19, 2024 – Testimony by AODA Alliance Chair on Horrific Barriers Experienced by Air Passengers with Disabilities

Detailed Guide

Video 1) Title: Introduction to the Duty to Accommodate People with Disabilities

Related resources:

The Ontario Human Rights Code.

Video 2) Title: Ontario’s Slow Progress Toward Fully Accessible Transportation for People with Disabilities -The Challenge of Getting Accessibility Barriers in Ontario’s Transportation System Removed and Prevented

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guOau7bfd7Q&feature=share&list=PLDGgB77j2ZYrl_rtpe32nSjOXfrDAGvnn&index=5

Description: In this captioned January 23, 2014 lecture to the Policy Course in York University’s Critical Disabilities Studies program taught by Prof. Rachel Gorman, David Lepofsky provides an in-depth exploration of the gains made and obstacles encountered in grassroots disability community efforts to use the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005 to tear down barriers impeding persons with disabilities in Ontario when seeking to use transportation services like public transit or taxis.

Related resources:

To download in MS Word format the May 28, 2007 initial proposal for a Transportation Accessibility Standard that the Transportation Standards Development Committee recommended, visit this link.
To read the AODA Alliance’s August 13, 2007 brief on the initial proposal for a Transportation Accessibility Standard, visit this link.
To read the final proposed Transportation Accessibility Standard that the Transportation Standards Development committee recommended to the Ontario Government early in 2009, visit this link.
To read the AODA Alliance’s April 8, 2009 brief to the Ontario Government on the Transportation Standards Development Committee’s final proposal for a Transportation Accessibility Standard under the AODA, visit this link.
To download and read the AODA Alliance’s March 11, 2011 final brief to the Ontario Government on the proposed 2011 Integrated Accessibility Standard Regulation (which included transportation accessibility requirements), visit this link.
To download and read the Integrated Accessibility Standard Regulation enacted on June 3, 2011 under the AODA, including requirements for transportation accessibility, visit this link.

Video 3) Title: Using the Ontario Human Rights Code to Force the Toronto Transit commission to Reliably Announce all Bus & Subway Stops for Blind Riders – Lepofsky v TTC

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV_yG-fchNk&feature=share&list=PLDGgB77j2ZYrl_rtpe32nSjOXfrDAGvnn&index=6

Description: In his captioned January 24, 2014 lecture to Osgoode Hall Law School’s Disability Rights Intensive course taught by Prof. Roxanne Mykitiuk and Marion MacGregor, David Lepofsky describes his 13-year saga to force the Toronto Transit Commission to audibly announce all subway, bus and streetcar routes to accommodate the needs of blind passengers like himself. This included his 2 discrimination cases at Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal against the TTC, Lepofsky v. TTC #1 (2005) and Lepofsky v. TTC #2 (2007).

Related resources:

The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #1 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all subway stops) include:
- Interim Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated April 18, 2005: Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 12 (CanLII) available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated June 30, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 20 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 7, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- TTC, 2005 HRTO 21 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated September 29, 2005: Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Lepofsky, 2005 HRTO 36 (CanLII) available at this link.
The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #2 2007 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all bus and street car stops) include:
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 26, 2007: Lepofsky v. TTC, 2007 HRTO 23 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated November 21, 2007: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2007 HRTO 41 (CanLII), available at this link.

Video 4) Title: David Lepofsky September 8, 1994 Interview on CBC Radio Toronto Metro Morning Re Toronto Transit Commission Not Announcing Subway Stops

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88pRenlYpJQ (Audio only)

Description: In this captioned radio interview on CBC Toronto Radio’s flagship morning public affairs program “Metro Morning”, by host Matt Maychak, David Lepofsky (then a 37 year old lawyer) explained by blind subway passengers like him need the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) to audibly announce all subway stops. TTC official Gerry Brolley explained why TTC refused to direct subway crews to announce each subway stop. This interview kicked off a 13-year saga that ended up with David Lepofsky winning two cases against TTC, Lepofsky v. TTC #1 and Lepofsky v. TTC #2, forcing TTC to audibly announce all subway, bus and streetcar stops. This video became an exhibit in Lepofsky v. TTC #1 2005, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario case that ordered TTC to consistently and reliably announce all subway stops.

Related resources:

The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #1 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all subway stops) include:
- Interim Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated April 18, 2005: Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 12 (CanLII) available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated June 30, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 20 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 7, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- TTC, 2005 HRTO 21 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated September 29, 2005: Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Lepofsky, 2005 HRTO 36 (CanLII) available at this link.
The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #2 2007 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all bus and street car stops) include:
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 26, 2007: Lepofsky v. TTC, 2007 HRTO 23 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated November 21, 2007: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2007 HRTO 41 (CanLII), available at this link.

Video 5) Title: David Lepofsky December 9, 1994 Interview on CBC Radio Toronto Metro Morning Re Toronto Transit Commission Agreeing to Announce Subway Stops

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJQQvz8VFqk (Audio only)

Description: In this captioned radio interview on CBC Toronto Radio’s flagship morning public affairs program “Metro Morning”, by host Matt Maychak on December 9, 1994, David Lepofsky (then a 37 year old lawyer) appeared together with senior Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) official Gerry Brolley to announce that starting in 1995, TTC subway crews would audibly announce all subway stops. Unfortunately, those announcements did not turn out to be consistent and reliable. Therefore, David Lepofsky ended up having to bring human rights cases before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to force TTC to ensure that these announcements were consistent and reliable. This interview was introduced as an exhibit in David Lepofsky v. TTC #1, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario case dealing with the right to subway stop announcements for blind passengers. After winning that case, Lepofsky had to bring a second case, Lepofsky v. TTC #2, to force TTC to consistently and reliably announce all bus and streetcar stops.

Related resources:

The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #1 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all subway stops) include:
- Interim Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated April 18, 2005: Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 12 (CanLII) available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated June 30, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 20 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 7, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- TTC, 2005 HRTO 21 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated September 29, 2005: Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Lepofsky, 2005 HRTO 36 (CanLII) available at this link.
The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #2 2007 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all bus and street car stops) include:
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 26, 2007: Lepofsky v. TTC, 2007 HRTO 23 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated November 21, 2007: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2007 HRTO 41 (CanLII), available at this link.

Video 6) Title: Audio David Lepofsky January 16, 2006 Interview on CBC Radio Toronto Metro Morning Re Need for Toronto Transit Commission to Audibly Announce All Bus and Streetcar Stops

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89ntIUkI5YI (Audio only)

Description: In this captioned radio interview (audio only) on CBC Toronto Radio’s flagship morning public affairs program “Metro Morning” by host Andy Barrie on January 16, 2006, David Lepofsky (then a 49 year old lawyer) explained why he was taking the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario for the second time, this time to force it to have TTC drivers announce all bus and streetcar stops. This is an accommodation needed by TTC passengers who are blind, like Lepofsky. In 2005, in Lepofsky v. TTC #1, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled that TTC was required by the Ontario Human Rights Code to consistently and reliably announce all subway stops. Despite that ruling, TTC refused to require its bus and streetcar drivers to announce all bus and streetcar stops. Therefore, Lepofsky had to bring this second case. This interview was introduced by Lepofsky as an exhibit in Lepofsky v. TTC #2.

Related resources:

The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #1 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all subway stops) include:
- Interim Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated April 18, 2005: Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 12 (CanLII) available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated June 30, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 20 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 7, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- TTC, 2005 HRTO 21 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated September 29, 2005: Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Lepofsky, 2005 HRTO 36 (CanLII) available at this link.
The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #2 2007 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all bus and street car stops) include:
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 26, 2007: Lepofsky v. TTC, 2007 HRTO 23 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated November 21, 2007: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2007 HRTO 41 (CanLII), available at this link.

Video 7) Title: TTC Chair Howard Moscoe January 17, 2006 Interview on CBC Radio Toronto Metro Morning Re David Lepofsky’s Case Calling for Toronto Transit Commission to Audibly Announce All Bus and Streetcar Stops

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOwf38DlgBs (Audio only)

Description: In this captioned radio interview (audio only) on CBC Toronto Radio’s flagship morning public affairs program “Metro Morning” by host Andy Barrie on January 17, 2006, Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) chair Howard Moscoe responded to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario claim by David Lepofsky (then a 49 year old lawyer) to force it to have TTC drivers announce all bus and streetcar stops. This is an accommodation needed by TTC passengers who are blind, like Lepofsky. The day before, Metro Morning interviewed David Lepofsky on this issue. This interview begins with audience feedback from several listeners to Lepofsky’s case. In 2005, in Lepofsky v. TTC #1, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled that TTC was required by the Ontario Human Rights Code to consistently and reliably announce all subway stops. Despite that ruling, TTC refused to require its bus and streetcar drivers to announce all bus and streetcar stops. Therefore, Lepofsky had to bring this second case. This interview was introduced by Lepofsky as an exhibit in Lepofsky v. TTC #2.

Related resources:

The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #1 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all subway stops) include:
- Interim Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated April 18, 2005: Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 12 (CanLII) available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated June 30, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 20 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 7, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- TTC, 2005 HRTO 21 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated September 29, 2005: Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Lepofsky, 2005 HRTO 36 (CanLII) available at this link.
The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #2 2007 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all bus and street car stops) include:
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 26, 2007: Lepofsky v. TTC, 2007 HRTO 23 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated November 21, 2007: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2007 HRTO 41 (CanLII), available at this link.

Video 8) Title: July 26, 2007 CBC Radio Metro Morning Interview with Toronto Transit Commission Chair Adam Giambrone on the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Ruling in Lepofsky v. TTC #2 Requiring TTC to Announce All Bus and Streetcar Stops

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNlh_W82Cks (Audio only)

Description: CBC Radio Toronto’s afternoon drive-home show “Here and Now” on July 26, 2007 included an interview (audio only and captioned) by host Karen Horsman with Toronto City council member and Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Adam Giambrone on the ruling that day by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in Lepofsky v. TTC #2. In that case, the Tribunal ruled that TTC violated the human rights of blind TTC passenger David Lepofsky because it did not require its bus and streetcar drivers to audibly announce all bus and streetcar stops. In this interview, the TTC chair gave his response to the ruling that day against the TTC.

Related resources:

The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #1 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all subway stops) include:
- Interim Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated April 18, 2005: Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 12 (CanLII) available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated June 30, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 20 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 7, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- TTC, 2005 HRTO 21 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated September 29, 2005: Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Lepofsky, 2005 HRTO 36 (CanLII) available at this link.
The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #2 2007 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all bus and street car stops) include:
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 26, 2007: Lepofsky v. TTC, 2007 HRTO 23 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated November 21, 2007: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2007 HRTO 41 (CanLII), available at this link.

Video 9) Title: David Lepofsky July 27, 2007 Interview on CBC Radio Toronto Metro Morning Re Winning Human Rights Case requiring Toronto Transit Commission to Audibly Announce All Bus and Streetcar Stops

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-waaqE5Uyw (Audio only)

Description: In this captioned radio interview (audio only) on CBC Toronto Radio’s flagship morning public affairs program “Metro Morning” by host Jane Hawtin, on July 27, 2007, David Lepofsky (then a 50 year old lawyer) discussed his victory before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in his second case against the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Earlier, in 2005, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled in Lepofsky v. TTC #1 that TTC must consistently and reliably announce all subway stops to accommodate blind passengers like Lepofsky. This interview addresses the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ‘s ruling in Lepofsky v. TTC #2 that TTC must also consistently and reliably announce all bus and streetcar stations.

Related resources:

The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #1 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all subway stops) include:
- Interim Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated April 18, 2005: Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 12 (CanLII) available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated June 30, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 20 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 7, 2005: Lepofsky v.
- TTC, 2005 HRTO 21 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated September 29, 2005: Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Lepofsky, 2005 HRTO 36 (CanLII) available at this link.
The various rulings in Lepofsky v. TTC #2 2007 (regarding the effort to get TTC to audibly announce all bus and street car stops) include:
- Interim Order of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated July 26, 2007: Lepofsky v. TTC, 2007 HRTO 23 (CanLII), available at this link.
- Final Decision of Hon. Alvin B. Rosenberg dated November 21, 2007: Lepofsky v.
- Toronto Transit Commission, 2007 HRTO 41 (CanLII), available at this link.

Video 10) Title: Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (Short Version)

Link to video: https://youtu.be/za1UptZq82o

Related resources:

Video 11) Title: Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (Long Version)

Link to video: https://youtu.be/2VZLGGfFg1g

Description: AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky guides you through accessibility problems in a series of new and renovated public transit stations in Ontario. These show Ontario’s accessibility laws and Building Code are too weak and that design professionals need better accessibility training. This video has been used to alert senior public officials in Government and public transit, and design professionals, about the need to design the built environment to be fully accessible, well beyond what is required under the Ontario Building Code and current inadequate Ontario accessibility standards. This 30 minute video is the most detailed version. It is also available in very condensed 2 minute, 4 minute versions and in a 16 minute version.

Related resources:

Video 12) Title: Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (2 Minute Version)

Link to video: https://youtu.be/y7111_apq48

Description: AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky guides you through accessibility problems in a series of new and renovated public transit stations in Ontario. These show Ontario’s accessibility laws and Building Code are too weak and that design professionals need better accessibility training. Longer versions of this video have been used to alert senior public officials in Government and public transit, and design professionals, about the need to design the built environment to be fully accessible, well beyond what is required under the Ontario Building Code and current inadequate Ontario accessibility standards. This video is also available in 4 minute, 16 minute and 30 minute versions.

Related resources:

Video 13) Title: Accessibility Problems at New Toronto Area Public Transit Stations (4 Minute Version)

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrk5jRYpmfA&feature=youtu.be

Description: AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky guides you through accessibility problems in a series of new and renovated public transit stations in Ontario. These show Ontario’s accessibility laws and Building Code are too weak and that design professionals need better accessibility training. This video has been used to alert senior public officials in Government and public transit, and design professionals, about the need to design the built environment to be fully accessible, well beyond what is required under the Ontario Building Code and current inadequate Ontario accessibility standards. This video is also available in a very condensed 2-minute version, as well as more detailed 16 and 30 minute versions.

Related resources:

Video 14) Title: March 19, 2024 – Testimony by AODA Alliance Chair on Horrific Barriers Experienced by Air Passengers with Disabilities

Link to Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5EV5zJTDDI

Related resources:

The AODA Alliance’s March 19, 2024 news release.
The AODA Alliances March 18, 2024 brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport.
The AODA Alliance’s November 9, 2023 response to limited measures that Air Canada announced in the fall of 2023 to address recurring mistreatment of passengers with disabilities.
The March 19, 2024 report in the Canadian Press.
2024 Final Report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
The AODA Alliance website’s Canada page and transportation page.

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s Latest Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Urges Parents of Students with Disabilities to Ask Their School Board’s Student and Family Support Office to Ensure Their Child’s Disability is Accommodated at School

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s Latest Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Urges Parents of Students with Disabilities to Ask Their School Board’s Student and Family Support Office to Ensure Their Child’s Disability is Accommodated at School

February 4, 2026

SUMMARY

We bring you AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s January 2026 column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications around Ontario. It got published now, in early February. Either way, we hope you like it. It emphasizes the challenges that parents of students with disabilities/special education needs will face using the new school board Student and Family Support Office opened at the five boards that the Ford Government seized control of last June.

How You Can Help

Share this guest column with any parents of students with disabilities/special education needs you know.

Encourage schools to circulate it.

Write a letter to the editor of the Metroland papers. Commend Metroland for providing this column. Write them at thenewsroom@metroland.com

Join the Better Call Paul Campaign. Phone or email Education Minister Paul Calandra, and ask him to intervene to fix the problems facing your child with disabilities in an Ontario school. Phone: 416 325-2600 Email: edu@ontario.ca

Download and distribute our 1-page Better Call Paul brochure at this link.

MORE DETAILS

Inside Halton February 4, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.insidehalton.com/life/province-takes-over-school-boards/article_03c629d4-2679-513e-b20d-e6c0f50d18fd.html

Will Ontario’s New Office For Student Problems Help Those With Disabilities Or Add More Bureaucracy?

David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

Far too many of 350,000 Ontario students with disabilities face vexing disability barriers impeding them from equally benefitting from education at school.

The province mandated an avenue for families of any students in K-12 schools to solve their child’s problems at school — a Student and Family Support Office. We urge parents to utilize it at the five school boards where it is available. Contact information is on those board websites. In September, other Ontario boards must offer this.

I fear this could be smoke and mirrors.

Last June, Education Minister Paul Calandra seized five school boards — including Toronto, and Ottawa-Carleton — dismissing elected trustees and appointing supervisors who report to him. Since then, he’s taken over the Near North, Peel District and York Catholic boards.

Last November, disability advocates held a news conference criticizing the ousting of trustees. Advocates had argued trustees were the final recourse for families seeking disability accommodations, prompting the ministry to create a new avenue for dispute resolution.

Just days later, Calandra ordered all boards to establish a student and family support office.

Calandra ordered a swift timeline to respond to complaints but provided no new funding for these offices. Remember, Ford seized boards like Toronto’s because they had budget deficits. With no new provincial funding, Calandra’s orders could swell those deficits.

It’s unclear if these offices have the authority needed to fix students’ problems. Making this worse, we fear these offices lack enough staff. TDSB reportedly only has two staff to answer calls, yet TDSB has 250,000 students and at least 40,000 have disabilities.

Utterly missing in Calandra’s announcement were measures needed for vulnerable students with disabilities. The province hasn’t enacted any of the 2022 recommendations from the government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. I was on that committee.

TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC), which I chair, gave TDSB recommendations about what this office needs to include. None were implemented.

Student and Family Support Offices are not a replacement for elected trustees. All families, especially those with students with disabilities, need both.

The law requires these new offices to effectively accommodate disability-related needs of parents with disabilities who contact them for help. Yet their websites haven’t offered this.

Also missing was an assurance that office staff have expertise in teaching students with disabilities. We’re wondering if these offices proactively solve problems, or simply repeat to the parents the reasons already given by the school for not solving their problem. It would be great if staff seek new solutions. If they are another layer of bureaucracy defending the status quo, they will harmfully add to parents’ frustration.

To be transparent, boards should make public how many requests for help pertained to students with disabilities, what the essence of the complaints were, without using anyone’s names, how many were about understaffing, and what percentage were solved.

These offices can get complaints from any family about any issue — serious disability concerns or a parent objecting that their child didn’t make the volleyball team. The needs of students with disabilities risk being lost in the shuffle.

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance created tips for parents wanting to contact their support office. It is asking parents to send feedback to aodafeedback@gmail.com.

Blizzard of Media Coverage About Human-Created Snow Mountains After Mega-Blizzard

The 8th Episode of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast is Now Available, Diving into More About the Huge Advocacy Drive in Ontario by Parents of Children with Autism

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

The 8^th Episode of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast is Now Available, Diving into More About the Huge Advocacy Drive in Ontario by Parents of Children with Autism

January 30, 2026

SUMMARY

The 8^th Episode is Out!

The 8^th and latest episode of Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast was released today. Check it out! It’s entitled “Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign Part 2. ” It features guest autism advocate Bruce McIntosh, a board member and originally the founding president of the grassroots Ontario Autism Coalition. Part 1 of this discussion was the focus of the third episode of the podcast last fall. In Part 2, Bruce McIntosh’s discussion with host David Lepofsky resumes their discussion of how targeted advocacy resulted in policy change for provincial funding of autism therapies. This second part talks about the very high and very low points in this campaign especially over the past ten years.

You can enjoy this episode without having first heard Part 1 of the discussion in Episode 3, but we encourage you to listen to both episodes.

Here’s the Correct Link to Watch Our January 28, 2026 Queen’s Park News Conference – We Earlier Sent You the Wrong Link

Heck, nobody’s perfect! In the January 29, 2026 AODA Alliance news release, we accidently gave the wrong link to watch the archived video of the important January 28, 2026 Queen’s Park news conference convened by the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and Ontario Parents for Education Support. Here is the Correct link, we promise! https://youtu.be/mwcDtHMDVIE

It is really worth a watch. Our volunteers in the coming days will work to improve the closed captions.

More About the Podcast

Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast takes listeners to the front lines of disability rights advocacy. We delve into advocacy incidents and battles of all sorts. Some were waged by individuals and others by groups and organizations. We extract action tips on how to be an effective advocate, whether you are advocating on a disability issue or any social justice issue.

You will enjoy these stories whether or not you ever thought you’d have to advocate on a disability issue. In fact, at some point in everyone’s life, they will have do this, since everyone is bound to eventually get a disability as they age, if not sooner. Episodes are designed to be informative for listeners anywhere in the world, and not just in Canada where the podcast is based. We have listeners spread in countries all around the world.

New episodes come out every third Friday. Earlier episodes include:

“The 12 Year Fight for Automated Stop Announcements on the TTC” about Lepofsky’s long struggle to make transit in Toronto accessible for blind riders” with host David Lepofsky.
“Beyond Building Codes: Designing Spaces for Everyone”” with guest built environment accessible design expert Thea Kurdi
“Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign” covering how targeted advocacy resulted in policy change for autism therapies.” With guest autism advocate Bruce McIntosh.
“Turning Barriers into Headlines: Practical Tips from a Veteran News Reporter” with former journalist Michelle McQuigge.
“How to get a Politician’s Attention” Parts 1 and 2 with the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, former Ontario Premier.
Airline Accessibility: How Maayan Ziv Turned a Mangled Wheelchair Into Real Change

You can find this podcast on the major podcast platforms.

Apple music: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/disability-rights-and-wrongs-the-david-lepodcast/id1838700161

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5WFLiSy99OJPMZ1ZSrkWCg

Why not ask your smart phone, Alexa, or Google Nest:

“Play podcast ‘Disability Rights and Wrongs!’”

How You Can Help

Help us grow the audience for this podcast. Each new listener may become a new disability advocate! Most people only discover new podcasts when a friend or family member tells them about it. When you are talking to someone about it, and they sound interested, encourage them to take their smart phone out then and there. Get them to open a podcast app, search for “David Lepodcast” and subscribe! It is that easy. Otherwise, they can forget to subscribe.

Email us about the podcast. How did you like it? What did you learn from it? How did you hear about it? What other topics and guests should we include? Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

The Ford Government Now Directly Runs Schools Serving Over One Third of Ontario’s K-12 Students, but will Anything At Last Improve for 125,000 Students with Disabilities?

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Ford Government Now Directly Runs Schools Serving Over One Third of Ontario’s K-12 Students, but will Anything At Last Improve for 125,000 Students with Disabilities?

January 29, 2026 Toronto: Since the Ford Government seized control of the Peel District School Board yesterday, there are now as many as 700,000 students in Ontario-funded schools under the direct management of the Ford Government, without any locally elected trustees. That’s over one third of all students in Ontario-funded K-12 schools. Chat GPT estimated that of these, around 125,000 students with disabilities/special education needs are in schools that the Ford Government directly manages.

At a Queen’s Park news conference yesterday (held before the Ford Government seized the Peel District School Board), the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and Ontario Parents for Education Support revealed how things have been getting worse, not better for students with disabilities in Ontario schools, and especially those that the Ford Government now supervises. The recording of that news conference is now archived online. The January 28, 2026 news release issued by the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and Ontario Parents for Education Support details key points made at that news conference.

“With the Ford Government now running schools serving one third of Ontario’s K-12 students including 125,000 students with disabilities, we want to see whether Education Minister Calandra will at last start to do something to improve things for so many underserved and vulnerable students with a physical, mental health, learning, sensory, neurological, intellectual or other disability,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, who was one of the speaker’s at yesterday’s news conference. “Four years ago yesterday, the Ford Government received a comprehensive blueprint of what needs to be done, but they’ve enacted absolutely none of the recommendations of the expert committee that the Government appointed for that purpose.”

It increasingly appears that the Ford Government is conducting a creeping seizure of the entire Ontario school system, one board at a time. At yesterday’s news conference, the Government was called on to give organized parents of students with disabilities a seat at the table, if there is indeed any table, where it is deciding how the school system will be governed in the future.

For one third of Ontario’s students including one third of students with disabilities, the Ford Government now must itself confront its chronic underfunding of education for students with disabilities. It can no longer try to blame those boards’ elected trustees.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

For More Background

The January 28, 2022 final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.

A video explaining the K-12 Education Standards Development Committees final report and its blueprint for an accessible school system for students with disabilities.

The history of the AODA Alliance’s advocacy to tear down disability barriers in Ontario schools is documented on the AODA Alliance website’s education page

On Wrenching Anniversary of Ford Government Inaction, Advocates for Parents of Students with Disabilities Described Worsening Plight of Their Children in Ontario Schools and Demand Action At Queen’s Park News Conference`

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Ontario Autism Coalition

Ontario Parents for Education Support

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

On Wrenching Anniversary of Ford Government Inaction, Advocates for Parents of Students with Disabilities Described Worsening Plight of Their Children in Ontario Schools and Demand Action At Queen’s Park News Conference`

January 29, 2024 Toronto: This week marks a disturbing anniversary of Ford Government inaction when it comes to giving some of Ontario’s most vulnerable students a fair chance at school. Four years ago, the Ford Government received a comprehensive report by a committee of Government-appointed experts that revealed the many disability barriers permeating Ontario’s publicly funded schools, which hurt at least one third of a million students with physical, sensory,, intellectual, learning, mental health, neurological, communication and other disabilities. These accessibility barriers impede them from fully participating in, being fully included in, and fully benefitting from all that our K-12 school system has to offer. The report was prepared by the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, mandated under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

At a Queen’s Park news conference today, organizations that advocate for parents of students with disabilities sounded the alarm. The Ontario Autism Coalition, AODA Alliance and Ontario Parents for Educational Supports united to declare that in the intervening four years, things have not gotten better for these students. In key ways, they have gotten worse.

“In opposition, the Tories blasted the Kathleen Wynne Government for not enacting a much-needed Education Accessibility Standard under the Disabilities Act, but in power, they’ve dragged their feet on this for years and leave our kids to languish, while claiming to be doing a wonderful job,” said David Lepofsky, Chair of the nonpartisan grass roots AODA Alliance, which has led the fight since 2009 to get Ontario to enact the Education Accessibility Standard. “Premier Ford has been told what disability barriers are hurting students with disabilities and what he needs to enact to tear those barriers down.”

The final report of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee gave the Ford Government and Ontario’s 72 school boards a practical roadmap for how to remove those barriers and to prevent new ones from being created in the future. Among the many barriers in Ontario’s schools, the report found:

Many school buildings are not physically accessible, impeding students, teachers, staff and parents with physical disabilities.
Schools have arbitrary power to exclude students with disabilities from school outright, or only let them come to school part-time, with no real due process.
Digital learning technology used in schools too often lacks digital accessibility to ensure that students with disabilities can fully use and benefit from these learning tools.
The school system too often does a poor job of letting parents of students with disabilities know what programs, services and supports are available for their children and how to access them.
The education system is replete with rigid bureaucratic and administrative barriers that make it harder for schools to meet the needs of students with disabilities and create roadblocks for parents trying to advocate for the needs of their children in school.
Teachers and other educational staff too often lack sufficient training, if at all, in how to effectively teach all learners, including students with disabilities.

“Over the past four years, the Ford Government sat idly by while school boards continued creating new barriers and leaving existing barriers in place that hurt our kids,” said Bruce McIntosh, Ontario Autism Coalition board member and founding president. “Study after study has shown how too often, due to chronic provincial underfunding, so many of our kids are under-supported in school, or told to just stay home.”

“More than one quarter of the students in Ontario-funded schools are now directly run by the Education Minister, and not by elected trustees, so Doug Ford can’t blame anyone else for the problems that students with disabilities so often face at those boards,” said Julia Evangelisto, co-chair of Ontario Parents for Education Supports. “Having a paltry two staff in TDSB’s new Student and Family Support Office to answer issues from 250,000 students including 40,000 students with disabilities, is laughable for parents trying to navigate a cold and bewildering school board bureaucracy that is even harder to deal with since trustees were ousted.”

The Ford’s Government seizing control of six school boards has led to chaos at the top, with two Directors of Education already summarily fired. We’re left wondering why the Ford Government has subjected families to this chaos.

The Ford Government said it took over TDSB because the trustees passed a budget that had a deficit. Yet at the January 12, 2026 meeting of TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee (which David Lepofsky chaired) TDSB Budget Chief Craig Snider stated that seven months after a provincial Supervisor took over the Board, “…the budget itself for the 25-26 year remains the same.” Why Haven’t the trustees been restored to the positions to which they were elected?

At this news conference, an urgent call was made for these steps:

Enact the long overdue Education Accessibility Standard under the Disabilities Act.
Give school boards the budget they need to meet the needs of underserved students with disabilities.
Stop condemning all school board trustees across Ontario for the misconduct of two trustees at the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board, which the Ford Government has not taken control over. We wouldn’t talk about abolishing the entire Ontario Legislature if one cabinet minister was under a dark cloud because of an alleged spending scandal. When it comes to the trustee system, mend it don’t end it.
Give us and parents of students with disabilities a direct voice in any reforms to school board governance. A good start would be a meeting with Education Minister Paul Calandra.
Reverse any backsliding for students with disabilities that has taken place under the provincially-appointed Supervisors.

Contact: Bruce McIntosh 416-451-8315, bruce.mcintosh@ontarioautismcoalition.com

David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

Background:

January 12, 2026 meeting of the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee TDSB Budget Chief is asked whether the provincially-appointed Supervisor has imposed any budget cuts, and he confirms that TDSB continues to operate under the same budget that the elected trustees approved last spring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr25Tq4jTFg&t=0h30m4s

CBC’s “The National” Reports on the Fact that Some Major Stadiums Don’t Limit Their Accessible Seating to Patrons with Disabilities and People Accompanying Them

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

CBC’s “The National” Reports on the Fact that Some Major Stadiums Don’t Limit Their Accessible Seating to Patrons with Disabilities and People Accompanying Them

January 26, 2026

SUMMARY

Here is yet another serious and unfair disability barrier to accessible customer service in Canada that could easily be prevented. Inaction by provincial governments under their Disabilities Acts to solve this is inexcusable, as is the conduct of major event venues like some sports stadiums.

On January 25, 2026, CBC TV’s national newscast “The National” and the January 26, 2026 CBC National Radio newscast “World Report” each included an excellent segment calling out Vancouver’s Rogers Stadium for not ensuring that accessible seating is only sold to patrons with disabilities and those accompanying them. Below we set out the more detailed online story. CBC’s “Go Public” covered this. “Go Public” investigates consumer mistreatment stories that members of the public bring to CBC.

As regularly happens, CBC came to the AODA Alliance for input into this story once a member of the public had approached CBC with their accessibility problem. We are always happy to assist the media with on-air quotations or just background briefing. It is an important part of our volunteer non-partisan campaign for accessibility for people with disabilities.

The issue addressed here is certainly not a new one. On May 29, 2024, CFRB’s Deb Hutton show interviewed AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky about news reports about the very same issue when it came to a member of the public seeking tickets for accessible seating at the extremely-popular Taylor Swift concert in Toronto. CTV also reported on this ordeal on May 29, 2024. So this problem exists in Ontario and not just in British Columbia.

This is yet further proof that Ontarians with disabilities need the Ford Government to at long last strengthen the weak and limited Customer Service Accessibility Standard. It was enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act in 2007. It was revised by the Kathleen Wynne a decade ago, in June 2016. The AODA Alliance’s June 7, 2016 news release about those revisions bore the headline: “A Sad Game-Changer for 1.8 Million Ontarians with Disabilities – Premier Kathleen Wynne Breaks a Solemn Written Promise She Gave to People with Disabilities While Running for Ontario Liberal Leadership, to Never Weaken Any Protections We’d Won In or Under Ontario’s Disabilities Act.”

The Ford Government violated the AODA by failing to appoint a new Customer Service Standards Development Committee to review the Customer Service Accessibility Standard within five years of those 2016 revisions. It was belatedly appointed two years after that legal deadline. The September 29, 2023 AODA Alliance Update reported on this. Its headline was: “Ford Government Froze Out the AODA Alliance and Any Other Cross-Disability Coalition from Membership on the Only Two New Standards Development Committees it has Ever Appointed Under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.” On March 20, 2025, we submitted a detailed brief to the Customer Service Standards Development Committee.

It is our understanding that the Customer Service Standards Development Committee submitted its final report to the Ford Government. The AODA ss. 10 and 11 requires the Ford Government to make that final report public upon receiving it. The Ford Government has not made public the final report of the Customer Service Standards Development Committee.

This is another illustration of why Ontario is so far behind becoming accessible to people with disabilities, as the AODA requires.

How You Can Help

Email CBC to applaud their coverage of this disability barrier and encourage them to cover more of them. Write: cbcmediafeedback@cbc.ca

Email CBC’s “Go Public” to tell them about disability barriers you face in customer service. Give them any documents that show how you tried to get accessible customer service. Email them at: gopublic@cbc.ca

Do you want to learn more about how to take a disability story to the media? Listen to our new podcast Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast wherever you get podcasts. Listen especially to the 4^th episode: “Turning Barriers into Headlines: Practical Tips from a Veteran News Reporter” with former journalist Michelle McQuigge.

MORE DETAILS

CBC News January 26, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/gopublic/accessible-seating-abuse-9.7057214

Disabled man feels shut out of accessible seating as venues — including Rogers Arena — fail to stop abuse

Go Public found no proof was required to purchase or use accessible seating

Erica Johnson, Ana Komnenic CBC News

Michael Coss — who often requires a wheelchair — and his father Bob Coss, right, say they’ve overheard people bragging that they bought tickets to sit in an accessible seating area at sporting events, even though they had no disability. (Nicholas Allan/CBC)

A Langley, B.C., man who often relies on a wheelchair says he can rarely attend hockey games or concerts at Rogers Arena because seats are often taken by people who might not need them.

After a 2006 car accident, Michael Coss suffered a traumatic brain injury and spent six months in a coma. Despite daily physical therapy, he is at high risk of falling and uses a walker or wheelchair. He lives in a group home and says leisure activities are essential.

“It’s important for me to have a sense of normalcy,” said Coss. “To be able to enjoy simple things. Life can’t just be about rehab.”

The accessible sections at Rogers Arena might be considered prime seating areas. They’re designed for people to manoeuvre wheelchairs and other mobility devices, so there’s plenty of legroom, only one row of seating so no one is squeezing by to get to their seat, and chairs that can be pulled up for attendants or family and friends of those with disabilities. There’s often a ledge that provides a convenient spot for food and drinks.

Wide shot of accessible seating area showing people seated in chairs and one wheelchair

During a concert at Rogers Arena last fall, only two people out of 30 were in wheelchairs in this designated section for people with mobility challenges. (Erica Johnson/CBC)

Major venues across the country sell these designated accessible seats on the honour system — people simply have to tick a box saying they need the seats, and there’s no proof required.

Coss says that’s leading to abuse by many people he sees sitting in the section.

“No wheelchair. No cane,” he said. “That section should be for people with a physical or cognitive disability.”

Advocates say Coss’s experience reflects a broader problem: Those who abuse the system are leaving people who actually need the seats shut out and, and nobody — including venues, ticketsellers or the government — is stepping up to solve the problem.

‘They were bragging’

Michael’s father, Bob Coss, acknowledges that some disabilities are invisible. But says he was able to get tickets to a recent hockey game, where he overheard two men nearby, openly boasting about how easy it was to sit in the accessible section.

“They were bragging about being able to buy these tickets, even though they had no disability,” said Bob. “It’s not only frustrating; it is totally unacceptable.”

To investigate who is sitting in seats clearly designated for people with disabilities, Go Public purchased tickets at Rogers Arena for a concert directly behind an accessible section.

Of the 30 people seated, only two were in wheelchairs. One person had crutches. Everyone else walked in and out, with no indication of a mobility issue, although some may have had invisible disabilities — such as a physical, mental or neurological condition that isn’t obvious but significantly affects a person’s daily life.

When Go Public approached a woman walking out of the section, she said the section is intended for people who are in wheelchairs, but that anyone can buy tickets online. She then said she had fractured her foot.

Another man said quietly that he and his wife often purchase tickets in that section because there’s lots of room and the views are very good.

Rogers Arena cites ‘privacy’

The owners of Rogers Arena, Canucks Sports & Entertainment, told Go Public the venue uses an approach that upholds “the privacy and dignity of all fans” and that because some disabilities may not be formally documented, their goal is to be “respectful, fair, and inclusive.”

The spokesperson also said the seating is not limited to guests who use wheelchairs, despite a sign outside the section that explicitly states the area is for people requiring wheelchairs and other mobility aids.

“These spaces support fans who may be recovering from injuries, have difficulty navigating stairs, experience anxiety or mobility limitations, or live with temporary or invisible disabilities,” the spokesperson wrote.

But a disability rights advocate and retired lawyer says Rogers Arena — and other venues — could do much more to prevent abuse of the system.

“The claim they can’t do anything and just have to sell the ticket to whoever, is self-serving nonsense,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

“All it does is fail to fulfil their duty to accommodate.”

Legally, there’s nothing stopping a venue from asking for proof of a disability or medical issue that requires accessibility in order to ensure designated seating isn’t abused, said Lepofsky, but the venue can’t ask for details.

“It needs to be as limited as possible, and the information received must be treated as private,” he said.

Ticketmaster test

Go Public went online to test how accessible seating is sold at major venues using Ticketmaster across Canada — including Vancouver’s Rogers Arena, the Canada Life Centre in Winnipeg, Rogers Centre in Toronto and Scotiabank Centre in Halifax.

At every venue, buyers are asked to confirm someone in their party requires accessible seating, but no proof is required.

A Ticketmaster spokesperson said the company shares frustration over those abusing the system, but said “the law does not allow us to require proof of disability to preserve fans’ privacy.”

“What law?” asked Lepofsky. “It sounds like communications people coming up with excuses.”

Later, Ticketmaster said it agreed that requesting documentation from a health professional is not unlawful but might “raise concerns” around “dignity, autonomy, equal access, and privacy.”

However, in the U.K., Ticketmaster abides by a system that does require proof of disability at thousands of venues and events. Patrons submit documentation — medical letters or benefit records — to get what’s called a Nimbus Disability Access Card, which provides a unique registration number for online purchases and photo ID to present at events.

No such system exists in Canada.

A section on the ticketing giant’s website says people who abuse the system could have their tickets cancelled. When Go Public asked Ticketmaster how many times the company had cancelled orders in the past year, a spokesperson said that could not be tracked.

Similar to an accessible parking pass

Bob Coss says Canada not having a similar system to the U.K. is inexcusable, given that the status quo is not working.

He proposes a system similar to the current requirement to display a parking permit if you want to park in an accessible spot — where people would present a pass at the venue, showing they have a need for accessible seating.

The executive director of the B.C. Brain Injury Association, Janelle Breese Biagioni, says she supports the idea because it can be done quietly, “behind the scenes.”

“That’s not targeting people publicly to shame them … that’s assisting them,” she said. “That’s what accessibility is.”

She points out that people entering an accessible seating section have already self-identified as having a disability.

A spokesperson for Rogers Arena did not specifically address the idea of a pass, writing that the organization is “committed to exploring thoughtful solutions.”

Government doesn’t regulate accessible seating

Since disability rights are overseen by provincial governments, Lepofsky said it’s up to the B.C. government to ensure accessible seating is reserved for those who actually need it.

“Provincial regulations should be enacted to let obligated organizations know what they’re supposed to do,” said Lepofsky. “So people with disabilities don’t have to litigate these barriers one at a time.”

B.C.’s parliamentary secretary for accessibility, Dana Lajeunesse, said in a statement that it is “disheartening” when accessible seating isn’t used as intended, and that the government is “actively working” with the disability community to “strengthen clarity, training and accountability around accessible spaces.”

A spokesperson also said the ministry “does not currently regulate accessible seating for entertainment venues” — and when asked who might, referred further questions to Rogers Arena.

Lepofsky calls it all frustrating finger pointing.

“When individuals with disabilities who need accessible seating try to get the few seats that are available, they can run into this bureaucratic runaround,” he said. “Everybody blames everybody else.”

No one from the B.C. government, Canucks Sports & Entertainment or Ticketmaster agreed to an on-camera interview.

Still hoping to score seats

Michael Coss, who is a big Montreal Canadiens fan, dreams of attending an NHL playoff game.

Neither he nor his father is optimistic that if the team makes it that far, they’ll be able to score accessible seats, but they hope that speaking out will be a win for all people with physical disabilities.

“Michael does not have many opportunities in life to really enjoy himself,” Bob said. “Addressing this issue could bring awareness and encourage venues to prioritize those with genuine accessibility needs.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Erica Johnson

Investigative reporter

Erica Johnson is an award-winning investigative journalist. She hosted CBC’s consumer program Marketplace for 15 years, investigating everything from dirty hospitals to fraudulent financial advisors. As co-host of the CBC news segment Go Public, Erica continues to expose wrongdoing and hold corporations and governments to account.

Is TTC Consistently Announcing All Subway, Bus and Streetcar Stops? If Not, Let Us Know!

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Is TTC Consistently Announcing All Subway, Bus and Streetcar Stops? If Not, Let Us Know!

January 23, 2026

SUMMARY

Do you ever ride on the Toronto Transit Commission’s conventional system of subways (including light rail LRT lines), busses and streetcars? TTC is required to audibly announce every route stop on its entire transit network. This is so passengers with vision loss can know where they are and when they reach their desired stop.

For years, TTC has used an automated stop announcement system to make those announcements on its vehicles. If for any reason that automated system doesn’t announce stops, the streetcar, bus or train driver is required to themselves announce all stops. The required result is that every stop is audibly announced.

Have you ever been on a TTC vehicle when some or all of the route stops were not audibly announced? If this ever happens, please email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com to let us know. We will forward your email to the proper authorities.

MORE DETAILS

The TTC is required to announce all route stops on its surface and underground public transit vehicles to accommodate the needs of blind and low vision passengers. David Lepofsky had to fight two long and hotly-contested cases at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario two decades ago. He won both of them. In 2005, the Tribunal ordered TTC to consistently and reliably announce all subway stops in Lepofsky v. TTC#1.

Even after TTC resoundingly lost that case, it would not voluntarily agree to have its drivers announce all bus and streetcar stops. David Lepofsky had to fight a second human rights case. In 2007, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled that TTC must consistently and reliably announce all bus and streetcar stops.

In both cases, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario appointed an Official Monitor to oversee the TTC’s implementation of the orders that David Lepofsky won. That Official Monitor remains in place to this day, and has been very helpful.

If, for example, the Official Monitor is notified that TTC failed to announce some or all stops on a particular route and a specific day, the Official Monitor could get this investigated, and where needed, seek corrective action. TTC is also required to conduct monthly self-audits of its own system and report their rate of compliance to the Tribunal, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and to David Lepofsky.

From beginning to end, it took David Lepofsky 12 years to win this accommodation. He recounts this saga on the first full episode of the AODA Alliances new podcast: Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast. Check it out wherever you get your podcasts.

TTC put up a phenomenal fight in opposition to David Lepofsky. He filed a Freedom of Information application in 2007 to get copies of TTC’s legal bills. This revealed that TTC spent an extraordinary $450,000 of the taxpayers’ money on lawyers to oppose these two cases. Many found this shocking and appalling.

How You Can Help

If you are or have been on a bus, streetcar or subway (including the new Finch West LRT line) and some or all of the announcements were not made, please email aodafeedback@gmail.com and let us know. We will forward your email and its contents to the Official Monitor.
It would especially help if you can provide the date, approximate time, the TTC route where this happened, and approximate location. Even if you cannot give all those details, tell us what you can.
If you are on a TTC vehicle from now on and you notice a failure to announce some or all stops, it would be great if at all possible, if you can find out the vehicle number. If you are uncertain, ask the driver.
Feel free to talk to the driver. Ask why the route stops are not being called, and how long this has gone on and whether the driver had reported this to TTC.
The more information you provide, the better. This request is not only for your past experiences, but also if it happens any time after you read this update.
This request only concerns rides on the TTC, and not any other public transit system in Ontario. Other Ontario public transit systems must also announce all route stops according to the Transportation Accessibility Standard enacted in 2011 under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, but they are not under the auspices of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Official Monitor for TTC.

Post this Update and share it with friends and family. Get them to help us out.

CTV and City TV News Highlight Disability Concerns with the New School Board Student and Family Support Offices

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

CTV and City TV News Highlight Disability Concerns with the New School Board Student and Family Support Offices

January 21, 2026

SUMMARY

CTV TV News in London yesterday reported on some of the serious concerns with the opening of Student and Family Support Offices at five Ontario school boards yesterday. These issues were initially brought to the public’s attention by the January 19, 2026 AODA Alliance news release. You can read the CTV news report below or watch it online. The five boards required to have a new Student and Family Support Office are the Toronto District School Board, Toronto Catholic District School Board, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board and Thames Valley District School Board.

Our news release this past Monday revealed that by the close of office hours on January 19, 2026, one of the five school boards under the Ford Government’s direct supervision, the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB), had not complied with the Ford Government’s November 13, 2025 order. That order required five school boards under Ford Government direct supervision to publicly post information on how to contact their Student and Family Support Office by January 19, 2026. On January 21, 2026, we learned that the TVDSB had belatedly posted online the required information on how to contact its Student and Family Support Office.

As well, last night’s City TV Toronto news broadcast included a great report on the TDSB’s Student and Family Support Office. There is no web news text of that report so far. City TV revealed that to serve the families of 250,000 TDSB students, including 40,000 students with disabilities/special education needs, TDSB is staffing its Student and Family Support Office with a paltry two people.

Several important issues regarding the Student and Family Support Office have emerged, on which we wish to comment.

It would be wrong to think of these new Student and Family Support Offices as a replacement for school board trustees, as if Ontarians should think of either having Student and Family Support Offices or having elected trustees, but not both. All families, and especially those with students with disabilities/special education needs need both. The TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee has been pressing for years for such a new service to be established for students with disabilities/special education needs, well before there was any sense that the Ontario Government might oust the elected trustees as that school board.

It is essential that these new Student and Family Support Offices are equipped to effectively accommodate the disability-related needs of parents of students who contact them for help regarding their child and that they convey this to the public. Any number of parents with disabilities may not know much about the school boards duty to accommodate parents with disabilities under the Charter of Rights, the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

These Offices should proactively offer anyone calling them with disability accommodations if needed. So far, none of the web pages at the five school boards in questions have done this.

This is especially shocking since they are all being run directly by the Ford Government. Their elected trustees were ousted. The Ford Government appointed provincial Supervisors who report directly to the Minister of Education Paul Calandra.

It is vital that these Student and Family Support Offices keep reliable records of the calls and contacts they receive, the nature of the problems raised, and whether they were resolved. Each board should periodically make public a summary of these, without any individual names or details that could invade anyone’s privacy. For example, it would be helpful to know how many requests for help pertained to students with disabilities/special education needs, what the essence of the complaints were (i.e. how many were about the lack of an educational assistant), and what percentage were resolved. So far, the Ford Government has been silent about this. TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee pressed senior board official to commit to this at the recent January 12, 2026 SEAC meeting.

A critical question which has been raised by the AODA Alliance and the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee has been whether these Student and Family Support Offices will actually work on proactively solving these problems, or whether they will simply repeat to the parents who contact them the reasons given in the past by the student’s teacher, principal or superintendent for not solving the parents’ concerns. If these new Student and Family Support Offices provide a venue for rethinking the problem and seeing if there are solutions that the teacher, principal or superintendent did not find, these offices could be very beneficial. If they are just another layer of bureaucracy for defending the status quo no matter what the circumstances, these offices will just wastefully add to parents’ enormous sense of frustration.

There is ample room to be worried, from the perspective of students with disabilities/special education needs. Here’s why:

As far as we can tell from its public announcements and from revelations at the January 12, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee meeting (which is available online thanks to the Ontario Autism Coalition), the Ford Government is not taking steps to ensure that those working in these Student and Family Support Offices have the required expertise in the educational needs of students with disabilities/special education needs.

As noted earlier, the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee has been trying for years to get senior TDSB staff to establish some sort of service for students with disabilities/special education needs akin to what is now mandated for all students at these Student and Family Support Offices. TDSB senior staff were vehemently opposed to this. We can have no confidence that their rejection of this idea has somehow vanished just because Education Minister Paul Calandra has ordered these school boards to open these Student and Family Support Offices. To succeed, these offices need to be welcomed within the school board bureaucracy, and especially at the highest levels.

These Student and Family Support Offices will be able to receive complaints from any family about any issue. They are not limited to students with disabilities. That means that the serious concerns brought forward by parents of students with disabilities about the chronic systemic disability barriers they face will be in the same lineup as a parent who is upset that their child did not make the desired volleyball team, or get the role in the school play they wanted. As has been the historic pattern for students with disabilities in the school system, there is a well-founded fear of too often getting lost in the shuffle.

How You Can Help

If you have a child with disabilities at one of the five school boards under provincial supervision, and if your child is struggling to get the needed disability supports at school, take your problems to the board’s new Student and Family Support Office. Let us know how it goes. Read the January 20, 2026 AODA Alliance Update that gives you all the contact information you need, and practical tips.

Publicize the January 20, 2026 AODA Alliance Update to any parents of students with disabilities/special education needs who might find it helpful.

Let the media know about any problems you encounter with a Student and Family Support Office.

On another note, be sure to listen to the AODA Alliance’s new podcast: Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast. It is available wherever you get your podcasts.

MORE DETAILS

CTV News London Ontario January 20, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.ctvnews.ca/london/article/ontario-school-boards-launch-student-support-portals-as-critics-question-role/

Ontario school boards launch student support portals as critics question role

By Reta Ismail

Several Ontario school boards launched new student and family support office websites Tuesday, including the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB).

The move comes as those boards remain under provincial supervision, raising questions about whether the new portals are replacing the role of elected trustees.

The TVDSB officially launched its Student and Family Support Office – TVDSB portal on Tuesday.

Education Director Bill Tucker said the online service is meant to help parents and caregivers navigate the school system when they are unsure where to turn.

“Given the size of our school board, it really is designed to help parents and families navigate, should they have some difficulty finding, you know, who they go to, what issues can they have addressed,” Tucker said.

TVDSB is one of five Ontario school boards mandated by the Ministry of Education to have the offices in place by today. All five are under provincial supervision.

Tucker said families with complex concerns about a student’s education plan or wellbeing can submit an online form or call the listed phone number. Concerns will then be directed to the appropriate supports.

Critics, however, argue the portals add bureaucracy rather than accountability.

“It’s smoke and mirrors from the minister,” said Ontario NDP Education Critic Chandra Pasma. “You are taking away the support and advocacy of a trustee who will help you navigate the whole process, and you’re replacing it with another layer of bureaucracy.”

Accessibility advocates also raised concerns.

“There certainly are some problems with the existing trustee system, but these are easily fixed,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. “Mend it. Don’t end it.”

A request for an interview with Education Minister Paul Calandra was declined. In a statement issued by his press secretary, the minister said the government will continue, “overhauling an outdated school board governance model so that more resources go into classrooms, teachers have better support and students have the best chance to succeed.”

The online portal encourages parents and caregivers to first contact a teacher, principal, or superintendent before submitting an inquiry — a process critics say creates barriers for some families.

“If you don’t have a computer, or you don’t know how to use a computer, or you can’t do that in English, or there are accessibility problems that prevent you from using a computer to communicate, you’re out of luck,” Lepofsky said.

Questions are also being raised about whether existing staff can manage the added workload.

“Nobody has added additional resources,” Pasma said. “Family support offices consist of people who are already responding to parents or who have other obligations, which raises questions about timely responses.”

Disability advocates are encouraging families to use the new system and share feedback.

“Let us know how much the people at the other end of the phone understood,” Lepofsky said. “Let us know if they solved it.” Health Care – AODA Alliance

All remaining Ontario school boards are required to have Student and Family Support Offices in place by Sept. 1, 2026.

Parents of Students with Disabilities at TDSB, TCDSB, OCDSB, DPCDSB and TVDSB Should Contact Their Student and Family Support Office to get Help with Disability Barriers at School

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Parents of Students with Disabilities at TDSB, TCDSB, OCDSB, DPCDSB and TVDSB Should Contact Their Student and Family Support Office to get Help with Disability Barriers at School

January 20, 2026

New Avenue for Parents to Seek Solutions to Problems at Five Ontario School Boards

Many parents of students with disabilities in Ontario schools are frustrated. Their child too often face problems getting school to meet their disability-related learning needs. Getting a large bureaucratic school board to solve their problem can be very difficult.

If you have a child with disabilities at any of these five Ontario school boards, and you have difficulty getting their disability-related learning needs accommodated, reach out to your board’s new Student and Family Support Office now: the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB), Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB), Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (DPCDSB and Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB). Ask them for help.

As of January 19, 2026, four of those boards had publicly posted information on how to contact them. Belatedly, the fifth, TVDSB, did s:

TDSB:

Online form: None provided.

Email: SupportOffice@tdsb.on.ca

Phone: 416-397-3100.

TCDSB

Online form: https://www.tcdsb.org/page/student-family-support-office

Email: None provided

Phone: 416-397-6222

OCDSB

Online form: https://www.ocdsb.ca/about-us/connect-with-ocdsb/responding-to-concerns/student-family-support-office

Email: supportoffice@ocdsb.ca

Phone: 613-596-8223

DPCDSB

Online form: https://www.dpcdsb.org/about-us/Student-and-Family-Support-Office

Email: None provided.

Phone: None provided.

TVDSB

Online form: https://forms.tvdsb.ca/Student-and-Family-Support-Office

Email: None provided

Phone: Director’s Office: (519) 452-2000 Ext.20222

What to Do

These five boards were required to make information public by January 19, 2026 on how to contact their school board’s Student and Family Support Office. The Ontario Government expects each Student and Family Support Office to acknowledge inquiries within two business days and to provide a response within five business days. Apart from the five school boards we discuss here, all other Ontario school boards don’t have to open their Student and Family Support Office until September 2026. There is no justification for that delay.

Before you contact the Student and Family Support Office, try to raise your problem with your school principal, and if unsuccessful, with your school’s superintendent. If you want to know how to contact your superintendent, ask your school office. If you have not first raised your issue with the teacher, principal and superintendent, the Student and Family Support Office may tell you to contact them, and come back if your problem isn’t solved.

Before you contact the Student and Family Support Office, you might wish to organize any documents you’d wish to send. That could include emails you have exchanged with the school where you tried to raise your concern, and reports you have on your child’s disability/special education needs that might help.

We have two online captioned videos that can help you. These try to use non-technical plain language:

Tips for Parents of Students with Disabilities on How to Advocate for Your Child’s Disability-Related Needs at School
Introduction to the Duty to Accommodate People with Disabilities under Human Rights Legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

If you would like to see what four of the five school boards posted online about their Student and Family Support Office by the Ford Government’s January 2026 deadline, read the January 19, 2026 AODA Alliance Update.

Do not assume that the school board employee with whom you are talking has any expertise in or familiar with the educational needs of students with disabilities/special education needs. Parents of any student can contact their Student and Family Support Office about any problem at all facing their child at school, and not only disability-related problems. In fact, the school board web pages say little if anything about disability issues, and don’t offer disability accommodations to parents with disabilities when dealing with those offices.

We have pressed the Ford Government to ensure that there are staff members in each Student and Family Support Office with expertise in disability education issues and problem-solving. So far, we have received no assurances.

We encourage you to take notes of any phone calls you have with your school board’s Student and Family Support Office.

Let Us Know What Responses You Get from Your School Board’s Student and Family Support Office

Please email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com to let us know what response you get when you reach out to your school board’s Student and Family Support Office

If you reached out by phone, how long did it take to get through to a human being?
If you emailed the Student and Family Support Office, how long was it before you got a any response?
How long was it before you got any follow-up from the Student and Family Support Office? Did you receive the follow-up by phone or email or some other way?
Did the Student and Family Support Office solve your child’s problem?
Did the Student and Family Support Office merely repeat back to you what your principal or superintendent previously told you, or did they actually work on finding a new solution to your problem? In other words, did the Student and Family Support Office take a fresh look at the problem and explore solutions or did they simply repeat what you had earlier heard with no effort to explore options?
If you tried to follow up with the Student and Family Support Office, how easy was it to get back in touch with the same person there you previously dealt with? Or did you have to speak with or deal with different people at the Student and Family Support Office each time you made contact on the same issue?
For those boards that have an online form to fill out to contact the Student and Family Support Office, how easy was it to fill out the form? Did you experience any disability barriers with the form?
Did you need any disability accommodations when dealing with the Student and Family Support Office? Did the Student and Family Support Office accommodate your disability related needs? Did the Student and Family Support Office pro-actively ask if you needed any disability accommodations?

We welcome your feedback so we can track how effective these Student and Family Support Offices are. That will help us advocate for any needed improvements, well before the other 67 school boards open the doors of their Student and Family Support Office this September.

As a volunteer coalition, we don’t have any capacity to investigate problems you experience, or to advocate for your child. However, we hope our two videos listed above will be helpful.

How You Can Help

Post this Update all over the internet and social media.
Share this Update with parents of students with disabilities. Encourage them to call their school board’s Student and Family Support Office if they are at one of the five school boards that the Ford Government is now directly running.
Encourage parents who have contacted their Student and Family Support Office to write the AODA Alliance at aodafeedback@gmail.com to let us know what response they got from their Student and Family Support Office.
Encourage parents of students with disabilities to watch the two AODA Alliance videos earlier.

One of the Five Ontario School Boards Required to Publicly Post Contact Information for Their Mandatory New “Student and Family Support Office” by Today Did Not Post This Information for Parents on Its Website – the Ford Government Runs that Board

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

One of the Five Ontario School Boards Required to Publicly Post Contact Information for Their Mandatory New “Student and Family Support Office” by Today Did Not Post This Information for Parents on Its Website – the Ford Government Runs that Board

January 19, 2026 Toronto: Of the five Ontario school boards that were required by today to make public information on how to contact their new Student and Family Support Office, one of them has failed to do so by the close of business hours on January 19, 2026. The Thames Valley District School Board appears to have nothing on its website. The Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board has an announcement and an online form on its website, but no means of contact for those who don’t have computer access or cannot operate a computer.

In 2025, the Ontario Government seized control of six of Ontario’s 72 school boards and ousted their elected school board trustees: the Toronto District School Board, Toronto Catholic District School Board, Near North District School Board, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board and Thames Valley District School Board.

On November 13, 2025, Minister of Education Paul Calandra ordered each Ontario school board to establish a “Student and Family Support Office.” This Office would address complaints from students or their families about problems at school.

The Ford Government issued this order a telling three short days after disability advocates’ held a November 10, 2025 Queen’s Park news conference. There, disability advocates decried the Ontario Government’s having eliminated school board trustees at school boards that the province had seized. Those trustees had been the final recourse for families of students with disabilities when they could not get school staff and school board executive leadership to accommodate their child’s disability-related learning needs.

At that November 10, 2025 news conference, the AODA Alliance, Ontario Autism Coalition and Ontario Parents for Education Support called on parents of students with disabilities/special education needs across Ontario to phone Education Minister Paul Calandra in their “Better Call Paul” campaign. Because the Ford Government had ousted elected school board trustees at several Ontario school boards, parents were urged to bring their child’s disability-related complaints right to the Minister of Education for help.

On November 13, 2025, The Education Minister directed that school boards under provincial supervision must open their Student and Family Support Office by January, and must alert parents about these offices including how to contact them by January 19, 2026. All other school boards must open their Student and Family Support Office by the start of next September.

Below is set out the contact information for the five school boards in issue that we were able to find using Google and Chat GPT. One of the boards had nothing on their website that we could find. If information for parents cannot be easily located by such tools, this raises serious concerns.

It is especially noteworthy that these are all school boards that the Ford Government is directly running. It has appointed a supervisor to each board who evidently reports directly to the Minister’s Office. A failure to fulfil the Minister’s deadline is the responsibility of the Minister and his office. He cannot blame the trustees for this failure. The Ford Government is contemplating the possibility of abolishing all elected trustees.

In a November 13, 2025 news release, the AODA Alliance identified serious concerns about the Ford Government’s specifics regarding these new Student and Family Support Offices. The Ford Government’s announcement of them didn’t even mention much less address the needs of vulnerable students with disabilities. Nothing in that announcement required that those handling calls in these new Student and Family Support Offices will have the needed expertise in disability education to quickly and competently investigate and solve problems presented by parents of Ontario’s over 300,000 students with disabilities/special education needs. Nor did it ensure that these offices will have the required authority to get their problems fixed. The Ford Government’s plan ignores most if not all of the important recommendations it received in 2022 from the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee in its final report.

Making this worse, The Province gave school boards no funding to finance the staff and other resources needed to operate these offices. This new cost burden was imposed on school boards that the Ford Government knew were already running deficits.

Last December, the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee made detailed recommendations on what needs to be included in the Student and Family Support Office to ensure that it makes a difference for TDSB’s 40,000 students with disabilities/special education needs (set out below). It is evident from SEAC’s questioning of senior TDSB staff at the January 12 2026 TDSB SEAC meeting that TDSB so far has not implemented any of that Advisory Committee’s recommendations in the newly-opened TDSB Student and Family Support Office.

The Ford Government ordered TDSB and other school boards under provincial supervision to stop live-streaming their SEAC meetings, a controversial move that has been blasted as undemocratic. However the January 12, 2026 TDSB SEAC meeting was nevertheless live streamed by a member of the public. The discussion of TDSB’s Student and Family Support Office started at about 62 minutes into that meeting.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Toronto District School Board (TDSB)

On January 19, 2026, the TDSB website’s Student and Family Support Office page includes:

“Welcome to the TDSB’s Student and Family Support Office. We’re dedicated to supporting students, parents, guardians and caregivers in raising concerns, getting help, and finding solutions faster.

Our team will make every effort to acknowledge your email within 48 hours and address your request within 5 business days. …

If your concerns haven’t been addressed through the school … please contact the Student and Family Support Office: SupportOffice@tdsb.on.ca or call 416-397-3100.”

Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB)

On January 19, 2026, the TCDSB website includes:

“… the Student and Family Support Office (SFSO) at the Toronto Catholic District School Board is now open and ready to support students and families. …

The Student and Family Support Office is designed to help families navigate questions or concerns and connect with additional support at the Board level when a matter cannot be addressed at the school level. …

To ensure every inquiry is directed to the right staff member and receives a timely response, families seeking support are asked to begin by completing the Student and Family Support Form. …

If you need assistance completing the form, staff are here to help and can be reached at 416-397-6222 (Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM).”

Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB)

On January 19, 2026, the OCDSB website includes the following. It includes a charter which is not accessible to people with disabilities using a screen-reader, contrary to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act’s Information and Communication Accessibility Standard:

“We’re here to help! OCDSB’s Student and Family Support Office is a dedicated service that provides an additional avenue for parents, guardians and caregivers to get timely help with complex questions or concerns regarding their child’s education.

Before contacting the Student and Family Support Office

Before reaching out to the Support Office, we encourage you to first bring your question or concerns to the school directly.

Most concerns can be addressed directly by speaking with your classroom teacher, vice-principal, principal, or superintendent. Whether it’s a classroom or school-wide issue, this chart outlines the best first step.

Visit our Responding to concerns page to find more information about the OCDSB’s Communications Protocol.

Please note, if you have concerns related to student transportation, these should be directed to the Ottawa Student Transportation (OSTA).

Contacting the Student and Family Support Office

If your question or concern requires additional follow-up or assistance beyond the school level, please contact the Support Office:

Fill out the intake form on this page.

Email: supportoffice@ocdsb.ca

Phone: 613-596-8223

When emailing or phoning in, please provide as much information as possible (parent and student name, school name, detailed description) so we can best address your question or concern.

Timelines and reporting back

Business hours for the Support Office are Monday to Friday, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

The OCDSB Student and Family Support Office, in alignment with the service standards outlined in the Ministry’s Policy/Program Memorandum 170, will endeavour to:

Acknowledge your inquiry within two (2) business days, and provide a full answer within five (5) business days.
If we cannot give you a full answer within five (5) business days, we’ll provide an estimate of when you can expect a response.

Privacy note: Notice of the collection, use and disclosure of student personal information

Form instructions

When filling out the form below, please select one of the categories that best fits your question or concern. After you submit the form, you will receive an automated reply via email confirming your form was submitted….”

Note: We do not set out the entire form. We have not explored the form to see if it is disability-accessible.

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (DPCDSB)

On January 19, 2026, the DPCDSB website has the following is posted:

“Our Student and Family Support Office is here to help parents and guardians navigate questions or concerns about their child’s education and ensure they are connected to the right support as quickly as possible.

As always, we strongly encourage you to first bring your question or concerns to your child’s school and principal. If you require additional follow-up, please complete the form on this page and select one of the four categories below that best reflects your inquiry and elaborate in the Message section.

School-related: Examples include curriculum, course content, homework, assessment, support for your child, student behaviour, student safety and well-being, etc.
Student Transportation:Examples include bus delays, route issues, bus stop locations, bus safety, ridership eligibility, etc.
Facilities-related:Examples include heating/cooling, cleanliness, maintenance issues, etc.
Other: Any issues that do not fall into one of the above categories.

Submissions will be sent to the appropriate supervisory officer and/or staff for action/response.

… Please note: The DPCDSB Student and Family Support Office aims to acknowledge inquiries within two (2) business days and provide a response within five (5) business days. The office will be to ensure accountability and timely resolution of issues. …”

Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB)

As of 5 pm on January 19, 2026, there appears to be no posted email address or phone number for the TVDSB’s Student and Family Support Office. It is not known whether the online form is fully accessible to people with disabilities.

December 8, 2025 Motion on Student and Family Support Office Passed by the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee

SEAC recommends that:

The new TDSB Student and Family Support Office should provide a prompt, user-friendly, fair and effective process for parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs to seek a resolution if they believe that TDSB is not providing an accommodation for their learning needs that would benefit the student, e.g. if TDSB is not delivering on commitments in the student’s Individual Education Plan or if TDSB has not agreed to provide an accommodation that the parent/guardian believes that the student needs.
Staff in the new TDSB Student and Family Support Office who receive and address a complaint from a parent/guardian of a student with disabilities/special education needs should:
a) Have expertise and experience with the education of students with disabilities/special education needs.
b) Be independent of those TDSB staff who have dealt with the student’s needs in issue.
c) Have expertise and training in effective mediation/alternate dispute resolution
d) Have authority to direct any corrective action that they decide is needed.
If, after a review, the TDSB decides not to provide the accommodation that the

parent/guardian has requested, TDSB shall give written reasons for this decision.

Every effort should be made to mediate and resolve any disagreements between the family and TDSB. If the matter cannot be resolved, there should be an option for TDSB to appoint a person or persons outside TDSB to consider the issue, along short time lines.
This process should be designed and carefully tailored specifically for addressing the needs of students with disabilities/ special education needs. It should also not deal with other students’ complaints that are unrelated to disability/special education needs.
This motion outlines the principles that should guide the needed process, while leaving flexibility on how it will be designed and operated. This process can be designed so as not to conflict with Ministry requirements. A Parent/caregiver, or the student themselves, can first bring their concerns to their teacher, and then the principal, after which this avenue would be available to them if needed.
7. No funding should be taken from special education services to fund this service.

Another Blizzard Brings More Human-Created Disability Barriers – Where is the Ford Government When We Need it?

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/snow-accessibility-people-with-disabilities-9.7050031#:~:text=Toronto%C2%B7New-,Disability%20advocates%20urge%20Toronto%2C%20province%20to%20plan%20ahead%20for%20winter,support%20during%20winter%20weather%20events

TikTok @AODAAlliance

Another Blizzard Brings More Human-Created Disability Barriers – Where is the Ford Government When We Need it?

January 18, 2026

SUMMARY

On Thursday, January 15, 2026, southern Ontario experienced a major snowstorm, the kind Ontarians are used to experiencing. Yet again, local government efforts at clearing the snow created more avoidable accessibility barriers for people with disabilities. CBC News reported on this in its evening news broadcast in Toronto on January 16, 2026. On January 17, 2026, it posted a detailed online news report, which you can read below.

We cannot legislatively ban snow, but we can legislatively require cities and towns to prevent the human creation of more snow barriers impeding people with disabilities. Yet no accessibility standard has been enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by the Ontario Government to set provincial standards in this area. Each municipality is once again left to wastefully reinvent the same accessibility wheel or harmfully create more disability barriers.

This has a cruel “Ground Hog Day” feel to it. Disability advocates have been raising the same objections year after year. For example, the AODA Alliance’s February 22, 2025 news release bore the headline: “Calling Snap Election in Snowy February Creates New Barriers to Accessible Voting for Voters with Disabilities.”

How You Can Help

Take photos of ridiculous human-created snow barriers that hurt people with disabilities. Post them on social media. Use the hashtag #AODAFail” which the AODA Alliance invented a decade ago. Email these photos to your local media.

Take videos of these barriers and post them on TikTok. Tag @aodaalliance.

Send these photos to your member of the Ontario Legislature. Demand provincial action under the AODA.

Get helpful action tips on how to advocate on this and other disability issues by listening to the 7 episodes available so far on “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast.” You can get it wherever podcasts are found.

The AODA Alliance is now posting on TikTok, not just Twitter and Facebook. Please follow @aodaalliance on TikTok. Like our posts and share them on TikTok.

MORE DETAILS

CBC News January 17, 2026

Disability advocates urge Toronto, province to plan ahead for winter accessibility challenges

City says sidewalk snow clearance a priority this year, will address 311 requests as quickly as possible

Arrthy Thayaparan CBC News

Picture of woman in wheelchair by the side of a snowy road.

Disability advocate and social worker Emily Chan says snow removal is an equity issue that impacts how people navigate their community. (Mehrdad Nazarahari/CBC)

With city crews still working away to clear the snow buildup from Thursday and more flurries in the forecast for this weekend, disability advocates in Toronto say there’s not enough support during winter weather events.

Snowstorms lead to natural and human-made barriers that impact how people with disabilities navigate the city, said David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Alliance.

Accumulated snow on sidewalks, bus stops and at the edge of roads are examples of human-made barriers that people often overlook, he said.

Stepping over a pile of snow to get onto a bus is simple for those who can walk, but that’s not the case for people with mobility aids or wheelchairs, said social worker Emily Chan.

“The bus ramp can’t even go down over that pile of snow, so that also renders that form of transportation inaccessible,” she said.

Lepofsky said the province is way overdue to create a regulatory accessibility standard for all municipalities, as agreed upon through the creation of the AODA in 2005.

He’s also calling on the city to plan ahead by creating a registry of people with disabilities and how best to help them during winter storms.

“[A registry will] ensure that [the city] either doesn’t create these barriers in these particular locations or that they move rapidly to remove them,” he said, adding right now people are able to call 311 to get snow clearance support, but that it’s not always done properly.

The province did not respond to requests for comment.

This year Toronto is prioritizing the clearance of sidewalks, right after roads and bike lanes, a city spokesperson told CBC Toronto Friday.

“We have over 1300 people working around the clock to clear roads, sidewalks, bike lanes and transit stops in a prioritized sequence,” they said, adding urgent snow clearing requests to 311 will be addressed as quickly as possible.

Toronto is expecting a chance of flurries Saturday with a high of 1 C and a low of -10 C overnight, which will feel closer to -20 with wind chill. Sunday’s forecast shows signs of snow with a high of -4 C that will feel more like -17.

Snow removal is an equity issue: advocate

In a news release Friday, the city said snow clearance of roads and sidewalks is expected to take several days due to the forecast and “significant” accumulation this week.

In an updated news release Saturday, the city said crews will focus on “enhanced sidewalk clearing, plowing and salting” and removing snow from prioritized areas, such as hospitals, throughout Saturday. The city also said snow removal work began earlier than usual on Friday evening.

Chan says snowstorms make regular spaces inaccessible, impacting people needing to get to work, school, and even medical appointments.

“It’s one thing for somebody to choose to stay home that day, but it’s another thing when somebody is forced to stay home because of inaccessible circumstances,” she said.

But Lepofsky said snow also becomes a safety concern when it starts to get icy, adding it’s “disproportionately dangerous for people with disabilities.”

“You’ve got to remember, especially for seniors, a fall can mean broken hips, [which] can have dramatic and drastic health consequences.”

Chan says she wants city officials to know that snow removal is an equity issue that changes how people participate in their community.

“I recognize that there are time constraints, resource constraints,” she said. “My hope is that sidewalks and curb cuts are prioritized as an area of focus.”

Newest Episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” Digs into the Disability Barriers Facing Air Passengers with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Newest Episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” Digs into the Disability Barriers Facing Air Passengers with Disabilities

January 13, 2026

SUMMARY

Would you like to learn about the struggle to improve airline travel in Canada for passengers with disabilities? Check out the latest episode of the AODA Alliance’s “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” wherever you get your podcasts. It is entitled:

“Airline Accessibility: How Maayan Ziv Turned a Mangled Wheelchair Into Real Change.”

MORE DETAILS

This episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” highlights a powerful story of advocacy that illustrates an important reality of the work of an advocate: golden opportunities for progress can present themselves at any time.

In this case, Maayan Ziv, a respected disability rights advocate and entrepreneur, took a cross-Atlantic flight in September 2022 with her power wheelchair stowed away in the cargo hold. Despite having taken multiple measures to keep it protected during the flight, she found it mangled and destroyed on arrival. The emotional video she posted on social media just after the incident went viral, stirring up a media storm that finally brought attention to an issue people with disabilities know all too well: the accessibility, or lack thereof, of Canadian airlines. Maayan lays out the many barriers she and many others face when travelling by air and reflects on the impact of the video. A key feature of every episode of this podcast is that it offers practical tips on lessons we can learn from this saga about doing disability advocacy.

More Background

For more background on the issue addressed in this episode, check out:

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s March 19, 2024 testimony at public hearings before a House of Commons Standing Committee looking into barriers facing air passengers with disabilities.
The March 18, 2024 AODA Alliance brief to the House of Commons on disability barriers impeding air passengers with disabilities.
The September 10, 2022 AODA Alliance Update with media coverage of Maayan Ziv’s air travel ordeal, and
The September 30, 2022 AODA Alliance Update with more media coverage of Maayan Ziv’s air travel ordeal.

More About “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast”

All earlier episodes remain available, and are worth a listen, including:

“The 12 Year Fight for Automated Stop Announcements on the TTC” about Lepofsky’s long struggle to make transit in Toronto accessible for blind riders, with host David Lepofsky.
“Beyond Building Codes: Designing Spaces for Everyone,” with guest built-environment accessible design expert Thea Kurdi
“Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign” covering how targeted advocacy resulted in policy change for autism therapies, with guest autism advocate Bruce McIntosh.
“Turning Barriers into Headlines: Practical Tips from a Veteran News Reporter,” with former journalist Michelle McQuigge.
“How to get a Politician’s Attention Part 1” with the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, former Ontario Premier.
“How to get a Politician’s Attention Part 2” with the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, former Ontario Premier.

You can listen to this podcast at no charge on your smart phone, tablet or computer. Get this podcast wherever you get your podcasts, or download it directly from various podcast platforms such as Apple Music, Spotify, Amazon Music and iHeart.

Ask your smart phone, Alexa, or Google Nest (if you have one): “Play podcast ‘Disability Rights and Wrongs!’”

Do you want a transcript of each podcast? Apple Music can generate transcripts.

Are you new to podcasts, and want to know what a podcast is? Think of it like a custom-made radio show, but one that did not get broadcast on any radio station. Download episodes for free and listen to them whenever you want.

How You Can Help

Help us increase the number of people who listen to our podcast. Most learn about new podcasts when a friend or family member tells them about it. When you are talking to someone about it, and they sound interested, encourage them to take their smart phone out then and there. Get them to open a podcast app, search for “David Lepodcast” and subscribe! It is that easy. Otherwise, they can forget to subscribe.

Email us about the podcast. How did you like it? What did you learn from it? How did you hear about it? What other topics and guests should we include? Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

2026 Begins With an Excellent Globe and Mail Report on the Ford Government’s Failure to Live Up to Its Duties under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

2026 Begins With an Excellent Globe and Mail Report on the Ford Government’s Failure to Live Up to Its Duties under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

January 10, 2026

SUMMARY

With New Year festivities now behind us, we’re back in action in the campaign for accessibility for people with disabilities! Our campaign’s new year begins with a fantastic report in today’s Globe and Mail by veteran Queen’s Park reporter Jeff Gray, which we set out below. The Globe describes how Ontario’s Ford Government still has no plan of action over one year after it failed to fulfil its duty under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to lead Ontario to become accessible to at least 2.9 million Ontarians with disabilities.

Here are reflections on the article.

The article reports as following referring to a statement by a Ford Government representative:

“Mr. Varsava said the proposed AODA standards on health care and education had “led to improvements,” including renovations to schools and hospitals and $55-million in grants this year to support postsecondary students with disabilities.”

In fact, the Ford Government has never enacted either a Health Care Accessibility Standard or an Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA. The Government has sat on the final reports of the Government-appointed Health Care Standards Development Committee, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee and the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee for upwards of four years, without enacting any of their expert recommendations.

The report refers to the fact that two years ago, the 4^th Government-appointed Independent Review of the AODA, conducted by Mr. Rich Donovan, recommended among other things that the Ontario Government should somehow assign the Federal Government with responsibility over accessibility in private sector organizations. As the December 18, 2023 AODA Alliance news release explains, that proposal is very bad policy and would also be unconstitutional.

The article quotes Mr. Donovan as very critical of the AODA’s process for developing enforceable accessibility standards, stating:

“However, Mr. Donovan is also critical of the AODA process. He said its standards are drawn up after a collective-bargaining-like negotiation between disability advocates and industry stakeholders, resulting in rules that are too often divorced from the day-to-day needs of people with disabilities.”

We most profoundly disagree. The problem with existing accessibility standards is that the Government has failed to enact many of the recommendations that Government-appointed expert Standards Development Committees recommended. Having an equal voice at the table for the regulated industry or economic sector on the one hand and the disability community on the other is a very good if not unprecedented practice in Ontario under the AODA.

It is rather ironic that Mr. Donovan is so critical of the standards development process. He himself chaired the Government-appointed Information and Communication Standards Development Committee several years ago. His Standards Development Committee’s final report was very good, and far better than those produced by some other Standards Development Committees such as those addressing employment, customer service or transportation.

The report refers to an AODA Alliance online video that shows how public money has been used to build a terrible bike path on top of a midtown Toronto sidewalk which endangers pedestrians with disabilities – a design which has been used again since that video was made public.

We congratulate the Globe for covering this issue in this article. It would be great if the Globe continued to report on it. Why not ask Premier Ford why he won’t agree to meet with any AODA Alliance representatives.

How You Can Help

Send a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail at letters@globeandmail.com and applaud this report. Urge the Globe to give more coverage to disability accessibility barriers and the Ford Government’s failure to live up to its duties under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Keep your letter to 300 words or less, and insert the article’s headline into your letter:

“Ontario’s promise to people with disabilities left unfulfilled after more than 20 years”

Include your name, snail mail address, phone number and email address in your letter to the editor. Let us know if it gets published.

Encourage friends, family and total strangers to listen to the AODA Alliance’s podcast: Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast. It is available wherever you get your podcasts.

MORE DETAILS

Globe and Mail January 10, 2026

Originally posted at https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-accessibility-disabilities-policy-legislation-aoda/

Ontario’s promise to people with disabilities left unfulfilled after more than 20 years

Jeff Gray Queen’s Park Reporter

Toronto

David Lepofsky in Toronto in December, 2025. Mr. Lepofsky is blind, a lawyer, and has fought for disability rights for decades.

Nearly 21 years ago, MPPs across all parties at Queen’s Park pledged to make Ontario completely accessible to people with disabilities by the beginning of 2025. But with that date now well past, advocates say the process has been a failure and that there is no sign the current government intends to change course.

A full calendar year has now passed since the Jan. 1, 2025, deadline embedded in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), which was passed unanimously under the then-Liberal provincial government of premier Dalton McGuinty in 2005.

The act influenced similar legislation across the country. It obligated the provincial government to strike committees made up of people with disabilities and representatives of different sectors of the economy, in order to draft new accessibility standards for “goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises.” And it gave Ontario 20 years to adopt and enforce them.

More than two decades on, five standards have been approved, covering communications, employment, transportation, customer service and outdoor public spaces. They require, for example, buses to have ramps for wheelchair users, and for large companies to make their websites compatible with software that reads text aloud.

But proposed standards for the province’s health care and education systems – which include demands for new staff training to change attitudes toward people with disabilities and provisions to ensure buildings are accessible – have sat in limbo since 2022 under the Progressive Conservative government led by Doug Ford.

David Lepofsky, a lawyer and long-time advocate for those with disabilities who was among the activists who led the charge for the original 2005 bill, said the province quickly lost momentum after setting its 2025 goal and failed to properly enforce the rules it managed to bring in.

“They have passed some regulations, some accessibility standards. But they are way too weak, way too narrow, and they don’t cover the vast majority of barriers we face,” said Mr. Lepofsky, who is blind and leads an advocacy group called the AODA Alliance. “The bottom line is they failed.”

Mr. Ford’s government, in office for nearly eight years, has neglected the AODA like no other, he said. Unlike previous Liberal premiers, Mr. Ford has never met with his group, Mr. Lepofsky said. And he said he hasn’t been able to formally meet with Mr. Ford’s Minister for Seniors and Accessibility, Raymond Cho, either, for at least five years. Plus, no new accessibility standard has been approved since 2017, the year before the Ford government first came to power.

Mr. Lepofsky says the design of the bike path near Eglinton Ave and Avenue Road is dangerous for blind people like him.

In a review required by the legislation two-and-half years ago, Toronto accessibility consultant Rich Donovan excoriated the government’s progress on the AODA, bluntly concluding its efforts had been an “unequivocal failure.”

The report, finished in June, 2023, but not released by the government until that December, recommended declaring the situation facing Ontario’s 2.9 million people with disabilities a crisis.

Mr. Donovan demanded that the Premier and Cabinet Secretary Michelle DiEmanuele, Ontario’s top civil servant, strike a special committee and come up with an action plan within 30 days. And he called for the creation of a new accessibility agency to oversee efforts.

But his report also said responsibility for private sector entities should be handed to the federal government, which has its own overlapping accessibility legislation. This would allow Ontario to focus on itself and areas it funds, such as hospitals and universities.

In a recent interview, Mr. Donovan said that other than briefing an assistant deputy minister when he submitted his report, he has heard no response from the government since.

“It’s a shock to me,” he said of the silent treatment, given his report’s contents. “Nothing’s changed. That should be disturbing to Ontarians.”

However, Mr. Donovan is also critical of the AODA process. He said its standards are drawn up after a collective-bargaining-like negotiation between disability advocates and industry stakeholders, resulting in rules that are too often divorced from the day-to-day needs of people with disabilities.

Asked to respond to criticism on the government’s progress on the AODA’s goal, Mathew Varsava, a spokesperson for Mr. Cho, said the province recently updated the Ontario Building Code’s accessibility standards.

Mr. Lepofsky and other advocates dismiss these changes as insufficient.

Mr. Varsava said the proposed AODA standards on health care and education had “led to improvements,” including renovations to schools and hospitals and $55-million in grants this year to support postsecondary students with disabilities. Those annual grants long predate the current government. But the Progressive Conservatives increased them to $54-million in 2022-23 from $48-million, after they had remained flat for a decade.

Mr. Varsava also said the ministry has implemented some recommendations from Mr. Donovan’s report, including reviewing emergency evacuation procedures for all government buildings for people with disabilities.

According to the government’s most recent annual report on the AODA, from 2024, ministry staff performed more than 1,000 audits to check whether organizations were following the existing AODA rules. They issued 19 orders to fix problems, and one that came with an undisclosed administrative penalty. The act allows for fines of up to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for corporations.

NDP accessibility critic Lise Vaugeois said she agrees with Mr. Donovan’s prescription that a crisis mindset is needed.

“It’s certainly frustrating for people with disabilities, because there are so many barriers,” Ms. Vaugeois said. “It’s also frustrating that it’s not seen as a priority for the government.”

Liberal MPP Stephanie Smyth said Ontario has broken the “clear and unequivocal promise” it made on accessibility by 2025, and called on the government to release a comprehensive plan to meet its obligations under the act.

“Ontarians deserve transparency, honest reporting on progress, and a clear path forward,” she said. “Above all, they deserve a government that treats accessibility not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental human right.”

AODA Alliance’s 2025 Year-End Report to Our Many Supporters

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

AODA Alliance’s 2025 Year-End Report to Our Many Supporters

December 21, 2025

Introduction

This is the 108^th and final AODA Alliance Update for 2025. That is the largest number of updates we have provided in a single year in the two decades since the AODA Alliance was launched in the second half of 2005. Here’s a roundup of some of our issues and activities over the past 12 months and a glimpse into what lies ahead in our non-partisan campaign for accessibility for people with disabilities.

Conventional Media and Social Media

Our issues got quite a bit of coverage in the media again this year. We fielded an incredible number of calls from news reporters seeking a comment on an issue, an interview with us, or just background on a disability-related story. We also garnered attention on issues that we took to the media as well.

Before it wrapped up its incredible run, the flagship Ontario public affairs program “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” included two editions this past year that included AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky as a guest. We posted online a video series of the 22 times we took part in episodes of that and related TVO programs.

Each month, an AODA Alliance column on disability issues appeared in the Toronto Star’s Metroland local publications across Ontario. We again pumped out our fair share of social media blasts on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, while taking early steps to add TikTok to our social media repertoire. Both conventional and social media play important roles in our advocacy efforts.

This year began with the cold and cruel reality that Ontario was still full of disability barriers despite the Government’s being required by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to lead the province to be accessible to people with disabilities by the start of 2025. We secured widespread media coverage focusing on this failure and on what must happen now to live up to the AODA’s ongoing requirements.

We kicked off the new year with a January 6, 2025, Queen’s Park news conference. We unveiled a 10-point Accessible Ontario Pledge that we called on the Ontario political parties to make. It details the actions we need as a result of the Government’s failure to fulfil its duty to lead Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025.

Two Back-to-Back Elections

Early in the new year, we had to rally quickly to take active part in two successive exhausting elections, neither of which had been scheduled for this year. In January and February, we were embroiled in raising disability issues in the snap Ontario election which Premier Ford called over a year before his majority government had to go to the polls. Our election blitz was built around our Accessible Ontario Pledge.

All the major parties except the governing Conservatives made various commitments on disability accessibility in response to our request for the Accessible Ontario Pledge.

The January 10, 2025 AODA Alliance Update provided our assessment of the Ford Government’s record on disability accessibility while in power for six and a half years. We have done the same for previous governments in the past.

In March and April, we undertook a campaign in the snap federal election that Prime Minister Carney called shortly after the Ontario election wound up. This time, we promoted an “Accessible Canada Pledge” that we wanted the federal parties to make.

In both election campaigns, we drew on our accumulated expertise in non-partisan disability advocacy in elections over three decades, collaborating with other disability organizations. For example, we took active part in planning successful all-candidates debates on disability election issues in the Ontario election and later in the federal election.

A Brand-New Podcast on Disability Issues and How to Advocate

As a major new addition to our advocacy toolkit, this past September we launched a new podcast, hosted by Accessible Media Inc., called “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast.” It aims to give listeners practical tips on how to advocate on disability issues in their own communities, especially for those who have never done so. Its lessons from the front lines are designed to also be helpful for anyone who wants to try to do advocacy on any social justice issue.

New episodes come out every three weeks on all major podcast platforms, like Apple Music, Spotify, Amazon Music and iHeart. Each episode is designed to be timely and helpful whenever you listen to them, in any order. They don’t become stale over time. We have already had downloads in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, Israel, Mexico, Sweden, Czech, El Salvador, Singapore, South Africa, Austria, and the Netherlands. Word of mouth seems to be an important way that people are learning about the podcast.

Our seven podcast episodes since September include:

“The 12-Year Fight for Automated Stop Announcements on the TTC” about Lepofsky’s long struggle to make transit in Toronto accessible for blind riders” with host David Lepofsky.
“Beyond Building Codes: Designing Spaces for Everyone” with guest built-environment accessible design expert Thea Kurdi
“Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign” covering how targeted advocacy resulted in policy change for autism therapies” with guest autism advocate Bruce McIntosh.
“Turning Barriers into Headlines: Practical Tips from a Veteran News Reporter” with former journalist Michelle McQuigge.
“How to get a Politician’s Attention Part 1” with the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, former Ontario Premier.
“How to Get a Politician’s Attention Part 2” with the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, former Ontario Premier.

Advocating on Many Accessibility Fronts at the Same Time

We continued our advocacy on several disability fronts, including housing, employment, health care, transportation, education, the built environment, customer service, and the ongoing dangerous blight of electric scooters. As always, we had to be ready to leap into action when unexpected issues arose. After last spring’s federal election, Prime Minister Carney’s new Cabinet had no federal disability issues minister at the Cabinet table for the first time in a decade, an issue that received media coverage in many parts of Canada.

We submitted a brief last spring to the Government-appointed Customer Service Standards Development Committee on what its final report should recommend to the Ford Government for revisions to the 2007 AODA Customer Service Accessibility Standard. We have heard no word whether its final report was submitted to the Ford Government. The Government is required by the AODA to make that final report public upon the Government’s receiving it. Despite that clear statutory requirement, the Government has repeatedly delayed making Standards Development Committee reports public.

No Chance to Speak to the Ontario Legislature on Pressing Disability Issues

We requested opportunities to make oral presentations at the Legislature on important issues such as the Ford Government’s forthcoming budget. Bill 17 raises serious disability concerns regarding housing construction, and Bill 33 gives the Minister of Education more control over local school boards. We never got a chance to speak to the Legislature on these issues. We were not included in the pre-Budget hearings. The Government did not permit any hearings on Bill 17 or 33.

A Premier Who Still Won’t Meet

Once again over this past year, we had no meetings with the Ontario Premier Doug Ford or any of his Cabinet Ministers. Premier Ford has refused every request to meet since he took office in 2018. His Accessibility Minister has had no substantive meetings with us for several years. As has been the case for several years, his Minister’s office staff do not respond to our emails or phone calls.

The Accessibility Minister has not sought any advice or input from us for years. In contrast, we held several meetings with him and had extensive conversations with his Minister’s office staff in the first few years of Minister Cho’s serving in that portfolio. The Ford Government has not implemented the vast majority of reform recommendations in the 3^rd Independent Review of the AODA by the late David Onley, released in 2019, or the 4^th Independent Review by Rich Donovan, released in 2023.

Our Special Focus This Year on Education for Students with Disabilities

A major part of the AODA Alliance’s advocacy efforts in 2025 have focused on the recurring disability barriers that still confront students with disabilities in education, both in K-12 schools and in colleges and universities. Ontario’s school system has been all over the news for other reasons. This year, the Ford Government seized control of 6 of Ontario’s 72 school boards, ousting their elected school board trustees.

The Ontario Government is now directly running those school boards. It alone is responsible for the ongoing disability barriers impeding many students with disabilities. There is no indication when, if ever, that will come to an end or which other school boards, if any, the Government will also take over. The Government passed Bill 33, which makes it easier for the Education Minister to take over a school board, a power which Minister Paul Calandra swiftly used. The Minister is now micromanaging the boards whose elected trustees have been removed from office.

We took part in news conferences at Queen’s Park along with other disability advocacy organizations on January 23, 2025 to address inadequate special education funding and on November 10, 2025 to launch our “Better Call Paul” campaign. In six Ontario school boards, parents of students with disabilities can no longer call their elected school board trustees for help if they cannot get their child’s disability-related learning needs met at school. The Ford Government is considering abolishing elected trustees across Ontario. We therefore are urging parents to call Education Minister Paul Calandra directly to get help for their child. The catchy name of this blitz “Better Call Paul” has generated good public attention and positive feedback.

Among other things, our efforts this year on the education issue focused on these problems:

The Ontario Government’s continued practice of applauding itself for funding the construction of new school buildings while that same Government fails to require that these new schools be designed to be accessible to students, staff and family members with disabilities.
The Government’s failure to take action to rein in and regulate the use by schools of isolation or seclusion rooms after the horrific May 2024 death of Trenton High School student Landyn Ferris in one such room.
The unregulated, unfair, and arbitrary power of school principals to unilaterally exclude some students, including students with disabilities, from school for all or part of the school day.
The increased risks to students with disabilities of second-class educational services and supports in the growing number of Ontario school boards that the Ford Government seized control over, ousting their elected school board trustees.
The Ford Government’s actions that made it harder for parents of students with disabilities to have their shared concerns reach the public in school boards over which the Ford Government seized control.
The Ford Government’s chronic underfunding of education for students with disabilities and its multi-year failure to enact the promised Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.
The Ford Government’s ongoing refusal to include the voices of the disability community, including parents of students with disabilities, as it plans major restructuring of the school system in Ontario.

Going International Again

This year, the AODA Alliance’s message again went international. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky was invited to give a series of lectures in New Zealand on strategies to ensure that the law, the legal profession, and the court system effectively serve the needs of people with disabilities. He addressed each of New Zealand’s six law schools, as well as giving separate talks for the New Zealand Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

A grassroots coalition is campaigning for national New Zealand accessibility legislation. The AODA Alliance has been giving that coalition action tips for over a decade.

A Look Ahead

After a much-needed break, the AODA Alliance will again be ready to hit the ground running in 2026. We’re anticipating that we won’t have to face a provincial or federal election this year. However, next fall brings an election for each municipal government and for each school board’s trustees (unless the Ford Government eliminates the trustees all over Ontario as it is now contemplating). There will be important disability issues in those local elections.

We are expected to face increased efforts by the Ford Government to revamp the Ontario school system, and we will try to have our say in that, if allowed in the door.

With a major new public transit line to open on Eglinton Avenue in Toronto, supposedly next year, we will be ready to take a good look at how accessible it is to passengers with disabilities. This is especially important, since the Ford Government says it is building new transit lines in various parts of the province.

To help empower the next generation of disability advocates, our “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” will continue to provide new episodes every three weeks or so. Our earliest episodes in the new year will focus on disability barriers in air travel and in getting health care services, with much more to follow. We will work on building a broad audience for that podcast.

A Massive Thank You

As this year winds to an end, we take this opportunity to thank you. Thanks to all who receive and read our AODA Alliance Updates. Thanks to all who take our “How You Can Help” actions tips and put them into action. Thanks to all who come up with their own action strategies. Thanks to those who use social media or conventional media to spread the word about disability barriers they still face.

Thanks to all the volunteers who generously donate their time to help with our AODA Alliance Updates, our growing list of widely watched online videos, and our many other advocacy efforts. Thanks to the community disability organizations who lend their assistance to our efforts and add their voices to ours.

Thanks to those who send us feedback of any kind. Thanks to those who share with others our email updates, our social media posts, and our message.

Thanks to all those who have listened to “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” and to those who have urged others to listen to it. Thanks to Accessible Media, Inc. (AMI) for hosting this podcast, and of course, to our podcast guests.

Thanks to all those in all levels of government and the private sector who are trying to get their organizations to take action on accessibility. Too often, they are unrecognized, unsung heroes waging their own quiet, internal, uphill battles.

Thanks to the politicians who have spoken publicly in support of our issues, who have raised our concerns in the Ontario Legislature or the House of Commons in Ottawa, and who have convinced their party to let them ask probing questions about our issues in Question Period.

Thanks to all the journalists who have covered disability accessibility stories this year and who have advocated to their editors to give these issues more coverage.

Thanks to the community leaders across Ontario who have tuned in to our message, shared it with others, and endorsed it.

Our progress each year is thanks to you all. Let’s get ready to do it again next year.

We now sign off until January.

How You Can Help

Please help our cause by relaxing, enjoying a break, and having a wonderful and safe holiday and a barrier-free New Year.

New Grassroots Service to Help Job Seekers with Disabilities is a Good Step, But the Ford Government Still Must Strengthen the Weak 2011 AODA Employment Accessibility Standard

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

New Grassroots Service to Help Job Seekers with Disabilities is a Good Step, But the Ford Government Still Must Strengthen the Weak 2011 AODA Employment Accessibility Standard

December 20, 2025

SUMMARY

A very good December 20, 2025 CBC News report described a great new grassroots option aimed at helping people with disabilities seek employment. It is especially important in light of the many workplace disability barriers still facing employees and job seekers with disabilities as well as the Ford Government’s ongoing failure to effectively live up to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act’s requirement to lead Ontario to have barrier-free workplaces by 2025. Read that CBC article below.

The Ford Government has sat on the final report of the Government-appointed Employment Standards Development Committee for over six years since receiving that report on January 22, 2019. The Government has not enacted any revisions to strengthen the weak 2011 AODA Employment Accessibility Standard.

Moreover, as AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s December column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications explains, the Ford Government has also failed to take long-overdue action to fix the many problems at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. It should not take five years or more to get a disability discrimination case to a hearing at that Tribunal.

How You Can Help

Send this Update and the earlier December 17 2025 AODA Alliance Update on employment disability barriers to your member of the Ontario Legislature. Urge them to push for an independent review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and for dramatic reforms to this process. Ask them to strengthen the weak and limited 2011 AODA Employment Accessibility Standard.

Check out the online video: “Introduction to the Duty to Accommodate People with Disabilities under Human Rights Legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Learn about the AODA Alliance’s efforts to achieve equal opportunity for employees and job seekers with disabilities in the workplace by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s employment page.

MORE DETAILS

CBC News Sudbury December 19, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/catching-up-on-recent-media-reports-on-accessibility-barriers-that-still-plague-people-with-disabilities/

Platform for job seekers with disabilities to expand to northern Ontario

Amandipp Singh started Enabled Talent because of his own experience as someone with vision impairment

Jonathan Migneault CBC News

A smiling man wearing a black hoodie.

Amandipp Singh is the founder of Enabled Talent, a job search platform for people with disabilities. (Jonathan Migneault/CBC)

As a person with partial vision impairment, Amandipp Singh has firsthand experience with the barriers disabled Canadians face when applying for jobs.

“If I ask you or your colleagues to use Indeed LinkedIn with your eyes closed, is it something they’ll be able to do, even with the screen reader?” he asked.

When Singh was applying for jobs, he said he was surprised to learn a large number of applications don’t even reach recruiters because they are filtered out by human resources software that searches for specific keywords in resumes.

“And that time the thought came in mind that there could be a better way of doing things,” he said.

“And that is what led to the idea of this vision of Enabled Talent.”

Two years ago, Singh started Enabled Talent, a job platform meant to connect job seekers with disabilities with employers.

The site uses new technologies, including artificial intelligence, to make searching for a job more accessible for people who are neurodivergent or have vision, hearing or speech impairments.

“One example being a tool which uses audio, something like Siri, for people with vision impairment to communicate with the platform or the app instead of using a screen reader,” Singh said.

His hope is that Enabled Talent will help close the employment gap between Canadians with and without disabilities.

According to Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate for Canadians with disabilities ages 15 and up was 7.6 per cent in 2023. For Canadians without disabilities, the unemployment rate was 4.6 per cent that year.

Stats Can also reports that employees with a disability earned $31.95 an hour on average compared with $33.86 for employees without disabilities.

Singh started Enabled Talent in the Toronto area but is now expanding to northeastern Ontario.

The company plans to launch a Sudbury-specific platform for local job searchers and companies by February or March, and set up an office in the city by the summer.

Singh said he believes more support for job applicants with disabilities could help at least 500 people with disabilities in the Sudbury area enter the workforce. At the high end, he believes removing barriers could help up to 2,000 people in the region find work.

A man in a puffy jacket stands on the sidewalk with a walking stick in his hand.

David Lepofsky is an advocate for people with disabilities and chairs the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. (Paul Smith/CBC)

Barriers not yet eliminated, says advocate

David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, said those barriers continue to be significant in the province, despite legislation meant to address them.

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ADOA) set a target date of Jan. 1, 2025, for Ontario to be fully accessible.

But Lepofsky said it has fallen short in multiple areas, including employment.

“The provincial government has severely dropped the ball,” he said.

“It passed a very weak employment accessibility standard in 2011. It has never updated it.”

Lepofsky said creating a more accessible workforce in Ontario goes beyond employment standards.

High school students with disabilities, for example, should be better accommodated when they apply to do co-op placements.

Students who participate in those programs, he said, are able to get references early on, which helps them get their first jobs.

Lepofsky said services geared toward people with disabilities, such as Enabled Talent, can help bridge the employment gap, but more work is needed from the government to eliminate barriers.

In an email to CBC News, a spokesperson for Ontario’s Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development said “our government is providing more training for workers than ever before, directly connecting to real jobs in high-demand industries across the province.”

The email listed examples such as a program in the Ottawa area that prepares students with disabilities for successful entry into the workforce, and grants of up to $35,000 to cover disability-related supports such as assistive technology under the Employment Ontario and Better Jobs Ontario program.

“Our approach is focused on results: reducing barriers, expanding access to skills training, connecting people to good jobs, and helping employers find the talent they need,” the email read.

“We will continue working with community organizations, training partners, and employers to strengthen labour force participation for Ontarians living with disabilities and ensure opportunities are open to everyone.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jonathan Migneault is a CBC reporter/editor based in Sudbury. He is always looking for good stories about northeastern Ontario. Send story ideas to jonathan.migneault@cbc.ca.

the 6th Episode of Disability Rights and Wrongs – the David Lepodcast Features the Second Half of the Interview with Former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne on How to Get a Politician’s Attention

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
Twitter: @aodaalliance
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/aodaalliance

the 6th Episode of Disability Rights and Wrongs – the David Lepodcast Features the Second Half of the Interview with Former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne on How to Get a Politician’s Attention

December 19, 2025

Today the 6th episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” was made public. It is the second half of AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s interview with Ontario’s former premier, the Honourable Kathleen Wynnne. Give it a listen!

In this episode, Kathleen Wynne gives us more practical tips on how to make the best use of time you can get to meet with a politician. For people who want to advocate on disability issues or on any social justice issue, these tips are invaluable.

You may wish to first go back and listen to the 5th episode, which includes the first part of the interview with Kathleen Wynne. However, you can fully enjoy this new episode even if you are just checking out the podcast for the first time.

All earlier episodes remain available, and are worth a listen, including:

1. “The 12 Year Fight for Automated Stop Announcements on the TTC” about Lepofsky’s long struggle to make transit in Toronto accessible for blind riders, with host David Lepofsky.
2. “Beyond Building Codes: Designing Spaces for Everyone,” with guest built-environment accessible design expert Thea Kurdi
3. “Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign” covering how targeted advocacy resulted in policy change for autism therapies, with guest autism advocate Bruce McIntosh.
4. “Turning Barriers into Headlines: Practical Tips from a Veteran News Reporter,” with former journalist Michelle McQuigge.
5. “How to get a Politician’s Attention Part 1” with the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, former Ontario Premier.

You can listen to our podcast on your smart phone, tablet or computer. Get this podcast wherever you get your podcasts, or download it directly from various podcast platforms such as Apple Music, Spotify, Amazon Music and iHeart.

Ask your smart phone, Alexa, or Google Nest (if you have one): “Play podcast ‘Disability Rights and Wrongs!’”

Want a transcript of each podcast? Apple Music can generate transcripts.

Are you totally new to podcasts, and want to know what a podcast is? Think of it like a custom-made radio show, but one that did not get broadcast on any radio station. You download episodes for free and listen to them whenever you want.

This is the last episode for 2025. However, we have great content lined up for prime time early in 2026!

Also available over the holidays for your listening pleasure, you can use your smart phone, tablet or computer to listen to the audio stream of Accessible Media AMI Radio. From December 20 through January 3, at 5 p.m. Eastern, AMI Radio is airing one-hour instalments of David Lepofsky’s memoir, “Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” narrated by Roger Ashby. It is available to anyone and everyone on the live stream of AMI Radio.

How You Can Help
• An important way to increase the number of people who listen to our new podcast is when a friend or family member tells them about it. To have the best impact, we have found that if you are talking to someone about it, and they sound interested, encourage them to take their smart phone out right then and there. Suggest that they open a podcast app, many of which are free, search for “David Lepodcast” and subscribe! It is that easy. Otherwise, they can get busy and forget to subscribe.

• Email us with your feedback on the podcast, including ideas for future episodes. Tell us where you are writing from. We have gotten downloads from a growing number of countries all over the world.

Federal Government Enacts New Digital Accessibility Regulation under the Accessible Canada Act While Ford Government Hasn’t Updated Ontario’s 2011 Counterpart, Despite Receiving Recommendations on This Almost Six Years Ago

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Federal Government Enacts New Digital Accessibility Regulation under the Accessible Canada Act While the Ford Government Hasn’t Updated Ontario’s 2011 Counterpart, Despite Receiving Recommendations on This Almost Six Years Ago

December 17, 2025

SUMMARY

On December 17, 2025, the Federal Government announced that it had enacted new federal regulations under the Accessible Canada Act on the important topic of digital accessibility. See the Government’s email announcement and the executive summary below. We need to verify this fact, but this appears likely to be the first regulations that the Federal Government has enacted under the Accessible Canada Act for the purpose of setting specific accessibility requirements for any sector of the economy. The ACA was enacted six and a half years ago.

We have not had the time to undertake a detailed analysis of these regulations. At first read, they appear to include some good features. Unlike Ontario’s Information and Communication Accessibility Standard, they commendably cover mobile apps, not just websites.

Yet these new federal regulations also appear to have worrisome shortcomings. They exempt transportation providers like airlines and communication providers such as Bell Canada or Rogers, because they are under the Canada Transportation Agency and the CRTC, respectively. This is yet more of the harmful splintering of the ACA over multiple regulatory agencies. It adds costs and burdens to the public, the taxpayer and the disability community.

We commend the Federal Government for enacting regulations regarding digital accessibility. Back in 2011, the Ontario Government was the first Canadian jurisdiction to do so, acting under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. However, since then, the Ontario Government has made no revisions to update and modernize that 2011 regulation. The Ford Government has unjustifiably and inexcusably sat on the excellent final report of the Government-appointed Information and Communication Standards Development Committee which it received on or around February 23, 2020. The AODA required the Ford Government to make that report public upon receiving it. In violation of the AODA, the Ford Government kept it secret for eight months. It has announced no amendments to the Information and Communication Accessibility Standard after that.

How You Can Help

Give the Federal Government feedback on these new federal regulations. Sign up for the technical briefings on them, described below, that the Federal Government will be offering in the new year if you want to learn more about them.

Write your Ontario MPP. Tell them it’s well past time the Ford Government strengthened and modernized the 2011 Information and Communication Accessibility Standard, using the good recommendations from the Government’s Information and Communication Standards Development Committee.

Learn more about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy efforts for accessible information and communication by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s information and communications page.

MORE DETAILS

December 17, 2025 Broadcast Email from the Government of Canada

I am pleased to share that the Phase 1 Digital Technologies Accessibility Regulations (the Regulations) under the Accessible Canada Act are now in force.

You can view the Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II. These Regulations apply to all federal public sector organizations regardless of size. They also apply to large and medium-sized federally regulated private sector businesses such as banks, airlines and telecommunications service providers with 100 or more employees. Small private sector businesses with 99 or fewer employees are exempt from the new Regulations.

Technical Briefings on the New Regulations

Employment and Social Development Canada will hold four bilingual technical briefing sessions via Zoom to explain the regulatory requirements and answer questions.

The sessions will be held on February 3, 5, 9 and 11, 2026 from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EST.

Please mail us directly with the following information to attend a session:

Date of the session you want to attend
Your first and last name
Your organization name (if applicable)
Your email address
Your phone number (optional)
Any accessibility requirements, including ASL/LSQ interpretation and captioning.

We will send Zoom meeting details by email prior to the sessions.

We look forward to your participation in these briefings. If you have any questions, please reach out to the Accessible Canada Directorate.

Sincerely,

Rupa Bhawal-Montmorency

Director General

Accessible Canada Directorate

Employment and Social Development Canada

Excerpt of Executive Summary of Government of Canada’s Regulatory Impact Statement

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: More than one in four Canadians aged 15 years and over have a disability, yet 45% of persons with disabilities in Canada have reported experiencing digital accessibility barriers when interacting with federal sector entities. Digital accessibility barriers have significant negative impacts on the livelihood and well-being of persons with disabilities and other Canadians. They make it challenging to manage finances independently; apply for, access and retain jobs; and obtain information about or access programs and services.

Description: The amendments (“Phase 1 Regulations” hereafter) to the Accessible Canada Regulations (ACARs) introduce a new part titled “Information and Communication Technologies” (ICT), which sets out the first phase of new requirements for both public and private sector federally regulated entities regarding digital accessibility. ICT is sometimes referred to as “digital technologies.”

The Phase 1 Regulations set accessibility requirements for three areas of digital technologies that are priorities for persons with disabilities. These areas are the following: (1) web pages, including web applications; (2) mobile applications; and (3) non-web documents (hereafter referred to as “digital documents”).

In addition, federally regulated entities must provide training on digital accessibility fundamentals to their employees who develop, maintain or purchase digital technologies; publish accessibility statements about their web pages, mobile applications and digital documents; and assess the accessibility of certain digital technology products and services they purchase.

Private sector federally regulated entities with 99 employees or fewer (“small businesses” hereafter) are exempted from the Phase 1 Regulations. First Nations band councils have a time-limited exemption from the Phase 1 Regulations and from the planning and reporting requirements of the ACARs until December 31, 2033. This aims to provide sufficient time and space to continue engaging First Nations partners and other Indigenous stakeholders on accessibility barriers faced by Indigenous persons with disabilities and develop a tailored approach to the application of the Accessible Canada Act (ACA) on reserve.

Rationale: Removing persistent digital accessibility barriers for persons with disabilities and preventing new ones are a priority under the ACA. This is particularly important because, for most people, digital technology is key to accessing programs and services, finding jobs and staying employed. To this end, the aim of the Phase 1 Regulations is to ensure equitable access to jobs, programs, and services for persons with disabilities by promoting the use of accessible digital technologies in the federal public and private sector, thus enabling their full participation in Canadian communities and workplaces.

Extensive consultations with the disability community and regulated entities made it clear that inaccessible web pages, mobile applications and digital documents continue to create significant barriers to equitable access to information, services and programs. Consequently, these three areas were identified as priorities for regulatory action.

Having requirements around accessibility statements, training and assessing the accessibility of digital technologies that federally regulated entities purchase were identified by the disability community and regulated entities as crucial steps to enhance digital accessibility. These help support accessibility improvements and enable a shift to a culture where digital technology is designed to be accessible from the start. In addition, these lay the foundation for future amendments to the ACARs that will address more complex digital technology areas (e.g. legacy or pre-existing digital technology, application software, artificial intelligence).

While the administrative and compliance costs that will result from the Phase 1 Regulations are considered significant, the benefits are expected to outweigh the costs. Over 10 periods of 12 months, the expected total present value (PV) costs to federally regulated entities are projected to be approximately $309.95 million in 2022 constant dollars (the purchasing power of Canadian dollars in 2022). The expected total PV benefits are projected to be approximately $1,209.78 million. This results in a net PV benefit of approximately $899.83 million.

Ensuring digital accessibility from the start enables persons with disabilities, and to a lesser extent persons without disabilities, to benefit from time savings by reducing the need for in-person visits and phone calls to federally regulated entities to obtain information and conduct transactions.

Based on available information from international jurisdictions and expert consultations, federally regulated entities are expected to benefit from reduced phone calls, email exchanges, demands for production of documents, and in-person visits to their service delivery locations. In addition, since digital technologies are key tools for workers, federally regulated entities are expected to benefit from increased productivity and lower turnover rates when employees with disabilities have barrier-free access to these technologies.

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s December Metroland Column, CTV National News and CBC Cover the Appalling 8-Year Delay For a Blind Job Applicant to Win an Open-and-Shut Disability Discrimination Case at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s December Metroland Column, CTV National News and CBC Cover the Appalling 8-Year Delay For a Blind Job Applicant to Win an Open-and-Shut Disability Discrimination Case at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

December 17, 2025

SUMMARY

It is inexcusable that it took a blind job applicant eight long years to win an open-and-shut case of disability discrimination in employment. This case is the focus of three articles, set out below:

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s December monthly column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications around Ontario.
The November 29, 2025 report on CTV National News, and
The December Report on CBC News.

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires the Ontario Government to have led Ontario to be accessible to people with disabilities by 2025 in several areas, including employment. The Government passed a very weak Employment Accessibility Standard in 2011. On January 22, 2019, the Ford Government received the final report of the Government-appointed Employment Standards Development Committee with recommendations to strengthen that accessibility standard. The Ford Government was required to post that report upon receiving it.

In violation of the AODA, the Government did not make those final recommendations public until around February 2021, some two years later. The Government never enacted any revisions to the 2011 Employment Accessibility Standard to strengthen it. Therefore, people with disabilities facing employment barriers are left to fight cases individually at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

How You Can Help

Send these news reports to your member of the Ontario Legislature. Urge them to push for an independent review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and for dramatic reforms to this process.

Learn about the AODA Alliance’s efforts to achieve equal opportunity for employees and job seekers with disabilities in the workplace, by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s employment page.

MORE DETAILS

Simcoe Today December 17, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.insidehalton.com/life/lepofsky-ohrt-column/article_2da45ffb-a05f-5df5-8399-707e8939f03f.html

Opinion

St. Catharines’ discrimination case illustrates dire need for independent review of Ontario’s human rights tribunal

It can take five years or more to get a hearing at the tribunal, no matter how uncomplicated the case, David Lepofsky writes.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

In 2017, a blind St. Catharines resident with two computer-related diplomas applied for a job in a local call centre. His application was turned down. He filed a complaint of disability discrimination with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Eight long years later, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled that he was the victim of unlawful disability discrimination. The employer hadn’t fulfilled its duty to accommodate his disability in the workplace or its duty to investigate solutions.

It was open to the company under the Human Rights Code to present evidence proving that it was impossible to do anything more to fulfil these duties to him, without suffering “undue hardship.” The tribunal ruled that the company didn’t prove this defence.

This case does not break amazing new legal ground or establish bold new legal principles.

These duties have been deeply embedded in Ontario law for over a quarter century.

Yet many people with disabilities, parents of students with disabilities and people who work in organizations that have a duty to accommodate people with disabilities don’t know enough about the duty to accommodate.

To help, I shared an online talk on YouTube that gives an introductory explanation of the duty to accommodate people with disabilities.

This straightforward case was legally and factually simple — so why did it take the tribunal eight years?

The tribunal, administered by the Ontario government, is backlogged due to chronic underfunding and understaffing. Its rules of procedure, internal processes and administration are mired in inefficiencies. It is far from user-friendly.

Is this the result of a conscious government decision or staggering government neglect?

The province is, or should be, well aware of these problems — problems that are well known in the disability community and among lawyers.

It can take five years or more to get a hearing at the tribunal, no matter how uncomplicated the case.

If you have a child with a disability who cannot get their school board to properly accommodate their disability in kindergarten, it can take all the way until they are age-appropriate for Grade 5 or later before they can get this tribunal to deliver the classroom accommodation to which they are legally entitled.

Some who suffer clearly unlawful discrimination may understandably choose not to bother filing a claim at all.

Moreover, witnesses’ memories can fade over five years. Delayed testimony may not come across as credible as it would at a much swifter hearing.

These protracted delays also can hurt public and private sector organizations that face discrimination complaints. Why would they want such allegations hanging over their heads for years?

The Ontario government needs to fix this.

It should appoint an arm’s-length, impartial person or panel, such as a retired judge, with expertise in human rights law, to conduct an independent review. It should review the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the system for enforcing Ontario’s anti-discrimination legislation. It should make recommendations for reform.

In 2005, after we in the disability community advocated for a decade, the Ontario Legislature unanimously enacted the landmark Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).

It was supposed to lead Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. Ontario missed that deadline due to a series of major failures by successive provincial governments to effectively implement and enforce that law.

The AODA was supposed to reduce the need for individuals with disabilities from having to go to the tribunal to battle against each disability barrier they face when trying to get a job, ride public transit, use our health care system or get a good education. We now suffer from a double governmental failure.

First, because the government isn’t effectively implementing and enforcing the AODA, we still need to take individual disability barriers to the tribunal. Second, when we do take those barriers to that tribunal, we encounter horrible delays and soul-crushing bureaucracy.

The good news? This is fixable. A government could just decide that it needs to be reformed. That would be a great way to start the upcoming new year.

David Lepofsky is a retired lawyer who chairs the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, and is a visiting professor of disability rights at the law schools at Western, Queen’s and the University of Ottawa.

CTV News November 29, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/im-relieved-blind-ontario-man-awarded-28000-for-facing-discrimination/

Blind Ontario man awarded $28,000 after tribunal finds workplace discrimination

By Kamil Karamali

A blind man who won a human rights discrimination case speaks out. Kamil Karamali has his story.

A blind Ontario man has been awarded more than $28,000 in compensation and lost wages after the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decided a call-centre company took part in “discriminatory” action when it did not provide him with the tools needed to do his job.

“It was a real joy to read the decision, honestly,” said Erik Burggraaf, who has been blind since birth. “I’m happy about the decision. I’m relieved that it upholds the precedents. That’s the really important thing.”

Burggraaf, who lives in St. Catharines, Ontario, said he tried to apply for dozens of jobs in a two-year span nearly a decade ago, but he felt hopeful when he received an interview request from Convergy’s call centre in Welland, ON, for a sales associate position back in 2017.

He claimed that he told the employer in the interview process what he needed as a blind person to do his job — a Braille display and screen-reading computer software.

“They committed to providing the tools for work, but you wouldn’t provide the tools for work for a candidate that wasn’t suitable for the job — so at that point, you feel like you have the job because they’re looking at how to build a screen reader into their process,” said Burggraaf.

“But then they left a voicemail on my phone and just said we can’t do it — and that was it.”

In the HRTO hearing, the employer had claimed the software was not compatible with the computer systems the company was using at the call centre.

In the Oct. 17 decision, HRTO adjudicator Romona Gananathan said they were “…unable to find based on all of the evidence that the respondents met their substantive duty to accommodate the applicant, because they did not explore alternatives and costs of any programs that could have been adapted to meet the needs of their client and accommodate the worker.”

“Accordingly, the respondents’ decision not to hire the applicant as a result of his blindness is discriminatory under the Code,” reads the decision.”

Burggraaf said the decision upholds the precedent, “but the big thing that came out of this was that an applicant must be included in the fact-finding and discovery of what is or is not possible.”

Erik Burggraaf of St. Catharines, Ontario has been awarded more than $28,000 in compensation and lost wages after the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decided a call-centre company took part in ‘discriminatory’ action.

The HRTO awarded Burggraaf $20,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, and $8,472 for lost wages.

It also ordered the employers to develop new human rights and accommodation policies specifically addressing the hiring of blind applicants, with a focus on the interview process.

Unemployment rate of Canadians with disabilities a ‘national shame’

The most recent data from Statistics Canada says the Canadian unemployment rate for people with disabilities was 8.1 per cent, while the rate for those without disabilities was 5.6 per cent.

“The unemployment rate facing Canadians with disabilities is not only a national crisis, it’s a national shame — and it continues to this day.” said David Lepofsky, a blind disability advocate and retired lawyer. “The problem is a merger of barriers in the education system facing students with disabilities. If you can’t get a good education, you can’t get a good job.”

“To enforce the human rights code, you got to go to a tribunal yourself and fight your own case — and many people with disabilities won’t, added Lepofsky. ”And even if you do, you have to wait years and years and years, which is something that is ridiculous.”

Despite his eight-year wait to have his case heard and a decision to come down, Burggraaf hopes his story will inspire other people with disabilities to push back against discrimination in the workplace or during the hiring process.

“What I want people to do is, is to talk about it and to bring these types of things forward, because it turns out there is actually something you can do about it. And the more people who speak up, the faster we can change the state of things.”

The Convergy’s call-centre location in Welland, Ontario closed down in 2018 — with the company merging with another to form a new corporation called Concentrix.

CTV News sent an email request to Concentrix for an interview and comment related to this story, but did not hear back before the deadline.

CBC News December 9, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/9.7003158?feature=random

Blind St. Catharines, Ont., man awarded $28K after discriminatory hiring process and years-long tribunal wait

Diona Macalinga CBC News

Disability advocate and lawyer says long wait for a tribunal decision ‘is horrific, but not unusual’

Caption: Erik Burggraaf, who is blind, said Convergys, now Concentrix, made no attempt to ask about his accommodation needs after a job interview in 2017. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) found the company failed its duty to accommodate. (Diona Macalinga/CBC)

In August 2017, St. Catharines resident Erik Burggraaf made it through two interviews and a month-long wait before hearing back on a sales associate position at a Welland, Ont., call centre.

When the call finally came in, Burggraaf told CBC News, he felt “fatalistic” after hearing he didn’t get the job, despite Convergys, the company he applied to, saying “he was a qualified candidate.”

“I’ve probably applied to 30 to 40 call centre jobs in my life to at least a dozen different companies and I’ve never been able to land one,” said Burggraaf, who graduated with two diplomas in computer hardware and computer programming and analysis. “If I wanted an IT job, I would have to start at an entry-level position.”

In 2018, Burggraaf filed a human rights complaint against Convergys, now acquired by Concentrix. The wait for a decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) came to an end on Oct. 17 — seven years later and after he landed a job elsewhere.

The tribunal ordered the company to pay $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, as well as $8,472 for lost wages. The company was also ordered to develop accommodating hiring policies and accessible interview processes for blind candidates.

In the decision, tribunal member Romona Gananathan wrote the company “failed in their procedural duty to accommodate when they did not explore further accommodation solutions with the applicant.”

CBC News reached out to Concentrix for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

With a resumé that listed experience in training and testing experience accessibility programs for organizations such as the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Burggraaf said the company “made no attempts to include [him] in any discussions related to [his] accommodations whatsoever.”

According to the decision, an IT operations employee at Convergys claimed to have tested trial versions and free screen readers — software that read on-screen information by speech or through a refreshable braille display.

Image | Braille keyboard

Caption: A refreshable braille display, which can be seen on the lower part of this keyboard, allows blind users to read information on their screen. (Shane Fowler/CBC)

The employee concluded none “adequately” worked nor was interactive with their customer relationship management software. Convergys also claimed the position requires being able to “independently navigate and use” AT&T’s proprietary software, their sole client.

Burggraaf said the company “did the most basic investigation … to prove their preconception that I couldn’t be placed in the job.”

‘Justice delayed can be justice denied’: advocate

A 2022 Statistics Canada report found that 6.9 per cent of Canada’s working age population with disabilities were unemployed — that is almost double the unemployment rate of those without disabilities.

However, many blind people go on to have successful careers in fields including video-game streaming, cosmetics or law, among others.

This Ontario teen inspired tactile makeup for blind beauty enthusiasts

How a blind man plays mainstream video games and the future of accessibility in games

David Lepofsky is a blind lawyer, now retired, and chairs the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance (AODA Alliance).

Image | David Lepofsky

Caption: David Lepofsky, chair of AODA Alliance, says the case is an example of ‘black letter law,’ where the employer, Convergys, had a clear legal duty to accommodate Burggraaf’s blindness, unless ‘undue hardship’ on the company made it impossible to do so. (Submitted by David Lepofsky)

He said the case is nothing new, having established no breakthroughs or new rights. It has, however, demonstrated a “fundamentally broken” human rights code enforcement process.

“You can’t get a decision until well after the office where you wanted to work has closed,” said Lepofsky.

“The event happened in 2017. It took eight years for the human rights tribunal to hold a hearing and then decide this case. That is horrific, but not unusual,” he said, pointing at the HRTO’s longstanding backlog and staffing shortage issues.

“Under our human rights law — again settled for decades — the employer had the duty to do both investigate solutions and accommodate unless it can prove that it was impossible to do anything more without undue hardship to the company,” said Lepofsky.

Gananathan wrote that Convergys “failed to pursue any accommodation options with their client [AT&T] who also had obligations under the code and may have had some solutions,” and also failed to consult accommodation experts such as the CNIB.

In 2021, Burggraaf got a job providing workers with disabilities adaptive tools at Shared Services Canada with a team, he says, that approaches situations involving accommodation “with an incredible degree of compassion.”

“I would like to see more of that in the private sector,” he said.

Ford Government Causes More Chaos in the Top Ranks at Two School Boards Over Which it Seized control, Further Destabilizing Education for All Students, Including Thousands of Students with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Ford Government Causes More Chaos in the Top Ranks at Two School Boards Over Which it Seized control, Further Destabilizing Education for All Students, Including Thousands of Students with Disabilities

December 13, 2025

SUMMARY

On December 12, 2025, the Ford Government summarily fired the Toronto District School Board’s Director of Education Clayton La Touche. One month earlier, on November 11, 2025, the Ottawa Carleton District School Board’s Director of Education was similarly terminated.

The Director of Education is the senior full-time executive who runs a school board. They usually are hired by and report to a board of elected school trustees. At six Ontario school boards over the past months, including TDSB and OCDSB, the Ford Government has seized control of the boards, appointed separate provincial supervisors over each of their Directors of Education, and ousted their elected trustees.

In both the Ottawa and Toronto cases, concerns from the perspective of thousands of students with disabilities were expressed in the media arising from these summary terminations. Below we set out a report in the December 12, 2025 Toronto star and a report in the November 11, 2025 Ottawa Citizen. In light of such events, it is going to be harder to recruit qualified candidates for this difficult job. Who would want to subject themselves to the chaos.

Ontario schools continue to be replete with disability barriers that make it harder for one-third of a million students with disabilities to fully participate in and benefit from the education that school boards are required to provide equally for all students. The Ford Government’s track record on fixing this is grossly deficient.

Nine years ago, while in opposition, the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party properly blasted the governing Liberals about this situation in Ontario schools, and demanded that Liberal premier Kathleen Wynne agree to create an Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to tear down disability barriers. Here is what the Tories’ disability issues critic said in the Legislature’s Question Period on December 5, 2016:

“Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Premier. It has been 11 years since this Legislature passed the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Yet, today, over a third of a million students with disabilities continue to face far too many barriers when they try to go to school, college or university in Ontario.

Today’s Toronto Star reports that 22 respected community organizations wrote the Premier, urging her to finally say “yes” to creating an educational accessibility standard and tear down those unfair barriers.

Premier, on October 31, you told this House that you were considering this. Will you agree to do it today?”

It was very good that Premier Wynne responded by committing to the creation of an Education Accessibility Standard. This was a major breakthrough for which we had fought hard for seven years.

Importantly, the Conservative disability issues critic Bill Walker immediately pressed this issue again in his supplementary question to the Premier, stating:

“This government’s continued inaction on this file is inexcusable. This government has no comprehensive plan to ensure that our education system will become fully accessible by 2025, as the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires. The AODA Alliance has pressed you for over half a decade to agree to develop the standard under the AODA to tackle these barriers.

Can you tell a third of a million students with disabilities and their families what the holdup is, after the five years of this issue being before your government?

In her response, Premier Wynne repeated her commitment to enact an Education Accessibility Standard. The back story behind this exchange in Question Period is discussed by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and former Premier Kathleen Wynne in the most recent episode of our new podcast, Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast, available wherever podcasts are found. You can also read the entire exchange between Premier Wynne and Conservative MPP Bill Walker in the December 5, 2016 AODA Alliance Update.

It was very commendable that the Conservatives, while in opposition, recognized that students with disabilities face so many disability barriers in school and that they demanded prompt action, specifically supporting the need for the enactment of the Education Accessibility Standard.

Similarly, when he was seeking votes in the 2018 election, Doug Ford specifically recognized the need for more action in his May 15, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance, which included:

“Your issues are close to the hearts of our Ontario PC Caucus and Candidates, which is why they will play an outstanding role in shaping policy for the Ontario PC Party to assist Ontarians in need.”
“Too many Ontarians with disabilities still face barriers when they try to get a job, ride public transit, get an education, use our healthcare system, buy goods or services, or eat in restaurants.
Whether addressing standards for public housing, health care, employment or education, our goal when passing the AODA in 2005 was to help remove the barriers that prevent people with disabilities from participating more fully in their communities.

For the Ontario PCs, this remains our goal. Making Ontario fully accessible by 2025 is an important goal under the AODA and it’s one that would be taken seriously by an Ontario PC government.”

“The Ontario PC Party believes our education system must minimize barriers for students with disabilities, providing the skills, opportunities and connections with the business community that are necessary to enter the workforce.”

What has the Ford Government done about this in its seven and a half years in office? Almost four years ago, on January 28, 2022, the Ford Government received the final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. It provides a thorough report on the disability barriers in Ontario’s K-12 schools, recommendations on what needs to be done to remove and prevent them, and a blueprint for the promised Education Accessibility Standard. Almost four years later, the Ford Government has not enacted any of its recommendations. When asked, it has previously said it is still studying the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee report. It mechanically makes boasts about how much money it allocates to special education whenever these issues are raised, without facing the reality of what too many students with disabilities are experiencing in the classroom.

The Government’s seizing control over six school boards has thrown them into chaos and uncertainty. Terminating Directors of Education risks making this worse. The taxpayer will be on the hook for paying out settlements with the senior executives they fire. When elected trustees hired Directors of Education, there was an expectation of an open competitive hiring process. Under the direct control of the Minister of Education, if Ottawa is to be the illustration, this will not be the same. Parents of students with disabilities have every reason to fear that the Ford Government will not make it a priority to hire new Directors of Education with the much-needed expertise in positively reforming our education system on the front lines for students with disabilities.

How You Can Help

Join in on the all-important Better Call Paul Campaign. Phone or email Education Minister Paul Calandra and ask him to intervene to fix the problems facing your child with disabilities in an Ontario school. Tell him that our school boards do not need to be thrust into any more chaos and that any new Directors of Education must have proven expertise on improving educational opportunities for students with disabilities.

Phone: 416 325-2600

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tdsb-director-ousted/article_0eaa5b5b-d6a7-4760-8d14-c6d5ba7494b4.html#:~:text=In%20a%20memo%20sent%20Friday,the%20TDSB%2C%20effective%20immediately.%E2%80%9D&text=Kristin%20Rushowy%20is%20a%20Toronto,covering%20education%20for%20the%20Star.

Download and distribute our 1-page Better Call Paul brochure available at this link.

Encourage people you know to learn how to be an effective disability advocate by listening to our new podcast called Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast. Get this podcast wherever you get your podcasts or download it directly from various podcast platforms such as:

Apple music: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/disability-rights-and-wrongs-the-david-lepodcast/id1838700161

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5WFLiSy99OJPMZ1ZSrkWCg

Ask your smart phone, Alexa, or Google Nest: “Play podcast Disability Rights and Wrongs!”

Learn about the contents of the final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee by watching a talk by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky that summarizes it, available online.

Visit the AODA Alliance website’s education page to learn about our battle for over 15 years to tear down the recurring disability barriers in our education system.

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star December 13, 2025

Province fires TDSB director

Supervisor says aim is to set board up for ‘success in the years to come,’ as advocates decry move

Kristin Rushowy Senior Writer Isabel Teotonio Toronto Star

The education director of the Toronto District School Board has been ousted in a surprise move the province said is needed for a “fresh start” – but one that left staff rattled and a teachers union accusing the government of “political games.”

In a memo sent Friday morning to employees, provincial supervisor Rohit Gupta said he and Education Minister Paul Calandra made the “difficult decision” and that Clayton La Touche “will be leaving the TDSB, effective immediately.”

Gupta said he wants to set up the board – which the province took over last June, citing financial issues – “for success in the years ahead.”

The move has raised concerns about the level of the ministry’s involvement in school boards, given that it has stripped elected trustees of power in an unprecedented six boards and sent in its own appointees to take charge, while also announcing that governance changes are on the way.

La Touche is the third director to leave a public board while under provincial supervision and, like his Ottawa counterpart, been replaced with someone with a business background.

“The removal of yet another director of education risks creating greater instability at a time when students, families and staff most need steadiness and trust in their school system,” said Kathleen Woodcock, president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association.

“This level of provincial involvement in local governance is unprecedented. Strong local leadership is essential for communities, and these actions risk undermining public confidence rather than strengthening it.”

La Touche, a respected veteran educator who started his career as a TDSB elementary teacher 30 years ago, is a former Ontario assistant deputy education minister and associate director at the York Region public board.

Sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the ouster, told the Star that La Touche and Gupta had a strained relationship from the outset; since taking over the board, Gupta has reversed a number of board decisions made during La Touche’s tenure.

For David Lepofsky, head of the board’s special education advisory committee, La Touche showed “strong support for the need for improvements for the 40,000 students with disabilities and special education needs” and was shocked he’d been let go after just 10 months.

La Touche, he added, “had worked for the Ministry of Education for many years … it’s not like he was an unknown quantity.”

Local union presidents also weighed in, with Michelle Teixeira of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation saying with the “sudden change in leadership … We worry that this move is more political games being played at the expense of students.”

John Weatherup, president of the Toronto Education Workers CUPE Local 4400, said “it doesn’t make sense to me – it upsets the system for sure.”

With La Touche gone, associate director Stacey Zucker, a chartered accountant with 15 years working in the education system, will serve as interim director.

“Under the continued leadership of the supervisor, the Toronto District School Board is refocusing on student achievement,” Calandra said in a statement to the Star. “I have full confidence that the supervisor, working with the interim director, will drive that focus and ensure every decision puts students first.”

The ouster comes as Calandra looks to overhaul how the education system is governed and possible widespread curriculum reform. He has also ordered a review of the EQAO testing system after recent results in reading, writing and math showed little progress.

TDSB Trustee Weidong Pei “fully” supports the decision to remove La Touche, arguing the former director placed too much emphasis on diversity, equity and inclusion policies at the expense of academic achievement, pointing to recent stalled standardized test results.

La Touche, he added, supported a number of contentious decisions, including the controversial lottery-based admissions process for specialized programs and the renaming of three schools commemorating historical figures, saying those were “policies that distracted the board and did nothing to support our classrooms.”

Gupta has since reinstated merit-based admissions, halted school renamings, blocked the transfer of a longtime and beloved high school principal, and reversed the removal of the itinerant music instructor program.

Trustee Debbie King, who served on the search committee that recruited La Touche, called this “yet another, in a series of troubling decisions that drastically increases spending outside of classrooms while disregarding the decisions of trustees and interests of school communities,” she said.

The board is now on the hook for the supervisor’s $350,000 salary, up to $40,000 in expenses, as well as his assistant’s salary. It will also need to pay out the remainder of La Touche’s contract, which King said is typically five years, with a severance clause.

Advocacy group Save Our Schools – comprising parents, students and educators – said it is “relieved” La Touche is no longer at the helm, saying he “consistently demonstrated a flagrant disregard for community input and has done nothing to meaningfully address falling student achievement or the school violence crisis.”

But at Queen’s Park, opposition critics said the province’s moves are not going to help the system or student achievement, and only add to boards’ bottom lines.

“We now have people with no discernible background in education firing leaders with years of experience, because the minister thinks he can run Ontario’s education system from his office at Queen’s Park,” said Liberal MPP John Fraser.

“Firing a chief executive without cause is costly. Taxpayers cover the severance, with no improvement in classrooms, no reduction in class sizes, and no added support for students.”

NDP education critic Chandra Pasma slammed the secrecy around a move made “behind closed doors. Parents have not been consulted and had no opportunity to participate in this important decision.”

Other education insiders worried that the Toronto board, and others, will have trouble finding new directors given that the pool is already small, amid new worries about how big a role the province will play.

In the Near North District School Board, the director there has resigned following a scathing ministry report that detailed dysfunctional leadership by him and elected trustees. Calandra said he will appoint an interim director there, as well as a provincial supervisor – and in the meantime has put himself in charge of the North Bay-based board.

^Ottawa Citizen November 11, 2025

Originally posted at https://ottawacitizen.com/news/ocdsb-pino-buffone-departs

OCDSB director of education Pino Buffone departs

Buffone spearheaded the controversial elementary program review. He leaves after a provincial supervisor was appointed to oversee the OCDSB.

By Joanne Laucius

The director of education at Ottawa’s largest school board, which has been under provincial supervision since June, has departed his position.

In an email to staff, supervisor Bob Plamondon said Buffone was departing “effective immediately.”

“Please join me in extending best wishes to Pino for continued success in his future endeavours.”

Starting his career as a teacher and later becoming a vice-principal, principal and superintendent at the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, Buffone took the helm as director of education at the Renfrew County District School Board in 2017, then became director of education at the OCDSB in August 2023.

Buffone spearheaded the controversial elementary program review, arguing that there had been concerns about inequities in OCDSB schools for decades as French immersion programs drew students away from community schools, leaving some English-only schools with barely sustainable populations.

“The number of programs and where they are located has resulted in a patchwork of school configurations and grade structures as well as program offerings,” Buffone told trustees in April 2024.

At the time, elementary schools at the OCDSB had 900-plus students or fewer than 200, causing inequities between schools and students. One of the problems is that some schools, primarily those that don’t offer French immersion, have low enrolments.

The goal of the review was to return as many students as possible to their neighbourhood schools and to offer both the French immersion and the English programs in as many schools as possible, balancing out school populations and ensuring that all elementary schools remained viable. It would also result in less busing and fewer portable classrooms.

But the process also drew protests from parents over proposed school boundary changes. Parents, particularly inside the urban boundary, argued the changes would separate siblings and force some students to travel farther in some cases. In some neighbourhoods, schools are less than a kilometre apart, but some are under capacity, meaning the boundaries had to be shifted under the proposal.

Stacey Kay

The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board on Tuesday announced that Stacey Kay had been appointed as the board’s director of education. Kay replaced outgoing director Pino Buffone.

Last month, Plamondon said no child would have to change schools next September — but some elementary school boundaries could change eventually. The elementary program review, as proposed, would have been “chaotic,” he said in a written Q&A for parents clarifying his reasons for cancelling the changes.

In his message to staff, Plamondon said Stacey Kay, previously general manager of Learning Support Services at the OCDSB, where she oversaw special education and advancing inclusive, student-centred programs across the district, had become director of education effective immediately.

“Stacey began her career with the OCDSB in 2001 as a Speech-Language Pathologist, working in classrooms across the district,” Plamondon said in his message to staff.

“Over more than two decades, she took on progressively senior leadership roles and earned recognition for her student-focused leadership, collaboration with teachers, and commitment to excellence,” Plamondon said.

“Her extensive experience will be instrumental as she leads a student-first review of OCDSB operations to ensure resources support student success and well-being, while simultaneously strengthening staff engagement.”

Kay was named general manager and CAO of Ottawa Student Transportation Authority (OSTA) in December 2024, “where she delivered on a major transformation initiative to enhance service reliability and performance,” according to Plamondon.

In September 2023, the parents of about 7,500 students at the OCDSB and the Ottawa Catholic School Board scrambled to find alternative transportation to school only days before Labour Day after more than 300 bus runs were cancelled because bus companies struggled to hire drivers.

“With her proven record of delivering transformational results and deep understanding of the challenges facing the District, Stacey Kay is exceptionally well positioned to lead the OCDSB to become the best school board in the province of Ontario,” Plamondon said in his message.

“I am thrilled to return to the OCDSB during this exciting time of transformation. I look forward to connecting with students, staff, and families, and to leading the District with a steadfast commitment to student success,” Kay said in a statement released by the board. “Every student in the OCDSB deserves to be given the opportunity to thrive and fulfill their potential.”

Key areas of responsibility for the director of education include student welfare, educational leadership, fiscal responsibility, organizational management, strategic planning, personnel management, policy and procedures and community relations.

“Over the years, she has taken on progressively senior leadership roles, earning recognition for her student-focused leadership, collaboration with teachers, and commitment to excellence,” a board statement said of Kay. “Her extensive experience will be instrumental as she leads a student-first review of OCDSB operations to ensure resources support student success and well-being, while simultaneously strengthening staff engagement.”

Under provincial supervision, elected trustees are no longer able to make decisions.

Donna Blackburn, who was first elected in 2010, said Buffone’s departure should be very concerning to the people of Ottawa.

“Pino Buffone started his career at the school board as a student who didn’t speak English and rose to the head of the OCDSB,” she said.

“This man personifies the power of public education. For him to now be leaving is a tremendous loss to the OCDSB. This is the second strategically critical person to leave the OCDSB,” said Blackburn, a reference to the resignation of chief financial officer Randy Gerrior.

“Pino Buffone showed leadership in bringing forward the elementary program review, which was a necessary decision,” Blackburn said. “When you’re a leader, you can’t do what is popular.”

The Ministry of Education knew from the very beginning what OCDSB staff had proposed in the elementary program review, she said.

“The system has now been thrown into chaos. I do not feel or think that people in the system will react positively to this. I think there will be demoralization that will be very hard to overcome.”

NDP education critic Chandra Pasma said Buffone’s departure raised a lot of questions for parents.

“‘Departure’ is pretty opaque language,” said Pasma, the MPP for Ottawa West-Nepean. “We don’t know if he departed voluntarily or if he was removed. We don’t know the financial implications. We don’t know if he was paid severance.”

According to the 2024 Ontario Sunshine List, Buffone’s salary was $277,060, with $12,000 in benefits.

Pasma pointed out that directors of education were hired by elected trustees. In this case, the new director was hired by the supervisor.

“This was a decision made by one person, and one person only,” she said.

The province gave “financial mismanagement” as the reason for putting the OCDSB under supervision. If Buffone is being paid a severance because he was terminated, that’s money that will come out of the classroom, Pasma said.

“Parents will want to know — and what is being done to cover the cost.”

It’s “genuinely alarming” that Kay has been appointed the new director of education after assurances from Plamondon that special education would be the last area for cuts, said Kate Dudley-Logue, vice-president of community outreach at the Ontario Autism Coalition.

In the spring of 2024, the board was considering what the elementary program review might mean for integrating students with special needs into mainstream classes.

In discussing the general learning program (GLP), a specialized program for students with mild intellectual disabilities, Kay, then the OCDSB’s general manager of learning support services, said the program fostered a sense of belonging and community and allows students to develop life skills — but the structure created an environment that “inherently lowers expectations for learning.”

Some parents have disagreed, arguing that segregated programs have helped their child thrive. Parents have fought to keep segregated programs.

“Parents spent the last two years fighting to save these essential programs, and now it appears they have to fight again,” Dudley-Logue said.

2.9 Million Ontarians with Disabilities are Hurt by Gradual Encroachments on Democracy in Ontario

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

2.9 Million Ontarians with Disabilities are Hurt by Gradual Encroachments on Democracy in Ontario

December 12, 2025

News reports from around the world increasingly warn about gradual and creeping encroachments on democracy. Sadly, we have witnessed some of these threats very close to home that weaken the voice of people with disabilities and the broad disability community. Here are illustrations:

The AODA Alliance and other disability advocates, as well as all others interested in the public education system, were frozen out of any legislative debates over the recently passed Bill 33. The Ford Government allowed no public hearings on that bill. The AODA Alliance had applied to make a presentation at public hearings on that bill.

As earlier AODA Alliance Updates have highlighted, the Ford Government has ordered the six school boards over which it seized control to stop live streaming meetings of their Special Education Advisory Committees. This makes it much harder for parents and guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs and their associations to reach the public when they try to press senior school board officials for new action to tear down the many disability barriers in the publicly funded school system.

By ousting the democratically elected school board trustees in those six school boards, Premier Ford eliminated local democratic oversight and took away an important recourse for parents and guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs, namely reaching out to elected trustees or appearing before public meetings of the school board’s trustees.

The Ford Government recently held pre-budget hearings. The AODA Alliance applied to make a presentation at those hearings. We were not allowed to do so.

Last winter, the Ford Government decided to call a snap election that was held on February 27, 2025, in the midst of a very snowy winter. An election was not then mandatory or even needed. The Ford Government won a four-year term in the June 2022 Ontario general election. It did not need to go to the polls until June 2026, over a year after the February 27, 2025 election date. Elections Ontario has publicly reported that this snap election confronted it with greater difficulties in finding accessible polling locations for all voters with disabilities under shorter timelines than it had expected. Elections Ontario also stated that the snap election call created other difficulties regarding its staffing of polling stations and training poll workers. This has significant adverse implications for voters with disabilities. Moreover, holding an election in the dead of winter that had more than its share of major blizzards created snowy barriers that voters with disabilities would never face in a regularly scheduled June election.

This fall, the Ford Government also fast-tracked Bill 68 without holding public hearings. Among other things, that bill ended fixed-date provincial elections in Ontario. That means that the problems Elections Ontario said it faced this past February are going to be a regular feature of Ontario elections from now on. That too works to the detriment of voters with disabilities who already face too many disability barriers in the election process.

Adding to all of this, Premier Doug Ford is the only Ontario premier in over two decades who has refused to meet with any representatives of the AODA Alliance. In sharp contrast, the two previous premiers, Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne, each agreed to several meetings. Premier Ford has now been in office for seven and a half years. His only contact with the AODA Alliance has been to decline our meeting requests, to refer any of our inquiries to the Minister of Accessibility Raymond Cho, and to send requests to donate to his political party.

How You Can Help

Contact your member of the Ontario Legislature. Tell them to pressure Premier Ford to break this creeping undermining of the democratic process.

A Glimpse of Backdoor Cuts to Come for Students with Disabilities? Disturbing New Survey Reveals Previously Undisclosed TDSB Cuts to Services for Students with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

A Glimpse of Backdoor Cuts to Come for Students with Disabilities? Disturbing New Survey Reveals Previously Undisclosed TDSB Cuts to Services for Students with Disabilities

December 10, 2025

SUMMARY

A December 9, 2025 news article in the online Toronto Today publication, set out below, reports on a very disturbing survey that documents previously undisclosed cuts to some supports for students with disabilities/special education needs at Canada’s largest school board, the Toronto District School Board. This is the sole responsibility of the Ontario Government of Premier Doug Ford, since it took over total control and management of TDSB late last June.

This issue requires immediate objective and independent investigation. TDSB is required by law to consult with its Special Education Advisory Committee on its special education budget.

As we have earlier reported, the Ford Government is actively considering abolishing all elected school board trustees across Ontario. It has already seized direct control of six school boards, ousted their elected trustees, and passed provincial legislation without first holding public hearings that makes it even easier for the Minister of Education to seize direct control of more school boards.

How You Can Help

Join the Better Call Paul Campaign. Phone or email Education Minister Paul Calandra, and ask him to intervene to fix the problems facing your child with disabilities in an Ontario school. Specifically, ask him to investigate these unwarranted cuts to services at TDSB for students with disabilities/special education needs, a school board he is directly running.

Phone: 416 325-2600

Download and distribute our 1-page Better Call Paul brochure available at this link.

Encourage others to learn how to be an effective disability advocate by listening to our new podcast called Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast. Get this podcast wherever you get your podcasts or download it directly from various podcast platforms such as:

Apple music: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/disability-rights-and-wrongs-the-david-lepodcast/id1838700161

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5WFLiSy99OJPMZ1ZSrkWCg

People can also ask their smart phone, Alexa, or Google Nest: “Play podcast Disability Rights and Wrongs!”

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Today, December 9, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.torontotoday.ca/local/education/tdsbs-half-time-vice-principals-not-completing-special-ed-teaching-survey-11601651#google_vignette

TDSB vice principals not completing special ed work: survey

TDSB’s half-time vice principals are not completing required special ed teaching: survey

The president of the TDSB’s elementary teachers’ union says the survey shows there is ‘systemic discrimination’ of special needs students within the board

Gabe Oatley

Amid ongoing staffing challenges, many half-time vice principals in the Toronto District School Board are being pulled from their required special education duties to cover other administrative and classroom roles, leaving vulnerable learners without necessary support, according to a new report.

The report from the union Elementary Teachers of Toronto (ETT), shared with TorontoToday this week, is based on a survey completed by ETT members between mid-November and early December.

While many Torontonians without kids might imagine each school has a full-time principal and vice principal (VP), this is not always the case. Per the report, there are VPs in more than 100 TDSB elementary schools who cover typical administrative duties half-time and are assigned to a separate instructional position within the other 50 per cent of their role.

TDSB trustee Michelle Aarts (Beaches-East York) told TorontoToday that half-time VPs are a critical resource for schools where student numbers are too low to meet ministry guidelines for a full-time VP. Within these schools, many VPs are assigned to teach special education and work with children one-on-one, or in small groups, on learning goals outlined in students’ individual education plan. Other half-time VPs also serve as guidance counsellors or work with students learning English as a second language (ESL).

However, ETT’s survey found that amid staffing challenges, many half-time VPs are not fulfilling their required instructional function.

By mid-November, nearly one-third of the way through the school year, surveyed teachers reported that half-time VPs in about 20 schools were yet to deliver any formalized special education instruction to students. In an additional 20 schools, teachers reported half-time VPs have cancelled their special education programming at least once per week.

The survey found similar gaps in the delivery of classes for ESL students.

ETT president Helen Victoros told TorontoToday the findings amount to “systemic discrimination” of some of the board’s most marginalized learners.

TorontoToday contacted the TDSB for its perspective on the survey’s findings, but did not receive a response prior to publication.

‘Deeply concerned’: Autism Ontario

A spokesperson for the charity Autism Ontario said the organization is deeply concerned by the allegations outlined in the ETT report.

“When a student’s Individual Education Plan is not being implemented or supported because designated staff are unavailable or reprioritized for administrative tasks, this is a violation of the Human Rights Code and the Education Act,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

“When this delivery is undermined, it erodes trust, compromises equity, and creates downstream harm, especially for those already facing barriers to learning.”

David Lepofsky, chair of the TDSB’s special education advisory committee, said prior to reading ETT’s report, he had been unaware of the prevalence of half-time VPs serving in special education teaching roles, or allegations that some VPs are not completing their special education responsibilities.

“This information, if true, is devastating for some of the most vulnerable students in our school system, who are chronically underserved [and] who face recurring disability barriers in schools,” he said. “This, if true, can only serve to make things worse.”

Half-time VPs frequently filling gaps: Trustee

However, not all were surprised by the report’s findings.

Trustee Aarts said the practice of using half-time VPs has been ongoing for at least 15 years; but that within the last several years, it’s become particularly common for half-time VPs to be pulled from their teaching responsibilities to fill other gaps.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the trustee said schools across the province have faced enormous challenges in finding enough supply teachers to fill positions when teachers are off sick. When this happens, VPs frequently cover the role, she said.

The trustee said underfunding of schools by the provincial government has also made it more likely that half-time VPs are pulled from their instructional roles.

Lacking sufficient numbers of hall monitors, special education staff and child and youth workers, she said half-time VPs are often the only available adults in the school to help when a student has left class because they’ve become dysregulated, or for a myriad of other concerns that arise daily.

In its report, ETT also pointed its finger at the provincial government for the issue.

“Underfunded and understaffed school boards increasingly rely on half time teaching VP’s as one of their strategies to fill the gaps,” ETT wrote. “This strategy puts a band aid [sic] on a deep chasm of problems.”

A poll conducted in October 2023 by three associations that serve Ontario principals suggested school leaders are feeling the strain. Of the some 3,700 principals and VPs surveyed, 97 per cent said their workload was unmanageable, and 99 per cent said their workload had increased since 2019.

Union raised issue with TDSB before

Victoros said the union has in previous years raised alarm with the TDSB about VPs’ unfulfilled responsibilities, but has been met with resistance. In response to a 2016 request from the union, Victoros said the TDSB began outlining the instructional responsibilities required of half-time VPs working in special education.

However, she said the board has subsequently resisted tackling VPs’ failures to meet these standards at a systemic level. Instead, Victoros said the board has requested the union file a report about the specific schools where half-time VPs are not fulfilling their mandate.

She said this “whack-a-mole” approach is wholly insufficient to address the scale of the issue at hand. She added that the board’s failure to implement a holistic solution has consequences for both students and teachers.

The report notes that teachers often structure their lesson plans to allow time for a half-time VP to deliver special education or English learning instruction.

When this does not happen, teachers said it requires them to re-jig programming on the fly.

Victoros said it also causes teachers moral injury because they see students struggling academically as a result of insufficient support.

Unfulfilled instruction for language learners: survey

In addition to alleged instances of half-time VPs not completing required special education instruction, teachers surveyed by ETT also said some VPs have not fulfilled their remedial language support functions.

Of the 102 Toronto elementary schools identified with a half-time VP, 62 per cent of teachers said their VP is a special education resource instructor, while 13 per cent said VPs have an English language teaching role. Of half-time VPs teaching remedial English, ETT members reported that 36 per cent had not delivered any language education to students this year; while an additional 27 per cent of half-time VPs cancelled their language programs at least once per week since the school year began.

Victoros said this is unacceptable.

She added that the findings point to a major equity issue within the board between students at schools with half-time VPs and those with full-time VPs. “You’re at a significant disadvantage of actually receiving these specific program supports if you’re in a school with a half-time teaching vice principal,” she said.

The union president said she presented ETT’s report to TDSB staff on Dec. 5. She said she was told the board is “working on a communication to schools” about the issue, but that the union would not be provided with additional details.

In light of ETT’s findings, Autism Ontario said the board should audit the work of its half-time VPs and implement clear metrics to track service delivery. The charity said there “must be accountability” when systemic service gaps are identified, especially when those patterns disadvantage underserved learners. In its report, the union did not share the list of schools where half-time VPs are allegedly not completing required instructional duties. Victoros said ETT does not want teachers to face reprisals for having completed the survey.

To Mark the International Day for People with Disabilities, Disability Advocate David Lepofsky Interviews Former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne on “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast.”

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

To Mark the International Day for People with Disabilities, Disability Advocate David Lepofsky Interviews Former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne on “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast.”

December 2, 2025 Toronto: A decade ago, Premier Kathleen Wynne and disability advocate David Lepofsky would meet in the Premier’s Office. He vigourously pressed her on issues important to two million Ontarians with disabilities. She grilled him on how and whether his “asks” would work. They now meet again in a dramatically different setting.

On a new podcast hosted by Lepofsky, they have a probing discussion about strategies and tactics when advocating to a senior politician. This latest episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast” is timed to mark December 3, the International Day for People with Disabilities.

“Our new podcast gives listeners tips on how to advocate on disability issues or any social justice issues, whether here in Canada or around the world, via stories from those on the front lines,” said blind lawyer, long-time disability rights activist, part-time law professor, and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, the podcast’s creator. “In two episodes, the first of which drops on December 2, the Honourable Kathleen Wynne shares invaluable advice from the opposite side of the advocacy desk – offering her unique perspective of a veteran political leader with mountains of urgent issues on her desk, whom we’re trying to convince to add our issues to her agenda.”

Over Kathleen Wynne’s many years in public office, Lepofsky met with her a number of times to try to get on her radar and persuade her to rev up action to tear down disability barriers. On this podcast, Wynne and Lepofsky compare their back stories. Both experienced social justice advocates and lay individuals with no advocacy experience will get a practical guide on how to bring their disability barriers or other social justice concerns to elected politicians and maximize their chance of making progress.

“It’s wonderful to be able to have a relaxed, open and informative conversation like this with Ontario’s former Premier, in contrast to the high pressure of a formal meeting in the Premier’s Office,” said Lepofsky. “The podcast includes a discussion about a crucial question I got the opposition Tories to confront Premier Wynne with in the Legislature’s Question Period nine years ago about education for students with disabilities, still a vital topic mired in a political mess at Queen’s Park. The answer she gave in Question Period that day has resounding significance for one third of a million students with disabilities to this day.”

The first four podcast episodes include:

“The 12-Year Fight for Automated Stop Announcements on the TTC” about Lepofsky’s unbelievably long legal battle that forced the Toronto Transit Commission to audibly announce all subway, bus and streetcar stops to accommodate blind passengers.
“Beyond Building Codes: Designing Spaces for Everyone,” which explores why new buildings keep being constructed with preventable disability barriers, with guest built-environment, accessible design expert Thea Kurdi
“Smart Strategies, Real Change: Lessons from a Landmark Autism Campaign,” which dives into the decades of relentless grassroots advocacy in Ontario by parents of children with autism, featuring guest advocate Bruce McIntosh of the Ontario Autism Coalition.
“Turning Barriers into Headlines: Practical Tips from a Veteran News Reporter” on how to get media attention on a disability barrier or other social injustice, with veteran journalist Michelle McQuigg, formerly with the Canadian Press.

Future episodes will dive into struggles people with disabilities have had getting barriers removed in access to air travel, health care, and much more.

“This podcast aims to give people all over the world helpful tools to advocate to overcome disability barriers. Full accessibility is their legal right, but too often, that right has not been honoured,” said Lepofsky. “By using tips we are sharing, anyone and everyone can make a huge difference, as our guests on the David Lepodcast demonstrate from their own life experience.”

The podcast is available wherever people get their podcasts, such as Apple Music, Spotify, Amazon Music and iHeart. People can also ask their smart phone, Alexa, or Google Nest: “Play podcast ‘Disability Rights and Wrongs!’”

This podcast is produced by Accessible Media Inc. (AMI). Its skilled producer and co-host is Jacob Shymanski.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Learn more about the grassroots non-partisan advocacy campaign in Ontario since 1994 for accessibility for all people with disabilities by visiting the AODA Alliance’s website.

Happy 31st Birthday to Ontario’s Tenacious Grassroots Movement Advocating for Accessibility for All People with Disabilities!

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Happy 31^st Birthday to Ontario’s Tenacious Grassroots Movement Advocating for Accessibility for All People with Disabilities!

November 29, 2025

SUMMARY

Today is the 31st anniversary of the birth of the organized grassroots movement that has campaigned nonstop for the enactment and effective implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We have made gains that give us pride. We’ve fought an uphill battle, which in some ways is just as uphill today.

Thirty-one years ago today, on November 29, 1994, this grassroots movement was spontaneously born in a Queen’s Park meeting room to fight for legislation to make Ontario barrier-free for people with disabilities. A group of some twenty people with disabilities spontaneously gathered in a meeting room at Queen’s Park with the feeling that they had to do something. The “something” that they did was to create a new and enduring grassroots non-partisan movement to campaign for strong accessibility legislation in Ontario.

How You Can Help

Celebrate our 31st birthday. Create an accessible barrier-free and hopefully calorie-free birthday cake!

Check out our new podcast: Disability rights and wrongs — The David Lepodcast. Wherever you get your podcasts. Be ready this week for our fifth episode with quite a surprise guest! You will never guess it!

For more background

Read about the events that led up to the birth of Ontario’s enduring disability accessibility movement.
Watch a captioned one-hour video of the celebration we held on November 28, 2014, the 20th anniversary of the birth of the AODA movement
Look through a comprehensive timeline of major events over the past 30 years in the grassroots campaign for accessibility in Ontario.
The AODA Alliance’s November 25, 2024 news release after its press conference and community public hearings wrapped up.
The AODA Alliance’s captioned online video series of the major news conferences and other key events in the 30-year campaign for accessibility for people with disabilities.
For all the background on the work of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee from 1994 to its dissolution in August 2005, visit odacommittee.net
For all the work of its successor coalition, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, from Fall 2005 to the present, visit aodaalliance.org

CBC and Metroland Report on Tragic and Cruel Consequences of Ontario’s Severe Shortage of Affordable and Disability-Accessible Residential Housing

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Originally posted at https://www.bramptonguardian.com/opinion/columnists/why-can-t-i-find- https://www.bramptonguardian.com/opinion/columnists/why-can-t-i-find-any-accessible-housing-in-toronto/article_d33df32e-27a0-5278-8097-09ff3d480a40.html any-accessible-housing-in-toronto/article_d33df32e-27a0-5278-8097-09ff3d480a40.html

CBC and Metroland Report on Tragic and Cruel Consequences of Ontario’s Severe Shortage of Affordable and Disability-Accessible Residential Housing

November 27, 2025

SUMMARY

The crisis shortage of accessible housing in Toronto again got attention from the media again this month. Here are two stunning articles.

First, in a shocking CBC News report set out below, a mother has been forced to seriously consider the wrenching option of placing her child with a disability in a provincial facility when she’d much rather keep her child at home. However, she cannot find accessible housing that she can afford.

Second, the November 19, 2025 Brampton Guardian, one of the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications, includes a guest column written by magnificent and unstoppable accessible housing advocate Kate Chung. It described her horrific experience trying to find accessible housing in Toronto and the harm this shortage causes for everyone.

When we hear the Ford Government proclaim its commitment to expand housing in Ontario, that sadly has too often rung hollow for people with disabilities who are looking for accessible housing.

That’s not all. Under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the Ontario Government was required to lead Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025, almost a full year ago. That included a duty to lead Ontario to have an accessible built environment, such as residential housing. The Government has failed Ontarians.

Its duties under the AODA did not vanish at the start of 2025. Ontario still desperately needs a comprehensive, strong and effective Built Environment Accessibility Standard to be enacted under the AODA. The current Government belatedly appointed a Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee to make recommendations in this area. The Government harmfully violated the AODA by delaying the appointment of that Standards Development Committee for five years after the mandatory deadline.

Making this worse, the Ford Government received the final report of the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee months ago, yet it has not made it public. The Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee held its final meeting 10 months ago, on January 28, 2025. At that time, it approved its final report and concluded all of its work according to public records. Government officials from the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility and the Ministry of Housing were present at that meeting.

Under Sections 10 and 11 of the AODA, the Government had a legal duty to make that report public upon receiving it. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky had to resort to bringing a court application against the Ford Government in mid-2021 when it similarly failed to make public earlier reports of other Standards Development Committees despite being duty-bound to make them public upon receipt.

How You Can Help

Write Premier Doug Ford. Tell him that Ontario desperately needs a comprehensive plan to dramatically expand the supply of affordable and accessible residential housing for people with disabilities across Ontario. Tell him that Ontario also needs him to enact a strong and effective Residential Housing Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

Write him at premier@ontario.ca

Contact your member of the Ontario Legislature. Tell them to demand that the Ford Government now make public the final report of the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee. It’s time the Ford Government obeyed the AODA, especially since it pledged almost six years ago, in response to the David Onley Independent Review of the AODA, that when it comes to the AODA, it will lead by example. Violating the AODA is not a good example by which Ontarians should be led.

Check out the second episode of our new podcast entitled “Disability Rights and Wrongs — The David Lepodcast.” Built environment accessibility expert Thea Kurdi gives insights into why new buildings keep being built with disability barriers. Find this podcast on Apple music, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

Learn about our efforts over 15 years to tear down disability barriers in the built environment by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s built environment web page.

MORE DETAILS

CBC News November 13, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-family-finds-barrier-free-apartment-cannot-afford-it-9.6976447

Kitchener mom ‘terrified’ she will lose her son if she can’t pay for a barrier-free apartment

Rebecca Dooley hoped this new unit would let her care for her son safely at home

Diego Pizarro CBC News

Rebecca Dooley holding her son Noor while sitting on a couch

After five years on the Region of Waterloo’s barrier-free housing waitlist, Rebecca Dooley of Kitchener, Ont., found an apartment suitable for her son Noor, who has a severe genetic disorder and uses a wheel chair. Without financial support, which the region says it is unable to provide, she cannot afford the apartment. Dooley is now faced with possibility of putting her son in a care home. (Diego Pizarro/CBC)

A Kitchener mother who has been on the Region of Region of Waterloo’s barrier-free housing waitlist for five years says she’s finally found a unit, but she can’t afford it.

Rebecca Dooley needs a new and larger unit to help her care of her 11-year-old son, Noor, who lives with the rare genetic disorder Hattersley-Urano syndrome. Noor cannot see or speak, experiences frequent seizures and uses a wheelchair. He is currently 74 pounds and still growing.

He has to be lifted in and out of bed and carried to the bath. Dooley worries that soon, she may no longer be able to manage carrying him and needs a larger unit to accommodate specialized equipment to move him.

“If we don’t have the proper setup for bathing him, an injury almost feels inevitable,” she said.

Barrier-free apartments typically have accommodations like wide doors, a ceiling lift and a roll-in shower. They differ from accessible ones in that they are more geared to people who require a wheelchair.

Rebecca Dooley takes care of her 10-year-old son, Noor, every day. Noor has a rare genetic disorder called Hattersley Urano syndrome. He is non-verbal, has minimal vision and uses a wheelchair. Dooley is worried if she can’t get barrier-free housing soon, he’ll have to move into a group home.

Builder steps in

Faced with a 10-year wait on the region’s waitlist, Dooley decided to find an apartment herself.

She reached out to multiple private builders in the region looking for available units. In June, a builder offered to include a barrier-free unit for her and Noor in a new building he was starting work on.

Dooley says she was overcome with emotion when she received the offer.

“Joy, relief, so much relief,” she said. “I might be able to care for my child for the rest of his life and not have to send him into a home.”

The unit would have cost $1,800 a month; however, the rent is a steep increase from the $246 Dooley currently pays as part of the region’s rent-geared-to-income program.

Dooley asked if the new apartment could qualify for the rent-geared-to-income program, but the region told her it could not.

“I’m terrified of what the future holds for both me and my son,” Dooley said.

Region says its hands are tied

The Region of Waterloo says housing subsidies are only available for buildings that are part of the existing affordable housing catalog.

In an emailed statement, the region said its funding programs are managed through a centralized waitlist and “do not include special support for people in urgent medical or caregiving circumstances.”

The region said it plans to build two new projects that will include 30 accessible units, but did not provide a timeline for when those buildings will be completed.

Currently, there are more than 800 units with some level of accessibility in the region’s housing portfolio. However, Dooley said that only about 10 to 15 of those units would truly meet her and Noor’s needs.

Without financial support, Dooley says she can’t afford to move into the new unit.

She said she has considered fundraising, but that would only offer a short-term solution. The only other option would be placing Noor in a care home, which is something she wants to avoid.

“He is nonverbal. So a lot of what I do for him is intuitive,” Dooley said. “Somebody who doesn’t know him as well would not have that intuitive connection and would struggle to figure out what he needs.”

Problem is systemic

David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, says Dooley’s situation reflects a broken system.

“The challenge that individuals with disabilities and their families face is that they are caught in a spider’s web of conflicting, inconsistent and at times even incoherent social supports,” he said.

Lepofsky says the problem lies with Ontario’s building code.

“The Ontario building code is woefully inadequate. It is absolutely up-to-date for the late 19th century,” he said.

“You can build a building fully complying with the building code and yet have it replete with disability barriers.”

Lepofsky claims the province has the power to change the building code under Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act but has failed to do anything significant. He wants to see the province adopt a universal design that considers the needs of people with disabilities for all new homes.

When asked if the region could do any more to help Dooley and Noor, Lepofsky said instead that it’s the province that needs to make changes.

“When there’s a failure, provincial leadership, it’s great if a municipality can intervene to fix it,” he said. “But we shouldn’t have to lobby hundreds of municipalities to reinvent the accessibility wheel. That is a gross inefficiency in government.”

Dooley has asked her Kitchener Centre MPP Aislinn Clancy. Clancy, who is a member of the opposition at Queen’s Park as a Green party member, says she is advocating as best she can on Dooley’s behalf, but no solution has been found.

“Here we are risking a mom being separated from her child because they don’t have adequate housing. And it’s not uncommon, I’m afraid,” Clancy said.

“My job is to take these stories with me to Queen’s Park so we can advocate for systemic changes so that people don’t have to be faced with these impossible choices.”

CBC News has reached out to the office of Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Rob Flack for comment on Lepofsky and Clancy’s comment. The office has not yet responded to that request.

Dooley is currently doing everything she can to care for Noor at home, but says without a suitable barrier-free apartment, placing him in a care home may soon be unavoidable.

“I’ve done what I can to keep my son home,” she said. “But this is a stopgap measure. It’s not going to last forever.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Diego Pizarro is reporter/editor at CBC Kitchener-Waterloo and an associate producer for CBC Television: The National. You can reach him at diego.pizarro@cbc.ca

Brampton Guardian November 17, 2025

Why can’t I find any accessible housing in Toronto?

I am doing everything I can to keep myself and my 88-year-old husband safe, writes advocate for Accessible Housing Network.

By Kate Chung

Kate Chung is co-chair of the Accessible Housing Network advocacy group and is an outspoken advocate for older adults seeking to find suitable housing to age in place.

A widening gulf between the cost of rent or mortgage payments and the paycheques of Ontario residents is putting shelter out of reach for many. This housing crisis has hit individuals already disadvantaged much harder. To mark National Housing Day on Nov. 22, Shelter from the Storm, a Metroland news series, explores deepening cracks in the foundation and amplifies the voices of those often left out of the conversation.

I‘m 83 years old. I cannot find any accessible housing in Toronto. Why?

I am doing everything I can to keep myself and my 88-year-old husband safe. What if one of us falls and breaks a hip? Will that spell doom for us? I am terrified of being forced into a long-term “care” jail.

Only seniors, people with disabilities and criminals are locked up in Canada.

StatsCan reports that 27 per cent of Canadians age 15 to 65 have disabilities (28 per cent in Ontario). This does not include older adults.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) reports it costs the same to build a new apartment whether it’s accessible or not.

It’s renovations to existing housing which are expensive.

With all the housing being built now, if even half is accessible it will make a tremendous difference to thousands of people. I’m afraid we are missing a unique opportunity to meet the need. If this new housing is not built using universal design, current and future generations will be doomed to suffer in nonaccessible housing or be will institutionalized against their will.

Builders lament that they can’t sell the condos they have built. However, clearly they’re not building what people need. Older adults are trapped in inaccessible homes because there are no accessible or adaptable apartments available.

I want the right to choose where I live — staying in my current home or a small co-operative home in my neighbourhood. If I need cleaning help, nourishing food, Personal Support Workers, this must be simple to arrange.

The problem is lack of political will. Politicians argue among themselves, passing the buck from one level of government to another. The federal government has actually said that housing is not in their jurisdiction! The provinces say the National Building Code must change first. Municipalities say the provincial Building Code must change before they can take action. This huge roadblock is due to politicians’ lack of empathy.

All new housing of any kind in Canada should be Universal Design (accessible to people of all ages and abilities.)

This is now the law in Australia and Finland. Canada can do it too.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the provincial Human Rights Codes, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol all prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities. But this is ignored by every level of government.

Ironically, the benefits of having adaptable universal design housing would save every level of government millions of dollars every year.

Fewer falls

Fewer ambulance calls

Fewer ER visits

Fewer hospitalizations

Reduced need for in-home household and PSW support help

Reduced caregiver burnout

Reduced costs for long-term care facilities. (Many people able to remain in their accessible homes.)

Protection of seniors and persons with disabilities from catastrophes like those in long-term care during the pandemic

Improved mental and physical health

Increased employment of people with disabilities

Prevention of costly future renovations

It’s 2025, folks!

Kate Chung is co-founder and past co-chair of the Accessible Housing Network, a non-partisan network of more than 80 Canadian non-profit organizations working to support the human rights of persons with disabilities and end the extreme lack of accessible housing. A grandmother of 5, she sings out for justice with the Toronto Raging Grannies.

Recent Problems at TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee Show What May Be in Store for Students with Disabilities at a Growing Number of Other School Boards

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Recent Problems at TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee Show What May Be in Store for Students with Disabilities at a Growing Number of Other School Boards

November 21, 2025

SUMMARY

Parents of the third of a million students with disabilities in Ontario-funded schools want to know what the Ford Government has in store for them if it wipes out the elected school trustees all over the province. A clear and worrisome sign of what is in store is what is happening at the five school boards that the Ford Government seized control over earlier this year. Voters need to tell their provincial politicians that this troubling trend should be reversed before it spreads.

For example, everyone should watch closely what is happening for students with disabilities at Canada’s largest school board, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). Education Minister Paul Calandra is directly running that school board.

The TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) is the only one public venue to try to monitor what is happening for the 40,000 students with disabilities/special education needs at TDSB. That is the only mandatory public forum where parents of these students and parent organizations have the right to formally present their concerns in public, make delegations, and ask senior TDSB staff for answers and updates. This year, the chair of TDSB’s SEAC is David Lepofsky, who is also Chair of the AODA Alliance.

Two recent news reports, set out below, document that things are taking a very worrisome turn at TDSB for students with disabilities/special education needs, and for its SEAC. This includes the November 21, 2025 report in “The Local,” an online news publication, and the November 11, 2025 report on City News. We commend these media outlets for keeping a watchful eye on TDSB SEAC meetings. We welcome and need even more media attention so that this doesn’t slip under the public radar.

First, as earlier AODA Alliance Updates reported, it is increasingly difficult for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs, other parents, the media, and the public to follow what is happening at public TDSB SEAC meetings. This is because Education Minister Paul Calandra ordered TDSB and other school boards under direct provincial supervision to stop livestreaming their SEAC meetings. The City News report recounted that nothing is stopping private individuals from livestreaming SEAC meetings, and that is exactly what happened at the last SEAC meeting.

Second, and making this worse, senior TDSB staff have directed that the only other public record of these meetings, the SEAC minutes, were too detailed and must no longer provide so much information to the public. Senior staff contended that the level of informative detail in those minutes does not comply with TDSB protocols. Reducing the detail in those minutes does nothing to help students with disabilities/special education needs or their families. It only helps insulate school board staff from effective public scrutiny.

Third, the Local reported on TDSB SEAC’s effort to organize a public town hall meeting for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs so that they can describe disability barriers their child has faced at school and offer recommendations on how this situation could be improved. In November 2024, TDSB’s SEAC held the first such Town Hall. It was very successful. Parents speaking at that event and SEAC members wanted to hold another such event in 2025. However, at the January 2025 SEAC meeting, TDSB’s associate director stated that staff opposed holding another such Town Hall in 2025 or 2026. She said that the TDSB staff were too busy conducting a multi-year special education review.

At the November 10, 2025 SEAC meeting, SEAC members learned from TDSB senior staff that the TDSB’s special education review had in fact been on hold since July. TDSB’s Director of Education was asked to agree to SEAC holding another Town Hall, since the staff’s reason for opposing such an event had vanished months ago. However, Director of Education Clayton La Touche again opposed holding a Town Hall. He gave the new reason that staff were too busy implementing a staff action plan. As The Local’s report shows, this infuriated SEAC members. It flies in the face of TDSB’s Strategic Plan which commits to treating “parents as partners.” It is also difficult to square with the Director of Education’s statement at the same meeting that TDSB is committed to “listening to parents.”

There are no longer public school-board meetings of elected trustees at TDSB, where trustees can press for answers. Indeed, SEAC is the last such venue for these parents. It would not be surprising if the Ford Government were pondering ways to shut down this last small window of public local accountability.

The chance of the same thing happening at more school boards than the current five under direct provincial management substantially increased this week. Specifically, the Ford Government used its majority to ram through its controversial Bill 33 without allowing the public to have input into the legislation through public hearings. That bill makes it much easier for the Ford Government to seize control over more school boards, ousting their elected trustees.

How You Can Help

Circulate this Update to friends and family.

Join the Better Call Paul Campaign. Phone or email Education Minister Paul Calandra, and ask him to intervene to fix the problems facing your child with disabilities in an Ontario school.

Phone: 416 325-2600

Download and distribute our 1-page Better Call Paul brochure at this link.

MORE DETAILS

The Local November 21, 2025

Originally posted at https://thelocal.to/tdsb-special-education-advisory-committee/

Special Education Policy Vs. Practice at the TDSB

School Board Takeover

“It’s Quite Clear They Don’t Listen to Us”

Analysis by Wency Leung

For years, the TDSB’s special education advisory committee has pressed for accountability from the board. Since the province’s takeover, that’s become harder than ever.

Nora Green was still fuming on a Tuesday afternoon in November. The previous night, she had attended a quietly explosive meeting of the Toronto District School Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee. She’d left shaking her head in restrained outrage.

Green is a long-serving member of the committee, a group made up of elected school trustees (that is, until the province took over the board in June), and volunteer representatives with an interest in special education. She represents the non-profit Inclusion Action in Ontario. Her silver bob, round glasses, and gentle exterior disguise a resilient core.

For nearly 20 years, she has sat across from board staff at the committee’s monthly meetings, advising them on how to make improvements to serve the more than 41,000 students with disabilities and other special education needs at the board. Progress, she’s found, has been frustratingly slow. Now, laid bare during their Nov. 10 meeting, tension between the two sides—the volunteer members of the committee on the one hand, and the school board staff on the other—had reached what felt to her like a breaking point.

“There’s been a lot of labour over two decades to accomplish what?” Green said. Students today still find themselves in the same situation and facing the same barriers that her own son experienced when he was in elementary school, she explained. He’s now 25.

“I don’t even know what the point is of coming together anymore,” she said. “It’s quite clear they don’t listen to us.”

Special education advisory committees are mandated by provincial legislation; every school board is required to have one. At the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), the relationship between the committee and board staff is by and large collaborative, though it can be unavoidably adversarial. At their regular meetings, committee members press staff for answers and solutions on behalf of the families and students they represent, many of whom struggle to navigate confounding system. TDSB staff, meanwhile, explain and frequently defend the board’s efforts. Both sides recognize they’re all working toward a common goal—to act in the best interests of the roughly one in six students in the TDSB who receive some kind of special education—so the meetings tend to be civil and respectful. Attendees avoid pointing fingers. Yet at times, their exchanges crackle with stifled frustration.

Since the province placed the TDSB under supervision, however, it’s become harder for some of the committee members to contain that frustration. When the Ministry of Education appointed a supervisor to the board, it cut all TDSB trustees from their roles, including their participation in the special education advisory committee. This has left the committee without elected representatives who are accountable to the public. (Last week, on Nov. 13, Education Minister Paul Calandra announced he is introducing a “student and family support office” that families would be able to contact with their questions and concerns—an indication he may follow through with the possibility he has raised of eliminating trustees altogether. And this week, on Nov. 19, the province passed Bill 33, which would give the Minister greater powers to direct investigations and intervene in school board affairs.)

In October, the Ministry halted live-streaming of the committee’s meetings, sparking outcry that this diminishes transparency and prevents families who can’t attend in person from tuning in. Under supervision, the board has insisted that committee meeting minutes be recorded in abridged form, cutting out details and supporting documents—a move that some advocates say prevents the public from accessing critical information.

And despite the committee chair’s open invitation, the Ministry-appointed supervisor has yet to show up to any of their meetings. The board’s director of education Clayton La Touche has attended the past two meetings in his place.

Finally, in what felt like the final straw to many, at the Nov. 10 meeting, La Touche declined a months-long request by the committee chair to hold a special education town hall for families and students to gather and voice their concerns. A similar town hall, held for the first time a year ago, had brought together dozens of parents and guardians who took turns sharing wrenching stories about their children’s struggles at school. Their accounts depicted an opaque, underfunded, and broken special education system.

Committee chair David Lepofsky expressed his dismay over the outcome of the committee meeting, when reached by phone days later.

“You heard the director of education give this completely—let me pick a polite word—vacuous answer to why we can’t have a town hall,” he said, “on top of which, saying in the same breath, ‘but we really value listening to parents.’”

“I mean,” he sighed. “There’s no—there’s no accountability.”

The Nov. 10 meeting had started off like many others—a land acknowledgement, a report from the chair, a parent delegation, a presentation by staff.

But the tone in the room seemed to shift after Lepofsky turned to the question of special education staffing allocations. He brought up a scenario frequently raised by parents. What happens, he asked, when families believe their children need more support than they’re getting, but their principal tells them it can’t be done?

Over several minutes, Nandy Palmer, the TDSB’s executive superintendent of special education programs, who is a fixture at these committee meetings, responded. She listed off the various professionals at the board, discussed its “needs model,” and explained that support can take many forms, including bringing in central teams to work with classrooms. “I want to be very clear that at no point should school principals be saying to a parent, ‘I’m sorry I can’t support your child here,’” she said.

Her explanation did not appear to provide a satisfying answer.

Committee member Latoya Aldridge conceded that some people within the TDSB were making genuine efforts. But even so, she insisted, there are families who’re being told that their school doesn’t have the funding for special education staff for their children. “So how are we addressing those situations? And how are we recognizing…that is occurring?”

“Every school has special education supports,” Palmer replied, repeating that if families are being told there isn’t help available for their children, “no principal should be saying that.”

“What you end up with is the dictatorship of the senior bureaucracy.”

For many in the room, the response seemed to typify a frustratingly bureaucratic response to the issue, one that refused to address the reality families say they’re facing.

When Aldridge pressed further, Palmer, ever-professional, responded with what sounded like the slightest hint of exasperation: “So as always, please let us know if someone’s coming to you [with that complaint] so that we can take a look at it.”

“I want to be really clear, too,” the executive superintendent continued, that families may feel their child needs certain support, but “then we do the assessments, we go in and we do the observations, and so forth, and the school communicates what the student actually does need.”

After a prickly back-and-forth between committee members and Palmer, Lepofsky brought the meeting to another subject: the request to host a second town hall.

For months, he had been making this request, he said, but was told that staff were too busy working on a special education review. Since staff informed the committee that this review is now on hold, Lepofsky said he wished to make his request again.

La Touche, the TDSB’s education director, however, demurred. He spoke at length in a calm, halting voice. He appreciated the effort that went into the last town hall, and the feedback from participants, he said, but his answer was no—or at least not now. Efforts instead should focus on implementing a special education action plan.

“Certainly open to considering a town hall at some point,” he said, “but I think not at this time.”

Several committee members balked.

“I really can’t tolerate fake—and I’m not saying you’re being fake directly,” committee member Bronwen Alsop said. But, she said, to deny a town hall, a vital forum to hear from families and to help them not feel alone, contradicts the TDSB’s message that it sees parents as partners.

“I’m sorry,” Alsop continued, “but you are basically duct-taping us and censoring us, and this is wrong…We are lost and I really feel like there’s no hope now.”

When it was her turn to speak, Nora Green echoed Alsop’s sentiments. The various ways in which the committee’s work is being hampered—from pausing the special education review to halting live-streaming of their meetings, to editing their minutes—is “spineless,” she said. “I want to be supportive of staff. I want to be a partner. But I am feeling very insulted, to be honest.”

What the meeting underscored is a wide chasm between the TDSB’s depiction of special education and families’ accounts of how their children are actually experiencing it.

As committee member Leo Lagnado explained in an email, “This gap reflects a fundamental disconnect between policy and practice.”

Official narratives from the board tend to focus on things like intentions, said Lagnado, who represents the charity Autism Ontario. Meanwhile, “families are living the day-to-day outcomes: long waitlists, denied referrals, unsupported classrooms.”

In delegations and at last year’s town hall, numerous parents have shared stories of having to pick up students early because their school doesn’t have the resources to handle them, of feeling as though the education system has abandoned their children, and of teachers not having the time or know-how to implement their children’s individualized education plans.

Two decades earlier, Green faced the same problems. “I was almost unemployable,” she said, because she was so frequently called by the school to pick up her son, who was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, now considered under the umbrella of autism spectrum disorder.

From her perspective, the senior staff who attend the special advisory committee meetings are hardworking and mean well. But with nearly 600 schools, the TDSB is so large that the director of education, the board’s most senior executive, can’t possibly personally connect with and relay his messages to individual principals and teachers.

And how closely those principals and teachers implement the TDSB’s policies throughout the board is hard to know. The TDSB doesn’t collect data on how many families feel insufficiently supported, a problem that Green said the now-paused special education review was meant to help remedy. (Green and her fellow committee member Aldridge had been working with staff to put together the review, which was to include surveying parents and teachers to measure how the board’s special education programs and students are faring.) In the absence of data, it’s difficult to make an irrefutable case that any change is needed.

Moreover, like many other Ontario school boards, the TDSB routinely faces funding shortfalls from the Education Ministry, including specifically for special education. (According to documents The Local obtained through access to information legislation, 32 out of the 72 school boards projected deficits in 2024-25, up from 11 in 2020-2021.) But if there’s a reluctance from the board to say they’re hard-pressed to accommodate students because they don’t have enough funding, it’s possible there’s a legal reason for that.

A 2012 Supreme Court of Canada decision made it clear that funding limitations can’t justify a board’s failure to provide appropriate supports to students with disabilities, Lagnado explained: “So when boards are underfunded, they are placed in an impossible position: they cannot legally cite lack of funding as a reason for denial of service.” Hypothetically, then, if a student requires a special needs assistant, a financially-strapped board may be reluctant to admit why it won’t provide that assistant.

Yet transparency is essential, Lagnado said. “If boards are expected to do more with less, then families, and the public, deserve to understand the constraints and advocate for systemic change at the provincial level.”

Lepofsky, the special education advisory committee chair, said he sees another reason for the gap between TDSB policy and practice. Like in every large bureaucracy, he said, senior bureaucrats have a tendency to protect and defend their operations.

“The overall bureaucratic imperative is: Guard your turf,” he said. That translates into families not being told the full array of special education programs and services that are available, for example, or trustees being told, prior to the provincial takeover, that they can’t weigh in on certain issues because they’re considered operational matters.

“That’s their way of short-circuiting our capacity to have a voice and trustee oversight,” Lepofsky said. “What you end up with is the dictatorship of the senior bureaucracy. And I don’t like using harsh words, but that’s exactly what you end up with—the appearance of oversight, but not the reality and substance of oversight.”

If the top brass at the TDSB are guarding their turf, they seem to be guarding it even more closely under supervision. Since the provincial takeover, it’s become even harder to seek accountability. Transparency has declined, as high-level decisions, which were previously debated at open board meetings and shared in public documents, are now made behind closed doors.

“The other thing that’s happening now, don’t forget, is: who’s their boss?” Lepofsky said. “Who do they report to now? Do they report to the trustees? No, they report to the province.”

At the meeting, La Touche responded to irate committee members, saying he did, indeed, value their input and that of parents.

When asked for an interview at the sidelines of the meeting, he asked The Local to get in touch with the TDSB’s communications team. That team did not provide an answer to the request in time for publication.

A TDSB spokesperson said they would not be able to comment on most questions The Local posed about the board’s relationship with the special education advisory committee, and would need more information to address questions about the gap between policy and practice. The spokesperson said media questions for the provincially-appointed supervisor Rohit Gupta were to be directed to the Education Ministry. The ministry has yet to respond to any of The Local’s requests.

The frustration from committee members is understandable, Lepofsky said.

“I’ve thought it myself: Why bother? I’m talking to these people. They’re not going to change anything, and it’s not necessarily the people who are there [who] are the barrier,” he said.

But with trustees out of the picture, the role of the special education advisory committee is now the only forum left for public accountability when it comes to special education, he said.

In his email, Lagnado, the committee member representing Autism Ontario, said the committee had an advisory mandate, not a political one.

“What we require most, as we always have, even before these decisions, is open dialogue, clear communication, and a shared commitment to student rights and dignity,” he said.

As it is, Green said she believes the relationship between the special education advisory committee and TDSB staff is, in a word, “fractured.”

Both sides would say they’ve tried to be reasonable, she said, and everybody thinks they have students’ best interests at heart. “But right now, if it’s broken, I guess, so be it,” she said. Measures like halting the livestreaming of meetings and denying a town hall won’t stop families or committee members, including her, from their continued advocacy. After all, she said, “The more you silence people, the angrier they get, right?”

About the author, Wency Leung

Wency Leung is a reporter for The Local. She was previously a health reporter for The Globe and Mail. You can reach her by email at wency@thelocal.to or on Bluesky @wencyleung.bsky.social.

City News November 11, 2025

Originally posted at: https://toronto.citynews.ca/2025/11/11/disability-advocates-livestream-tdsb-meeting-defying-ford-governments-ban/

Disability advocates livestream TDSB meeting despite ban

Disability advocates livestream TDSB meeting, defying Ford government’s ban

Disability advocates defied the ban on livestreaming select school board meetings by doing it themselves at Monday’s TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee meeting. Michelle Mackey reports.

By Michael Talbot

Disability advocates defied the Ford government’s ban on livestreaming select school board committee meetings by doing it themselves at the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) special education advisory meeting on Monday night.

David Lepofsky, Chair of the committee, applauded the move.

“In the past our meetings were livestreamed so that parents at home who are busy putting their kids to bed and feeding their kids and can’t come here,

can watch and see what we’re advocating for, can find out that they’re not alone, can learn what they might be able to do to help their kids combat the

many barriers they face in school,” he said.

Last month, CityNews learned that Ontario’s Education Minister Paul Calandra directed boards under provincial jurisdiction to block livestreams of their monthly meetings.

“At the same time, I ordered all meetings to remain open to the public with hybrid participation options with public posting of agendas, minutes, and decisions.”

Parents back move

The move angered Opposition critics at Queen’s Park, who believe it’s another way the Ford government is silencing parent voices, after first removing trustee powers at some Ontario school boards.

“It’s shocking,” said Ontario NDP leader Marit Stiles at the time. “It’s consistent with exactly what we’ve been concerned about – that once the minister and his supervisors are in there controlling things, parent voices and transparency will be eliminated.”

Lepofsky says the livestream ban is ultimately another barrier for those living with disabilities and their families.

“Why not let parents of the 40,000 kids with disabilities at Toronto District School Board find out what we’re pressing for to help their lives?” he asked on Monday.

Parents like Paulet Slyfield agree with Lepofsky.

“I’m sorry, but if we are trying to advocate for our children and we’re doing a lot of different events — it seems like almost every night you’re in another meeting or another group organization — if we can get some of them done while we’re at home, the better.”

The Ministry of Education, meanwhile, maintains it is committed to special education.

“Since 2018, our government has increased special education funding by over 36 per cent, adding more than $1 billion and supported the hiring of over 4,000 additional education assistants, addressing years of underfunding by the previous Liberal government,” Emma Testani, Press Secretary for the Ministry, told CityNews in a statement.

With files from Tina Yazdani and Michelle Mackey

David Lepofsky’s November Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Shows Why Things Are Getting Worse for Ontario’s Students with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

David Lepofsky’s November Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Shows Why Things Are Getting Worse for Ontario’s Students with Disabilities

November 20, 2025

SUMMARY

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s November column in the Toronto Star’s 25 Metroland publications around Ontario, set out below, explains how and why things are getting worse since the summer for students with disabilities in Ontario schools, particularly those in the five school boards that the Ford Government has taken over. It also explains why the Ford Government’s attempt to respond to these criticisms does not solve the problem. For those of you who have not been closely following these developments, this column succinctly explains it.

How You Can Help

Circulate this Metroland column to friends and family.

Join the Better Call Paul Campaign. Phone or email Education Minister Paul Calandra, and ask him to intervene to fix the problems facing your child with disabilities in an Ontario school.

Phone: 416 325-2600

Download and distribute our 1-page Better Call Paul brochure at this link.

MORE DETAILS

Inside Halton November 19, 2025

Advocates launch ‘Better Call Advocates launch ‘Better Call Paul’ campaign to assist parents of students with disabilities

Ontario bureaucrats running school boards need to be publicly accountable for how they serve our children, David Lepofsky writes.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

Ontario schools have one-third of a million students with disabilities. Far too many suffer from all kinds of disability barriers at school.

In January 2022, the Ontario government received a blueprint on how to fix this, from a government-appointed panel of experts from the school system and the disability community.

The government never implemented it.

At a Queen’s Park news conference last week, myself and other disability advocates urged parents of students with disabilities in Ontario-funded schools to call Education Minister Paul Calandra and press for his help if they are one of the many students whose disability-related learning needs are underserved at school.

We launched our “Better Call Paul” campaign as a response to the province seizing control of some Ontario schools.

Calandra is micromanaging school boards that he has seized, ousting their elected trustees.

He’s deciding how many students there will be in some special education classes or whether a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee meetings can be livestreamed, or even whether a school’s name should be changed.

If a frustrated parent has no elected trustee to go to seek help, we’re urging them to call the only elected politician who can — the education minister.

Parents of students with physical, mental health, sensory, neurological, learning or other disabilities must prepare for the possibility that the Ford government will abolish all elected school board trustees, making Calandra Ontario’s uber-trustee for all.

They should start calling the minister now to ask for help for their kids at school.

Did your school tell your child they cannot come to school at all, or can only stay for part of the school day? Better Call Paul!

Have you asked for your child to have a special needs assistant to ensure they are safe throughout the school day, but the school refused because they don’t have enough staff? Better call Paul.

Did you find out to your horror that the school put your child in a padded isolation room without your consent, and without staff monitoring their safety? Better call Paul.

Has your school sent you an Individual Education Plan listing what they’ll do to meet your child’s disability-related needs, but fail to do what they promised? Better Call Paul!

Did your school board increase the size of your child’s special education class in a way that makes it harder for your child to learn? Better Call Paul.

Until recently, when all else failed, parents could call their elected school board trustee for help. But no longer at Dufferin-Peel Catholic, Ottawa-Carleton, Thames Valley, Toronto Catholic and Toronto district school boards.

Senior bureaucrats running school boards need to be publicly accountable for how they serve our children.

Overburdened parents of students with disabilities too often find dealing with them to be upsetting, stressful and unsuccessful.

The premier hasn’t talked to the disability community to get input on the impact on students with disabilities of different options for reforming Ontario’s education system.

I applied to speak at public hearings on Bill 33, which addresses this topic. However, a closure motion banned any public hearings from being held on that bill.

Three days after our news conference, the province announced it is directing all school boards to establish “Student and Family Support Offices,” starting with the five overseen by the province.

Its announcement lacks key requirements recommended almost four years ago by that same panel of experts. These are necessary to make these offices effective. It commits no provincial funding, vital to ensure that underfunded special education programs aren’t raided to finance this.

The province’s announcement doesn’t address or even mention vulnerable students with disabilities.

It doesn’t require call-takers in these Student and Family Support Offices have expertise in disability education to competently investigate and solve problems presented by parents of students with disabilities. Nor does it ensure that these offices will have the authority to fix these problems.

Even if Ford had properly funded these offices and required them to be staffed by those trained in disability education and dispute mediation, and even if they have authority to solve disability problems, parents still need elected trustees as a final resort.

Otherwise, the school boards’ senior staff will be an unaccountable law unto themselves, with no democratic oversight.

Listen to the 4th Episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast” to Learn from a Veteran Journalist How to Get the Media to Report on a Disability Barrier You Have Experienced

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Listen to the 4^th Episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast” to Learn from a Veteran Journalist How to Get the Media to Report on a Disability Barrier You Have Experienced

November 19, 2025

You can now listen to the fourth episode of the AODA Alliance’s new podcast: “Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast.” It is entitled: “Turning Barriers into Headlines: Practical Tips from a Veteran News Reporter.”

Getting media attention is an invaluable tool for disability rights advocates. Whether you’re trying to pressure your government or a private company, the public scrutiny of a high-profile media piece is often the decisive factor that turns an advocacy battle in your favour.

In this episode, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky talks to Michelle McQuigge, a Canadian Press journalist of nearly 20 years. She is very familiar with the processes within news organizations that dictate whether a potential story gets published. News outlets receive dozens, if not hundreds of emails with potential stories every single day. Michelle shows us how to cut through that noise by telling us how journalists think and what editors are looking for when they decide whether to pursue a story. With the information found in this episode, disability rights advocates fighting disability barriers can confidently approach the media with

compelling stories that they’ll want to cover, having learned what goes on behind the scenes in newsrooms.

In many of our AODA Alliance Updates, we encourage you to reach out to your local media on disability issues that we highlight. This episode teaches you how to do this, even if you have no experience in doing so.

Get this podcast wherever you get your podcasts, or download it directly from various podcast platforms such as Apple Music, Spotify, Amazon Music and iHeart. In addition to this new episode, check out:

The first episode, which addresses David Lepofsky’s 12-year battle to get the Toronto Transit Commission to audibly announce subway, bus and streetcar stops.
The second episode in which built-environment accessibility whiz Thea Kurdi talks about battling against the many disability barriers in the built environment, and
The third episode, in which Bruce McIntosh describes the earliest years in the relentless grassroots campaign in Ontario by parents of children with autism to get better funding for needed services.

Our fifth episode will be released on December 3, the International Day for People with Disabilities. You’ll get quite a surprise when you find out who our guest will be on that episode!

Accessible Media’s (AMI) website has a helpful introduction to getting podcasts for those unfamiliar with this popular way to receive information.

You can also ask your smart phone, Alexa, or Google Nest (if you have one):

“Play podcast ‘Disability Rights and Wrongs!’”

If you want to read a transcript of each podcast, we understand that Apple Music can generate transcripts.

How You Can Help

Tell friends and family to listen to this podcast. Many learn about new podcasts by word of mouth.

Send us feedback on the podcast: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Tell us if you put the podcast’s advocacy ideas to work. Did they help?

Send us ideas for future topics on the podcast.

Whether you get your podcasts from Apple Music, Spotify, or some other source, please give this podcast a good rating! That helps get the podcast providers to give it more profile.

News Reports Amplify the “Better Call Paul” Campaign and Our Concerns About the Ford Government’s Reaction to It

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/ford-government-orders-new-parent-support-offices-for-ontario-school-boards-raising-questions-about-future/article_c327c7f6-ad13-4a1a-bd38-b2de37ae2858.html

News Reports Amplify the “Better Call Paul” Campaign and Our Concerns About the Ford Government’s Reaction to It

November 15, 2025

SUMMARY

From news reports, it is now clear that the Ford Government’s November 13, 2025 announcement of new “Student and Family Support Offices” at Ontario school boards lacks the essential requirements to make them effective for over one third of a million students with disabilities/special education needs. This is clear in light of Education Minister Paul Calandra’s statements, as reported in the November 13, 2025 Toronto Star report which is set out below.

The Ford Government allocated no public money to fund the creation of these offices. Thus, funds must be diverted from elsewhere at school boards, including the five boards which the Ford Government seized control over, due to their being over budget.

There is no provincial commitment that the people staffing these offices and taking calls from parents will have any expertise in how to effectively educate students with disabilities, how to mediate resolution to problems within the board, and how to remove festering and recurring disability barriers to equal education.

There is no provincial commitment that the people taking these calls will have any authority to solve problems. They may turn out to be mere polite customer service call-takers who just pass on to parents the same bureaucratic responses that parents of students with disabilities have too often already gotten from the school board.

There is nothing in this announcement that creates a dedicated and specialized system for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs. Instead, they will continue to be mixed in with calls from all parents. This would place a complaint that a child with no disabilities did not make a desired volleyball team in the same line as a complaint that a school endangered the safety of a child with a disability by placing them in an isolation room with no staff to monitor them, and without the parent’s support.

It is quite possible that the new TDSB Student and Family Support Office will be nothing more than a fresh coat of paint on what is being provided right now. The Toronto Star article, set out below, states that this new office will be staffed by the existing TDSB staff who used to support elected school trustees. It states: “Calandra told the Star that boards will be redeploying existing staff to run the offices — in the supervised boards, that will be trustee services workers.”

We have heard that those very staff have already been redeployed some weeks ago to work for the provincially-appointed Supervisor. They are already taking calls from parents regarding their complaints. If so, then this may be a case of the Ford Government wrapping up a pair of musty old shoes as this year’s new Christmas present.

If these Student and Family Support Offices turn out to be helpful, that would be a good step forward, but it is not a replacement for also having elected trustees at the local level, with effective authority to manage their school board. It is not a case of needing one or the other. If a physician says you must take two medications to cure a life-threatening disease, it is of little help if the Ministry of Health will only let you take one of them, and not both.

It is vital for the Ford Government to hold off making any major decisions over how the education system will be governed until it holds a broad, open, accessible and inclusive public consultation. It’s plan to rush Bill 33 through the Legislature without holding any public hearings signals to Ontarians that they may not get the say to which they are entitled.

When disability advocates and other parents of students with disabilities raise concerns like these, the Ford Government automatically answers by boasting about how much money it spends on special education. This is no answer to the recurring systemic disability barriers at school boards. That is so especially when the Ford Government has failed to enact the much needed Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act which was recommended to it in a detailed report it received almost four years ago, written by a Government-appointed panel of experts.

In addition to the November 13, 2025 Toronto Star report, you can also read below the November 14, 2025 report on this by the Press Progress publication. As well, the CityNews 24/7 channel ran items on this during the day on November 14, 2025, such as one you can watch at this link.

For More Background

Check out:

The video of the November 10, 2025 “Better Call Paul” Queen’s park News Conference
The November 10, 2025 “Better Call Paul” news release by the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and Ontario Parents for Education Supports
The November 13, 2025 AODA Alliance news release that responds to the Ford Government announcement of the establishment of Student and Family Support Offices at Ontario school boards.
The September 1, 2025 AODA Alliance Update calling for a specialized avenue for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs to solve problems for their children at school.
The advocacy by the AODA Alliance over many years on behalf of students with disabilities is documented on the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

How You Can Help

Download, print, and widely distribute our 1-page “Better Call Paul” brochure! It is available at this link. Encourage others to do that too!
We need our “”better Call Paul” campaign more than ever! If your child is facing disability challenges at school, call Education Minister Paul Calandra! Join the “Better Call Paul” campaign. Ask him to direct your school board to fix your child’s disability barriers and problems. Call 416 325-2600 or email edu@ontario.ca
Let us know what you do! Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star November 13, 2025

Ford government orders new parent ‘support offices’ for Ontario school boards, raising questions about future of trustees

The new offices will open this January in the Toronto public and Catholic boards and the three other boards under provincial supervision.

Education Minister Paul Calandra said “Student and Family Support Offices will give families clear answers and timely solutions when it comes to their child’s education.”

By Kristin Rushowy Senior Writer

Every Ontario school board will open a “student and family support office” by next fall that will be expected to respond to parents’ questions and concerns within five days— a move critics called “window dressing” that just adds another layer of bureaucracy.

The offices will open in January in the Toronto public and Catholic boards, as well as the three others currently under provincial supervision, and the remainder of Ontario boards next September, the province announced Thursday.

From simple requests to more complex ones such as dealing with bullying that can’t be resolved at the school level, Education Minister Paul Calandra said the office will deal with the questions, concerns and frustrations that parents have.

“It’s just a way for people to get answers — simple answers, basic answers — and escalate where need be,” Calandra told the Star.

For more complex issues, parents will still be approaching teachers, principals and superintendents first and “hopefully it’s resolved quickly there. But where it’s not, it needs more, somebody will be able to call the office. A file will be open. They’ll have a point of contact where they can continue to get information from. They’ll know the progress, who they’re speaking with, what actions have been taken.”

While Calandra said the office has been in the works since he was appointed education minister eight months ago, it also comes as he has talked of school board governance changes, including possibly eliminating the position of trustee, though he said the two aren’t related.

Critics said such offices can’t replace elected officials — and given that the offices will be headed by a superintendent, “it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to have this additional layer of oversight,” said Kevin Morrison, vice-chair of the Toronto Catholic District School Board, which is now being run by a provincial supervisor.

“A superintendent is someone within the system, which is what parents are already dealing with when they are escalating their concerns,” he added.

And families should have been consulted on such a “consequential change,” added Toronto District School Board parent Katrina Matheson.

“What our system suffered from under trustees was lack of funding responsiveness at the provincial level, and disregard of their resolutions by staff at the board level,” she said. “Are these offices being organized to have more authority and autonomy than trustees? More specifically — will these offices have the ability to release emergency funding to solve urgent concerns” such as understaffing?

And, she added, “where do parents turn if the offices are ineffective at solving problems?”

Calandra told the Star that boards will be redeploying existing staff to run the offices — in the supervised boards, that will be trustee services workers.

The offices will be one-stop shops for parents to turn to for any type of issue — even for minor queries such as how to download report cards — helping to ease administrative burdens on schools, he said.

The offices will have to acknowledge parent requests within two days, and aim to respond in five.

Non-supervised boards will have to submit plans to the ministry by the end of March, and open the offices in September.

The offices are also going to keep data on parent requests to help boards inform the services they provide.

Martha Hradowy, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, said the union was not consulted on the change either.

“Where is the money coming from to support these offices? Minister Calandra has repeatedly talked about redirecting money back into the classrooms. How does this layer of bureaucracy help get that funding back into the classrooms?”

David Lepofsky, who chairs the special education advisory committee at the Toronto public board, said what’s needed is a “specific, specialized avenue for dispute resolution” for parents of children with special needs.

“There’s nothing in this announcing that — nor is there anything in this announcing any funding for this,” he said, adding he’s been part of a group advocating that under supervision, parents “better call Paul” for answers — a play on the name of a television show.

The NDP’s education critic, MPP Chandra Pasma, called the offices “window dressing” and accused Calandra of “throwing out half-baked ideas.”

Ontario will be the only province with such offices, said Alan Campbell of the Canadian School Boards’ Association, who said the announcement “smacks of government waste in the name of continuing to overstep its authority and centralize decision-making.”

The Ontario Public School Boards’ Association president, Kathleen Woodcock, said it welcomes “any effort that helps students and their families feel heard and supported in their schools,” but noted “every school board (already) has clear processes and protocols in place to help parents and students resolve issues.”

Calandra also told the Star he is still working on plans to reform school board governance, and that his goal is to have an announcement by the end of this year — and that eliminating trustees is “absolutely on the table.”

However, he said wants to ensure any changes are compliant with the Charter and the Constitution and if he needs more time he will announce that by year’s end.

Kristin Rushowy is a Toronto-based senior writer covering education for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @krushowy.

Press Progress November 14, 2025

Originally posted at https://pressprogress.ca/better-call-paul-disability-advocates-reject-fords-move-to-control-school-boards/

‘Better Call Paul’: Disability Advocates Reject Ford’s Move to Control School Boards

Advocates say the province is making decisions that affect the day-to-day lives of students with disabilities

by Eric Wickham, Ontario Reporter

Just days after disability advocates launched a campaign criticizing the province for fewer supports for disabled students, they are pushing back on a new provincial announcement that may lead parents of disabled children to lose a direct forum to voice their concerns

Disability advocates in Ontario have been drawing attention to a potential for fewer supports for disabled students, after the Ford government took control of five school boards by removing their elected trustees this past summer.

School board trustees are elected representatives meant to advocate on behalf of the public in a school board.

Disability advocates expressed concern about losing access to a publicly accountable representative during a press conference Monday.

“Trustees routinely held public ward meetings where you could raise your concerns or you could call the trustee directly,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Alliance [AODA]. “There were certainly problems with the existing system that could benefit from reform, but heck, mend it, don’t end it.”

He added that this system has been abolished in the five school boards, and in place of a trustee, they’ve been given an email address to write to a provincially-appointed supervisor.

Since the press conference, the Ontario government has announced that it is launching new Student and Family Support Offices at every school board in the province. According to the Ministry of Education, these offices are meant to review concerns raised by families to help resolve issues that “need to be escalated following initial engagement with a child’s teacher and principal.”

The announcement also said that the ministry would “continue overhauling an outdated school board governance model.”

Lepofsky said in the press conference that the province is now making decisions that affect the day-to-day lives of students with disabilities. This includes deciding to increase class sizes for special education students — meaning less one-on-one time for the kids who need it most.

The group joined many students, parents, and unions in opposing the Ford government’s proposed Bill 33 which, if passed, would allow the province to seize control of all school boards, eliminating the role of trustees altogether.

The five school boards taken over by the province, Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, Thames Valley District School Board, Toronto Catholic District School Board and Toronto District School Board will have these offices open in January next year. All other school boards are expected to have these offices established by September 1.

According to the AODA Alliance, the province’s announcement does not commit any provincial funding to establishing these offices. Advocates say additional funding for these offices is needed to ensure that underfunded special education programs aren’t gutted to finance these offices.

Bruce McIntosh from the Ontario Autism Coalition spoke at the press conference Monday, and called for parents to directly contact the province’s education minister, Paul Calandra, to express their frustration every time one of the five schools now controlled by the province doesn’t meet their disabled child’s needs.

“Have you asked for your child to have a special needs assistant to make sure they’re safe throughout the school day, but the school said no because they don’t have enough staff? Better call Paul,” said McIntosh.

“Did you find out to your horror that the school put your child in a padded isolation room without your consent, without staff monitoring their safety? You better call Paul.”

PressProgress reached out to the Ministry of Education for comment, but did not receive a response.

Eric Wickham is PressProgress’ Ontario reporter

Premier Ford’s Promised new “Student and Family Support Offices” Include No Safeguards to Ensure They Can Help Parents of Over One Third of a Million Vulnerable and Too-Often Underserved Students with Disabilities

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Premier Ford’s Promised new “Student and Family Support Offices” Include None of the Safeguards, Recommended for Years, to Ensure They Can Hope to Help Parents of Over One Third of a Million Vulnerable and Too-Often Underserved Students with Disabilities

November 13, 2025 Toronto: Three days after disability advocates’ November 10, 2025 Queen’s Park news conference called on parents of students with disabilities/special education needs across Ontario to call Education Minister Paul Calandra in their “Better Call Paul” campaign, the Ford Government today announced that it is directing all school boards to establish “Student and Family Support Offices, starting with five boards the Government seized control of, ousting elected trustees. This announcement lacks any of the key requirements recommended to the Ford Government almost four years ago by a Government-appointed expert panel, all of which necessary to make it effective. It commits no provincial funding, vital to ensure that provincially under-funded special education programs don’t get raided to finance this new measure.

“Premier Ford’s announcement doesn’t even mention much less address the needs of vulnerable students with disabilities. There’s nothing in this announcement to require that those handling calls in these new Student and Family Support Offices from over 300,000 families of students with disabilities/special education needs will have the needed expertise in disability education to quickly and competently investigate solve parents’ problems, and will have the required authority to get their problems fixed,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, who also chairs the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC). “I had the privilege of serving on the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee and have been extremely frustrated that in almost four years, the Government enacted none of our recommendations.”

In October 2024, the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee passed a strong motion calling for TDSB to establish such a process for families of students with disabilities/special education needs, set out below, which urged in part:

“1. TDSB should establish a prompt, user-friendly, fair and effective process for parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs to seek a resolution if they believe that TDSB is not providing an accommodation for their learning needs that would benefit the student, e.g. if TDSB is not delivering on commitments in the student’s Individual Education Plan or if TDSB has not agreed to provide an accommodation that the parent/guardian believes that the student needs.

Staff at TDSB who receive and address a complaint from a parent/guardian of a student with disabilities/special education needs should:
a) Have expertise and experience with education of students with disabilities/special education needs;
b) Be independent of those TDSB staff who have dealt with the student’s needs in issue;
c) Have expertise and training in effective mediation/alternate dispute resolution and
d) Have authority to direct any corrective action that they decide is needed.
If, after a review, the TDSB decides not to provide the accommodation that the parent/guardian has requested, TDSB shall give written reasons for this decision.
Every effort should be made to mediate and resolve any disagreements between the family and TDSB. If the matter cannot be resolved, there should be an option for TDSB to appoint a person or persons outside TDSB to consider the issue., along short time lines.
This process should be designed and carefully tailored specifically for addressing the needs of students with disabilities/ special education needs. It should not also deal with other students’ complaints that are unrelated to disability/special education needs…”

There is ample basis for fearing that TDSB, for example, will not ensure that a new Student and Family Support Office meets the needs of its 40,000 students with disabilities/special education needs. TDSB senior staff have consistently opposed establishing what TDSB’s SEAC has recommended. At the January 22, 2025 meeting of TDSB trustees, TDSB SEAC’s Chair David Lepofsky presented a brief, set out below, which called on the trustees to establish this new safeguards for parents students with disabilities/special education needs, and overturn the senior TDSB staff’s resistance. No doubt because of TDSB senior staff resistance, the trustees did not accede to this recommendation. This can be found at The archived video of that meeting at 28:30. Video at https://www.tdsb.on.ca/Leadership/Webcast-of-Meetings/Webcast-Archives/ctl/view-meeting/mid/40743?meetingID=481

On July 9, 2025, Lepofsky wrote the Government-appointed TDSB Supervisor, urging that he take action, stating:

“Third, parents need a swift, fair and effective route for seeking solutions if they believe their child’s special education needs are not being effectively accommodated. TDSB has a duty to accommodate each of their disability-related needs so that they can fully benefit from all TDSB services. This necessarily requires strategies that are individually tailored to the needs of each student with disabilities/special education needs. TDSB is required to consult with the student’s parents on this.

Some parents believe that TDSB is not effectively accommodating their child’s special education-related needs. Some believe that TDSB will not agree to provide education support or accommodation that the student’s parents believe is needed. Others believe that TDSB has agreed to provide support or accommodation, for example by including it in the student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP), but has not met this commitment. Still other parents of some students with disabilities/special education needs believe their child has been wrongly excluded from attending school at all or told they can only attend for part of a school day. This flies in the face of every student’s right to a publicly funded education. Trustees get calls from parents seeking their help with such situations.

SEAC members and the associations they represent have received many of these complaints. They brought these concerns forward to SEAC to seek a systemic solution.

AT TDSB, parents now have two options. First, they can submit a concern through the procedure in the Ministry of Education’s “Concerned Parents Protocol.” Second, they can submit their issue to TDSB’s Human Rights office. Especially in so large a school board, these bureaucratic avenues have too often been insufficient.

SEAC presented many of these concerns to the trustees at its January 23, 2025, meeting. Once again, at the urging of staff, the issue was referred back to staff. No material changes have taken place. TDSB staff have invited SEAC to participate in a working group to develop solutions. We have taken part in it, and aim to continue doing so. However, that activity does not appear to be poised to deliver the major reforms needed. Change is extremely slow in coming and very limited in scope.”

Fear about how this will work in practice is made worse by TDSB senior staff’s refusal to allow TDSB SEAC to even convene a Town Hall for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs in 2025 or 2026. A very successful Town Hall was held one year ago. At the November 10, 2025 TDSB SEAC meeting ((which TDSB is banned from livestreaming by an order from Education Minister Calandra), TDSB’s Director of Education opposed such a Town Hall, while stating that TDSB values listening to parents.

“Even if the Ford Government were to properly fund these Student and Family Support Offices and requires them to be staffed by those trained in disability-education, dispute mediation and even if it equips them with the authority to solve problems, we still need elected trustees as a final resort for parents,” said Lepofsky. Otherwise, the school boards’ senior staff will be an unaccountable law unto themselves, with no democratic oversight.”

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

For More Background

Video of the November 10, 2025 “Better Call Paul” Queen’s park News Conference

November 10, 2025 “Better Call Paul” news release by the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and Ontario Parents for Education Supports

The September 1, 2025 AODA Alliance Update calling for a specialized avenue for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs to solve problems for their children at school.

The advocacy by the AODA Alliance over many years on behalf of students with disabilities is documented on the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Text of the January 22, 2025 Brief to the Toronto District School Board Trustees from the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee

Special Education Advisory Committee

Parents Need a Swift, Fair and Effective Route for Solutions If They Believe Their Child’s Special Education Needs Are Not Being Effectively Accommodated

A submission to the TDSB Board of Trustees on behalf of the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee by SEAC Chair David Lepofsky

January 22, 2025

Introduction

SEAC shall make a deputation to the TDSB Board at its January 22, 2025 meeting. This submission provides background to that presentation. On January 15, 2025, TDSB SEAC presented this topic to the TDSB Program and School Services Committee.

TDSB has at least 40,000 students with special education needs. TDSB is required to accommodate each of their special education needs, so that they all can fully benefit from TDSB services. This necessarily requires strategies that are individually tailored to the needs of each student with special education needs. TDSB is also required to consult with the student’s parents on this.

SEAC members and the associations they represent have received many complaints about such situations. They have brought these concerns forward to SEAC to seek a systemic solution. SEAC does not investigate individual cases, but looks for places where we need system-wide improvements.

At its November 4, 2024, monthly meeting, SEAC, with the assistance of TDSB staff, convened its first-ever town hall meeting for parents of students with special education needs. We considered this event to be a major success, providing a placed where parents could raise concerns with us.

At this town hall, SEAC heard many wrenching stories from parents describing situations where their child’s special education needs were not being met at TDSB. Depending on the circumstances of an individual case, the parent’s belief may be well-founded. When such an issue arises. SEAC has identified as one of the priority areas on which it is now focusing, the need to ensure that these parents have access to a swift, fair, and effective avenue for raising such issues, and for having them properly and quickly resolved, without the need to resort to external legal proceedings such a human rights complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

AT TDSB, parents now have two options. First, they can submit a concern through the procedure set out in the Ministry of Education’s “Concerned Parents Protocol.” Second, they can submit their issue to TDSB’s Human Rights office.

Especially in so large a school board, these avenues have not been a sufficient response. The Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, established under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, called for school boards to create an additional avenue for parents that is more specialized and tailored to the needs of students with special education needs.

Last June, SEAC received an extensive briefing from TDSB staff, and later held a full discussion of this issue, As a result, at its October 8, 2024 monthly meeting, SEAC passed the motion set out below. Staff had been present as this issue was discussed at earlier SEAC meetings, and at its K-12 Working Group, a SEAC subcommittee.

Staff advised SEAC at its January 13, 2025 meeting that staff have taken no steps as a result of SEAC’s passing the motion set out below. SEAC therefore now brings this important issue to the TDSB Program and School Services Committee. SEAC emphasizes that it is fully open to a school board to develop its own internal process for assisting parents to raise these issues, and for TDSB to attempt to resolve them. Just because the Ministry has prescribed the Concerned Parents Protocol, this does not mean that a school board is handcuffed to offer that procedure, and only that procedure. It also does not mean that that procedure cannot be refined and modernized.

SEAC remains eager to work collaboratively with TDSB’s staff and trustees on this issue. SEAC does not ask trustees to vote at its January 22, 2025 Board meeting to approve or reject the specific proposal set out in this motion. Rather SEAC asks trustees, within their proper role, to recognize that the problem SEAC here identifies is a real one, and that it is a priority that it be addressed.

October 8, 2024 Motion Passed by the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee

SEAC Motion

At the October 8th, 2024 Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) Meeting, the Committee passed a motion entitled “Creating a Fast, Fair and Effective One-Stop Avenue within TDSB for Parents of Students with Disabilities/Special Education Needs Who Believe TDSB is not Accommodating Their Child’s Learning Needs

SEAC recommends that:

TDSB should establish a prompt, user-friendly, fair and effective process for parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs to seek a resolution if they believe that TDSB is not providing an accommodation for their learning needs that would benefit the student, e.g. if TDSB is not delivering on commitments in the student’s Individual Education Plan or if TDSB has not agreed to provide an accommodation that the parent/guardian believes that the student needs.
Staff at TDSB who receive and address a complaint from a parent/guardian of a student with disabilities/special education needs should:
a) Have expertise and experience with education of students with disabilities/special education needs;
b) Be independent of those TDSB staff who have dealt with the student’s needs in issue;
c) Have expertise and training in effective mediation/alternate dispute resolution and
d) Have authority to direct any corrective action that they decide is needed.
If, after a review, the TDSB decides not to provide the accommodation that the parent/guardian has requested, TDSB shall give written reasons for this decision.
Every effort should be made to mediate and resolve any disagreements between the family and TDSB. If the matter cannot be resolved, there should be an option for TDSB to appoint a person or persons outside TDSB to consider the issue., along short time lines.
This process should be designed and carefully tailored specifically for addressing the needs of students with disabilities/ special education needs. It should not also deal with other students’ complaints that are unrelated to disability/special education needs.
This motion outlines the principles that should guide the needed process, while leaving flexibility on how it will be designed and operated. This process can be designed so as not to conflict with Ministry requirements. A Parent/care-giver, or the student themselves, can first bring their concerns to their teacher, and then the principal, after which this avenue would be available to them if needed.

Excerpts from the January 28, 2022 Final Report of the Government-Appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee

https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/download-in-an-accessible-ms-word-format-the-final-report-of-the-k-12-education-standards-development-committee-on-what-the-promised-education-accessibility-standardshould-include/

Barrier: parents/caregivers of students with disabilities, and students with disabilities themselves, need direct, easy access to important information about the menu of programs, services, supports and accommodations available for students including students with disabilities, and how to request or advocate for them. They have a right to know all the important information they need including, for example what is available, what persons and what office to approach to get this information and to or to request or change the student’s placements, programs, supports, services or accommodations, or to raise concerns about whether the school board is effectively meeting the student’s disability-related education needs.

This information should be easy to find, and should be readily available in accessible formats, in plain language and in multiple languages. Parents/caregivers report that too often, it is very difficult to find out this important and basic information. It is inefficient and unreliable to leave this responsibility to individual principals, spread across Ontario, to each deal with this as they choose. When it is left to each principal, without clear requirements and pre-prepared materials for parents, caregivers and students, school boards won’t be able to ensure that this important need is met.

As well, parents/caregivers of students with disabilities report that too often, they find it very difficult frustrating and demoralizing to advocate for their child’s needs in the school system. Depending on the board, the school and the people involved, it can be a welcoming, positive, and cooperative process, or an alienating, bureaucratic and rigid process.

When there is a dispute about the Individual Education Plan contents or implementation, parent/caregivers/students do not have a dispute mechanism and some parents, caregivers or students resort to filing a human rights complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Filing a human rights complaint involves great legal expenses, delays, and hardships to a family. A dispute mechanism that is easy to use and that can resolve issues quickly is needed….

(Note: The recommendations included)

61.13 consistent with the recommendations for a Ministry of Education policy on student and parent/caregiver engagement, a school board level dispute resolution mechanism is available to parents/caregivers of students with disabilities, and to those students, for concerns related to accommodations, including individual education plans.

The dispute resolution process shall be:

fair, independent and impartial
respectful
non-adversarial
timely
accessible
one where the decision is provided in writing.

Timeline: one year

61.14 after the dispute resolution process is completed, if the family is not satisfied, they have the right to bring their concerns regarding the proposed accommodations, including the individual education plan, to a designated senior official at the school board with authority to approve the requested accommodations, for a further review.

Timeline: immediate

61.15 in cases of dispute, the ministry shall appoint a mediator.

Timeline: six months

61.16 no proposed services, supports or accommodations that the school board is prepared to offer shall be withheld from a student pending a review.

Timeline: immediate

61.17 notify parents and caregivers, who themselves have a disability, that they have a right to have their disability-related needs accommodated in these processes, so that they can fully participate in them. For example, they should be notified that they have a right to receive any information or documents to be used in any such meeting or process in an accessible format.

Timeline: immediate

61.18 ensure that students with a disability who move from school board to school board, or school to school, have the right to an individual education plan with same or comparable programs, services, and accommodations. If the school board, or the school to which the student transfers proposes to deny or to reduce those accommodations or supports, the parent/caregiver/student should be able to take their concern to the dispute resolution process. all accommodations shall be maintained until and unless, through the dispute resolution procedures set out in these accessibility standards, the school board has justified a reduction of those accommodations.

Timeline: one year

The “Better Call Paul” Campaign for Underserved Students with Disabilities in Ontario Schools is Getting Great Media Attention

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

The “Better Call Paul” Campaign for Underserved Students with Disabilities in Ontario Schools is Getting Great Media Attention

November 11, 2025

SUMMARY

The November 10, 2025 Queen’s Park news conference by the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition, and Ontario Parents for Education Supports has led to fantastic media coverage! Many Ontarians have now heard from us about our new “Better Call Paul” campaign. We’re calling on parents of students with disabilities/special education needs to call Education Minister Paul Calandra to ask him for his direct help if their school is not meeting their child’s disability-related learning needs.

On November 10, 2025, CTV and CP24 ran a great story which you can watch on YouTube and read below.

On November 11, 2025, Toronto Today ran a superb article by The Trillium also set out below.

On November 11, 2025, between 6 and 8 a.m., CBC Radio separately interviewed AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on seven of its eight morning radio shows around Ontario, aired live or taped for broadcast later in the week. It is hoped that the eighth, Toronto’s Metro Morning, will do the same. An interview was scheduled, but Zoom problems prevented it from happening.

Spinoff from these recent events led two media outlets to attend the November 10, 2025 Toronto District School Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee meeting for the second month in a row. This comes after Ontario Education Minister Paul Calandra banned livestreaming of those meetings in the five school boards that the Ford Government took over.

How You Can Help

Watch the November 10, 2025 “Better Call Paul” Queen’s Park news conference by the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition, and Ontario Parents for Education Supports on YouTube. Post the link to it on social media. Get others to watch it too!

Download, print, and widely distribute our 1-page “Better Call Paul” brochure! It is available at this link. Encourage others to do that too!

If your own child is facing disability challenges at school, call Education Minister Paul Calandra! Join the “Better Call Paul” campaign. Ask him to direct your school board to fix your child’s disability barriers and problems.

Let us know what you do! Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

MORE DETAILS

CTV News November 10, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/politics/queens-park/article/better-call-paul-advocates-say-students-with-special-learning-needs-left-behind-by-school-board-takeovers/

‘Better call Paul’: Advocates say students with special learning needs left behind by school board takeovers

By Joshua Freeman

(L to R) Liberal MPP Jonathan Tsao appears with advocates for students with special learning needs, Bruce McIntosh, David Lepofsky and Julia Evangelisto at a news conference at Queen’s Park Monday November 10, 2025. (Joshua Freeman /CP24)

Parents of students with disabilities are warning that the removal of school board trustees is making it even more difficult to advocate for students with special learning needs within the public school system.

Back in June, Education Minister Paul Calandra seized control of four school boards, including the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), and appointed supervisors to address alleged financial mismanagement.

Speaking at Queen’s Park Monday, a group of parents of students with special learning needs said the change has made it more difficult to get help for kids when there are problems.

“For years now, parents of students with disabilities have been stuck in the middle of conflicting messages,” said Julia Evangelisto, co-founder of Ontario Parents for Education Support.

“School boards say the province isn’t giving enough money to meet the needs of students with disabilities. The province says boards are getting more than ever, and families like ours, we’re standing in the crossfire, forced to fight for our kids’ basic rights – an education that meets their needs – while schools are left trying to fill the gaps they were never built to handle.”

Bruce McIntosh, a board member and founding president of the Ontario Autism Coalition, said trustees have frequently been called on to help address problems where students with special needs have fallen through the cracks.

“The minister is now in a position of micromanaging school boards, and he has far more authority to direct action in schools than elected trustees ever had,” McIntosh said.

Saying Calandra has now become “Ontario’s uber trustee” for all the boards under supervision, McIntosh said the advocates have started a new campaign telling anyone with a suspended trustee “you better call Paul,” a play on the Breaking Bad spinoff about a wheeling and dealing lawyer.

“Now we call on parents of students with disabilities who need help for their child at school to call or email Ontario’s super trustee Education Minister Paul Calandra,” McIntosh said. “You better call Paul. Tell him how your school is not meeting your child’s disability related learning needs. Tell him what to order your school board to do to fix this. Better call Paul.”

PC MPP Paul Calandra speaks during Question Period at Queen’s Park in Toronto on Tuesday, May 13, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Cole Burston

In a statement, Calandra’s office insisted the changes are in fact about improving the system and said the province has increased special education funding by 36 per cent over the past seven years and has hired more than 4,000 additional education assistants since 2018.

“The decision to place school boards under supervision was not only about financial mismanagement, but about restoring accountability and trust in the system. Trustees repeatedly failed to listen to parents and communities, focusing on their own interests instead of student success, as seen in the flawed TDSB lottery and the Elementary Review Program at the OCDSB,” the statement read.

“We will continue to put parents and students at the center of the education system to ensure resources go directly into classrooms to help students succeed and make it easier for parents to get clear answers and support.”

But the group said the issue of resources is separate from representation.

Evangelisto said there is no one within the school system tasked with advocating for students with special learning needs. Without trustees, she said, there is nobody parents can turn to, to intervene when there are problems that can’t be resolved with frontline school staff.

“Within the structure of the school boards, parents take that on themselves and build community around each other,” she said. “That’s how the Ontario Autism Coalition came about. That’s how my group, Ontario Parents For Education Support, came about. We are on islands all by ourselves, trying to navigate this system in a storm around us, and we don’t know where we’re going.”

David Lepofsky, who chairs the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee, said the TDSB serves 40,000 students with disabilities and special education needs.

“That’s more kids than some school boards have in total,” he said. “That is an incredible, incredible opportunity for the rest of Ontario to learn what they might be in for if there are no longer any elected trustees to provide public, independent oversight of what the education bureaucracy is doing with their kids and with our tax money.”

He said the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee has provided important feedback to school board officials via “lively, fulsome, frankly intelligent and thoughtful discussions with staff.”

“We don’t always agree, but we put our advice forward, and then we could take it to the trustees.”

He cited a recent decision by the ministry to ban school boards from live-streaming meetings as evidence that they simply want to stifle dissent.

“You (historically) can go to a meeting of the entire board of trustees and make a delegation in public, often monitored by the media and live streamed, and you could then take that video and use it to try to advocate publicly to make things better. All gone.”

Toronto Today November 11, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.torontotoday.ca/local/education/better-call-paul-calandra-advocates-families-kids-with-disabilities-struggling-school-11471607

‘Better call Paul,’ advocates tell families struggling with school supports for kids with disabilities

Three advocacy groups launched a joint campaign on Monday, encouraging families to reach out to the education minister about any special education concerns in the absence of trustees at several boards under provincial supervision

Sneh Duggal Sneh Duggal

special-ed-advocates2-nov10

From left, Liberal MPP Jonathan Tsao, Ontario Autism Coalition board member, Bruce McIntosh, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and Julia Evangelisto co-founder of Ontario Parents for Education Support speak at Queen’s Park Nov. 10.Steve Cornwell/The Trillium

Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on The Trillium, a Village Media website devoted exclusively to covering provincial politics at Queen’s Park.

If children with disabilities are excluded from school or need supports they aren’t receiving, families “better call Paul.”

That’s the message advocates shared at Queen’s Park Monday, referring to Education Minister Paul Calandra — and the “Breaking Bad” prequel “Better Call Saul.”

“We call on any parents of students with disabilities who need help for their child at school to call or email Ontario’s ‘super-trustee,’ Education Minister Paul Calandra. Better call Paul. Tell him how your school is not meeting your child’s disability-related learning needs! Tell him what to order your school board to do to fix this,” said Bruce McIntosh, a board member and founding president of the Ontario Autism Coalition (OAC).

The OAC was one of three groups that came together to launch the campaign, which features a brochure with Calandra’s photo and ministerial phone number and email. It says “Need a trustee? ‘Better call Paul'” at the top and then goes on to include several paragraphs about the province taking control of five school boards, appointing supervisors to each of them and effectively sidelining trustees in the process.

The brochure then warns that “this could be the new normal” if the province decides to eliminate trustee roles altogether.

Since this spring, the minister has taken control of five school boards — the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB), Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB), Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (DPCDSB) and Thames Valley District School Board.

Calandra has also said that the school board “governance model is going to change” and that he’s “very seriously looking at the elimination of school trustees.”

Parents and advocates have been criticizing the school board takeovers, saying that trustees have often been the only ones parents can turn to for support and that they aren’t hearing back from the government-appointed supervisors, despite reaching out about concerns they have.

The OAC noted that according to its recent survey of special education families, 28.4 per cent of more than 650 respondents said they had turned to their trustee for help during the 2024-25 school year.

McIntosh said that without trustees, school board bureaucrats have “become an unaccountable law unto themselves.”

“There’s really only one elected politician left for these anxious parents to turn to for help. That is Minister of Education Paul Calandra,” McIntosh said, going on to list several scenarios for which he recommended families reach out to the minister for help.

“Has your school told your child they cannot come to school at all, or can only stay for part of the school day? Better Call Paul. Have you asked for your child to have a special needs assistant to make sure they are safe throughout the school day, but the school said no because they don’t have enough staff? Better

call Paul. Did you find out to your horror that the school put your child in a padded isolation room without your consent, and without staff monitoring their safety? Better call Paul,” he said.

David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, echoed this, saying families had the ability to appeal to trustees if a school refused to let a student attend, but now “what is left, for practical purposes, is the tyranny of the senior school board bureaucrats.”

“The only public forum left to air serious concerns about the school board’s provisions for students with disabilities/special education needs is each board’s Special Education Advisory Committee,” said Lepofsky, who is chair of the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee.

But the education minister’s recent direction to supervised school boards to stop livestreaming committee meetings has made it “much harder for parents to keep up with what we are advocating for on their behalf.”

He said this also “weakens” the voice of families of children with disabilities or special education needs.

Parents and advocates connected to the OAC have taken matters into their own hands and are livestreaming some committee meetings at school boards.

McIntosh plans to attend and livestream Monday night’s meeting of the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee, with another parent doing the same last week for the meeting at the OCDSB.

A spokesperson for Calandra said in a statement Friday that the supervisors’ number one priority is to “enhance student success where trustees have failed.”

“Minister Calandra made this decision to ensure meetings remain professional, productive, and focused on student achievement, while continuing to be open to the public with hybrid participation and full transparency through posted agendas, minutes, and decisions,” said Emma Testani.

Julia Evangelisto, co-founder of Ontario Parents for Education Support, said that when families “hit a wall, they should be able to call an elected official who can cut through the confusion and get real answers.”

“Our kids don’t get do-overs. Every year matters. We’re speaking here today to make sure the voices of parents are finally heard.”

Calandra’s spokesperson said on Monday following the press conference that the government has boosted special education funding by more than 36 per cent, adding more than $1 billion and supporting the hiring of more than 4,000 education assistants.

“We will continue to put parents and students at the centre of the education system to ensure resources go directly into classrooms to help students succeed and make it easier for parents to get clear answers and support.”

Call Education Minister Paul Calandra to Get Help for Your Child with Disabilities in School – Join the “Better Call Paul” Campaign

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Call Education Minister Paul Calandra to Get Help for Your Child with Disabilities in School – Join the “Better Call Paul” Campaign

November 10, 2025

SUMMARY

At a Queen’s Park news conference today, the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and Ontario Parents for Education Support unveiled a new grassroots campaign for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs in Ontario schools. Join us in this campaign!

If your child has disabilities and is not having their disability-related learning needs met in an Ontario school, call Ontario Education Minister Paul Calandra. Tell him your child’s problem. Ask for his direct help. We’ve named this our “Better Call Paul” campaign.

Below get the whole story from our news release that we issued after the news conference. It includes our 1-page brochure that gives you all the information you need. You can also Print that brochure and give it to others.

How You Can Help

Post our “Better Call Paul” brochure, set out below, on social media, websites and anywhere else you can. Email and text it to friends, family and co-workers.

Print our brochure and give it to others. Post it in public places in your community.

Send our “Better Call Paul” news release to your local media. Urge them to cover this story.

Are you a member of a school’s parent council, or a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee or Parent Involvement Advisory Council? Do you know any members of those committees or councils? Get them to circulate our “Better Call Paul’ brochure.

Are you a teacher, principal or other school board employee? Help us spread the word to others at your school board about this blitz.

MORE DETAILS

November 12, 2025 News Release After Queen’s Park News Conference

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Ontario Autism Coalition

Ontario Parents for Education Support

Disabilities Advocates Unveil “Better Call Paul” Campaign at Queens Park for Parents to Seek Help at School for Their Underserved Children with Disabilities

November 10, 2025 Toronto: At today’s Queen’s Park news conference, disability advocates called on parents of students with disabilities in Ontario-funded schools to call or email Ontario Education Minister Paul Calandra and press for his help if they are one of the many such students whose disability-related learning needs are being underserved at school. They launched this “Better Call Paul” campaign in the face of the Ford Government taking more and more direct control of Ontario’s schools. Below is the one-page brochure now being distributed around Ontario announcing the campaign.

“Premier Ford’s Education Minister is making micro-management decisions of the school boards that the Ontario Government has taken over, deciding things like how many students there will be in some special education classes or whether a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee meetings will continue to be live streamed, or even whether a school’s name should be changed,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. “If a frustrated parent has no school board trustee to go to in order to seek help, we’re urging them to call the only elected politician who can, Education Minister Paul Calandra. Better call Paul!”

“Parents of one third of a million students with physical, mental health, sensory, neurological, learning or other kind of disabilities in Ontario-funded schools around the province need to get ready for the real possibility that the Ford Government will abolish all elected school board trustees, making Minister Calandra the sole elected trustee for all Ontario,” said Ontario Autism Coalition board member and past president Bruce McIntosh. “To prepare for that, we’re recommending they get ahead of the game and start calling Minister Calandra now to ask for help for their kids at school. Better Call Paul!”

“Senior bureaucrats running school boards need to be publicly accountable for how well they serve our children,” said Julia Evangelisto, co-chair of Ontario Parents for Education Support. “Over-burdened parents of students with disabilities too often find dealing with them to be upsetting, stressful and ultimately unsuccessful. We fear what will happen if all we have to turn to for help is the huge unfriendly Ministry of Education.”

The Ford Government has not reached out to any of the three disability organizations holding this news conference, to get their input on the impact on students with disabilities of different options for reforming Ontario’s education system. The AODA Alliance applied to give evidence at public hearings on Bill 33, which addresses this topic. However Premier Ford’s closure motion prevents any public hearings from being held on that bill.

For further information:

Contact: Bruce McIntosh 416-451-8315, bruce.mcintosh@ontarioautismcoalition.com

David Lepofsky, AODA Alliance, aodafeedback@gmail.com

The graphic above includes a picture of Paul Calandra. It says if you need a trustee, you “Better Call Paul.” It includes his phone number (416-325-2600) and his email (minister.edu@ontario.ca) and asks people who email to send a copy to 2025BetterCallPaul@gmail.com and if they phone to email that same address to say that they did.

Is Your School Board Failing to meet the Learning Needs of Your Child with Disabilities? Better Call Paul!

Do you have a child with any kind of physical, mental health, sensory, neurological, learning or other kind of disability? Is your school board meeting their disability-related learning needs? If not, call Ontario Education Minister Paul Calandra. Ask him to solve your child’s disability-related learning problems at school.

What can a frustrated, anxious, beleaguered parent do if their school tells their child with disabilities to stay home, or doesn’t give their child supports they need to learn at school? Until recently, when all else failed, they could call their elected school board trustee for help.

However, the Ford Government took control of five school boards. It ousted their elected trustees. Education Minister Paul Calandra now directly controls those boards. He appointed supervisors who report to him.

This could be in store for all Ontario. The Government aims to take more control over all school boards. It may oust all elected trustees from overseeing Ontario’s schools.

Paul Calandra may end up being the school board trustee for all Ontario-funded schools, with far more power than elected trustees ever had. If your child needs help now, better call Paul!

Phone: 416-325-2600

If you email him, please copy us at the grassroots non-partisan non-Government Better Call Paul campaign at 2025BetterCallPaul@gmail.com

Ontario-funded schools have one third of a million students with disabilities. Far too many face all kinds of serious disability barriers at school. In January 2022, the Ontario Government received a detailed blueprint on how to fix this, prepared by a Government-appointed panel of experts from the school system and the disability community. The Government has not implemented that blueprint.

Disability Advocates to Unveil New Strategy to Respond to Ford Government’s Taking Control of Five School Boards At Queen’s Park News Conference Today 1 PM

NEWS ADVISORY

November 10, 2025

Disability Advocates to Unveil New Strategy to Respond to Ford Government’s Taking Control of 5 School Boards At Queen’s Park News Conference Today 1 PM

What: Advocates for students with disabilities will unveil a creative and catchy new campaign to address problems for special needs students

When: Monday, November 10, 2025, at 1:00pm

Where: Queen’s Park Media Studio

At least a third of a million students with physical, sensory, intellectual, learning mental health, neurological or other disabilities face chronic disadvantages in publicly-funded schools. This blitz comes in response to the Ford Government’s taking over five Ontario school boards and ousting their elected trustees, and advancing legislation that gives the Education Minister more direct control over all Ontario-funded schools.

“What are parents of students with disabilities to do, and who are they to call for help, if their school board isn’t meeting their disability-related needs, especially if there are no elected trustees to ask for help? We need a solution, and we’ll unveil it at our news conference at Queen’s Park,” said Bruce McIntosh, board member and founding president of the relentless Ontario Autism Coalition.

“Hundreds of thousands of parents of students with disabilities across Ontario need to prepare themselves for the even harsher reality they’ll face if the Ford Government gets rid of elected school board trustees across Ontario. Without democratic accountability, they’ll be subjected to the tyranny of unelected and unaccountable senior school board bureaucrats,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the non-partisan Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance which has campaigned for over 15 years for a barrier-free school system for students with disabilities.

“Students with disabilities are underserved and treated as an afterthought in Ontario-funded schools. As parents, we carry the constant stress of having to fight for the supports our kids should already have. Educators want to help but they’re stuck with too few resources and the ability to make meaningful change,” said Julia Evangelisto, co-founder of Ontario Parents for Education Support.

For further information contact:

Contact: Bruce McIntosh 416-451-8315, bruce.mcintosh@ontarioautismcoalition.com

David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

Listen to the 3rd Episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast” to Learn About the Amazing Grassroots Campaign in Ontario by Parents of Children with Autism

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Listen to the Third Episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast” to Learn About the Amazing Grassroots Campaign in Ontario by Parents of Children with Autism

November 7, 2025

SUMMARY

Over the past two decades, an amazing grassroots Ontario-based advocacy campaign by parents of children and youth with autism has grown and expanded. We have so much to learn from this movement. They are known as the Ontario Autism Coalition

Its activists knew little or nothing about how to advocate for disability rights when they began. They have grown to be among the most formidable social justice movements in Ontario.

Their story is the focus of the third episode of the new podcast hosted by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, which is entitled: “Disability Rights and Wrongs – the David Lepodcast!” The guest is Bruce McIntosh, one of the Ontario Autism Coalition‘s original founders. The Ontario Autism Coalition has collaborated on several issues of importance to students with disabilities.

This podcast series aims to provide practical tips on how to advocate on disability issues, even for those with no experience doing this.

Sign up for this podcast wherever you get your podcasts, or download it directly from various podcast platforms such as Apple Music, Spotify, Amazon Music and iHeart. In addition to this new episode, check out the first episode which addresses David Lepofsky’s 12-year battle to get the Toronto Transit Commission to audibly announce subway, bus and streetcar stops, and the second episode in which built environment accessibility whiz Thea Kurdi talks about battling against the many disability barriers in the built environment.

Accessible Media’s (AMI) website has a great introduction to getting podcasts for those unfamiliar with this good way to receive information.

Another option is to ask your smart phone, Alexa, or Google Nest (if you have one):

“Play podcast ‘Disability Rights, and Wrongs!’”

Accessible Media, Inc. regularly posts transcripts of all its podcasts on the AMI website. We are working on getting a link to share with you that will take you to those transcripts.

How You Can Help

We are delighted that the audience for this podcast is growing. There have been downloads outside Canada in the UK, the US, New Zealand, Australia, Austria, the Netherlands, and Israel. Publicize this podcast to friends and family. People will listen to a new podcast if a friend recommends it.

Send us feedback on the podcast. We welcome your feedback at: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Let us know if you put the podcast’s advocacy ideas to work. Did they help?

Send us ideas for future topics on the podcast.

Whether you get your podcasts from Apple Music, Spotify, or some other source, please give this podcast a good rating! That helps get the providers to give it more profile.

The More the Ford Government Tries to Justify Banning Live Streaming of Five School Boards’ Special Education Advisory Committee Meetings, The More Unconvincing Are Its Explanations

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Originally posted at https://www.insidehalton.com/opinion/contributors/education-minister-should-rethink-ban-of-livestreaming-special-education-advisory-committee-meetings-advocate-urges/article_8c694045-b2cd-5ed4-ae2d-b881bb1b4ce6.html

The More the Ford Government Tries to Justify Banning Live Streaming of Five School Boards’ Special Education Advisory Committee Meetings, The More Unconvincing Are Its Explanations

November 6, 2025

SUMMARY

At the five school boards that the Ford Government has taken over after ousting their elected trustees, most public venues for parents to raise concerns about their children’s needs have been totally shut down. The only venue left in place for parents of students with disabilities/special education need is the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) at each of those boards. As reported in earlier AODA Alliance Updates, the Ford Government quietly decided last month to forbid those boards from live streaming their SEAC meetings. SEAC meetings have been live streamed at various parts of the province for several years with no problem.

The more the Ford Government has been pressed to explain this ban, the more it becomes apparent that these justifications make no sense. Below are two recent publications showing this:

The October 24, 2025 monthly disability rights column by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications around Ontario, and
A report in the October 21, 2025 Ottawa Citizen.

The public remains free to attend SEAC meetings, which must be held in public. Private individuals in Toronto and Ottawa have themselves commendably live streamed recent meetings. This new Ottawa Citizen report shows that even that simple measure has been thrown into some degree of chaos.

For parents who cannot attend these meetings and don’t know about these private efforts at live streaming, all that they can do is read the minutes of SEAC meetings. Minutes are traditionally posted online. Yet making this situation worse, the Toronto District School Board’s senior staff are now actively trying to reduce the information included in those minutes.

The losers are parents of students with disabilities/special education needs and, of course, their children. The beneficiaries are public officials and provincial politicians who want to curtail public scrutiny of their actions. None of this is good for our kids or for democracy.

While this is going on, the Ford Government is pushing ahead with passage of Bill 33. That bill would give the Ontario Government even more control over school boards across Ontario. The final vote on that bill is now expected to take place during the week of November 17, 2025.

The Ford Government is curtailing further debate on that bill in the Legislature. Weeks ago, the AODA Alliance applied to appear at public hearings. However, there will be no public hearings on the bill..

How You Can Help

Press the media to cover this issue and to ask tough questions of the Ford Government. This mess will spread to all school boards if the Ford Government decides to take over direct control of all school boards, eliminating all elected school board trustees.

Learn about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy efforts on behalf of students with disabilities Take a look at the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Listen to our new podcast: “Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast” which is available on Apple Music, Spotify and wherever else you get your podcasts!

MORE DETAILS

InsideHalton.com October 24, 2025

Education minister should rethink ban of livestreaming Special Education Advisory Committee meetings, advocate urges

David Lepofsky writes the move to discontinue the live broadcast weakens parents’ voices and hurts students with disabilities.

By David Lepofsky

Friday, October 24, 2025

Education Minister Paul Calandra is now managing five Ontario school boards that the provincial government took over, ousting their elected trustees. This shows what may be in store for all Ontarians, should Premier Doug Ford abolish elected trustees.

Here is an example of a decision that hurts students with disabilities who face far too many disability barriers.

Each Ontario school board must have a special education advisory committee (SEAC) to advise elected trustees and staff on how to improve things for students with disabilities.

I’ve served on Toronto District School Boards SEAC for a decade. I am currently its chair.

This committee advocates for reforms, hears from parents with wrenching stories, and has active exchanges with senior TDSB officials. We discuss tough topics like understaffing, students being told not to come to school, and recurring disability barriers.

Our advocacy is respectful.

For five years, our SEAC meetings have been livestreamed. Earlier this month, the education minister ordered that no board committee meetings be livestreamed at those five school boards (Toronto District School Board, Toronto Catholic District School Board, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board and Thames Valley District School Board).

This is a slap in the face to students with disabilities, to their parents and to hard-working special education staff who support SEAC meetings.

Parents of students with disabilities are often overburdened and stressed from their ongoing battles with the school system. Many don’t have the time to feed their kids, get them to bed, and rush to TDSB headquarters to watch SEAC meetings. Livestreaming makes it much easier.

Anxious parents of students with disabilities feel isolated and alone as they struggle to advocate for their child. SEAC’s livestream shows they are not alone and that we are pressing for improvements.

Livestreaming lets TDSB staff inform a broader audience about the board’s efforts on behalf of these students.

Livestreaming also helps parents compare what is going on at other school boards.

Livestreaming promotes accountability of senior school board officials who wield power over our children.

Before the province took over TDSB, these parents had several public forums to air their concerns. Now, SEAC is the only forum left for students with disabilities. Banning livestreaming of our meetings further weakens parents’ voices and thereby hurts these students.

One of the reasons behind the move for provincial oversight was concerns around finances. Yet livestreaming costs nothing.

Reporters pressed Calandra for an explanation. Calandra argues SEAC meetings are open for the public to attend. Yet, that is a reason for livestreaming meetings, not for banning livestreaming.

He says the public can read publicly posted meeting agendas and minutes. Yet, those dry documents omit the vast majority of what is said at these meetings.

The minister claims it’s necessary to turn down the temperature at these meetings. He’d discover that the temperature has been just fine, had he visited our meetings. We would welcome him.

SEAC meetings should focus on advancing student achievement, not political commentary, the minister says. Yet, improving things for students with disabilities is all SEAC discusses.

Calandra’s office suggests livestreaming endangers student privacy. Yet, our SEAC meetings vigilantly avoid anything that could remotely impinge on student privacy.

His team claims it is inappropriate for people who don’t have children with disabilities to watch a livestream of a SEAC meeting. Yet, people with no children with disabilities can attend SEAC meetings. We’d love them to watch our meetings. They’d learn about what schools need to do to meet our kids’ needs.

Finally, Calandra has said he’s willing to reconsider his livestreaming ban. I would applaud if he rescinded it.

David Lepofsky is a retired lawyer who chairs the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, and is a visiting professor of disability rights at the law schools at Western, Queen’s and the University of Ottawa.

Ottawa Citizen October 21, 2025

Originally posted at https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ocdsb-meetings-live-stream

OCDSB committee meetings can be recorded — but not live-streamed

School board under supervision previously asked anyone taking recordings to get the ‘express permission’ of all present at public meetings

By Joanne Laucius

Cathy Varrette

Cathy Varrette said Monday she or another parent will continue to live-stream Special Education Advisory Committee meetings. Photo by JULIE OLIVER /Postmedia

Ottawa’s largest school board now is allowing recordings of meetings — but not live-streams.

Under the direction of provincial supervisor Bob Plamondon and in consultation with staff, the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board is “moving forward with an amendment to our policies and procedures to create an exception to the broad prohibition on recording, and to instead allow the recording of public governance meetings,” board spokesperson Diane Pernari said.

“It is important to note that these policies were initially created to ensure the privacy of students and staff in schools. The amendments are being made to clarify this intention and the scope of the application.”

The change does not include live-streams, a matter that has become controversial at school boards under supervision over questions about public access to the decision-making process.

Under supervision, all decision-making is in the hands of the supervisor, not elected trustees. Since Plamondon was named as supervisor of the OCDSB on June 27, he has issued three updates. He has said that giving media interviews is not part of his mandate.

However, certain committees mandated under the Education Act continue to meet. The meetings have been monitored by parents in the hopes of learning more about what changes Plamondon plans to make. He has already announced that he is cancelling boundary changes under the controversial elementary program review.

A Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) meeting was halted temporarily on Oct. 8 after a school board employee found that Cathy Varrette, the parent of a student with autism, was live-streaming the meeting using her cellphone. Board staff withdrew to discuss the matter. Varrette was not prevented from recording and live-streamed the entire meeting.

Parent Cathy Varrette caused a temporary halt to the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board’s Special Education Access Committee meeting because she was live-streaming the proceedings with her smartphone. She was eventually allowed to continue.

At a meeting of the parent involvement committee (PIC) on Oct. 14, all those present, including reporters from three media outlets, were asked to sign a form indicating they would not take photos, audio or video recordings, including live-streaming “without the express permission of all present.”

All three media outlets took recordings. Asked if the meeting was public and whether statements made at the meeting could be cited, OCDSB lawyer Jesse Mark replied in the affirmative.

“Recordings were not allowed without consent,” Pernari said in response to a request for clarification about the Oct. 14 meeting.

“Now for public governance meetings consent will not be required. At PIC, no recordings should have happened as there was not consent from all parties on the committee.”

The AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) Alliance, a disability advocacy group, is concerned the provincial government wants to contain criticism.

“The board’s position makes absolutely no sense and is completely unjustified,” said AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky, a retired lawyer and academic who taught freedom of expression law at the University of Toronto.

“If live-streaming was done before the Ford government took over the board, without it requiring consent of all members speaking at the meeting, then the same should continue to take place now,” said Lepofsky, who is the SEAC chair at the Toronto District School Board.

“Anything short of that hurts students with disabilities, their parents and the public. What’s the big secret? The public, students and the school board all benefit when as many members of the public as possible can watch these meetings.”

What’s the big secret? The public, students and the school board all benefit when as many members of the public as possible can watch these meetings

David Lepovsky AODA Alliance chair \

Varrette said Monday she or another parent would continue to live-stream SEAC meetings.

“We’re not going to stop,” she said. “It’s a public space. Everyone has a recording device on them now.”

Anthony Wong, a member of SEAC, said parents shouldn’t have to fight just to follow public meetings.

“It’s troubling that the board refuses to live-stream its meetings — and worse, that it’s not even making recordings accessible. Meetings that are truly private are already in-camera. Calling everything a privacy issue isn’t transparency — it’s avoidance,” he said.

“For parents, this means we’re being shut out of the process. The OCDSB and other boards once live-streamed so families, working parents and those with accessibility needs could follow decisions in real time. Ending that practice doesn’t protect privacy — it protects power,” Wong said.

Transparency isn’t a favour — it’s a right, he said.

“It’s everyone’s responsibility to demand open meetings, open records and open decisions. When a public body turns off the cameras, it’s not just hiding from oversight — it’s hiding from the people it serves.”

When meetings were live-streamed by the board, parents of children with special needs would often watch from home, texting each other when something of interest was mentioned, Varrette said. These “watch parties” would attract between 15 and 50 participants.

When Varrette live-streamed SEAC on Oct. 8, there were 145 participants, she said.

The argument that there is a need for privacy is a “bogus claim,” she said.

“Eventually cuts will be talked about. Changing programs will be talked about. We want information in real time.”

The next SEAC meeting is scheduled for Nov. 5.

The Second Episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast” Explores Why New Buildings Keep Being Built with Accessibility Barriers

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

The Second Episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast” Explores Why New Buildings Keep Being Built with Accessibility Barriers

October 14, 2025

Have you ever wondered why new buildings keep being built that are replete with accessibility barriers that could have been prevented at little or no cost? Did you see the stunning example of this in the AODA Alliance’s widely viewed video entitled “Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse.” Watch the 4-minute trailer, 14-minute short version or the 49-minute long version.

This question is the subject of the second episode of “Disability Rights and Wrongs – the David Lepodcast.” It features a discussion with leading Canadian built environment accessibility expert Thea Kurdi.

Subscribe to this podcast wherever you get your podcasts, or download it directly from various podcast platforms such as Apple Music, Spotify, Amazon Music and iHeart.

Accessible Media’s (AMI) website has a great introduction to getting podcasts for those unfamiliar with this good way to receive information.

If you don’t know how to get a podcast, try this. Just ask your smart phone, Alexa, or Google Nest (if you have one):

“Play podcast ‘Disability Rights, and Wrongs!’”

AMI regularly posts transcripts of all its podcasts on the AMI website. We are trying to get our hands on a link to share with you that will take you right to the page where those transcripts will be found.

How You Can Help

Publicize this podcast to your friends. People are far more likely to listen to a new podcast if a friend recommends it.

Send us your feedback on the podcast. We welcome your feedback at: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Let us know if you put the podcast’s advocacy ideas to work. Did they help?

Send us ideas for future topics on the podcast.

Whether you get your podcasts from Apple Music, Spotify or some other source, please give this podcast a good rating! That helps get the providers to give it more profile.

E-Scooters Keep Causing Injuries but Have Police Responded Effectively?

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

E-Scooters Keep Causing Injuries but Have Police Responded Effectively?

October 13, 2025

SUMMARY

For more than six years, the AODA Alliance along with other disability advocates have been campaigning to protect vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors, children and others from the serious danger to safety and accessibility created by electric scooters. E-scooters are a silent menace ridden by uninsured, unlicensed, unhelmeted and untrained joy-riders racing at speeds as fast as 30 kph on Ontario roads, sidewalks, bike paths and other public places, typically with impunity.

We have faced an uphill battle. This is because the Ford Government has sidelined and marginalized these dangers, responding instead to the feeding frenzy of corporate lobbyists for e-scooter rental companies. So have the municipalities that have legalized their use, such as Ottawa. Here is the latest news. These news reports are set out below.

The October 11, 2025 Toronto Star reported that e-scooters are causing a spike in personal injuries. We have been warning governments about this for the past four years, as did the staff of the City of Toronto.

On August 25, 2025, City News reported that Toronto Police Services were undertaking a three-week safety campaign on micromobility devices like e-scooters. It included both education and enforcement. The campaign has now been over for a month. We are eager to know how many charges were laid and what penalties, if any, resulted.

On August 16, 2025, CTV News reported on a collision that caused injuries to an e-scooter rider and a pedestrian.

On September 14, 2025, CTV news reported that a woman was injured in a fire caused by an e-scooter.

This all proves that the Ford Government must substantially strengthen any regulations that permit e-scooters anywhere in Ontario, and that even where a city like Toronto has banned them, there is a pressing need for much more effective law enforcement.

How You Can Help

Write a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star at lettertoed@thestar.ca to respond to the October 11, 2025 Star report on e-scooter injuries set out below. Explain why police must strictly enforce the ban on e-scooters.

If you live in Ottawa, Mississauga, Hamilton or one of the other Ontario cities where e-scooters are allowed, contact your member of City Council. Tell them to ban e-scooters and to enforce the ban.

Write your member of the Ontario Legislature. Tell them to ban e-scooters in Ontario and set stronger penalties for illegal e-riding.

Take a long look at the six years of advocacy that we have conducted to protect vulnerable people with disabilities and others from the dangers that e-scooters create. Visit the AODA Alliance website’s e-scooters page.

Do you want to learn how to do disability advocacy? Listen to the podcast: “Disability Rights and Wrongs – the David Lepodcast.” It is available on all the usual podcast platforms, such as Apple Music and Spotify.

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star October 11, 2025

Originally posted at

E-scooter injuries up 600%, data shows

Increase from 2020 to 2024 inspires new research into road safety at St. Michael’s Hospital

Amarachi Amadike Toronto Star

E-scooters are illegal on Toronto roads, sidewalks, paths … practically everywhere but your driveway.

Despite this, many young children and teenagers continue to rely on them as their preferred mode of transportation. So much so, that it has led to a 22 per cent increase in hospitalizations from e-scooter injuries across the country, according to research undertaken by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI).

Dr. Steve Lin, an emergency physician and trauma team leader at St. Michael’s Hospital, said their research supports CIHI’s findings.

In a preliminary review of St. Michael’s Hospital data earlier this year, researchers reported a 600 per cent increase in e-scooter injuries between 2020 and 2024.

Their analysis, which examined data from the hospital’s trauma registry, also revealed a 240 per cent increase in the number of trauma cases related to e-bike injuries.

“We’re not capturing every single injury that we’re seeing,” Lin said. “But what we do have is information on those who have serious injuries that need to come in and be admitted to the hospital.”

St. Michael’s statistics show a steeper increase in incidents involving e-scooters, however, Lin highlighted that there have been significantly more e-bike accidents.

“I’m not sure if more people use e-bikes, but they definitely go at a faster speed,” said Lin.

With financial assistance from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s road safety research partnership program, St. Michael’s is now embarking on a new study to help improve car and road safety following the drastic increase in micromobility vehicle accidents.

“Our own experience in the emergency department … we’re seeing a lot of head injuries, facial injuries, long bone injuries,” said Lin. “The study itself is meant to really capture all those numbers and to look a bit deeper into why this is actually happening.”

According to Toronto Police Service (TPS), a general lack of awareness about what micromobility devices are legal to use is playing a role in the number of accidents.

Last week, a 10-year-old was rushed to the hospital after a colliding with a car as the driver opened the door.

Earlier that same day, a 12-year-old boy was also taken to hospital following an e-scooter collision in Scarborough.

Such incidents have made Toronto police increase their focus on the annual back-to-school campaign which aims to educate riders about road safety and what the rules are.

They’ve also merged the educational arm of their strategic response with enforcement, like the blitz that resulted in 179 tickets being issued to micromobility vehicle riders over a three-week period.

“These vehicles are becoming more and more popular on the road, especially among young people, which can lead to safety concerns that are even more heightened now that students are back in school,” Toronto police senior communications adviser Nadine Ramadan said in an email statement to the Star.

As of Sept. 24, officers have issued 1,138 tickets related to e-bike, e-scooter and bicycle users in 2025.

However, Lin said there needs to be more guidelines and enforcement.

“Helmet use should be necessary for everyone,” Lin emphasized. “That’s not negotiable … once you’re using these micromobility vehicles at very high speeds, they start moving away from being a recreational vehicle.”

Lin told the Star that the vast majority of people in emergency rooms as a result of e-bike and e-scooter accidents were not wearing helmets at the time of collision.

St. Michael’s hopes their three-phased approach to the new study will aid in reducing these numbers.

The first phase focuses on getting a general idea of the number of injuries that are happening in emergency departments around the city.

The second and third phases involve bringing together an action committee to better understand what people are thinking in terms of micromobility vehicle usage, and evaluating their findings which will then be passed on to policy makers.

Although the data is generally unclear, discourse surrounding collisions often villainizes e-scooter and e-bike riders. However, Lin said the new study will focus on key details in order to get the full picture.

“We’re also going to be interviewing new patients as well … to get a good understanding of how they got injured,” said Lin. “Because, currently, even in our charts, we don’t document to that detail. Did they slip? Did they hit a car door?”

One Toronto resident, however, believes Ontario’s government is to blame because they still allow the sale of e-scooters in many stores even though residents are banned from riding them.

“That’s so dumb, honestly,” said Paloma Vargas, who runs a babysitting business and is frequently around the Parliament and King street area – just south of where a 10-year-old boy was hit last week. “Just don’t let people sell them and that’s it.”

In 2020, Ontario introduced an e-scooter pilot program that follows a municipal opt-in model, “meaning e-scooters are only legal in municipalities that have passed a bylaw permitting their use,” according to Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s media relations officer Tanya Blazina.

“E-scooters may be used on private property with the prior permission of the property owner,”said Blazina, regarding Toronto’s bylaw. “But this does not override municipal restrictions on public roads or sidewalks.”

With the option to opt-out, Toronto councillors’ decided to prohibit the operation of e-scooters anywhere but on private property, leading to confusion surrounding the sale of the banned micromobility vehicle by Toronto retailers.

While riders have been experiencing increased scrutiny, Ramadan acknowledged that they are still “legal to purchase.”

Figure:

A man rides a scooter in 2023. Dr. Steve Lin, an emergency physician and trauma team leader at St. Michael’s Hospital, said that the vast majority of people in emergency rooms as a result of e-bike and e-scooter accidents were not wearing helmets at the time of collision. Richard Lautens/Toronto Star file photo

City News August 25, 2025

Originally posted at https://toronto.citynews.ca/2025/08/25/toronto-police-micromobility-vehicles-e-bikes-e-scooters/

Toronto police target e-scooters, e-bikes in new safety campaign

Toronto police are conducting a safety campaign targeting e-scooter and e-bike riders on knowing the rules of the roads.

By Lucas Casaletto

Toronto police have launched a three-week traffic safety campaign targeting micromobility vehicles across the city, aiming to educate riders and enforce road safety laws as students prepare to return to school.

The initiative, which runs until Saturday, Sept. 13, will focus on high-traffic areas including local, collector, and arterial roads, as well as bike lanes, sidewalks, and crosswalks. Officers will also increase enforcement in school zones, targeting drivers who speed, drive aggressively or impaired, and park or operate vehicles in cycle lanes.

Micromobility vehicles include bicycles, electric bikes, e-mopeds, and electric kick-scooters. Police say the campaign will involve both education and enforcement under the Highway Traffic Act and the City of Toronto by-laws.

The campaign follows a City Council recommendation for Toronto police and City staff to collaborate on improving public awareness and safety around micromobility use. The City of Toronto launched its own educational campaign earlier this summer, highlighting infractions such as illegal sidewalk riding, wrong-way cycling, and improper e-moped use in bike lanes.

Toronto’s Micromobility Strategy, adopted by City Council in May 2024, outlines an approach to integrating small, low-speed vehicles into the city’s transportation network.

The strategy emphasizes safety, equity, and environmental sustainability, and includes pilot projects for cargo bikes and quadricycles. Electric kick-scooters, however, remain prohibited on public streets, sidewalks, and bike lanes due to safety concerns, particularly for seniors and people with disabilities.

Police say the campaign will be expanded city-wide. Officers will be visible throughout the campaign period, engaging with riders and drivers.

CTV News August 16, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/2-injured-after-collision-between-e-scooter-and-pedestrian-in-etobicoke/

2 injured after collision between e-scooter and pedestrian in Etobicoke

By Jermaine Wilson

A Toronto police officer’s uniform is seen during a press conference in Toronto on Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Cole Burston

Toronto police say an e-scooter rider and a pedestrian were both injured in a collision late Friday night in Etobicoke.

Officials say officers were called to Mabelle Avenue and Dundas Street West at around 10:30 p.m. for reports of a crash involving a male on an e-scooter and a female pedestrian.

Both were transported to hospital with “non-life-threatening injuries.”

Mabelle Avenue was previously closed at Dundas Street West for the investigation but all roads have since re-opened.

There is no word on any charges.

CTV News September 14, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/woman-injured-in-north-york-fire-that-appears-to-have-been-cause-by-an-electric-scooter-toronto-fire/

Woman injured in North York fire that appears to have been caused by an electric scooter:

By Joanna Lavoie

A woman has been injured in a Sept. 14 fire near Highway 400, between Sheppard and Wilson avenues in North York.. (Jacob Estrin/CTV News Toronto)

A woman has been injured in a fire in North York, which Toronto fire said appears to have been caused by an electric scooter.

The blaze broke out on Sunday evening at a home on Joseph Griffin Lane, which is near Torbarrie Road and Judy Sgro Avenue, just east of Highway 400 between Sheppard and Wilson avenues.

Toronto fire said they were called to that area at 9:11 p.m. for reports of a fire in the front of a house.

They said crews arrived and saw visible flames behind a window.

The fire was suppressed, Toronto Fire Service said, and has been knocked down.

Paramedics told CTV News Toronto that they transported one patient, an adult female, to the hospital with serious, but non-life-threatening, injuries.

Still More Media Coverage Blasting Education Minister’s Banning School Boards Under Provincial Supervision from Live Streaming Special Education Advisory Committee Meetings

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Still More Media Coverage Blasting Education Minister’s Banning School Boards Under Provincial Supervision from Live Streaming Special Education Advisory Committee Meetings

October 11, 2025

SUMMARY

There has been yet more media coverage of the Ford Government’s controversial decision ordering the five school boards under direct provincial supervision not to live stream meetings of any school board committees, most notably their Special Education Advisory Committee. This topic was earlier addressed in the October 8, 2025 AODA Alliance Update and the October 10, 2025 AODA Alliance Update.

This coverage includes:

An October 8, 2025 City TV news report.
An October 10, 2025 City TV news report.
An October 11, 2025 Global News TV report for which we have no link, and
An October 11, 2025 Ottawa Citizen report, set out below.

Here are some key points in these reports:

Education Minister Paul Calandra told City News that he’s prepared to reconsider his orders to the five school boards under direct provincial supervision. We would applaud if the minister were to lift this ban. We wait with anticipation.

Although the Ontario Government directed these school boards that the boards must not themselves live stream the meetings, the Ontario Autism Coalition has sent representatives to the Special Education Advisory Committee meetings this week in Toronto and Ottawa who did live stream them. At the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee, this took place without a hitch. At the Ottawa Carleton District School Board’s SEAC, the meeting was held up for half an hour while board staff tried to figure out what to do.

The Ontario Autism Coalition has announced that it plans to live stream each Special Education Advisory Committee meeting at school boards under provincial supervision as long as this is needed. The Ottawa Citizen article, set out below, reports on this. This further shows that the Education Minister’s ban is pointless and should be withdrawn.

These reports combined with media reports in this week’s two earlier AODA Alliance Updates make it clear that this controversy comes from the Ford Government’s Education Minister himself, Paul Calandra. He was the one who made this decision and the one who will reconsider whether to withdraw it. This illustrates the problem that can take place when a single provincial politician takes over the role of micro-managing school boards. It should signal to the public what will be in store if that minister takes over all the school boards in Ontario that teach two million K-12 students, and all elected school board trustees across the province are ousted.

It is very important that the media have been pressing Premier Ford and the Education Minister on this issue. The more they have been asked, the more reasons these politicians have come up with for banning live streaming. None of their reasons make any sense. It looks more and more like the political staff in the Minister’s Office are scrambling after the fact to conjure up some sort of justification for an ill-considered decision and making up a series of reasons as they go along.

To recap earlier coverage and add the more recent reports, the Government’s evolving explanations for this ban and our response to these have included:

Ford Government: SEAC meetings are open for the public to attend.

AODA Alliance response: Most parents are busy feeding their kids and putting them to bed and cannot attend SEAC meetings in person. In any event, the fact that these meetings are open to the public is a good reason to live stream them. It is not a reason to refuse to live stream them.

Ford Government: The public can read the publicly posted meeting agendas and minutes.

AODA Alliance response: These agendas and minutes leave out the vast majority of what is said at these meetings. Minutes are usually not posted until a month after the meeting.

Ford Government: It is necessary to turn down the temperature at these meetings.

AODA Alliance response: There is no need to turn down the temperature at these meetings. The Government hasn’t shown from the archived videos of past SEAC meetings that there is any need to turn down the temperature. There is no indication that the Minister has ever been to one of these meetings to see what happens there.

Ford Government: SEAC meetings should focus only on advancing student achievement.

AODA Alliance response: The only focus of SEAC meetings IS to make things better at school for students with disabilities/special education needs.

Ford Government: SEACs should not be a place for “political commentary.”

AODA Alliance response: In a democracy, it is not the government’s role to decide what people talk about. Advocating for students with disabilities/special education needs may well be considered “political commentary” to some. The real worry here is that the Ford Government wants to contain any possible criticism of what is going on in the classroom now that it is the Ford Government that has sole responsibility for the operation of the schools at the five school boards that they took over.

Ford Government: This restriction is needed to protect privacy of students.

AODA Alliance response: Using the TDSB SEAC as an illustration, the Committee meetings carefully avoid anything that could impinge on privacy, as do school board staff. Parents of students with disabilities/special education needs are keenly aware of the need to protect student privacy.

Ford Government: It would be inappropriate for people who don’t have children with disabilities/special education needs to watch a live stream of a SEAC meeting.

AODA Alliance response: Anyone can attend a public SEAC meeting, including people who don’t have children with disabilities/special education needs. Moreover, it is beneficial to for those who don’t have children with disabilities/special education needs to watch SEAC meetings, if they wish. It helps educate the broader public about these students’ needs and what school boards are doing or not doing to meet those needs.

The public generally has an interest in ensuring that all students are effectively served in schools.

How You Can Help

Urge your local media to cover this issue and to ask tough questions of the Ford Government. This controversy will very likely spread to all school boards if the Ford Government decides to take over direct control of all school boards, eliminating all elected school board trustees.

Learn all about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy efforts on behalf of students with disabilities Take a look at the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Remember to listen to our new podcast: “Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast” which is available on Apple Music, Spotify and wherever else you get your podcasts!

MORE DETAILS

Ottawa Citizen October 11, 2025

Originally posted at https://ottawacitizen.com/news/live-streaming-school-board-committees

Live-streaming controversy sparks debate over access to school board special-education committee meetings

Advocates for children with disabilities say denying real-time electronic access to Special Education Advisory Committee is ‘undemocratic.’

By Joanne Laucius

Cathy Varrette Live-Streaming SEAC Meeting

The question of whether or not parents can live-stream the proceedings of a school board committee is raising questions about public access to the decision-making process.

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Alliance, a disability advocacy group, has charged that Education Minister Paul Calandra banned school boards under supervision from live-streaming their Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) meetings in a “troubling and undemocratic move.”

At the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, a SEAC meeting was halted temporarily on Oct. 8 after a school board employee found that a parent, Cathy Varrette, was live-streaming it using her smartphone.

Board staff withdrew to discuss the matter. Varrette was not prevented from recording and live-streamed the entire meeting.

Varrette, who has a son with autism, often watches the SEAC live-stream from home so she can help her son get ready for bed while also learning about issues affected students with disabilities. On the night of Oct. 8, she attended the meeting in person. Varrette said her phone was propped up in plain sight. She later posted the recording to YouTube.

Following SEAC meetings from home is crucial to parents who juggle care for a child with complex needs with keeping on top of potential changes to special education, Varrette said. That’s particularly important to parents after 39 specialized OCDSB classes were on the chopping block earlier this year, she added.

“I’m concerned that, although nothing happened at this meeting, cuts will happen and I won’t be able to participate,” she said.

More than half of the hospitals across the eastern region of Ontario are projecting deficits this year, documents show. The overall Ontario hospital deficit for 2024-25 was $360 million.

School boards under provincial supervision, including the OCDSB, no longer hold meetings of their boards of trustees. However, several committees, including SEACs, are mandated under Ontario’s Education Act.

SEAC meetings are a lot of inside baseball. They attract only a handful of people and receive little public attention. But the meetings let parents know about the politics of what’s going on and how to navigate the system for their children, Varrette said.

“I believe hard cuts are coming for special education. I want to be in a better situation to advocate,” she said.

David Lepovsky, chair of AODA Alliance and SEAC chair at the Toronto District School Board, said Calandra had claimed he put school boards under supervision over issues of finances.

“Live-streaming doesn’t cost a penny. It’s just a matter of throwing a switch,” Lepovsky said.

“This is a slap in the face to parents of children with disabilities and the children. These are people who live under a lot of stress. From 7 to 9 at night, these parents are busy. What kind of cold-heartedness can lead to this kind of decision?”

Many parents of children with disabilities lead isolated lives. Watching these meetings lets them know they’re not alone, Lepovsky said.

“It’s an emotional lifeline.”

In recent years, the OCDSB has live-streamed SEAC meetings. The question is whether a member of the public like Varrette can step in and do it. The Ontario Autism Coalition has decided to live-stream future SEAC meetings at all the school boards under supervision.

In a statement, the OCDSB said all committee meetings remained open to the public.

“Committee members and delegates can still participate remotely when necessary and all are welcome to attend in person,” a spokesperson said. “Minutes, agendas, and decisions from all committees are also posted publicly to ensure transparency and accessibility for families and the broader community.”

However, the OCDSB not respond to questions about live-streaming.

Calandra’s office also did not address questions about whether the Ministry of Education had “banned” live-streaming for school boards under supervision, as the OADA Alliance charged.

Paul Calandra Education Minister

Education Minister Paul Calandra is seen here in a file photo during Question Period in the Ontario Legislature in May. Photo by COLE BURSTON /THE CANADIAN PRESS

“While under supervision, the number one priority of my ministry supervisors is to enhance student success where trustees have failed,” Calandra said in a statement.

“I made this decision to maintain meetings that are productive, professional and focused on improving student success and achievement, rather than serving as a forum for political commentary. At the same time, I ordered all meetings to remain open to the public with hybrid participation options with public posting of agendas, minutes, and decisions,” he said.

“To be clear I will be relentless in fighting for students, parents and teachers and focused on improving student achievement. Even when others fight to defend a system that has failed our students and teachers.”

Anthony Wong, a parent and member of SEAC, said it was important that SEAC meetings be live-streamed and that captioned recordings remained publicly available afterward.

“SEAC exists to give families of students with special education needs a genuine voice, yet many of those families simply can’t attend in person because of disability, caregiving responsibilities, or health reasons,” Wong said. “Accessibility should never depend on who’s able to drive downtown on a weekday evening.”

For many families, advocates and members of the community, live-streams and recordings are not optional conveniences, but the only means of participation, he said.

“Live access and captioned recordings ensure that families can follow the issues, understand the discussions, and see how decisions are made. Without them, the very people SEAC is meant to represent are excluded,” Wong said. “Accessibility, transparency, and inclusion are not abstract principles — they are the foundation of public trust and effective governance.”

Legally and historically, Ontario school boards have recognized that SEAC meetings are open by law and public by purpose, Wong said.

Section 207 of the Education Act makes committee meetings open to the public except for limited in camera matters, he said. Regulation 463/97 requires every school board to maintain an electronic-meeting policy that allows the public to observe proceedings — a practice reinforced during the COVID-19 pandemic, when live-streaming became the province-wide standard for transparency and accessibility.

Under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 and its Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation, school boards must provide information and communications in accessible formats on demand and ensure that posted web content — including recordings of meeting — meets accessibility standards such as captioning, Wong said.

“These are enforceable obligations, not symbolic gestures. Ultimately, maintaining live-streamed and captioned SEAC meetings is both a legal duty and a moral responsibility,” he said.

“It’s how the board demonstrates its commitment to openness, equity and respect for the families it serves. When SEAC remains visible, accessible, and inclusive, it fulfills the very spirit of why it exists in the first place.”

Calandra has mused that he might eliminate Ontario’s English-language school board trustees.

“These kinds of events foreshadow what might happen if the province decides to run school boards,” Lepofsky said.

More Media Coverage of the Ford Government’s Attempt to Reduce the Parent Advocacy for Students with Disabilities – and – Ousted Trustees to Hold October 14, 2025 Public Forum in Toronto

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

RSVP at https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfoJ4LRPwISwuy-n2iCYyzNwhFT9yjeALPloBoSu2LhNKt3EQ/viewform

More Media Coverage of the Ford Government’s Attempt to Reduce the Parent Advocacy for Students with Disabilities – and – Ousted Trustees to Hold October 14, 2025 Public Forum in Toronto

October 10, 2025

SUMMARY

Here are overlapping developments regarding Ontario’s beleaguered school system, which we view from the perspective of the many disability barriers in school still impeding students with disabilities.

1. Global News Publishes Excellent Report on the Ford Government’s Suppressing the Advocacy Voices of Parents of Students with Disabilities/Special Education Needs by Banning Live-Streaming of Special Education Advisory Committee Meetings at the School Boards Which the Ontario Government Took Over

A very good online October 10, 2025 Global News report gave more media attention to the controversy swirling around the Ford Government’s decision to forbid the live streaming of school board committee meetings, including those of a Special Education Advisory Committee, at those school boards which the Ontario Government took over last June. With the Ontario Government now 100% solely on the hook for how students with disabilities/special education needs are treated at these schools, the Minister of Education’s action here looks like an effort to prevent the public from hearing any criticism of what is happening in the classroom when it comes to these students. Read this article below.

Irrefutable proof that that the meetings of the Toronto District School Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee are fully appropriate for live streaming can be found by simply watching two of these meetings which were live streamed last spring. Check out the meetings on May 12, 2025 or June 9 2025.

2. Ousted Elected Toronto District School Board Trustees to Hold a Public Forum on Education on October 14, 2025

On Tuesday, October 14, 2025, a group of the elected TDSB school board trustees whom the Ford Government ousted from their roles last June have organized a public Town Hall to discuss the future of education in Ontario The panel at this event will include, among others, TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee Chair David Lepofsky, who is also chair of the AODA Alliance. Below is the public announcement of this event.

3. How You Can Help

Add your voice to the mounting pressure on the Ford Government. Write Education Minister Paul Calandra at edu@ontario.ca Tell him to withdraw his order that prohibits live streaming of meetings of a Special Education Advisory Committee and other board committees at the school boards that the Ontario Government took over last June.

Send Premier Ford the same message. Email him at premier@ontario.ca

Learn all about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy efforts on behalf of students with disabilities Take a look at the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Remember to listen to our new podcast: “Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast” which is available on Apple Music, Spotify and wherever else you get your podcasts!

MORE DETAILS

Global News October 10, 2025

Originally posted at https://globalnews.ca/news/11472398/ontario-school-board-live-streaming-meeting-change/amp/

Disability advocate concerned TDSB meeting changes will shut parents out

By Isaac Callan Global News

A prominent disability advocate says the Ford government’s decision to stop livestreaming meetings at the school boards it has taken over is “exceedingly troubling and undemocratic.”

Recently, the Ministry of Education instructed supervisors at major school boards like Toronto public, Ottawa-Carleton and Dufferin-Peel Catholic to stop broadcasting their meetings online.

At Toronto District School Board, one of the meetings impacted was the Special Education Advisory Committee, chaired by disability advocate David Lepofsky.

He said livestreaming the meetings was a vital service that particularly benefitted the parents of children with disabilities or special educational needs.

Lepofsky said parents have, for years, tuned into the online broadcasts of the meetings to understand what’s happening at a board level for their children when they’re too busy to attend.

The committee meets from 7 to 9 p.m. during the week when many are getting their children ready for bed. It discusses issues and accommodations for special education at TDSB schools.

“We’ve heard back from parents about how many of them feel isolated and really stressed out trying to advocate for their children,” Lepofsky said. “When they tune into our meetings, they find out they’re not alone.”

A spokesperson for the Minister of Education said the move was not about cutting out parents, but stopping people without children in the board tuning into meetings for unrelated advocacy campaigns.

“At the same time, I ordered all meetings to remain open to the public with hybrid participation options with public posting of agendas, minutes, and decisions.”

That response, Lepofsky said, has him more concerned than when he first found out the meetings weren’t going to be livestreamed.

He said his concern now is not just that a cost-cutting drive has inadvertently damaged access for parents of children with disabilities, but that it is actually a concerted effort to clamp down on criticism.

“This is no justification for hampering the voices of parents of students with disabilities/special education needs,” he wrote in a statement.

“All the discussions at the meetings of TDSB’s SEAC over the past ten years have been focused solely on what is needed to advance student success for students with disabilities/special education needs.”

The government said parents could continue to appear remotely at meetings through hybrid Zoom calls, but would no longer be able to watch them online if they’re not participating.

“Are they afraid?” Lepofsky added. “Now that they’re in charge of running the school board, are they concerned that there be no platform for parents of students with disabilities to be able to air publicly their concern?”

The move comes as Calandra undertakes a potentially massive shakeup of how school boards operate, following the takeover of several in the spring.

Supervisors are now in charge of running those boards instead of the trustees, who the government is considering abolishing altogether in some cases.

Lepofsky said he feared the livestreaming issue could be a flavour of what’s to come after the shakeup.

“Before they ousted the TDSB trustees, parents had multiple forums in public where they could raise concerns,” he said.

“Now, all of those have been wiped out with the stroke of a pen at the end of June. And all that’s left as a place for our issues to get pressed is the Special Education Advisory Committee. And they turned off the switch, preventing us from livestreaming.”

Town Hall

The future of public education and why it matters

Panelists include:

Dr. Sachin Maharaj, University of Ottawa

David Lepofsky, TDSB SEAC

Celine Odjig, TDSB Indigenous Student Trustee

Bibi Safraw Hanif, TDSB Parent

Join us for an important town hall about the future of public education and why it matters. Bill 33 shifts decision-making power and this is a critical moment for public education.

Join parents, students, educators, and community members to learn what’s at stake, speak up and stand together for democratic, locally accountable schools. Your voice matters!

Date: October 14^th, 2025

Time: 630 PM

Location: Native Canadian Centre of Toronto, 16 Spadina Road, right across from Spadina Station.

Child minding available, open to everyone!

Ontario Education Minister Bans School Boards Under Direct Provincial Supervision from Continuing to Live-Stream Public Meetings of Their Special Education Advisory Committees

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Ontario Education Minister Inexcusably Bans School Boards Under Direct Provincial Supervision from Continuing to Live-Stream Public Meetings of Their Special Education Advisory Committees

October 8, 2025

SUMMARY

In an exceedingly troubling and undemocratic move, Ontario Education Minister Paul Calandra has banned the four Ontario school boards that the Government has taken over and is directly supervising from continuing to live stream meetings of their Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) or other board committees. This seriously weakens the voices of parents of vulnerable students with disabilities/special education needs who seek to tear down the many disability barriers in Ontario schools.

This first came to a head on Monday, October 6, 2025, when the Toronto District School Board’s SEAC was forbidden by Minister Calandra from its five-year old practice of live streaming its public monthly meetings. City TV covered this on October 7, 2025 in an excellent online report set out below. It was accompanied by a long and detailed report about 30 minutes into its 5 pm Toronto news broadcast on October 7, 2025.

The Chair of the TDSB’s SEAC is David Lepofsky, who is also Chair of the AODA Alliance. On behalf of the TDSB’s SEAC he wrote Minister Calandra on October 7, 2025 to object to the Minister’s action and to ask the Minister to rescind this ban on live streaming. That letter is also set out below. It explains why the Minister’s action is so harmful and unjustified.

The agenda of TDSB SEAC’s October 6, 2025 meeting proves the point. At that meeting, TDSB’s Director of Education had an informative and lively discussion of a wide range of issues concerning students with disabilities/special education needs. He answered many questions from SEAC members, which raised concerns on behalf of some 40,000 students with disabilities/special education needs at TDSB. Two parents made moving and informative delegations about barriers their children have faced. They made constructive recommendations on how TDSB could improve these situations. TDSB senior staff made a detailed presentation about their new action plan for meeting the needs of students with disabilities/special education needs. This led to an informative exchange with SEAC members about that action plan. What possible harm could there be in letting the broader public watch this?

According to the October 7, 2025 City News report, the Ontario Minister of Education Paul Calandra has stated the following as his reason for banning the live streaming of public meetings of a school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee and other committees of the school board while that board is under provincial supervision:

This is no justification for hampering the voices of parents of students with disabilities/special education needs. All the discussions at the meetings of TDSB’s SEAC over the past ten years have been focused solely on what is needed to advance student success for students with disabilities/special education needs. For at least five years, these meetings at TDSB have been lived streamed and are archived on YouTube. Anyone can verify this.

No one from the Ministry of Education has ever raised a single concern about this with TDSB’s SEAC over the past five years. The Minister of Education had no discussions with TDSB’s SEAC about the content of its meetings before making this harmful decision.

The Minister’s reason for banning live streaming of SEAC meetings is extremely troubling. In a democracy, freedom of expression is treasured as a fundamental constitutional right. It is not the role of a provincial cabinet minister or a government to try to regulate or limit political speech or commentary. It violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a cabinet minister to try to use their powers to curtail political expression. No legislation gives the Minister of Education the power to do that. To do this against the voices of the parents of vulnerable students with disabilities/special education needs is inexcusable.

The Supreme Court of Canada held over three decades ago that an attempt by government to restrict discussion because of the content of one’s message has a purpose to violate the freedom of expression – something which the Charter of Rights forbids. Discussion and advocacy at a Special Education Advisory Committee to remove disability barriers in the school system could well be called “political commentary.” Political commentary lies at the heart of the protection for freedom of expression.

The Minister of Education banned live streaming of SEAC meetings only after he took over direct responsibility for running the TDSB in place of the elected trustees whom he ousted. Now, when students with disabilities/special education needs face any disability barriers, it is the sole responsibility of the Ontario Government. The Minister can no longer blame TDSB trustees or anyone else for what goes on in TDSB schools. In these circumstances the Minister’s action with the purpose to violate the freedom of expression is especially unjustified in a democracy. The Minister should not try to use any discretion or power he has to curtail or limit discussion of his government’s actions or make it harder to reach willing listeners.

In the October 7, 2025 City TV news item, the reporter added that there was some suggestion that live streaming could give rise to some privacy concerns. TDSB SEAC Chair David Lepofsky, who has sat on that Committee for over a decade, advises that TDSB staff and SEAC members take great care to protect privacy. For example, the two parents presenting at that meeting carefully followed the Committee’s policy that there should be no mention of any names of students, teachers or specific schools in their presentation.

This problem will continue to grow. Tonight, the Ottawa Carleton District School Board’s SEAC is apparently scheduled to meet. Moreover, media reports have suggested that the Ford Government is considering the option of abolishing all elected school board trustees across Ontario. What it happening at TDSB and other boards now under direct provincial control foreshadows what may be in store for all schools across Ontario, a deeply worrisome prospect.

How You Can Help

Write Education Minister Paul Calandra at edu@ontario.ca Tell him to withdraw his direction that prohibits live streaming of meetings of a Special Education Advisory Committee and other board committees at the school boards that the Ontario Government has taken over.
Tell Premier Ford the same thing. Email him at premier@ontario.ca

MORE DETAILS

City News October 7, 2025

Originally posted at https://toronto.citynews.ca/2025/10/07/ontario-ford-government-blocking-livestreams-school-board-committee-meetings/

Province blocking livestreams of school board committee meetings

Ford government blocks public livestreams of school board committee meetings

The Ford government says it will be restricting public livestreams of school board committee meetings, sparking concern among the opposition.

By Tina Yazdani

The Ford government is restricting public access to school board committee meetings.

CityNews has learned that the province’s education minister has directed school boards under provincial jurisdiction, including the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), to block livestreams of their monthly meetings. 3rd party ad content

The chair of the TDSB’s special education advisory committee (SPEAC), David Lepofsky, says the government has given no reason for arbitrarily banning live streaming, and this change will be particularly difficult for vulnerable families who can’t attend meetings in person.

“This can only make things harder for beleaguered parents of students with disabilities/special education needs to press for improvements in an education system that already treats them like second-class citizens,” Lepofsky said.

Education Minister Paul Calandra

Education Minister Paul Calandra is seen in this undated photo. THE CANADIAN PRESS.

Lepofsky noted Monday night’s SEAC meeting was the first in half a decade to not be recorded. “This is a real barrier to openness, to transparency, to accountability,” he said.

Parents say the decision took them by surprise, and they fear the government is attempting to block access to information and suppress their voices.

“All school boards are underfunded for special education,” said Michelle Aarts, a parent and TDSB trustee for Beaches-East York. “It makes it that much harder for people to advocate if you take away information, it makes it harder for them to pull those numbers together and show how bad the situation is.”

“Someone with a child with special education needs isn’t necessarily going to be able to leave the house,” she added.

“I made this decision to maintain meetings that are productive, professional, and focused on improving student success and achievement, rather than serving as a forum for political commentary. At the same time, I ordered all meetings to remain open to the public with hybrid participation options with public posting of agendas, minutes, and decisions,” Education Minister Paul Calandra said in a statement sent to CityNews on Tuesday afternoon.

In an earlier statement, a spokesperson for Calandra said that “all committee meetings remain open to the public. Committee members and delegates can still participate remotely when necessary, and all are welcome to attend in person.”

The spokesperson’s statement went on to say that minutes, agendas and decisions from all committees are posted publicly “to ensure transparency and accessibility for families and the broader community.”

The change also comes as the TDSB’s new government supervisor faces backlash for increasing some class sizes for special needs students.

“Teachers are telling us the classrooms are feeling unsafe,” said Alexa Gilmour, NDP MPP for Parkdale-High Park. “When you have non-verbal students with high medical needs, you cannot cut corners.”

Opposition critics at Queen’s Park believe that this is another way the Ford government is silencing parent voices, after first removing trustee powers at five Ontario school boards.

“It’s shocking,” said Ontario NDP leader Marit Stiles. “It’s consistent with exactly what we’ve been concerned about – that once the minister and his supervisors are in there controlling things, parent voices and transparency will be eliminated.”

Text of the October 7, 2025 Letter from TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee Chair David Lepofsky to Education Minister Paul Calandra

David Lepofsky, Chair, TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee

mdl.seac@gmail.com

October 7, 2025

To: The hon. Paul Calandra, Minister of Education minister.edu@ontario.ca

Dear Minister:

Re: Please Withdraw Your Government’s Direction to TDSB and Other School Boards Under Provincial Supervision to Stop Live Streaming Meetings of Their Special Education Advisory Committee and Other Committees

I write as the Chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) of the Toronto District School Board. Last week, TDSB advised me that your Ministry directed all school boards under provincial supervision, including TDSB, to stop live streaming the public meetings of their Special Education Advisory Committee and other public committees. On behalf of the TDSB SEAC, I urge you to rescind that direction.

These meetings have commendably been live streamed to the public for at least 5 years. There is no good reason for you to ban live streaming of these meetings. Your government did not consult with our Special Education Advisory Committee before taking this arbitrary action.

Your government said it took over TDSB and ousted its trustees over budget issues. Live streaming of our meetings does not cost anything.

Your government has given the public no reason for banning live streaming of our meetings. According to the media, all your office has said is that SEAC meetings remain open for the public to attend in person. That is no reason to ban live streaming. To the contrary, that is a compelling reason to let these boards continue to live stream these meetings.

With respect, your decision is a slap in the face to the 40,000 or more students with disabilities/special education needs at TDSB, for whom we advocate at SEAC meetings, and to their parents. It is also a slap in the face of the hard-working TDSB special education staff who prepare for, attend and support SEAC meetings.

Many dedicated parents of students with disabilities/special education needs deal every day with all the pressures, stress and uncertainties of advocating for their children. It is hardly surprising that for the vast majority of them, they cannot put food on the table, get their children off to bed, and at the same time attend a monthly Special Education Advisory Committee meeting between 7 and 9 pm. Only through live streaming and archiving the video, as has been done at TDSB for at least five years, can they follow and learn from our efforts.

We have heard from many parents of students with disabilities/special education needs that they feel isolated and alone as they struggle to advocate for their child’s needs. They have shared with us that by watching a live stream of our meetings, they learn to their relief that they are in fact not alone and that others are tackling the same issues and trying to make things better. Your cutting off that live stream hurts those parents.

For TDSB staff, the live stream of these meetings provides them with a much-needed platform to help inform a broader audience of parents about their efforts on behalf of students with disabilities/special education needs. For all to be able to watch our meetings also provides a constructive positive platform for tough issues surrounding the education of students with disabilities/special education needs to be publicly aired and debated. Where our members disagree with TDSB staff on an issue, the live streaming of our meetings helps the voting and tax-paying public see a vibrant and constructive debate over these issues, with a chance for all perspectives to be heard.

Live streaming also helps promote the public accountability of the public officials who occupy senior management positions at the school board. Your government has vouched for the importance of such public accountability. Your decision here undermines it.

Live streaming and archiving of our meetings on YouTube have also provided a constructive way for parents and advocates to track what is going on in other school boards in connection with students with disabilities/special education needs. This helps avoid re-inventing the wheel. This is especially true when it comes to meeting the needs of the thousands and thousands of vulnerable students with disabilities/special education needs in our schools who have chronically been underserved and who face far too many disability barriers in the school system.

Finally, live streaming of our meetings helps the media play its important role in our democracy of holding accountable public officials, including senior school board officials.

Before the Ontario Government took over the TDSB, parents of students with disabilities/special education needs had several public forums where they could bring forward their concerns. They could make delegations to the entire school board at a meeting of all trustees. They could make delegations at meetings of various sub-committees of trustees. All these were live streamed. They could attend community forums held by individual trustees.

All of those forums are now gone. What is left for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs are the monthly meetings of the Special Education Advisory Committee. Banning continued live streaming of our meetings further weakens their voices and thereby hurts students with disabilities/special education needs.

At the October 6, 2025, meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Toronto District School Board, a motion was passed as follows:

“SEAC urges the Ministry of Education to withdraw its objection to live streaming SEAC meetings.”

Please explain why you have banned the commendable practice of live streaming these SEAC meetings and the meetings of other committees at school boards which have been taken over by the Ontario Government, especially when live streaming costs nothing. Please rescind this decision and allow live streaming of our meetings to continue.

Yours Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont,

cc: Rohit Gupta TDSB Provincial Supervisor, rohit.gupta@harringtonplaceadvisors.com rohit.gupta@tdsb.on.ca

Denise Cole, Deputy Minister of Education, Denise.Cole@ontario.ca

Clayton La Touche, Director of Education TDSB Clayton.LaTouche@TDSB.on.ca

Louise Sirisko, Associate Director TDSB Louise.Sirisko@tdsb.on.ca

Nandy Palmer, Executive Superintendent, TDSB Nandy.Palmer@tdsb.on.ca

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofskys Monthly Column in Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Urges All to Be a Barrier-Buster Using Tips from “Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast!”

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofskys Monthly Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Urges All to Be a Barrier-Buster Using Tips from “Disability Rights and Wrongs – The David Lepodcast!”

September 21, 2025

SUMMARY

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky has a monthly column on disability issues that is included in the Toronto Star’s 25 Metroland publications around Ontario. We are so grateful to Metroland for publishing these columns.

For September 2025, this column, set out below, calls on one and all to be a “barrier-buster” by helping us advocate to tear down disability barriers. It encourages people to sign up to listen to the new podcast by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky which is called “Disability Rights and Wrongs – the David Lepodcast!”

How You Can Help

Podcasts become popular by word of mouth. Please circulate this column and encourage people to check out this podcast.

If you are part of a disability organization that does advocacy as part of its work, get your advocacy staff and volunteers to subscribe to this podcast.

Give the podcast a high rating on whatever platform you get your podcasts from, like Apple Music or Spotify.

Send AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky your feedback on the podcast. Feedback helps shape future podcasts. Let us know if we can read your feedback during the podcast.

If your organization has a newsletter sent by email or snail mail, encourage your readers to subscribe to this podcast.

If your organization has its own podcast, please mention this new podcast to your audience.

On social media and on your website, if you have one, post a link to this AODA Alliance Update!

MORE DETAILS

Muskoka Region News September 21, 2025

Originally posted at: https://www.muskokaregion.com/opinion/columnists/become-a-barrier-buster-with-tips-from-ontario-disability-advocate-s-new-podcast/article_d6108749-c939-5333-a2d1-0f021c5c5c0d.html

Become a barrier-buster with tips from Ontario disability advocate’s new podcast

“Disability Rights, and Wrongs: The David Lepodcast” promises practical tips on how to advocate for people with all kinds of disabilities.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

After you learn about some outrageous mistreatment of people with disabilities in one of my monthly Metroland Media columns or in a news report, what is your initial reaction?

Many understandably react by feeling astonished and appalled that these many preventable disability barriers still face us in 2025.

Add to that real frustration if you feel you can’t do anything about this injustice.

Yet you can do something, even if you have no professional advocacy training, have very little free time, and don’t even know where to start.

You need two things: practical action tips for busy people and a genuine feeling that you can make a difference.

To deliver those two things to you, I have just launched a new podcast.

It’s called “Disability Rights, and Wrongs: The David Lepodcast.” You can find it wherever you get your podcasts, such as Apple Music, and Accessible Media Inc. will provide a transcript. A new episode will drop every three weeks.

This podcast gives practical tips on how to advocate for equality, accessibility and full participation for people with all kinds of disabilities.

You’ll hear stories from the front lines. Our guests will offer insights and innovative ideas from a wide range of perspectives. I will draw on decades of disability advocacy.

Everyone can be a barrier-buster.

Guests on the podcast will tell stories that include ready-to-use action tips. These will be helpful for anyone interested in any kind of social justice advocacy, not only issues that confront people with disabilities.

The first episode is now available for download. In it, my clever and creative producer Jacob Shymanski interviews me about my rather unbelievable multi-year legal battle from 1994 to 2007 to force the Toronto Transit Commission to audibly announce in a consistent and reliable way all subway, bus and streetcar stops so that blind passengers, like me, can know when we’ve arrived at our desired stop.

Many find it unbelievable that TTC fought so long and hard against me over this.

I encourage you to search for and subscribe to this free podcast on your smartphone on Apple Music or computer wherever you get your podcasts.

If you haven’t before listened to podcasts and don’t know how to find them on a smartphone, just ask the Amazon Echo (Alexa) to play the Disability Rights, and Wrongs podcast.

I hope you will find this podcast worth a listen, whether you have a disability, or you have a friend or family member who has a disability, or you are potentially going to get a disability as you age. Face it — that includes everyone!

This podcast, like this column, aims to interest anyone who’d like to know about advocacy battles that are going on, often far from the headlines, that touch the lives of millions.

My goal is to offer listeners a wide range of perspectives and stories you may find simply jaw-dropping at times, whether the disability barriers arise in our school system, our health care system, our public transit, or so many other aspects of life that we’d all wish we could take for granted.

Two messages will spring from these podcasts.

First, when people with disabilities and their allies advocate to tear down disability barriers, the resistance they at times run-up against makes it feel like they have no hope. However, hope is not something you “have.” Hope is something we create.

Second, wherever we go, whatever we do, there’s always a way we can help the cause. I encourage everyone to be a barrier-buster. Give it a listen, and you can learn from wonderful people who have done it incredibly well.

David Lepofsky is a retired lawyer who chairs the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance and is a visiting professor of disability rights at the law schools at Western, Queen’s and the University of Ottawa.

There’s More Media Attention on the Plight of Students with Disabilities in School Boards that the Ford Government Took Over and is Directly Managing, But We Need More!

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

There’s More Media Attention on the Plight of Students with Disabilities in School Boards that the Ford Government Took Over and is Directly Managing, But We Need More!

September 20, 2025

SUMMARY

There has been so much media attention on the controversies surrounding the Ford Government’s decision to oust elected school board trustees at four Ontario school boards and to have the Government itself run those boards. There is a pressing need for more media attention to the impact this is having on over 330,000 students with disabilities/special education needs and their families.

Below are two recent articles that focus on this:

The September 18, 2025, article in School Magazine, a publication focusing on education issues, and
The September 18, 2025, column in the Ottawa Citizen.

The excellent School Magazine article points out that at a recent meeting of the Toronto District School Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee, SEAC members again pointed out to TDSB staff that frustrated parents who want to escalate their child’s unsolved problems at school are eventually expected to raise it with their school’s superintendent. Yet TDSB did not publicly post information on how to contact that superintendent. We understand that this is being rectified. While this is a commendable improvement, it is deeply troubling that for years, TDSB did not make that contact information public. All that time, TDSB senior staff rejected SEAC’s calls to improve the complaints process for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs.

For four major Ontario school boards, this is now all the direct responsibility of the Ford Government, not school trustees. Moreover, the Ford the senior staff at those school boards cannot tell the Ford Government to keep its hands off anything that is operational” in the way they admonished school board trustees. This is because the Ontario Government now has responsibility for the management and operations of those four school boards.

The Ford Government’s track record on serving students with disabilities/special education needs is has been deeply troubling over the past eight years, as is amply documented on the AODA Alliance website’s education page. It is just one illustration of its dismal track record more generally at leading Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities, as the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires the Government to do.

The new provincially appointed Supervisors at four Ontario school boards have a chance to dispel this concern, and to implement much-needed cost-effective reforms to better serve students with disabilities. A strong report replete with workable recommendations was submitted to the Ontario Government over three and a half years ago by a panel of Government-selected experts from the disability community and the school system itself. The Ford Government has not enacted a single word to implement the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s final report. Nothing stops a school board’s provincially appointed Supervisor from implementing some or all of that report’s recommendations.

How You Can Help

Alert parents about this important concern.

Write letters to the editor about this issue. Insist that they give more coverage to the impact of provincial takeovers of school boards on vulnerable, chronically underserved students with disabilities. It is very immediate, important, and of course, interesting!

To get helpful tips about how to do this kind of advocacy, subscribe to AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s new podcast “Disability Rights, and Wrongs! The David Lepodcast.” If you have an Amazon Echo, just say: “Alexa, play podcast Disability Rights and Wrongs.” It’s on all the usual podcast platforms, such as Apple music and Spotify.

Send us your feedback. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

MORE DETAILS

School Magazine September 18, 2025

Originally posted at https://educationactiontoronto.com/articles/tdsb-under-supervision-special-needs-kids-face-a-bureaucratic-maze/

TDSB under supervision: Special needs kids face a bureaucratic maze

William Paul

With over 40 000 special needs students attending Toronto District School Board (TDSB) schools, it’s easy to understand why parents are concerned about navigating a system which often appears opaque. Until the Ford government replaced TDSB trustees with an appointed supervisor, they at least had someone to whom they could turn for help dealing with the maze of requirements for their kids to get help, the uncertain assurances for help to come and the fear for their kids when those plans fell short due to lack of funding or staff.

In early June at the last Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) meeting of the school year, parents once again came forward with worries for their kids. Mehreen spoke of a growing reliance on unqualified people to replace unavailable staff. Yolanda said she couldn’t find a safe kindergarten placement for her nonverbal autistic daughter who escapes from class, puts foreign objects in her mouth and throws things at people. She wanted something more appropriate for her child but after pushing her case through the prescribed complaint process was told that the assessment to determine whether her daughter could get special treatment had been denied.

There was nothing new about this. At a SEAC Town Hall in November 2024, more parents related similar experiences: a child on an assessment waiting list for years, another with severe autism lacking a safety plan, parents told that support for their child would have to come at the expense of help for another, a child with attention and learning problems sitting in the school office for weeks at a time. Over and over, SEAC has heard from parents about their special needs kids being excluded from school if the principal doesn’t think they have the resources to keep them or the students around them safe. They can refuse admission to school under Ontario’s Education Act (section 265m.1 ).

TDSB without trustees

At last week’s TDSB SEAC meeting parents had serious questions about the changes that have come with the ascendance of the board’s supervisor Rohit Gupta. SEAC member Nora Green said that trustees were “public facing”, elected and answerable to parents who would reach out to them. Trustees would mediate situations like those above. Now that they’re gone, what do families do when they hit a brick wall with local principals? Next on the list of people to contact on the mandated Parent Concern Protocol are superintendents. But none of them have public emails – by the way, you could solve that problem today just by posting them. Without the trustees, Supervisor Gupta is next on the contact line. His email should replace those of the trustees, but realistically, what are the chances of getting a response from him?

SEAC chair David Lepofsky was looking for anything positive that might come from the takeover. He asked Associate Director, Louise Sirisko, if the supervisor would approach the Ministry of Education (MOE) to support “more robust funding” for special education. Currently the TDSB is about $38 million in the hole for this budget line. Sirisko said that Minister Paul Calandra would listen to suggestions about changing the budget. But she had a curious take on the current funding process: all students get a per-pupil amount just for being at school. More money is provided to cover those who are either identified under a category of special need or just clearly need extra help. Fine, but this doesn’t explain why the TDSB and other boards are often short funded. It’s clear that there needs to be a better way to fund special education.

Lepofsky also raised the question of repeating last November’s SEAC Town Hall, noting that TDSB staff decided not to go ahead with the original proposal. Without trustees or meetings to hear parent delegations, would staff reconsider this decision? But without trustee advocates, a decision like that really is up to staff.

What about the Special Education Plan?

And what about Supervisor Gupta’s reversal of the trustees‘ vote against TDSB staff’s proposed Special Education Plan in June? This raises critical questions about both trustees’ roles – should they ever be reinstated – and staff prerogative.

Every year, school boards must submit a special education plan to MOE. This year, the one proposed by TDSB staff included increased caps on sizes of two different kinds of special education classes. Lepofsky spoke against this change at the June 18 Board meeting noting that it entailed a “…blank cheque – across the board permission”1 to act on class size limits. It was a way of saying “just trust us” that left parents of these kids holding the bag if it was their child’s class size that was raised. Once again, they’d be left to struggle with TDSB staff to resolve the situation.

Trustees were being asked to vote on a plan that contained a class size increase they didn’t want to approve. This led to an awkward but fundamental question from Trustee Alexis Dawson: “what is governance and what is operations and what are we approving versus what will go ahead irrespective of our approval.”

Here’s the issue. Board staff apparently have the final say over operational matters like staffing, who to hire and promote, maintaining schools and so on. This is accepted practice though David Lepofsky, a lawyer, challenges the board to point to the section of the Education Act or regulation that says so. What this all came down to then was a proclamation from Director Clayton Latouche that a special education plan containing an unwanted class size increase needed to be passed by trustees based on his assurance that it was “quite robust.”3

To make that clearer Associate Director Louise Sirisko, explained that it was outside the purview of elected trustees to do other than decide whether or not the special education plan was “in alignment with legislation”4 which it was, she argued, because staff said so.

Just trust us.

Here’s Trustee Dawson: “So we are simply adding a stamp of approval not to the actual content of the plan but to the checklist of criteria that plan meets.”

Sirisko: “That is correct.”5

Whatever anyone might think about the distinction between governance and operations, it’s pretty clear that increasing special education class sizes could well be the thin edge of the wedge to make more of them larger; it’s a solution to the governance problem of not having enough money to run programmes. So, this looks like a governance matter slipped into a requirement to approve the plan.

Trustees saw through the ruse and voted against accepting the plan. They were summarily turfed out at the end of the school year by Paul Calandra who perversely complains that these elected officials just have too much power. Rohan Gupta, the supervisor with no experience working in education, reversed their decision and staff got what they wanted: their Special Education Plan approved for MOE. The Special Education Advisory Committee wasn’t asked what they thought about the reversal, even though it is supposed to be consulted.

Dark tower

What now? Parents looking for help to mediate tough situations for their special needs kids aren’t going to find it soon. The supervisor doesn’t answer emails, posts his decisions periodically and is otherwise unavailable to anyone who wants to know what is happening within the dark tower that has become the TDSB. Questions put to Louise Sirisko about Board versus staff purview, reasons for reversing the decision on the special education plan and whether a special education town hall might go ahead were met with a request from TDSB Communications to direct such queries to MOE.

David Lepofsky hopes that there might still be opportunities to address issues like exclusions of special needs kids, accessibility and underfunding. Now that trustees are gone, he adds that SEAC has new responsibilities to use its platform. Like so many issues facing parents and students, people connected to special education must bring more and broader organization within the community to fight the creeping authoritarianism that is replacing elected trustees with a maze of bureaucracy.

Notes:

David Lepofsky, TDSB – Regular Board Meeting, June 18, 2025 Time stamp: 1:01:15

Alexis Dawson, TDSB – Regular Board Meeting, June 18, 2025 Time stamp: 4:07:34 https://www.youtube.com/live/9-8NovC7qdg

Clayton Latouche, TDSB – Regular Board Meeting, June 18, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/live/9-8NovC7qdg Time stamp: 4:08:25

Louise Sirisko, Regular Board Meeting, June 18, 2025 Time stamp: https://www.youtube.com/live/9-8NovC7qdg 4:11:56

Alexis Dawson, TDSB – Regular Board Meeting, June 18, 2025 Time stamp: 4:14:01 https://www.youtube.com/live/9-8NovC7qdg

Ottawa Citizen September 18, 2025

Originally posted at: https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/fix-school-special-education

Kot: To fix the public school board, start with special education

If we don’t give our students adequate resources now, we will pay a much higher price in the future.

By Mary Ellen Kot

Children board a school bus in Ottawa. Education must be for all, says Mary Ellen Kot. Photo by Tony Caldwell /Postmedia

The following is written in reply to “Ford government was right to take over Ottawa public school board,” published Sept. 10:

University student Trevor Ng wrote in defence of the Ontario government appointing Bob Plamondon to supervise the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. He stated that “Plamondon has years of experience consulting with the likes of the City of Ottawa, Finance Canada and Via Rail to analyze finance and enact policy.”

He went on to say that “when Apple ran three years of losses, they called in Steve Jobs to run the show.”

But a school board is not the same as a tech company, like Apple, or an agency like Finance Canada.

This is not simply a financial exercise. Education is about the development of our future citizens. We are not talking about computers. Schools are in the “business” of educating vulnerable children with a variety of strengths and weaknesses. This is not a “one size fits all” situation, where every student learns in the same way. Some students need a different approach to succeed.

One of my concerns with this cost-cutting exercise is the effect it will have on special education.

Back in the 1980s, school boards had various special education classes. Not anymore. Classroom teachers are now expected to teach large classes of students with many exceptionalities.

Advertisement 2

The Education Act identifies five categories of exceptionalities for exceptional students: “Behavioural, communicational, intellectual, physical and multiple.” As a retired special education resource teacher, my interest and experience are with learning disabilities, which fall under the communications umbrella.

Ontario Education Minister Paul Calandra speaks during Question Period at Queen’s Park last spring.

When I started teaching in 1976, I had little understanding of student exceptionalities. Later, it was my own children who initiated my learning into that field of education.

I taught for four years before choosing to be a stay-at-home mom with our three children. I’d like to report that the three of them sailed through school with no problems. However, one had difficulty learning to read and write. My husband and I didn’t understand why this smart little person couldn’t recognize letters and the sounds associated with them. We asked the school to investigate and in turn we paid for a private psycho-educational assessment. Our child was diagnosed as gifted and learning disabled. (Who knew that you could be both?) We were fortunate to have the benefits of special education classes and teachers, and great guidance counsellors for our children. We’re grateful for the education they received.

Morrissey

A Troubling Step Backwards at TDSB for Students with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

A Troubling Step Backwards at TDSB for Students with Disabilities

September 16, 2025

SUMMARY

An important article in “Toronto Today” describes the negative impact of the Ford Government’s takeover of four Ontario school boards on students with disabilities. Read that article below. It focuses on how an important decision by the TDSB’s trustees at their last board meeting in June, which aligned with the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee, was overturned in July by TDSB’s provincially appointed Supervisor.

Beyond this incident, there is a huge potential impact on students with disabilities that will be caused by the Ontario Government’s taking over four Ontario school boards, including that the Toronto District School Board Elected trustees are ousted entirely from their positions at a public school board. At Catholic school boards which the Government took over, the trustees remain in office, but can only deal with religious issues.

Here is a list of what students with disabilities have lost:

Parents of students with disabilities, like all parents, had been able to directly raise issues with trustees by phoning or emailing them. The Ontario Government requires each school board to have in place a formal (though inadequate) way to raise specific concerns about their child’s education, including disability concerns, called a “Concerned Parents Protocol.” The parent is advised to go up the organizational ladder within the school board. They are told to raise their concerns first with the teacher, then the principal, after that the superintendent and, if all else fail, the trustee. The trustee could try to help the parents navigate a bewildering system and broker a solution to unsolved problems.

Parents could make public presentations to meetings of the entire board of trustees or of committees of the board. These could raise disability issues within the school board. They could also get public and media attention, their meetings being live streamed and archived on the internet.

If the school board excluded a student from school under The Education Act, which disproportionately happens to students with disabilities, the parents can appeal this refusal to admit their child to school. This appeal goes to the board of trustees.

Many parents of students with disabilities don’t know what their school board has available for students with disabilities and how to access supports and services. The elected trustees can be approached for help with this.

Trustees regularly hold public forums and meetings in their electoral riding or ward. This gives parents of students with disabilities a chance to approach them in person to seek help, and to learn from them about how to navigate within the school board.

Each school board is required to have a Special Education Advisory Committee. Ontario regulations provide that its membership is to include some elected school board trustees. These trustees can serve in practice as advocates at the meetings of all trustees in support of the needs of students with disabilities/special education needs.

The Ontario Government has recently notified school boards that if a parent wishes to raise a problem with the school board through its “Concerned Parents Protocol” instead of escalating the problem to the elected trustee at the final step, they should email the provincially appointed Supervisor in those boards which the Ontario Government has taken over. Yet these temporary Supervisors have no process in place to fairly and effectively deal with such complaints. If they were simply to refer a parent back to the principal or superintendent, that would waste everyone’s time with a final stage in the process that would add nothing for parents.

The Ford Government is actively considering abolishing elected school boards across the province. We alert one and all to chime in on this. There is a real risk that this will work to the serious disadvantage of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable, under-served students with disabilities in Ontario’s schools.

That is not to say that the status quo is the best arrangement. There is a pressing need to strengthen the direct and public oversight of school board staff by elected trustees. It has been dramatically weakened in recent years.

People will be watching closely as provincially appointed Supervisors run four Ontario school boards. Will it make things better or worse for underserved students with disabilities? Will provincial Supervisors rubber stamp what senior school board staff propose, as elected trustees too often did?

This could well be a glimpse into what all school boards will experience, depending on the Ford Government’s plans. People with disabilities and their allies should be directly consulted before the Ontario Government makes any final decisions.

How You Can Help

Read the July column by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications.

Alert parents of students with disabilities of this important concern.

Write letters to the editor about this issue. The media is giving extensive coverage to the Ford Government’s as-yet unrevealed plans for the future of Ontario’s school boards.

Learn about the AODA Alliance’s battle for over a decade and a half to tear down disability barriers in Ontario’s education system. Visit the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Send us your feedback. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Today September 11, 2025

Originally posted at Skip to content

TDSB supervisor’s decisions ‘undemocratic’: parents –

Parents, trustees slam TDSB supervisor’s decisions as ‘Trumpian,’ ‘undemocratic’

Rohit Gupta is being criticized for a lack of consultation or explanation of recent decisions to increase special education class sizes and reverse school name changes — though his methods have some supporters

Gabe Oatley

TDSB trustee Alexis Dawson in Toronto on July 10, 2025. Dawson said the TDSB’s new supervisor is making decisions in a manner that lacks transparency. Gabe Oatley/TorontoToday

Some parents, trustees and community advocates are slamming the first set of decisions made by the Toronto District School Board’s (TDSB) new supervisor as “undemocratic.”

Yesterday, TorontoToday reported that in his first decisions as the TDSB’s new provincially-imposed supervisor, Rohit Gupta rescinded the re-naming of three schools and approved an increase in class sizes for some specialized programs for students with disabilities — which had earlier been voted down by trustees.

But while trustees’ decisions usually involve extensive discussions and public documentation, only a short summary of Gupta’s first decisions as supervisor — which were made in July — have been published to the TDSB’s website.

On Thursday, several members of the TDSB community blasted Gupta for making those decisions “behind closed doors” and providing no rationale for his choice to overturn trustee’s votes.

“This is a very Trumpian move,” said Sandra Huh, a parent with a child in the TDSB who has special needs. “It’s [like] ‘I know best … I know what I’m doing.’”

She said Gupta’s approach is particularly concerning as he does not appear to have any background in education. The new TDSB supervisor is a former senior staffer with Scotia Capital and previous Metrolinx advisor.

No meetings, no explanation

David Lepofsky, chair of the board’s Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) also expressed concern for how Gupta went about deciding to allow larger class sizes in specialized programs for disabled students.

Normally, when decisions about special education policy are made by trustees, SEAC has a chance to provide input. Lepofsky often speaks to trustees at their committee meetings, summarizing the perspectives of SEAC members, who represent families with autistic children, kids with developmental disabilities and other disabled students.

But Lepofsky said in a recent SEAC summary report that the committee had no chance to be heard by the supervisor before his class size decision was reached. “I am very disturbed by this,” he said.

Lepofsky said he wrote to the supervisor the day after he was appointed, offering to work together. But while Gupta responded shortly thereafter, saying he’d be in touch once he was briefed by staff, Lepofsky told TorontoToday it was weeks before he reached out again. The pair met for the first time on Wednesday, Lepofsky said.

As previously reported by TorontoToday, many parents and educators have expressed that an increase in the size of special education classes could result in more injuries to children and teachers.

TDSB trustee Alexis Dawson also said the way Gupta approached the school name change decision was a “slap in the face” to Indigenous community members who participated in the board’s prior process.

Dawson said the decision to change the names of three schools — Sir John A. Macdonald Collegiate Institute, Ryerson Community School and Dundas Junior Public School — was made by trustees after years of consideration. The process included the input of a community advisory body and the receipt of letters from concerned parties.

She said Gupta’s recent decision does not appear to have involved public input.

Carl James, a York University professor of education who served on the TDSB’s name change committee, said while there are a variety of opinions on the issue, it would have been “respectful” for Gupta to have provided the rationale for his choice.

TorontoToday tried to reach Gupta to ask about the rationale behind his decisions, but only received a response from a TDSB spokesperson, redirecting those questions to the Ministry of Education.

However, the Ministry of Education did not respond to questions from TorontoToday prior to publication.

Others unconcerned with supervisor’s approach

Yet not all agree the new supervisor’s approach has been misguided.

Daniel Tate, the founder of advocacy group IntegrityTO who launched a petition last winter opposing school name changes, said it was appropriate for Gupta to exercise “executive authority” on the matter, given the trustee’s recent focus on “ideological projects,” like name changes.

“Sometimes you just need the adults to come into the room and start taking care of business,” he said. “There just has to be somebody to come in swiftly to clean up house.”

Jennifer Dundas, the chairperson of the Henry Dundas Committee of Ontario and a distant relative of Dundas, said she also was relieved by the supervisor’s decision on school name changes, and did not see anything wrong with his process.

In a written statement to TorontoToday, Dundas argued that the name change process trustees used was not much more democratic than Guptas’, as she said community members had been caught off guard by inclusion of the school name change issue on the board agenda last winter.

TDSB trustee Patrick Nunziata also alleged there are weaknesses in the board’s typical consultation process.

“I wish I could say consultation was meaningful before supervision, but it was just lip service. The majority of TDSB trustees would move to have their way regardless of parent voice,” he said.

Nunziata also argued some trustees used whatever input was provided to make the case for the perspective they already believed in.

“Staff and trustees already knew where they wanted to go with policy decisions and would interpret data [and] feedback in a way that suit[ed] those goals.”

A preview of what’s to come?

However, those who have expressed concerns about the changes to how the school board operates are also worried those changes will become permanent.

TDSB trustee Matias de Dovitiis said he believes Gupta’s approach to his two most recent decisions is a preview of the norm if the government decides to do away with trustees altogether.

The province’s decision to appoint a supervisor took decision-making power away from the elected board of trustees. In recent days, Education Minister Paul Calandra said the government is considering making that set up permanent by eliminating trustees, and will reach a decision by the end of the year.

De Dovitiis argued it would be a step in the wrong direction.

“There should still be committee meetings. There should still be a process for communities to participate,” he said. “I don’t have to agree with 100 per cent of the decision a board makes, but there’s a process that at least gives recourse and space for explanation.”

“This is a terribly undemocratic move that lacks transparency and accountability,” he said.

—

CORRECTION: A prior version of this story incorrectly stated York University professor Carl James’ faculty affiliation.

An earlier version of this story also said supervisor Rohit Gupta did not contact David Lepofsky beyond initial acknowledgement that he would be in touch. In fact, Gupta and Lepofsky met for the first time on Sept. 10, 2025.

Announcing a Brand New Podcast on How to Advocate for People with Disabilities – Subscribe for “Disability Rights, and Wrongs – the David Lepodcast” Wherever You get Your Podcasts!

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Announcing a Brand New Podcast on How to Advocate for People with Disabilities – Subscribe for “Disability Rights, and Wrongs – the David Lepodcast” Wherever You get Your Podcasts!

September 13, 2025

We are ecstatic to announce a brand-new podcast with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, brought to you by AMI (Accessible Media Inc.). It is called “Disability Rights, and Wrongs! The David Lepodcast.” You can sign up for it for free wherever you get your podcasts, such as on Apple Music. Just open a podcast app or search for it by name or just by “David Lepodcast” on a computer browser.

This podcast will give you practical tips on how to advocate for equality, accessibility and full participation for people with all kinds of disabilities. You’ll hear stories from the front lines. Our guests will offer insights and innovative ideas from a wide range of perspectives. The host, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, will draw on his decades of disability advocacy and his thoughts garnered as the visiting professor of disability rights at three Ontario law schools: Queen’s, the University of Western Ontario, and the University of Ottawa. Along with him on the podcast is AMI producer and masterful editor Jacob Shymanski. Together, they aim to create an atmosphere that is interesting, informative and easy to listen to.

It is the podcast’s core message that everyone can be a barrier-buster. Lepofsky, Shymanski and the guests will tell stories that include ready-to-use action tips. These will be helpful for anyone interested in any kind of social justice advocacy, not just those important issues that confront people with disabilities.

The first episode is now available for download. In it, Jacob Shymanski interviews David Lepofsky about his multiyear legal battle to force the Toronto Transit Commission to audibly announce all subway, bus and streetcar stops. It is expected that a new episode will drop every three weeks or so.

AMI regularly posts transcripts of all its podcasts on the AMI website.

The AODA Alliance expresses its deep gratitude to AMI for undertaking all the work of producing, hosting and distributing this podcast. It also thanks Jacob Shymanski for his tremendous dedication and detailed work as the podcast’s producer.

How You Can Help

Publicize this podcast far and wide. Encourage others to sign up for it wherever they get their podcasts.

If you never listen to podcasts and don’t know the first thing about how to get them, here’s an easy solution. Just ask your smart phone, Alexa or Google Nest (if you have one):

”Play podcast ‘Disability Rights, and Wrongs!’”

Send us your feedback on the contents of the podcast. We welcome your feedback by writing: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Whether you get your podcasts from Apple Music, Spotify or some other source, please give this podcast a good rating…if you like it!

The Ford Government’s Ousting Four School Boards’ Elected Trustees Leaves Parents of Students with Disabilities Out in the Cold

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

The Ford Government’s Ousting Four School Boards’ Elected Trustees Leaves Parents of Students with Disabilities Out in the Cold

September 1, 2025

On the eve of the new school year, a Toronto Star article, set out below, reported on the harm that the Ford Government created at four school boards when it took control of those boards and ousted their elected trustees. Parents encountering problems with their child’s education always had resort, when all else failed, to seek help from their elected trustee. The trustee could go to bat for them and help them navigate an often-maze-like user-unfriendly school board bureaucracy.

In this report, the Education Minister is quoted as saying, in effect, that nothing has been lost since the trustees did not really do much with these complaints. Let’s look at this from the perspective of hundreds of thousands of students with disabilities and their families. Their parents often have a very difficult time navigating the school system. They desperately need an effective, fast and fair way to get their child’s problem reviewed when the teacher or principal can’t or doesn’t solve it. For years, the Ministry has mandated that school boards implement the “Concerned Parents Protocol.” Under it, parents are to take a problem to the principal, and after that, the school superintendent. If that does not work, they are to take the problem to their elected school trustee. In other words, the last resort, which the Ministry has mandated for years, has now been taken away at four school boards by that same Ministry. In its place, parents can all write the provincially appointed Supervisor who will be running the school board. These Supervisors likely have no experience running a school board. They won’t be able to handle parents’ complaints while also trying to figure out on the fly how to run the board and reform its finances, all with no democratic accountability.

It gets worse. There has been a pressing need for years to create a new, and far more effective process within each school board for parents of students with disabilities to raise concerns. Parents may feel that the school board is not providing a disability support that it agreed to provide. They may believe that the school board has refused to agree to provide a disability support that their child needs. The Ministry’s “Concerned Parents Protocol” is outdated and insufficient.

Over three and a half years ago, the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee recommended specific reforms in this area. Below we set out an excerpt from the final report of that committee, which was delivered to the Ford Government on January 28, 2022. The Government has enacted nothing to implement any part of that report, including reforms to address this specific area of concern. For the Education Minister to now tell the Toronto Star that the Ministry will watch to ensure that parents’ concerns are addressed (not limited to disability concerns) will provide slim consolation to frustrated, anxious parents.

An additional cruel irony here is that the TDSB has in recent months told its Special Education Advisory Committee that the Concerned Parents Protocol is sufficient, emphasizing in no small part that it includes a chance for parents to bring their concerns to their elected trustees. The Ford Government has now pulled the rug out from that excuse for the TDSB to do more to improve things in this regard for students with disabilities.

TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee presented a detailed recommendation for reform to the TDSB trustees on January 22, 2025. It argued that major reform is needed. We set that out below. TDSB senior staff in effect argued to defend the status quo. At the request of TDSB senior staff, the trustees referred the issue back to TDSB staff. Since then, this proposed reform has not taken place. It would have been open to TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee to return to a meeting of the trustees this fall, to complain that staff have not improved the situation. However, the trustees have now been ousted by the Ford Government. All parents of students with disabilities can do is to try to get the Provincial Supervisor to fix this. That, we fear, will be an uphill battle.

How You Can Help

Write a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star. Urge the Star to report on the added harm that the Ford Government is inflicting on students with disabilities by its ousting the elected trustees at four Ontario School boards. Tell the story about disability barriers facing students with disabilities in Ontario schools that you know about. Email the Star at Lettertoed@thestar.ca

Please spread the word about this news report to any parents of students with disabilities you know! Invite them to watch the AODA Alliance video giving tips to parents of students with disabilities on how to advocate for their child’s needs at school.

Urge your member of the Ontario Legislature to get the Minister of Education to fix this festering problem in our school boards. Send them this Toronto Star article and this AODA Alliance Update.

Learn all about the long battle to tear down disability barriers in the education system in which the AODA Alliance has played a role. Visit the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Check out the AODA Alliance’s online video series on the campaign to make our education system fully accessible for all students with disabilities, and share it with others.

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star September 1, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/a-black-hole-of-nothingness-the-start-of-a-school-year-is-always-chaotic-and/article_d59ef4d3-7b6b-44f2-9f54-8dc3c56fa423.html

A new school year -without trustees

Province’s takeover raises doubts over who will handle parent concerns

Kristin Rushowy Senior Writer

Kids left stranded when the school bus doesn’t arrive. A Grade 12 student can’t get into a class they need to graduate. A family moves to a different neighbourhood and is unsure where to enrol their children.

The new school year starts this week – and with it the hiccups that happen every September.

But this fall, the trustees who typically deal with those issues have been stripped of their powers in a handful of the largest school boards in Ontario, representing about one-third of the province’s two million students.

With government-appointed supervisors now running the show in the Toronto public and Catholic, Ottawa public, Dufferin-Peel Catholic and Thames Valley public school boards, it is unclear how the deluge over the next few weeks will be handled.

“Come September, when hundreds of calls and emails start being directed to a black hole of nothingness, parents will get the true impact of this situation,” said Markus de Domenico, chair of the Toronto Catholic District School Board, one of the five the province took over, citing financial mismanagement.

“Parents’ elected voice has been undemocratically removed over a budget crisis the ministry has created, right across the province,” he said. “I’m hoping and praying – literally – that everything will run well for parents.

“I don’t want to use students and parents as a way to push a cause for my fellow trustees and myself,” he added, “but one can’t expect, with 88,000 students going back to school in 200 schools across just our board alone, that everything’s going to be tickety-boo. It doesn’t work that way.”

With trustees losing access to their emails or cellphones, all concerns are to be stickhandled by the supervisors or senior staffers in each board – and Education Minister Paul Calandra said he’s told boards to ensure parents get help.

The first week of school brings “a lot of challenges, and parents will have questions, and (the supervisors) have to refocus the superintendents on making sure that parent questions are being answered in the exact same way they would have been before,” Calandra said in an interview. “The fact that there might not be a trustee doesn’t matter.”

Trustees, he added, “always redirected their questions to superintendents anyway, and there should be zero tolerance for delay … So we’re going to watch that very carefully over the next number of weeks.”

Calandra said that in meetings with educators over the summer, he was told “there was very little a trustee was independently doing on a parent complaint. They might take the call, but invariably, it goes right to the superintendent to fix or address the issue and then communicate it back through.”

Jennifer Di Francesco, who chairs the Toronto Catholic parent involvement committee, has been urging a meeting with the supervisor and education minister, saying “removing (trustees) without meaningful input from and accountability to families and taxpayers demonstrates a troubling disregard for our election process, public trust and local representation.”

School board administrators “work for the ministry,” she said, adding parents were given an email address to contact, but that’s it.

“They expect one email address to deal with all that? … Without our trustees delegating for us, advocating for us, pushing for things to get done … parents can only do so much.”

This fall, Calandra will also be ushering in Bill 33, legislation that will give the province more control over school boards, including the right to veto new school names or name changes, ensuring more transparency on expenses, and mandating school resource officers in schools where local police forces run such programs.

A revamped kindergarten curriculum, as well as new lessons on the Holodomor, Holocaust and Black history, have been put off for a year, giving teachers more time to prepare.

Calandra said he also heard frustrations from educators who would like further refinements to the curriculum and professional activity days, and that he wants to make sure they have the resources they need in the classroom.

Funding, in particular for special-needs students, was another major concern, and he said he promised to “absolutely look into that.”

A number of boards have struggled financially, saying the $30 billion-plus the province allocates to the education file doesn’t meet their actual costs, and many spend more on special education than allocated. The boards taken over by the province were running deficits or using funds from the sale of buildings or reserves to try to balance their books.

Calandra said the supervisors, who are expected to be in place for the entire school year at the least, are to look at how boards are spending the money they have, and “what parts of their administration are not needed and keeping money out of the classroom?”

He said educators also expressed widespread support “that politics has to leave the classroom” as the province has mandated.

“It is the No. 1 issue that causes division in our schools and divisions between parents and teachers, and it came over to a frustrating level with a lot of teachers and principals, and just reinforced where my head is at,” he said.

Both Martha Hradowy, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, and Karen Brown, the past president of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, said they will be pressing the government to address working conditions for their members in advance of contract talks that will begin later next year.

“We have been hearing over and over again the rise in violence, the overheated, overcrowded classrooms, the larger class sizes … and the need for more wraparound supports, mental health support for students,” Hradowy told the Star. “Those are all things that the government is going to have to address.”

New Democrat MPP Chandra Pasma (Ottawa West-Nepean), her party’s education critic, said parents began reaching out to her office with questions in June after learning their public school board was also being taken over.

“All of a sudden, they had nowhere to go,” Pasma said, adding her office struggled to find even basic information about who to contact.

Michael Bellmore, president of the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association, said the next few weeks will be “filled with phone calls regarding bus routes from concerned parents, maybe there’s work that needs to be done in school – and in those cases, they’re going to have to call the supervisor, who may or may not” assign staff to help out.

“It’s going to be a worrisome time for those parents, because they are not going to have that direct contact, or that advocate,” he added.

Calandra said this fall his ministry will also look to address the teacher shortage, and is working with Colleges and Universities Minister Nolan Quinn with an eye to making changes to teacher training at university.

How to improve teacher sick-leave rates, which hit about 20 days annually on average in the Toronto public board alone – a factor contributing to the shortage – will also be examined.

Schools starting this year will also, for the first time, be celebrating Ontario Day on June 1 – or close to it, if it falls on a weekend – as mandated.

A memo to boards from the Education Ministry said “Ontario Day will be an instructional day to provide students with the opportunity to learn about and celebrate key milestones in Ontario’s history and the contributions Ontarians have made to Ontario and Canada’s broader social, economic, political and cultural fabric.”

Trustees will now have to attend all board and committee meetings in person “to promote and enhance accountability, transparency, and public confidence in the education system.”

But for now, Toronto Catholic board chair de Domenico said the supervisors need to ensure the school year gets off to a good start.

Parents will have “I-need-something-fixed-now issues,” he noted, and they won’t be able to count on trustees who know who and where to call to get that done quickly. “I hope things go smoothly.”

Key Excerpts from the January 28, 2022 K-12 Education Standards Development Committee Final Report

The Ministry of Education shall:

61.1 ensure effective processes and resources used for planning for all students with disabilities to ensure that students and parents/caregivers are able to participate effectively in the process.

Timeline: six months

61.2 procure software to be used by school board, for producing accessible IEP, report cards and other like documents. This software will ensure parent and students with disabilities have access to all relevant information in an accessible format.

Timeline: six months

61.3 develop a timely formal process/dispute resolution mechanism for parents/caregivers and students to appeal the contents or implementation of individual education plans, to make necessary changes if required, and to ensure that district school boards follow it.

Timeline: six months

13 consistent with the recommendations for a Ministry of Education policy on student and parent/caregiver engagement, a school board level dispute resolution mechanism is available to parents/caregivers of students with disabilities, and to those students, for concerns related to accommodations, including individual education plans.

The dispute resolution process shall be:

a) fair, independent and impartial
b) respectful
c) non-adversarial
d) timely
e) accessible
f) one where the decision is provided in writing.

Timeline: one year

Timeline: immediate

61.15 in cases of dispute, the ministry shall appoint a mediator.

Timeline: six months

61.16 no proposed services, supports or accommodations that the school board is prepared to offer shall be withheld from a student pending a review.

Timeline: immediate

Single dispute resolution process for all disability needs

Parents/guardians and students face additional barriers in obtaining accommodations to meet the student needs, outside of the previous recommendations. For example, field trips, obtaining assessments, transportation, etc.

This report has identified specific situations where a fair, swift, and user-friendly dispute resolution process should be established within each school board, to address specific contexts where disputes can arise between a student or their parents/guardians on the one hand, and the school or school board on the other.

A single dispute resolution process should be created to deal with any disability-related concerns or objections that the parents/guardians or the student with disabilities wish to raise, whether it is specifically spelled out in this report’s recommendations. The Education Accessibility Standard should create this dispute resolution process, so that each school board does not have to design it independently.

This recommendation is not meant to take away any of the specifics on dispute resolution referred to elsewhere in this report.

Timeline: 6 months

Parents Need a Swift, Fair and Effective Route for Solutions If They Believe Their Child’s Special Education Needs Are Not Being Effectively Accommodated

A submission to the TDSB Board of Trustees on behalf of the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee by SEAC Chair David Lepofsky

January 22, 2025

Introduction

October 8, 2024 Motion Passed by the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee

SEAC Motion

SEAC recommends that:

TDSB should establish a prompt, user-friendly, fair and effective process for parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs to seek a resolution if they believe that TDSB is not providing an accommodation for their learning needs that would benefit the student, e.g. if TDSB is not delivering on commitments in the student’s Individual Education Plan or if TDSB has not agreed to provide an accommodation that the parent/guardian believes that the student needs.
Staff at TDSB who receive and address a complaint from a parent/guardian of a student with disabilities/special education needs should:
a) Have expertise and experience with education of students with disabilities/special education needs;
b) Be independent of those TDSB staff who have dealt with the student’s needs in issue;
c) Have expertise and training in effective mediation/alternate dispute resolution and
d) Have authority to direct any corrective action that they decide is needed.
If, after a review, the TDSB decides not to provide the accommodation that the parent/guardian has requested, TDSB shall give written reasons for this decision.
Every effort should be made to mediate and resolve any disagreements between the family and TDSB. If the matter cannot be resolved, there should be an option for TDSB to appoint a person or persons outside TDSB to consider the issue., along short time lines.
This process should be designed and carefully tailored specifically for addressing the needs of students with disabilities/ special education needs. It should not also deal with other students’ complaints that are unrelated to disability/special education needs.
This motion outlines the principles that should guide the needed process, while leaving flexibility on how it will be designed and operated. This process can be designed so as not to conflict with Ministry requirements. A Parent/care-giver, or the student themselves, can first bring their concerns to their teacher, and then the principal, after which this avenue would be available to them if needed.

Toronto Star Report Exposes Crisis in Ontario Schools Facing Students with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Toronto Star Report Exposes the Crisis in Ontario Schools Facing Students with Disabilities

August 31, 2025

SUMMARY

This Labour Day weekend, the Toronto Star ran a superb report that exposes the crisis in education for students with disabilities in Ontario schools. Read this article below.

In this article, the Education Minister is quoted as again boasting about its Government’s provisions for Ontario schools. Those repeated claims disregard the reality facing hundreds of thousands of Ontario students with disabilities which this Toronto Star article describes.

Blame for this problem does not solely rest with the Ontario Government. Ontario’s school boards are also responsible for it. For example, this article states:

“The TDSB said in a statement it is “committed to providing equitable access to learning opportunities for all students,” and that if any parents or guardians have concerns about classroom placement for their child, “there is an appeal process to have the decision reconsidered.””

However, TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee has repeatedly voiced serious deficiencies with that internal “appeal” process and recommended practical and workable reforms. TDSB staff have repeatedly refused to implement recommendations for reforming it. Any school board could implement those recommendations without requiring the Ontario Government’s approval.

Moreover, over three and a half years ago, the Ontario Government received detailed recommendations on what it should include in the promised Education Accessibility Standard. However, the Ford Government has still not enacted that standard, to tear down recurring well-known disability barriers in the education system. The Government has not announced when it will keep its commitment to enact the Education Accessibility Standard.

The January 28, 2022 K-12 Education Standards Development Committee final report includes, among other things, detailed recommendations to reform each school board’s internal process for dealing with complaints from parents of students with disabilities. TDSB’s staff have refused to implement these, stating that TDSB processes fulfil policies from the Ontario Government. Yet TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee and the provincially appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee each have demonstrated how those provincial policies are woefully inadequate. Meanwhile, vulnerable students with disabilities and their stressed parents are left to flounder.

The Toronto Star article refers to correspondence with the Government following up on the Ford Government’s takeover of four school boards at the end of June. You can read that correspondence in the https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/how-will-tens-of-thousands-of-students-with-disabilities-fare-in-the-four-ontario-school-boards-that-the-ford-government-took-over-at-the-end-of-last-june/.

How You Can Help

Write a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star. Applaud this report. Urge the Star to do more of these. Tell your own story about disability barriers facing students with disabilities in Ontario schools. Email the Star at Lettertoed@thestar.ca

Please spread the word about this news report to any parents of students with disabilities! Encourage them to watch the AODA Alliance video giving tips to parents of students with disabilities on how to advocate for their child’s needs at school.

Urge your member of the Ontario Legislature to get the Minister of Education to fix this festering problem in our school boards. Send them this Toronto Star article.

Learn about the history of the battle to tear down disability barriers in the education system in which the AODA Alliance has played a role. Visit the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Check out the AODA Alliance’s online video series on the campaign to make our education system fully accessible for all students with disabilities.

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star August 31, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/this-toronto-mom-is-afraid-to-send-her-autistic-child-to-kindergarten-inside-the-unfolding/article_acca57db-f913-4c50-878c-5fa80bcab4c4.html

Afraid to send her child to school

Educators, parents warn that a lack of support is failing entire classrooms

Isabel Teotonio Toronto Star

Months ago, Yelena Vaiman began preparing for her daughter’s entry into kindergarten this fall. She knew it wouldn’t be simple, but didn’t expect “unnecessary roadblocks” that left her feeling “trapped in a bureaucratic maze.”

Five-year-old Milana is autistic with significant developmental delays. She’s non-verbal, and doesn’t respond to her name or understand danger. At home, adults watch her closely – otherwise she may wander, chew paper, eat soil or throw toys at her younger sister.

“We always have to be on guard to make sure she’s not hurting someone,” says the North York mom.

After registration at the local public school, Vaiman told administrators her daughter requires constant supervision. Instead, she says, they enrolled her in a regular mainstream classroom without sufficient support.

It was the beginning of a months-long struggle for a special education placement, one that many Ontario families face as schools strain to support students with different disabilities.

Vaiman explored multiple options – from schools with autism supports to specialized kindergarten classes – but they weren’t available for Milana. Despite reassurances from the board, she remained concerned and escalated her efforts, contacting trustees, board officials, the ombudsman, even the Ministry of Education, with no resolution.

“A regular classroom is dangerous, for her and also for others,” says the mom. “I cannot take this kind of risk.”

Their story is part of a broader crisis unfolding in Ontario schools – one that affects students with special needs, their classmates and teachers, too. Parents and advocates say the problem isn’t the presence of kids with special needs in mainstream classes, it’s the lack of support.

As students head back to school, educators and parents warn that a lack of support isn’t just failing kids who need it, but entire classrooms. At the heart of this is a complex question: How do we best support students with high needs in a system that often lacks staffing, funding and resources?

The issue has divided parents of kids with special needs. Some prefer their children to be in smaller specialized classes with trained staff. Others favour inclusion in a regular mainstream class – a growing practice by school boards since about 2000 – though system-wide challenges can mean inadequate support.

Meanwhile, parents of children – with and without special needs – say all kids are affected when mainstream classes turn chaotic because students aren’t properly supported, which can result in behaviour issues and, at times, safety concerns. There may be lessons disrupted, kids lashing out violently, classrooms evacuated and teachers stretched to the limit.

All of this is playing out against a backdrop of rising school violence, with students of all kinds acting out for a range of reasons, and a cohort of children still recovering from the pandemic, both emotionally and academically.

This isn’t about students with disabilities being violent people – that’s a harmful stereotype, says David Lepofsky, chair of the Toronto District School Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC), made up of members from organizations that represent parents of children with disabilities or special education needs.

“It’s unfair and wrong to mislabel it as ‘inclusion’ for a student with disabilities to be assigned to a class without the educational supports they need,” he says. “When any students with disabilities are not having their learning needs met, this hurts them, their classmates, the teaching staff, their families and our society.

“Wherever you are for your child’s needs – inclusion, special class, some combination of the two – the current system is horribly broken and is underserving tons of kids. That’s not just Toronto, that’s across the province.”

‘You feel that you’re a burden’

Terms like special needs, disabilities and special education are often used interchangeably, but they don’t mean the same thing. Special needs is a broad term used informally to describe any need that isn’t typical, including physical, mental or learning challenges. Disability as defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code – it protects students from discrimination and ensures they receive accommodations – broadly covers all physical, sensory, mental health, learning and developmental conditions.

And special education refers to programs and services that support students with a range of learning needs, diagnosed or not. A student has an “exceptionality” if their needs fall into one of five categories: behavioural (includes difficulty getting along with others); communicational (includes autism and speech impairments); intellectual (ranges from giftedness, to mild or developmental disabilities); physical (includes physical disabilities and blindness); and multiple (more than one exceptionality).

Advocates, however, say the categories are dated because they don’t include all disabilities that human rights law protects, excluding students with conditions like ADHD and mental health issues that fall short of behavioural problems. And while special education is often associated with some disabilities, it also includes students who are gifted, many of whom have no disability.

A report by the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, published in the spring, shows years of funding cuts and policy changes have left boards unable to provide adequate supports. It notes that as special education needs grow in number and complexity, resources and services have declined; teachers in specialized and mainstream classes feel overwhelmed; and the shift toward inclusion and closure of programs has reduced classroom support, increasing burnout and behavioural issues.

At the TDSB, roughly 41,000 of its 238,000 students have special needs; about 75 per cent are in regular mainstream classrooms, while the remaining 25 per cent are in specialized settings.

Deciding which placement is best can be a challenge. Nicole Sullivan and her husband recently faced a tough call: keep Kai, their non-verbal autistic son, at his local school for Grade 1, or move him to a specialized program.

Kai is happy at his school. But in kindergarten, his class had a teacher and a designated early childhood educator. In Grade 1, there is just one teacher.

That’s a concern because he’s a runner. Last year, Kai slipped out of the school library just as his class arrived. He ran out a door, through the yard and across the street, with a panicked teacher chasing after. He was unharmed, but the incident underscored how vulnerable he is without proper supervision.

In June, the TDSB offered Kai a spot for this year in a “mild intellectual disability” program at another school with a fenced yard. But his parents worried it might limit future inclusion and set him on a track with fewer educational opportunities. They ended up declining, saying the system demands critical choices of parents without enough information in a short amount of time. This fall, Kai will be back at his local school, though his parents may bring him home for lunch each day to ease safety concerns about him running or wandering off.

“You feel that with a special needs kid, that you’re a burden,” Sullivan says.

Nora Green, who represents Inclusion Action in Ontario on SEAC, opposes a “segregated” model, saying it’s key that students with special needs are supported at their local school. They’re more likely to build connections with people in the neighbourhood – and that “dramatically changes people’s lives.”

Plus they learn from their peers, says Green, a retired special education teacher. She recalls a field trip to a grocery store where a mom, who volunteered to help, broke down in tears because her son had never behaved so well – he was copying classmates walking in a line.

A shift toward inclusion

Research shows inclusion benefits students with special needs, and when supported with proper training and resources, they often make greater academic progress, compared with those in separate settings. Their peers can also benefit from teaching strategies that promote empathy, acceptance and collaboration.

The TDSB is currently reviewing the effectiveness of its special education programs to see how well students are doing. At a board meeting in June, when TDSB staff proposed increasing the size of two different types of special education classes, trustee Michelle Aarts criticized the “segregation” of students with special needs, especially racialized boys and low-income kids who are disproportionately represented. She noted students in contained specialized classes have lower graduation rates, do worse on standardized provincial tests and the vast majority never return to an inclusive setting.

Leo Lagnado, who represents Autism Ontario on SEAC, says both mainstream and specialized classrooms have value, but what matters most is ensuring the right supports. For some students, “smaller specialized classes are actually the only places that they feel comfortable.”

He notes that research shows some kids thrive in specialized settings, with trained educators, predictable routines and sensory-friendly environments – and that forcing students into the mainstream can induce stress, anxiety and trauma.

Often, students are included in theory, but isolated in practice. He recalls hearing about an autistic boy, whose teacher didn’t know how to manage his behaviour so he sat in the back reading books about cats. “No one would talk to him, no one would include him, he learned absolutely nothing, but hey, he was included because he was sitting there.”

Lagnado believes boards are shifting toward inclusion mainly to save money, not because it’s best for students. In boards where intensive support programs have been cut, he says more kids are refusing to go to school. Others are being excluded, with principals asking parents to keep them home due to inadequate supports, or to pick them up early when they act out.

John Weatherup, president of the Toronto Education Workers CUPE Local 4400, which represents support staff at the city’s public schools, says boards often delay formal assessments until Grade 1, fearing early labels – a decision he argues ignores where the need is greatest.

“If you catch these issues early then it’s less problematic in the later years. If you don’t catch it early, then it becomes a problem you won’t be able to solve,” says Weatherup, adding members say it’s particularly tough getting additional support in kindergarten.

He says as more students with needs are integrated into classrooms without resources, reports from members of classroom evacuations are becoming more common. This is when students are temporarily removed for safety reasons, often because a child is in crisis and acting in a way that could hurt themselves or others. Rather than removing that student, staff may escort the rest of the students out to de-escalate the situation.

Nora Schramek grew desperate for change after her daughter Marilu’s kindergarten class became increasingly chaotic, with a few special needs students frequently acting out.

The longtime parent volunteer loved the school community, but felt she had to leave when Marilu started coming home with daily headaches from the constant classroom noise. It got so bad, Marilu would wear noise-cancelling headphones in class – typically used for students with sensory issues, which she doesn’t have.

Schramek wrote to TDSB officials, urging them to find more support staff for the class. When nothing changed, she moved her daughter to another school in March 2025.

Similarly, Amanda Pires was concerned about her daughter’s Grade 2 class last year, which was routinely disrupted by a boy, whose violent outbursts led to classroom evacuations and kids getting hurt. Early on, Pires pushed for more support – administrators won’t disclose if a student has special needs for privacy reasons, but Pires said it was evident the boy needed support.

In December, her advocacy ramped up after the boy pushed her daughter Leah to the ground, punched her in the back and pulled her hair during gym class. Days later, he slapped Leah in class.

Pires says she heard from other parents, whose children were in the boy’s classroom last year, that there were similar safety concerns then. In both cases, the board responded only after parent complaints, and only with temporary support. “It’s a short-term Band-Aid solution,” says Pires, noting once the support is pulled, problems return.

As the school waited for temporary support for the boy, the principal moved Leah to another Grade 2 class. Even after the move, Pires kept writing to board and ministry officials pushing for change, saying that for classrooms to be truly inclusive, consistent and dedicated support is needed.

The TDSB said in a statement it is “committed to providing equitable access to learning opportunities for all students,” and that if any parents or guardians have concerns about classroom placement for their child, “there is an appeal process to have the decision reconsidered.” The board added it is not able to comment on specific cases due to privacy.

Funding shortfall

This summer, Lepofsky, chair of SEAC, wrote to the education minister and the provincial supervisor overseeing the TDSB – one of a few boards under provincial control – urging them to better meet students’ needs.

While more funding is needed, he said, money alone won’t solve the problems. The system must also become easier for parents to navigate because the different placement options, categories and jargon makes it hard to figure out what services and programs exist, how to advocate for their child, where to go when needs aren’t being met, and how to secure the necessary learning supports.

According to the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, 71 of the province’s 72 boards last year spent more on special education than they received – a shortfall of more than $800 million. Toronto’s public board alone overspent by $38.5 million.

“This is not sustainable, and it should be addressed as a priority by the provincial government,” says Kathleen Woodcock, president of the association, which is calling on the province to work with boards to ensure all students have access to the supports they need.

For the 2025-26 school year, the province expects to spend $3.85 billion on special education – a 31 per cent increase since 2018, says a spokesperson for Education Minister Paul Calandra, noting 10,000 education staff, including more than 4,000 education assistants, have been added to support students.

Back in North York, Vaiman remains concerned about her autistic daughter’s placement for kindergarten. Milana just wrapped up an Ontario Autism Program initiative that helps autistic children transition to school. However, she won’t be starting anytime soon.

Vaiman refuses to put her daughter in a mainstream class at the local school, saying it’s not a good fit. The board told her Milana must first be enrolled at the local school before she can be considered for a specialized program – but the mom worries the process will take too long.

So Milana will stay at home, with her stay-at-home mom who relies on support from her parents.

“It’ll be exhausting,” says Vaiman, who may try home-schooling. But she adds, Milana “cannot thrive in a regular classroom … I am not looking just to get rid of her and put her somewhere she shouldn’t be … She can’t speak, but she can feel.”

Here is One Way to Help Frustrated Parents of Students with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

August 30, 2025

SUMMARY

For parents of students with disabilities, here is a resource that quite a number of people have found to be helpful as they get ready for the return to school. The AODA Alliance made available a captioned online video that provides tips for parents of students with disabilities on how to advocate for your child’s disability-related needs at school. This is our attempt to fill a huge, unfair gap.

Too many parents don’t know what options, services, supports and accommodations are available for their child’s disability at school. They often find it hard to get this important information from their school board. That’s why we created this video which you can watch any time at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtadvCvcGC0

This month, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky devoted his monthly disability issues column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications to this serious problem. We set that column out below.

The Ford Government has made this situation even worse for students with disabilities at the four school boards that the Ontario Government took over at the end of June. Some frustrated parents of students with disabilities have gone to their elected school board trustee to get help navigating a maze-like school board. However, the Ford Government took those functions away from these elected trustees at those four school boards when it seized control of them.

How You Can Help

Please spread the word to any parents of students with disabilities! Encourage them to watch this AODA Alliance video and to read the Metroland column below.

Encourage your school board to publicize this video to all parents.

Urge your member of the Ontario Legislature to get the Minister of Education to fix this festering and easily solved problem in our school boards.

Learn about the history of the battle to tear down disability barriers in the education system in which the AODA Alliance has played a role. Visit the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Check out the AODA Alliance’s online video series on the campaign to make our education system fully accessible for all students with disabilities.

MORE DETAILS

Inside Halton August 22, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.insidehalton.com/opinion/columnists/new-school-year-brings-angst-for-parents-of-students-with-disabilities-advocate-says/article_2a4f1c08-642e-5744-a7f2-c13346cf5f5b.html

New school year brings angst for parents of students with disabilities, advocate says

Accessibility advocate David Lepofsky shares a free video explaining how parents can ask for student needs to be met.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

The new school year approaches. Eager with anticipation, families shop for clothes and supplies.

For parents of one-third of a million students with disabilities, the impending school year often inflicts stress and fears — ones created by the Ontario government and school boards.

What, if anything, will the school board offer to meet their child’s disability-related learning needs? Will their child get what they’re promised? Where do I go to advocate for my child’s needs? Will educators genuinely listen or just smile and run out the clock? What do I do and where do I go if the school says they can’t or won’t deliver what my child needs?

This infuriating, dispiriting angst quietly pervades all around you.

Parents’ blood pressure climbs higher when one education minister after the next boasts their government does more for students with disabilities than ever before, and by perky school board senior bureaucrats painting a distorted rosy picture of how they meet every student’s needs.

How do I know this? I’ve witnessed countless agonizing accounts in person, during public forums, via emails, as member and now chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee of Canada’s largest school board, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), and as chair of the provincewide Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

So many parents can’t all be falsifying these incidents!

But why does this persist? I believe that teachers, teacher’s aids and principals want to teach all learners. They’re trapped and handcuffed by an outdated, Byzantine provincial and school board bureaucracy replete with inexcusable well-known disability barriers. The Ontario Ministry of Education is overwhelmingly asleep at the switch when it comes to fixing this and it lets 72 school boards do as little as they wish to fix this.

That burdens boards to each reinvent the barrier-removal wheel, if they choose to do anything at all about these barriers.

For example, parents find it brutally hard just to find out what options and supports are available at school for their child’s disability-related learning needs. I’ve often said TDSB is like a restaurant that won’t give you a menu. But TDSB is not alone in this.

School boards pledge to work with parents “as partners” and proclaim that the parent is the expert in their child’s needs. Boards are required to develop and implement an “individual education plan” (IEP) for students with special education needs, and to consult parents on the IEP.

The best way for a school board to get parental input into the IEP and to partner with parents on co-creating the IEP would be to invite them to a meeting, in-person or virtually, to explore what the IEP should include. The U.S. requires this IEP meeting.

Ontario does not even oblige school boards to offer one to parents. If a parent knows to ask, they’ll likely get a meeting.

Having been at numerous meetings, I know they can really help. But most parents don’t have a clue they can ask for an IEP meeting or why it can profoundly help their child.

I, along with other parents and parents’ organizations, have spent years insisting on requiring school boards to offer and hold IEP meetings with parents of students with disabilities/special education needs and to widely publicize this and encourage parents to take part.

Belatedly, after many months of effort, we at TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee got TDSB to include an offer of this in the letter it sends parents about the IEP.

To try to help fill this inexcusable gap, I created a free online captioned video entitled “Tips for Parents of Students with Disabilities on How to Advocate For Your Child’s Needs at School.”

Law School Visiting Professor David Lepofsky gives practical tips to parents of students with disabilities in Ontario or other Canadian provinces on how to advocate for your child’s needs at school. More information available at www.aodaalliance.org/education and @aodaalliance

Check out great legal information from the ARCH Disability Law Centre available at https://inclusiveeducation.ca/advocacy-for-inclusion/

I’m a retired lawyer. I can’t give legal advice. I offer practical tips on how to navigate a bewildering education bureaucracy — tips learned from hard experience.

I’ve urged school boards to share this free 50-minute video. I’ve not heard that any board did so, except for one enthusiastic principal. Please let parents know about this video. Encourage your school board to share it.

It would be great if our education minister directed his ministry to do the same.

How Will Tens of Thousands of Students with Disabilities Fare in the Four Ontario School Boards that the Ford Government Took Over at the End of Last June??

August 29, 2025

SUMMARY

After a break, AODA Alliance Updates are back in action. Stay tuned for much more information coming your way on our never-ending campaign for a barrier-free society for people with disabilities.

Summer is winding down. The fall term is about to begin in schools, colleges and universities. We turn our attention right now to the battle to tear down the many disability barriers in the education system.

The Ford Government threw Ontarians a new curve ball in this arena at the end of June, when it took over the control and management of four school boards, including the Toronto District School Board, which is Canada’s largest school board. This in effect turfed the trustees whom the public had elected to oversee the operations of those boards. Trustees of any Catholic board were left in power, but only to manage religious aspects of the board’s operations.

What does this mean for vulnerable students with disabilities? There has been a great deal of media coverage of the Ford Government’s controversial takeover of these school boards. However, that reportage has been dominated by other aspects of this issue, not its impact on students with disabilities.

For many years, our education system has treated students with disabilities like second class citizens. This provincial takeover was the topic of the July column that AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky wrote for the Toronto Star’s many Metroland publications across Ontario. We set that column out below.

Put simply, things could get better if the provincially appointed supervisors of these boards can get the Ontario Government to increase funding for students with disabilities and if they can systematically tear down the recurring disability barriers from which these students perennially suffer. On the other hand, it could make things worse. Elected school board trustees can be approached for help by parents of students with disabilities needing help (of which there are many). Once the Ford Government turfed those trustees, this avenue has been denied to these parents.

There’s an added twist in this saga, which we also make public here. Every Ontario school board must have a Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) to advise the board, including its trustees, on how to better serve students with disabilities/special education needs. The Chair of TDSB’s SEAC is David Lepofsky, who also chairs the AODA Alliance. On July 9, 2025, he wrote the TDSB’s provincially appointed Supervisor with concrete suggestions. We set that letter out below. The Supervisor responded by email the next day, saying that he’d be in touch after he is briefed by TDSB staff. There has been no further communication from him.

On July 10, 2025, TDSB SEAC Chair David Lepofsky also wrote Ontario’s Minister of Education to address this situation. You can read that letter below. That Minister has not responded.

There is a stunning discord between the reality facing students with disabilities and the Ford Government’s self-congratulatory claims about education in Ontario. For example on August 28, 2025, the Ford Government issued a news release proclaiming:

“Ontario Providing Record Supports as Students Return to School.”

It boasted, among other things:

“The Ontario government is investing a record $30.3 billion in education funding this year as part of its plan to protect Ontario and prepare students for the jobs of tomorrow. This funding for the upcoming school year will ensure schools can continue to deliver high-quality education to the two million students returning to school next week, with a back-to-basics approach that prepares them with practical skills for good-paying, stable careers.
The government is also opening a record 41 new and expanded schools this fall to provide students and teachers with modern learning environments they need to succeed.”

This news release disregards and implicitly denies the chronic underfunding of education for, students with disabilities. It brags about opening new schools, disregarding the fact that the Government has not ensured that these new buildings will be fully accessible to students, teachers, staff and family members with disabilities. It fails to take into account the fact that 1,308 days had by then passed since the Government received the final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. Yet the Government has still not enacted the promised Education Accessibility Standard to tear down recurring disability barriers in the education system.

How You Can Help

• Let voters and others know about the impact of this provincial takeover of four Ontario school boards on students with disabilities.

• Urge your local media to cover this issue.

• If you know of this has impacted students with disabilities and their families, let us know. Email the AODA Alliance at aodafeedback@gmail.com

• Learn about the history of the battle to tear down disability barriers in the education system in which the AODA Alliance has played a role. Visit the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Check out the AODA Alliance’s online video series on the campaign to make our education system fully accessible for all students with disabilities.

MORE DETAILS

Inside Halton July 17, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.insidehalton.com/opinion/columnists/ontario-s-oversight-of-school-boards-offers-chance-to-tackle-funding-gap-for-students-with/article_b589baf8-f182-5d56-8bbf-719dfaa9c803.html
Opinion

Ontario’s oversight of school boards offers chance to tackle funding gap for students with disabilities

Advocate says oversight could remove pinch-point — school boards tell parents about funding shortfalls while province says it’s providing more cash than ever.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

After the last day of school, when few focus on provincial politics, the Ford government took the controversial step of seizing control of four school boards.

The announcement impacted the Toronto District School Board, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board and the Dufferin-Peel Catholic School Board.

A government-appointed supervisor replaced each board’s elected trustees. What will this mean for thousands of students with disabilities?

For years, exhausted parents of students with disabilities have been hopelessly caught in endless crossfire between the Ontario government and their school board.

School boards tell parents they need more provincial funding. The province boasts it’s giving more money than ever before for students with disabilities.

All parents know is too often, their child’s disability-related learning needs are chronically underserved. It’s traumatic feeling like a political football perennially tossed back and forth.

Will this provincial takeover make things better or worse for thousands of vulnerable students with disabilities?

I’m closest to the situation at the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) and I chair its Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC). TDSB is Canada’s largest educator of students with disabilities/special education needs. It has at least 40,000 of these students — more than all students at some school boards.

In this capacity, I just wrote the TDSB Provincial Supervisor and Education Minister Paul Calandra, offering concrete ways they could make school better for these vulnerable TDSB students. My recommendations could equally apply at all four provincially-seized boards.

To achieve the province’s stated goal of putting students first, the urgent needs of vulnerable students with disabilities require vital reforms. There must be absolutely no cuts or reductions to services or supports for students with disabilities/special education needs.

Indeed, there is a pressing need for increased provincial funding.

With the province now solely responsible for the operation of these school boards, the government will discover first-hand that it has been underfunding these needs.

Yet more than additional funding is needed to solve the problem.

The provincial supervisor must root out the recurring disability barriers at school boards and escalate these students’ needs as a priority. These recurring disability barriers hurt students with disabilities and can inflict higher costs for the taxpayer.

TDSB’s SEAC has been pointing out several of these barriers to TDSB staff for years. Staff has insufficiently responded to these problems. Progress is snail’s-paced and insufficient. Addressing this has not been treated as a high enough priority.

TDSB needs to be de-bureaucratized and senior staff need far more accountability.

The long-term pattern of senior staff has been to tell trustees that virtually any issue is “operational” and, as such, is outside the scope of trustees’ oversight. This turns trustees into a rubber stamp, undermining democratic accountability.

It risks TDSB senior staff becoming an unaccountable state within a state. Ontario’s removal of the trustees may make this worse.

The Minister of Education needs to make it 100 per cent clear to the provincial supervisors that these issues are critical to their mandate. TDSB’s SEAC is in full operation. It and, no doubt, other SEACs are eager to help provincial supervisors with concrete recommendations to put reforms into action, fully informed by ample feedback from parents and families of students with disabilities/special education needs.

Here’s a great way to start.

Last November, TDSB’s SEAC held its first-ever and incredibly successful town hall for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs.

Parent after parent gave wrenching accounts about unfair barriers their children face. They offered practical measures to remove those barriers. They thanked us profusely for holding this event and urged us to hold more. Their accounts corroborate ample feedback SEAC received from others.

This was a great first step that we eagerly wished to annually repeat. Yet TDSB staff wrongly opposed SEAC holding another such town hall, at least for 2025 and 2026.

Each provincial supervisor should partner with their SEAC to hold town halls for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs. There’s no better way to get at the unfiltered truth, put students’ first and improve accountability at a school board.

July 9, 2025 Letter from Chair of TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee to Provincially-Appointed TDSB Supervisor

David Lepofsky, Chair, TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee

July 9, 2025

To: Rohit Gupta
Office of the Provincial Supervisor
Toronto District School Board
5050 Yonge Street
North York, ON M2N 7H3
Via Email:
rohit.gupta@harringtonplaceadvisors.com
rohit.gupta@tdsb.on.ca

Dear Sir,

Re: Meeting Unmet Needs of TDSB Students with Disabilities/Special Education Needs

I am the Chair of the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC). This letter introduces you, as the provincially appointed TDSB supervisor, to our SEAC. It identifies key priorities that TDSB’s 40,000 students with disabilities/special education need you to address. We welcome any opportunity to work with you to help you best fulfil your mandate. We are in a unique position to assist you in improving accountability at TDSB, putting the needs of students first, and fairly assessing and addressing TDSB’s budget situation, while minimally imposing on your time as you take on a monumental task.

1. What is TDSB’s SEAC?

Ontario law creates and mandates TDSB’s SEAC, Ontario Regulation 464/97. Each school board must maintain a SEAC under that regulation. Your appointment does not displace or derogate from this mandatory regulation. To the contrary, SEAC is well positioned to help you succeed in your mission at TDSB.

SEAC’s purpose is to give advice to TDSB staff and trustees on how to improve educational opportunities for TDSB’s students with disabilities/special education needs. When SEAC makes a recommendation to the trustees, SEAC is entitled to be heard by the trustees before a decision is made on SEAC’s recommendation. Among other things, TDSB must consult SEAC on TDSB’s special education budget and Special Education Plan.

SEAC must meet ten times per year. Blessed with extensive expertise, its membership includes:
• Representatives from well-known community organizations representing the needs of a diverse spectrum of special education needs, such as students who have autism, intellectual disabilities, epilepsy, physical disabilities, Down Syndrome, ADHD, vision loss, hearing loss, learning disabilities, and gifted students.
• Community representatives appointed from each of the TDSB’s four “learning centres.”
• Three trustees, chosen by the board.

TDSB staff attend SEAC meetings to provide staff support. They are not members of SEAC and do not vote.

Because of the provincial takeover of TDSB, trustees were told not to take part in any TDSB meetings. As such, the trustees who sit on SEAC are not expected to take part in SEAC meetings during your supervision of TDSB.

You were appointed to step into the shoes of the trustees and assume their responsibilities. This of necessity would include your replacing the three trustees on TDSB’s SEAC. This is extremely beneficial for you. You can hear directly from us in an unfiltered way about recurring barriers impeding effective education of students with disabilities/special education needs.

There is compelling precedent for SEAC’s continuing to operate when a school board is under provincial supervision, with SEAC’s recommendations both received and acted upon by appointed supervisors. For example, during the TDSB’s previous supervision in 2002, Supervisor Paul Christie approved SEAC recommendations regarding support for students with learning and intellectual disabilities, as recorded on page 5 of the November 20, 2002 Board minutes. That same meeting also documents the supervisor’s approval of a new SEAC appointment on page 7. More recently, the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB), under provincial supervision since April 2025, held a SEAC meeting in June despite most other board and committee meetings being cancelled. This is documented in the June 2025 TVDSB SEAC agenda, and confirmed in the London Free Press report, which noted that the supervisor spoke at that SEAC meeting. These examples confirm that SEACs not only continue functioning under supervision but also provide advice that is properly addressed to and actionable by the supervisor, in the absence of trustee authority.

2. Chronically Underserved TDSB Students with Disabilities/Special Education Needs

Now that you are TDSB’s senior authority in charge, a major priority for you is addressing the urgent needs of TDSB’s highly vulnerable and chronically underserved students with disabilities/special education needs. Numbering at least 40,000, they are a second class within TDSB. That is greater than the total number of students at some Ontario school boards. TDSB is Canada’s largest educator of students with disabilities/special education needs.

Effectively meeting their learning needs has proven to be a recurring problem due to deep-rooted systemic problems at TDSB. SEAC has been identifying these issues for the board for years. We have offered practical solutions. Regrettably, too often our recommendations have slammed into bureaucratic resistance. When we have brought solutions to the trustees, senior TDSB staff have a pattern of telling trustees that they have no authority over these issues and should simply refer our concerns back to the very staff who had failed to effectively address them. This is a broken system devoid of effective accountability.

3. Three Examples of Problems Crying Out for Action

We have demonstrated to TDSB over and over that students with disabilities/special education needs continue to face serious problems and barriers. These represent the antithesis of putting students first.

As a first example, last November, TDSB’s SEAC held an incredibly successful town hall for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs, our first such event. Parent after parent gave wrenching reports about barriers their children face. They offered practical measures to remove those barriers. They thanked us profusely for holding this event and urged us to hold more such meetings. Their accounts corroborate ample feedback SEAC has received from others and shared with TDSB for years.

This was a great first step that we eagerly wished to repeat annually. Yet TDSB staff have unjustifiably opposed SEAC holding another such town hall, at least for 2025 and 2026.

Second, SEAC has been telling TDSB for over nine years that too many parents of students with special education needs find it too difficult just to find out what services, programs and options are available for their child at TDSB and how and where to advocate for them. This unfairly undermines and complicates their ability to advocate for their child’s special education needs. To many of them, TDSB is like a restaurant that won’t give them a menu.

We have told TDSB staff that their limited efforts to date to address this problem have not come close to fixing it. As solutions, TDSB staff have referred parents to the TDSB website. Yet it is bloated with impenetrable education-techno-jargon. They’ve said parents can find answers in the massive, complicated, jargon-filled TDSB Special Education Plan. Yet it is not written for that purpose.

Parents are told to ask their principal to explain all TDSB’s services and supports for these students. Yet principals don’t know all know everything that TDSB offers in this field. It is grossly inefficient to burden principals to repeat the same information separately to 40,000 families. Parents are told to reach out to SEAC. Yet our volunteer members and their community organizations should not be burdened to fill the huge information gap that TDSB has the responsibility to fill.

At the October 9, 2024, TDSB board meeting, SEAC tried to get trustees to make it a priority to create new solutions to this mess. Yet staff got the trustees to just refer this issue back to staff with a weak and diluted directive that the Director of Education “consider” whether this is a priority issue.

Third, parents need a swift, fair and effective route for seeking solutions if they believe their child’s special education needs are not being effectively accommodated. TDSB has a duty to accommodate each of their disability-related needs so that they can fully benefit from all TDSB services. This necessarily requires strategies that are individually tailored to the needs of each student with disabilities/special education needs. TDSB is required to consult with the student’s parents on this.

SEAC members and the associations they represent have received many of these complaints. They brought these concerns forward to SEAC to seek a systemic solution.

Fourth, as noted above, TDSB has a legal duty to consult SEAC on TDSB’s special education budget, and on its Special Education Plan. The consultation on the special education budget has, at best, been purely performative. We receive slide presentations on the budget as a whole and the TDSB’s budget process. However, we are rarely if ever asked in advance for substantive input on budget questions. We have not, to my memory, been provided an actual “special education budget” as such in advance, on which to give input.

We learned this spring that TDSB’s budget has a serious gap. It includes no line item for meeting the disability-related needs of students with disabilities whose disabilities do not fall within the provincial definition of “exceptionalities.” TDSB has a duty to accommodate the learning needs of all these students under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Yet it has not budgeted any money to fulfil that duty.

As for the Special Education Plan, TDSB staff consulted SEAC on it each year. However, a major change recently proposed by staff was raised at the last minute, well after SEAC was told that the time for input was closed. It predictably triggered huge concerns for parents of students with disabilities. Staff proposed to increase the size of two categories of special education classes.

At the trustees’ June 19, 2025, board meeting, SEAC presented a recommendation in opposition to this proposed change. The trustees had to vote whether or not to approve the Special Education Plan. Staff opposed our recommendation. The trustees voted 9 to 8 not to approve the Special Education Plan. Staff, erroneously I believe, argued that the trustees could not reject the Special Education Plan because they disagreed with it. This wrongly reduced trustees to a rubber stamp for staff decisions.

4. Pressing Need for More Democratic Oversight of TDSB Staff

These examples illustrate an even deeper systemic problem at TDSB. Senior staff, while hard-working and dedicated to students’ well-being, are fundamentally running TDSB without any effective democratic oversight. Trustees are told that almost everything on which they may wish to intervene is “operational.” Staff wield that label as a magic wand to eviscerate any substantive democratic oversight and accountability.

Moreover, TDSB staff too often operate in isolated silos. The needs of 40,000 students with disabilities/special education needs should be everyone’s responsibility within TDSB, not just relegated to special education officials. Yet they are largely left to the Special Education department which has neither the staffing nor operational authority within the TDSB bureaucracy to address all the unmet needs. Too often, other departments create or perpetuate disability barriers, while the special education staff are somehow supposed to clean up the mess afterwards. This is not an efficient and responsible use of public money.

We anticipate that TDSB staff will tell you that they are passionately dedicated to the needs of students with disabilities/special education needs, that they are working to the bone, and that that are working on each issue we raise here. We don’t take issue with any of that.

However, the systemic disability barriers we have been raising have remained in place for years. The actions underway to address it are demonstrably insufficient. This systemic problem has been the same under a series of directors of education, associate directors, executive superintendents and so on. We have heard the same commitments and professions of dedication from a succession of senior officials in those roles. Yet the problems persist and will continue unless systemic change takes place at TDSB.

5. Key Recommendations for You in Your New Role

Here are practical steps we recommend:

1. I would welcome a chance to meet with you as soon as possible to give an in-person candid briefing on leading issues that will confront you regarding students with disabilities/special education needs and to answer the toughest of probing questions.

2. Please plan to attend monthly SEAC meetings. Our first meeting is schedule for Monday, September 8, 2025, from 5 to 7 PM. You can attend in person at 5050 Yonge Street or online. If you are not able to attend for entire meetings, I am happy to arrange the agenda items to maximize the value of your presence at the parts of meetings you attend. Our meetings are spent 100% on priority substantive topics.

3. Please override TDSB staff’s unwarranted objection to holding town halls for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs. We’d welcome the chance to organize another one for this fall. You would find it very informative. TDSB professes in its Multi-Year Strategic Plan that it views parents as partners. For TDSB staff to oppose holding more such town halls in 2025 and 2026 flatly contradicts that commitment.

4. In your review of the TDSB budget and finances, please ensure that there are no cuts to supports or services for students with disabilities/special education needs. Parents of these students have been caught for years in nonstop crossfire from the Ministry of Education and the school board. The board reports that it is annually underfunded for special education to fulfil provincial requirements. The Ministry says it is spending more than ever. Caught in the middle are too many underserved students with disabilities/special education needs. Their parents must endure the trauma of trying to navigate an opaque, user-unfriendly, education bureaucracy. Individual educational staff on the front lines want to serve all students but are handcuffed in their ability to do so by bureaucratic barriers.

5. The Ontario Government is now responsible for TDSB operations. It needs to better fund education supports and services for students with disabilities/special education needs at TDSB.

6. That is not the end of the matter. That increased funding alone, while desperately needed, will not entirely solve this festering problem. The TDSB must also be debureaucratized. The recurring disability barriers must be rooted out, not defended or left to endless staff commitments to do better. Senior TDSB staff need more public accountability, not less.

7. Finally, I strongly encourage you to address a source of problems that has too often been ignored. It is worth asking whether TDSB is far too big, and that its enormous size creates irremediable inefficiencies. I invite you to consider whether the public can get more bang for its education buck by dividing TDSB into smaller boards, with elected trustees and senior staff that are far closer to the public and to front-line educators. This is a discussion worth having.

SEAC is readily available to you to offer informed and candid advice and feedback from the classroom’s front lines, emanating from outside the TDSB bureaucracy. Please take up our offer of help and candid, independent advice.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont,

CC: The hon. Paul Calandra Minister of Education minister.edu@ontario.ca
Clayton La Touche, Director of Education TDSB Clayton.LaTouche@TDSB.on.ca
Louise Sirisko, Associate Director TDSB Louise.Sirisko@tdsb.on.ca
Nandy Palmer, Executive Superintendent, TDSB Nandy.Palmer@tdsb.on.ca

July 10, 2025 Letter from Chair of TDSB Special Education Advisory Committeeto Ontario Minister of Education

David Lepofsky, Chair, TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee

July 10, 2025

To: The hon. Paul Calandra, Minister of Education minister.edu@ontario.ca

Dear Minister:

Re: Meeting Unmet Needs of TDSB Students with Disabilities/Special Education Needs

I write in my capacity as the Chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) of the Toronto District School Board. I wish to raise important issues within your authority in light of the Ontario Government’s recent appointment of a Provincial Supervisor to take over senior responsibility for the operation of TDSB. SEAC is of course an entirely non-partisan body and I write in that spirit.

With a Provincial Supervisor now appointed and the elected trustees removed from their roles, the Ministry of Education has direct responsibility for the delivery of education to TDSB students, including the 40,000 or more students with disabilities/special education needs. Here is a summary of the issues on which we seek your action.

These and other vital priorities are described more extensively in my July 9, 2025 letter to the new TDSB Provincial Supervisor. You were copied on that letter, which is also enclosed here.

1. TDSB has chronically underserved students with disabilities/special education needs. To achieve your goal of putting students first, the urgent needs of this vulnerable population at TDSB requires new actions and important reforms.

Up to now, parents of students with disabilities/special education needs have been hopelessly caught in the perennial crossfire between the Ontario Government (which says it is providing more funding than ever before) and the TDSB leadership (which has said it needs more funding). The Ontario Government is now solely responsible for what is delivered to these students.

It is vital that there be no cuts or reductions to services or supports for students with disabilities/special education needs. Indeed, there is a pressing need for increased provincial funding.

2. Increased provincial funding for these students alone will not solve the problem. It is essential for the Provincial Supervisor to root out the recurring disability barriers at TDSB and to escalate these students’ needs as a priority. These barriers hurt students with disabilities/special education needs and can ultimately trigger higher costs for the taxpayer. Our letter to the Provincial Supervisor identifies some of these barriers.

This moment presents a transformative opportunity to correct historical imbalances by elevating the needs of students with disabilities/special education needs and ensuring that future resource allocation reflects their central place in the public education system. This necessitates a comprehensive commitment from the entire system to prioritize special education of students with disabilities/special education needs with both adequate resources and prioritized attention.

TDSB needs to be de-bureaucratized. Senior staff need far more accountability. The long-term pattern of senior staff has been to tell trustees that virtually any issue is “operational” and as such is outside the scope of trustees’ oversight. This undermines democratic accountability. It risks TDSB senior staff becoming an unaccountable state within a state.

It is important for the Ministry to make it clear to the Provincial Supervisor that the issues we have identified are critical to his mandate. TDSB’s SEAC is in full operation of course and is eager to help the Provincial Supervisor with concrete, practical recommendations to put reforms into action, fully informed by ample feedback from parents and families of students with disabilities/special education needs.

Yours Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont,

CC: To: Rohit Gupta TDSB Provincial Supervisor, rohit.gupta@harringtonplaceadvisors.com rohit.gupta@tdsb.on.ca
Denise Cole, Deputy Minister of Education, Denise.Cole@ontario.ca
Clayton La Touche, Director of Education TDSB Clayton.LaTouche@TDSB.on.ca
Louise Sirisko, Associate Director TDSB Louise.Sirisko@tdsb.on.ca
Nandy Palmer, Executive Superintendent, TDSB Nandy.Palmer@tdsb.on.ca

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky Scheduled to Testify at Labour Grievance Arbitration Tomorrow About Preventable Disability Barriers in Controversial New Billion-Dollar Toronto Courthouse

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky Scheduled to Testify at Labour Grievance Arbitration Tomorrow About Preventable Disability Barriers in Controversial New Billion-Dollar Toronto Courthouse

June 25, 2025 Toronto: At a provincial labour grievance arbitration scheduled for tomorrow, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky is scheduled to testify about the serious disability barriers at the massive new Toronto criminal courthouse on Armoury Street. The Ontario Crown Attorneys Association is presenting a grievance about the lack of accessible parking at the courthouse for Crown Attorneys with disabilities who prosecute cases in Canada’s largest criminal courthouse, which opened in 2023. The Crown in question was previously given an accessible parking spot at the courthouse where she worked, before that courthouse closed and all cases were moved to the new Armoury Street courthouse.

Last August The AODA Alliance brought the many preventable disability barriers in this courthouse to public attention when it released an online video which branded this new facility a billion-dollar accessibility bungle. View a 4-minute version, a 14-minute version or the 49-minute unabridged version. This video includes the lack of sufficient accessibility parking assured for people with disabilities coming to the court.

“We warned the Ontario Government in writing years before construction began about preventable disability barriers in this new courthouse, including the obvious lack of sufficient accessible parking assured for people with disabilities going to court,” said Lepofsky, who is also a visiting professor of disability rights at the law schools at Queen’s, Western, and the University of Ottawa, as well as a retired Crown counsel. “There are only six accessible parking spots on the street near the courthouse, but they can all be used by anyone with a disability permit, leaving none for people with disabilities going to this court.”

Many mistakenly think that the Ontario Building Code requires all new buildings in Ontario to be accessible to people with disabilities. The AODA Alliance has been campaigning to get the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act effectively implemented to prevent inexcusable barriers such as the one that is the focus of this arbitration. The Ford Government failed to meet the Disability Act’s mandatory deadline for leading Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities, which was the start of this year.

“After the Government opened this courthouse two years ago, it retained two separate expert accessibility consulting firms, Gensler and Human Space, to report on the building’s disability barriers and how to fix them,” said Lepofsky. The Gensler report confirmed several of the disability barriers our video identified. We were promised to receive the Human Space report, but the Government has never released it. I fully expect it to identify the shortage of accessible parking as one of this facility’s disability barriers.”

The Government has said it is leading by example on accessibility. However, this courthouse is a very poor example by which Ontarians should not be led.

“The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act was enacted 20 years ago so that people with disabilities would not have to battle against accessibility barriers one at a time,” said Lepofsky who led the decade-long grassroots campaign from 1994 to 2005 to get the Disability Act enacted. “An individual provincial employee should not have to face this barrier, much less the undue hardship of a long legal battle against the very Government that is responsible for leading the Disability Act’s implementation and enforcement.”

It is the AODA Alliance’s understanding that the arbitration hearing will not be open to the public. However, after he testifies, David Lepofsky can be reached for comment.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Background on the AODA Alliance’s advocacy efforts regarding this courthouse can be found on the AODA Alliance website’s courts accessibility page.

New CBC Report on Another Disability Barrier Shows How Ontarians with Disabilities are Hurt by the Ford Government’s Failure to Effectively Implement the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

New CBC Report on Another Disability Barrier Shows How Ontarians with Disabilities are Hurt by the Ford Government’s Failure to Effectively Implement the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

June 24, 2025

SUMMARY

Here’s yet another news report that shows how Ontarians with disabilities suffer the consequences of the many years of the Ontario Government’s failing to effectively and fully implement and enforce the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. People with disabilities fought long and hard for a decade to get that legislation passed in 2005 with a mandate for Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by the start of 2025.

A detailed June 23, 2025 CBC news report set out below describes a serious accessibility barrier to get into the municipal building in the northern Ontario town of Callander. A resident has had to resort to filing a complaint with the backlogged Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The whole reason people with disabilities campaigned year after year to get the AODA enacted is so that individual people with disabilities would not have to battle against one accessibility barrier at a time by filing individual human rights complaints. No one should have to go through that undue hardship.

In this article, the Ontario Government responded to this problem by entirely and inexcusably ducking the issue. It said it is not appropriate to comment on the case since it is before the Human Rights Tribunal. Put simply, that is nonsense.

This is a bogus excuse that governments regularly use when they want to avoid an issue. Nothing forbids the Government from commenting on a case before the Human Rights Tribunal. Cases there are not decided by a jury that could be affected by media coverage. Moreover, given the current delays at the Tribunal, this case will not be heard for at least five years. A public comment by the Government five years earlier hardly poses a risk that the Tribunal could not provide a fair trial.

The Ford Government’s record on making the built environment accessible in Ontario is abysmal:

Ontario still has no comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard enacted under the AODA. Ontario only has the weak and inadequate Ontario Building Code’s accessibility requirements and the extremely limited AODA Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard (which leaves out the vast majority of disability barriers in the built environment.)
The Ford Government violated the AODA by not appointing a Standards Development Committee to review the weak Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard until around five years after the legal deadline for doing so. Making this worse, the Ford Government has already received the final report of the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee but has not yet made that report public. The AODA required the Government to make that report public upon receiving it. We’ve not heard a word about when they plan to obey that legal requirement. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky applied to be appointed to that Standards Development Committee. The Ford Government did not accept his application.
The Ford Government has been sitting on the final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee for over three years and has enacted nothing to implement it. It includes 20 pages of recommendations for new school construction and retrofitting old schools to make them accessible.
The Ford Government is using billions of public dollars to build new infrastructure without requiring it to be accessible. As an example of new provincially funded infrastructure replete with disability barriers, see the AODA Alliance video about the billion-dollar accessibility bungle that is the new Toronto criminal courthouse. There’s a 4-minute trailer, a 14-minute version, and a 49-minute unabridged version.

How You Can Help

Send this news report to your MPP. Demand that the Government take action to make sure disability barriers like these are removed without people with disabilities having to become private accessibility cops, fighting barriers one at a time at the Human Rights Tribunal.
Check out the AODA Alliance website’s built environment page to learn about our advocacy over the past 16 years or longer to prevent the creation of new disability barriers in the built environment and to remove existing barriers.

Get others to watch the new 4-minute trailer video about the billion-dollar bungle at the new Toronto courthouse.

As of today, 174 days have passed since the deadline which the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act set for the Ontario Government to lead this province to become accessible to people with disabilities. Where is Premier Ford’s plan of action?

Send us your feedback. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

MORE DETAILS

CBC News June 23, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/callander-accessibility-complaint-1.7566773

Woman in Callander files Ontario human rights complaint arguing municipal building isn’t accessible

Chantal Cormier, who uses a wheelchair, says ramp is needed as 2nd entrance is too steep

Jonathan Migneault CBC News

A woman in a wheelchair next to a road and painted path.

Chantal Cormier has filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that argues a path and second entrance to the municipal building in the town of Callander aren’t accessible. (Submitted by Chantal Cormier)

A woman from Callander has filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario against the municipality and the province over her concerns around accessibility at the northern town’s municipal building.

Chantal Cormier uses a wheelchair due to an accident a decade ago that left her unable to walk.

She argues the municipality of Callander, located south of North Bay, has failed to make its municipal building accessible for people with disabilities. The building is where town council meets and residents go to access some municipal services.

In an online survey in 2021, Cormier pointed out that the building was not wheelchair accessible. The main entrance was near a hill too steep to safely use in a wheelchair.

In a special council meeting the next year, Callander Mayor Robb Noon asked if provincial legislation required the municipality to build an accessible ramp at the main entrance.

“No. It is not a necessity unless major repairs or enhancements are completed to the building,” responded Ashley Bilodeau, Callander’s senior municipal director.

Thea Kurdi, a consultant who specializes in accessibility, told CBC News that doesn’t take into account Ontario’s Human Rights Code, which supersedes the Ontario Building Code.

Building a 2nd entrance

In 2023, council voted to reallocate $50,000 in capital funding budgeted for an accessibility ramp to instead build a second entrance to the building.

The second entrance, completed in September 2024, was meant to improve access for people in wheelchairs. But Cormier has argued a path leading to the entrance — which was made with lines painted along the edge of a parking lot — remains too steep.

“The hill would be very challenging for the majority of wheelchair users and in my opinion, it would be very dangerous to descend,” Cormier told CBC News.

“Personally, I would be very afraid to go down that hill. I’d be afraid that I would not be able to stop and wind up in the middle of Main Street, fearing that I’d be kissing my life goodbye to the front of an oncoming vehicle.”

A staff report to council on March 25, 2025, said the path leading to the entrance does not exceed Ontario Building Code standards of an 8.33 per cent slope.

But Cormier said her husband measured the slope at 13 per cent, which is too steep for a wheelchair. CBC has not independently measured the slope along the path.

Kurdi said there are other issues with the path leading to the building, beyond the slope.

“The most significant issue I could see that was clear from the pictures was the lack of safety for pedestrians because there was no curb edge,” she said.

This barrier didn’t just arise last week, or last year, or in 2023 or 2022.

– David Lepofsky, disability advocate

Kurdi said a height difference between the path and parking lot would help better separate pedestrians and wheelchair users from cars. If a person is blind, a curb edge also lets them know where they can safely walk.

Kurdi also noted a lack of wayfinding, handrails and the proximity to parked cars.

“Unfortunately in parking spaces like this, where people and cars are in conflict, a seated person in a wheelchair or a shorter-stature person can easily, and often are, sadly hit by cars,” she said.

Kurdi said painted lines are also often covered by snow and ice in the winter, which makes them difficult or impossible to see.

Cormier said the ideal solution to make the entrance accessible would be for the municipality to build a switchback ramp, which zigzags back and forth. It’s a way to ensure the slope is never too steep for a wheelchair.

The municipality’s March 2025 staff report, however, estimated the cost of building a switchback ramp would be over $350,000, which would result in a five to six per cent municipal tax increase.

The report also said there is not enough space for such a ramp without encroaching into the neighbouring road allowance.

Disability advocate David Lepofsky, who chairs the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance (AODA Alliance), argues the Town of Callander should have thought about making its municipal building accessible at least 20 years ago.

“This barrier didn’t just arise last week, or last year, or in 2023 or 2022,” he said.

lobbied for the creation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which became law in 2005.

The act gave organizations in the province, including municipalities, 20 years to meet accessibility standards outlined in the law. That deadline was reached in January 2025.

“When the question is, ‘Why was the province given 20 years?’ The answer was because there’s a bunch of old buildings out there. Society, the business community, municipalities said, ‘We need time to get this all fixed,'” Lepofsky said.

“Now when you suddenly decide in 2022 or 2023, ‘Oh my gosh, maybe we should fix this.’ That’s squandering 17 of the 20 years for no good reason.”

Cormier is also including Ontario’s ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Seniors and Accessibility in her human rights complaint.

She argues they have failed to uphold accessibility standards and inspect Callander’s municipal building to see if it meets current standards.

In an email to CBC News, the Ministry of Seniors and Accessibility said it “would be inappropriate” to comment on Cormier’s case because it is now before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Noon and senior municipal director Ashley Bilodeau also said they cannot comment for the same reason.

A long process

According to Lepofsky, it could take years for a resolution from the tribunal.

He had his own fight against the City of Toronto decades ago. In that case, he argued the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) was not accessible for blind people because there was no audible information about upcoming stops.

Because of his win at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, upcoming stops are now announced over speakers. Many other cities in the province also have the same system for their transit services.

But Lepofsky said it took years for that change to happen.

“It can take half a decade to just get a hearing, and cities know that. So they can just sit on their hands and not worry about it. Or politicians could go, ‘Let the next council worry about it.'”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jonathan Migneault

Digital reporter/editor

Jonathan Migneault is a CBC digital reporter/editor based in Sudbury. He is always looking for good stories about northeastern Ontario. Send story ideas to jonathan.migneault@cbc.ca.

New 4-Minute Video Provides a Good Summary of the Many Disability Barriers at the New Toronto Criminal Courthouse

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

New 4-Minute Video Provides a Good Summary of the Many Disability Barriers at the New Toronto Criminal Courthouse

June 23, 2025

It’s just been released! Watch the punchy new 4-minute trailer for last summer’s longer videos that made public the accessibility barriers in the billion-dollar courthouse that the Ford Government opened in 2023 (full link is: https://youtu.be/hViGUVoj_iM). Now you can very quickly show others just how bad this “Billion-Dollar Accessibility Bungle” is!

We are delighted that over the past ten months, so many people have watched the 14-minute version and the 49-minute version of this video!

It is inexcusable that the Ontario Government spent so much public money on this important new facility without living up to its commitments to ensure that it is accessible to people with disabilities. What’s worse is that the Government has not announced any reforms to how it designs and builds new infrastructure so that it doesn’t repeat these blunders.

Over the ten months since we first revealed these accessibility blunders to the public, the Ford Government has not disputed any of the facts in our earlier videos, which are condensed in our new trailer video, unveiled today.

A front-page story in the September 17, 2024, Toronto Star reported that the Ford Government had received an independent report by an expert accessibility consultant that confirmed the existence of a number of the disability barriers at this courthouse that the AODA Alliance had revealed. Check out the September 17, 2024 AODA Alliance Update to read all about it.

Last year, the Ford Government also hired “Human Space,” a second accessibility consulting firm to report on disability barriers at this courthouse and recommend changes. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky was one of the people who took part in a disability advisory group for that consultant at the Government’s request. Members of that disability advisory group were told that they would get a copy of the consultant’s final report. However, months later, it has not been provided.

We understand that the Ford Government has already received the final report of the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee it appointed under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The AODA required the Government to make that report public upon receiving it. We’ve not heard a word about when they plan to obey that legal requirement.

What You Can Do to Help

Watch the new 4-minute trailer about the Ontario Government’s ridiculous “Billion-Dollar Accessibility Bungle.”
Encourage others to watch this video. Circulate it on social media. Get disability organizations to post it on their websites.
Send this video to members of the Ontario Legislature. Encourage them to watch it.

Check out the AODA Alliance website’s built environment page to learn about our advocacy over the past 16 years or longer to prevent the creation of new disability barriers in the built environment, and to remove existing barriers.

Believe it or not, 173 days have passed since the deadline which the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act set for the Ontario Government to lead this province to become accessible to people with disabilities. Have you seen any plans by the Ford Government to get this province to that destination as soon as possible, or ever? We’re still looking!

Send us your feedback. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

People with Disabilities Who Qualify for It Can at Long Last Apply to the Federal Government to Receive the Canada Disability Benefit

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

People with Disabilities Who Qualify for It Can at Long Last Apply to the Federal Government to Receive the Canada Disability Benefit

June 20, 2025

SUMMARY

At long last, people with disabilities who qualify to receive the Canada Disabilities Benefit can finally apply to receive it. The maximum benefit is $200 per month, no matter how impoverished a person is.

Those who qualify to receive the benefit can start getting it in July if they file their application before the end of June, it seems. Below we set out the broadcast email on this topic (which does not include links) from the Federal Government. We encourage you to go to the Federal Government’s Canada Disability Benefit page to learn more and apply for it.

How You Can Help

Let as many people as possible know about this. It is quite possible that there are people with disabilities who could receive the Canada Disabilities Benefit but don’t know about it or how to apply for it.

To learn about the frustrating battle to get Parliament to strengthen the weak Bill C-22 which mandates payment of the Canada Disabilities Benefit, visit the AODA Alliance website’s Bill C-22 page.

MORE DETAILS

Broadcast Email from the Federal Government Received on June 13, 2025

For information about the Canada Disability Benefit, including how to apply, please visit the

Canada Disability Benefit website or contact Service Canada at 1-833-486-3007 or 1-833-467-2700 (TTY).

We are pleased to share an important update on the Canada Disability Benefit (CDB), a key milestone in strengthening Canada’s social safety net and advancing the inclusion and participation of persons with disabilities.

The Canada Disability Benefit Regulations came into force on May 15, 2025, paving the way for implementation.

What is the Canada Disability Benefit?

The benefit provides financial support of up to $200 per month to eligible people with disabilities with low income. Individuals must be between 18 and 64 years old. It is administered by Service Canada and represents a significant step forward in addressing financial barriers faced by many people with disabilities. The first month of eligibility is June 2025, with payments beginning in July 2025 for applications received and approved by June 30, 2025.

If an individual qualifies for the benefit, payments will start the month after their application is received and approved. If the application is approved in July 2025 or later and an applicant was eligible for payments in earlier months, they will get back payments. There will be no payments before June 2025.

Details on the eligibility requirements are available on the dedicated CDB webpage (Do you qualify – Canada.ca).

When to apply?

Applications for the benefit will open on June 20, 2025. Individuals cannot apply before this date.

How to apply?

Applications can be submitted online through the application portal, by phone, or in person at a Service Canada Centre.

What is needed to apply?

Individuals who have been approved for the disability tax credit and who meet most of the eligibility criteria will receive a letter starting in June. The letter will include a unique application code and instructions on how to apply.

Before a person applies, they should gather the following information:

Social Insurance Number (SIN)
Direct deposit information. Service Canada asks everyone to sign up for direct deposit because it’s the fastest and most reliable way to get payments.

If an individual does not receive a letter and thinks they may be eligible, they can still apply. The following additional information will be needed:

Mailing address
Net income (line 23600) from their 2024 notice of assessment.

Additional Support

Community-based navigator services

are being supported to help individuals access the benefit and related programs, especially those in underserved or marginalized communities. These organizations are well-positioned to provide culturally appropriate and accessible support across Canada.

To help raise awareness about the Canada Disability Benefit, Service Canada, through their Community Outreach and Liaison Service, is actively communicating with regions and organizations to provide information about the benefit and explore whether outreach activities, such as hosting an event, would be valuable for staff, volunteers, or clients.

For information about the Canada Disability Benefit, including how to apply, please visit the Canada Disability Benefit website or contact Service Canada at 1-833-486-3007 or 1-833-467-2700 (TTY).

Sincerely,

Katleen Leblan

Director General, Integrated Service Strategy and Operations (ISSO)

Service Canada

School Principals’ Arbitrary Power to Exclude Students From School is the Focus of AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky‘s June Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Across Ontario

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Originally posted at https://www.insideottawavalley.com/opinion/columnists/students-with-disabilities-could-miss-more-class-than-expected-thanks-to-unfair-disability-barrier-in/article_15955e14-32d4-5f47-8842-806d8002fee9.html?source=newsletter&utm_content=a06&utm_source=ml_nl&utm_medium=email&utm_email=c7a7d6416b3c4afdbb3abdf940a7aa17&utm_campaign=ovha_39763&utm_term=latest

School Principals’ Arbitrary Power to Exclude Students From School is the Focus of AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky‘s June Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Across Ontario

June 19, 2025

SUMMARY

In his Monthly column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications across Ontario for June, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky brings you up to date on an issue that has festered unfairly in Ontario for years. This is the sweeping and arbitrary power of every school principal to refuse to admit people to school, which has been unfairly used against some students with disabilities. Read that column below.

As the article explains, this violates the right of every child to go to school. The outdated section 265(1)(m) of Ontario’s Education Act provides:

“265. (1) It is the duty of a principal of a school, in addition to the principal’s duties as a teacher,…

… (m) subject to an appeal to the board, to refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils; …”

This is sometimes called the power to exclude a student from school and at other times is called the power to refuse to admit a student to school. We have advocated for over half a decade along with other disability advocates that this power desperately needs to be substantially reined in.

A ground-breaking report by the non-partisan AODA Alliance, which was publicly released on July 23, 2020,, revealed that for much of Ontario, each school principal is a law unto themselves. They are each armed with a sweeping, arbitrary power to refuse to allow a student to come to school. The AODA Alliance’s 2020 report documented wildly varying and arbitrary differences from school board to school board. Many school boards have no policy on how and when this arbitrary power is to be used. Some school board policies have commendable and helpful ingredients that all boards should have. Some board policies contain unfair and inappropriate components that should be forbidden. Every student facing the trauma of an exclusion from school deserves full and equally fair procedures and safeguards.

Back in January 2019, the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition held a joint news conference at Queen’s park on this abusive power. You can watch a video of that news conference online.

As this column explains, on January 28, 2022, the Ford Government received the final report and recommendations of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. It included detailed recommendations that would rein in the power of school principal to exclude students from school. The Ford Government must implement these recommendations now. In the absence of provincial action, each school board should adopt these recommendations and require their school principals to implement them. We set out those recommendations below.

How You Can Help

Send this Metroland column to your member of the Ontario Legislature. Tell them that the Ontario Government must substantially rein in this power.

Send this column as well to your local school board trustee. Tell them that their board must establish a policy on when principals can refuse to admit a student to school that accords with the recommendations of the Government-appointed K-12 Standards Development Committee’s 2022 recommendations, set out below.

Share this report with parents of students with disabilities whom you know. Invite them to sign up for AODA Alliance Updates on the home page of the AODA Alliance website so they can join in our advocacy on this issue.

MORE DETAILS

Inside Ottawa June 18, 2025

Opinion

Students with disabilities could miss more class than expected, thanks to unfair disability barrier in Ontario’s schools

There’s a shocking lack of due process when principals use power under the Education Act that prevents a student with disabilities from attending school, advocate writes.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

Metroland file photo

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Every child has the right to go to school. Yet for Ontario’s vulnerable students with disabilities, it is not so simple or clear.

In law, all Ontario students, including all those with disabilities, have the right to go to a publicly-funded school to get an education. However, Ontario has an ugly loophole that school principals too often use that results in some students with disabilities being out of school.

The Education Act gives principals a drastic, sweeping power and duty to refuse to admit a person to school “whose presence in the school or classroom would, in the principal’s judgment, be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils …”

Report after report has documented that principals use this power to force parents to keep some students with disabilities at home.

This can go on for days, weeks or months. There’s a shocking lack of due process. Parents may not even be given a reason for barring their child from school. That flies in the face of the duty of fairness which has been enshrined in Canadian law for decades.

Too often, the exclusion of a child with disabilities from school is a result of the school’s failure to properly accommodate that student’s disability at school.

Studies have documented that some principals have told a family, for example, to keep their child with a disability home because their education assistant is away, sick.

Didn’t anyone tell those school boards that this violates their duty to accommodate students with disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights? Could you imagine a principal sending an entire regular class home because their teacher is sick? Have these school boards not heard about supply teachers and staff?

Ontario’s Ministry of Education gives school boards and principals precious little, if any, direction limiting how this sweeping power may be used. More than 70 school boards are free to do as much or as little as they wish to ensure that no one abuses this power.

In this area, every principal is a law unto themselves. I doubt they want this. In 2020, we surveyed Ontario’s school boards about their policies. We discovered that some boards have policies which wildly vary, while other boards had no policy at all.

Don’t confuse this with the principal’s very different and carefully-regulated power to discipline students who misbehave by suspending or expelling them. The Ministry of Education properly gives school boards tons of directions limiting how that discipline power can and cannot be used.

More than three years ago, the Ford government received an expert report documenting how to fix barriers in schools that hurt students with disabilities. Its practical recommendations would fix this sweeping power that is so prone to abuse. I served on the provincially-appointed panel that wrote that report. Premier Ford has enacted none of our recommendations.

Ontario’s biggest school board, the Toronto District School Board, took some good steps, but wrongly refused to adopt modest reforms that its Special Education Advisory Committee (which I chair) recommended.

We feared that among the board’s 40,000 students with disabilities, some parents don’t know that every child has the fundamental right to be in school.

We recommended that the board send all parents a plain language statement that all students have the right to go to school and to give them a number to call if their child is being excluded.

TDSB staff refused. They leave parents to wade through the TDSB’s jargon-overloaded website to find out what they are entitled to expect, and to call the very principal who excluded their child, and that principal’s supervising superintendent. Yet that alone has not worked sufficiently.

Imagine a parent who fled to Canada from a tyrannical dictatorship, who fears even questioning any public official. A simple, clear statement by TDSB and a phone number to call would be a lifeline.

After school resumes this fall, too many parents of students with disabilities will again be plagued by the fear that on any day and at any time, their principal may again call and tell them to take their child home from school. It’s time for Ontario’s education minister to protect students with disabilities and their families from this arbitrary unfairness.

Excerpt from K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s January 28, 2022 Final Report

Exclusions/refusals to admit to school/reduced school hours recommendations

Originally posted at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/download-in-an-accessible-ms-word-format-the-final-report-of-the-k-12-education-standards-development-committee-on-what-the-promised-education-accessibility-standardshould-include/

Barrier: parents/caregivers have concerns with the use of the principal’s power to exclude students from school. (Also called refusal to admit to school) Section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act requires principals to:

“Subject to an appeal to the board, to refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well being of the pupils.”

Concerns are expressed that a significant proportion of those excluded from school are students with disabilities. The Ministry of Education does not track data on exclusions and does not require school boards to track data on them, in contrast to suspensions and expulsions.

Parents/caregivers identified a lack of due process, such as:

not being told the reason for the refusal to admit or how to challenge it
no limit on how long the refusal to admit can continue
the absence of a plan for the student’s return to school
no assured provision of alternative education program while the student is excluded
no consistent and fair process to appeal the refusal to admit

There are many stories from parents/caregivers about formal and informal arrangements for a student with disabilities to attend for less than the full school day or school week without the parents’/caregivers’ voluntary consent. The school board places the student on a “modified school day.” There are no consistent practices for when or how this can occur, the documentation to be kept, or plans for return to full time school.

Concerns have been raised that in some situations, a student with disabilities is excluded from school directly or indirectly because the school has not effectively accommodated that student, as is required by the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights.

A survey of Ontario school boards showed that a majority of boards have no policy on how and when a principal may refuse to admit a student. Of the 33 boards for which a policy was obtained, these policies vary substantially. A student, excluded from school, and their parents/caregivers are treated very differently from one board to the next. Students and parents/caregivers across Ontario deserve the same safeguards. Principals are placed in a difficult position, not knowing what they can and should do.

These recommendations seek to reduce or eliminate the number and duration of exclusion of students with disabilities. References to “refusal to admit” includes formal and informal exclusions, and exclusions from school for all or part of the school day. These measures should be set out in the K-12 Education Accessibility Standards.

Our recommendations regarding Refusal to Admit are:

The K-12 Education Accessibility Standards should require the following of any school board and of the Ministry of Education where it operates schools:

69.1 exclusions/refusals to admit should only be imposed in rare cases when it is demonstrably necessary to protect the health and safety of students or others at school, and only after all relevant accommodations for the student up to the point of undue hardship have been explored or attempted.

69.2 refusal to admit of a student shall not last more than five consecutive school days, unless formally extended following the due process requirements required for an initial refusal to admit.

69.3 refusal to admit a student to school cannot be used, in whole or in part, for purposes of discipline of a student, or as a form of discipline of that student. A student shall not be subjected to a refusal to admit to school for purposes of facilitating a police investigation.

69.4 when considering whether to refuse to admit a student to school, the principal and school board should take into account the fact that excluding a student from school is contrary to the student’s right to an education. The principal and school board should also proceed from the starting point that the rights of students with disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code, including their right to accommodation of their disability-related needs up to the point of undue hardship, take primacy over all other Ontario laws and policies.

69.5 the principal must make a family aware of the possibility of exclusion as early as that option realistically presents itself as being under consideration. The school board shall have a mandatory meeting with the family before a refusal to admit is imposed, or if crisis circumstances arise without any warning, as soon after the refusal to admit as possible (a pre-exclusion meeting). The meeting should advise the student and/or family of the school’s intention to exclude the child, the reasons for the exclusion and underlying events, the process for the family to contest the exclusion, the demonstrated outcomes for which the school board shall be looking, and an explanation that a subsequent meeting day will be set within a reasonable timeframe where the principal and parent/caregiver(s) will review progress and discuss a re-entry plan for the student.

69.6 parents and caregivers who themselves have a disability shall be notified that they have a right to have their disability-related needs accommodated where needed to take part in any meetings, appeals or other procedures regarding an actual or contemplated refusal to admit. For example, they should be notified that they have a right to receive any information or documents to be used in any such meeting or process in an accessible format.

69.7 any student excluded from attending school shall be provided an equivalent and sufficient educational program while away from school. a written plan for the student’s education should be required, prepared immediately, and shared with the family.

69.8 a mandatory fair procedure should be established that the school board must follow when refusing to admit a student. These procedures should ensure accountability of the school board and its employees, including:

a student and their families should have all the procedural protections that are required when a school board is going to impose discipline such as a suspension or expulsion.
the prior review and written approval of the superintendent should be required before a refusal to admit is imposed. If it is an emergency, then the superintendent should be required to review and approve this decision as quickly afterwards as possible, or else the refusal to admit should be terminated.
superintendent should independently assess whether the school board has sufficient grounds to refuse to admit the student and has met all the requirements of the school board’s refusal to admit policy (including ensuring alternative education programming is in place for the student).
the principal should be required to immediately notify the student and his or her family in writing, co-signed by the superintendent, of the refusal to admit, the reasons for it, and the duration. The letter should be in plain language, translated if necessary, and include:
1. what a refusal to admit is and the duration
2. the permissible reasons

the school board’s process for reviewing that decision, and

the student/family’s right to appeal (including how to use that right of appeal)
steps that the school board has taken or will be taking to provide an alternative education and to expedite a student’s return to school
the expected timeline for the completion of these steps

a refusal to admit a student to school should not be extended for an accumulated total of more than 15 days (within a surrounding 30-day period) without the independent review and written approval of the director of the, school board or their designate.
an extension of refusal to admit must first consider excluding the student from a single class, and then the option of excluding the student from that entire school, and only as a last resort, excluding the student from all schools at that school board.
the refusal to admit shall be documented, and the record shall include information on:
1. the reason for the refusal to admit
2. the duration of the refusal to admit and any extensions

the plan to provide an educational program to the student for the duration of the refusal to admit

the plan for the student to return to full time school attendance

while the student is excluded, the school board should undertake ongoing efforts to facilitate the student’s return to school as quickly as possible. The return to school plan shall include meetings with the family and student to plan for the return and review the additional supports that may be needed.

69.9 to ensure that appeals to the school board under section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act from a refusal to admit a student to school are prompt and fair, the following should be required:

a student excluded from school or their parent/caregiver should be permitted to launch an appeal from a refusal to admit at any time that the refusal to admit continues. no time limit for filing an appeal should be imposed.
no school board shall set an arbitrary length of time that an appeal hearing can take. The appeal hearing should take as long as needed for a fair hearing. The excluded student or their family should not have an arbitrary prior time limit imposed on their oral presentation of their appeal. They should be allowed the time they need to present their appeal. They shall be permitted to present relevant evidence to support their appeal if they wish.
at an appeal, the school staff should present their reasons first on why the exclusion is justified and should continue. The student or their family shall then be given a chance to present their case on why the student should not have been excluded and why they should be allowed to return to school.
an appeal should be held quickly to minimize the time the student is away from school. The board of trustees shall hear and/or determine the appeal within fifteen business days of receiving the notice of intention to appeal (unless the parties agree to an extension).
once an appeal is launched, the school board shall prepare for the student, their parents/caregivers, and the trustees, a report on the reasons for the refusal to admit, the factual background, and the efforts to return the student to school since the exclusion began. The board staff shall arrange a meeting (pre-appeal meeting) with the student and their family to try to resolve the case or narrow the issues, explain the process, disclose any information the student and their family need, and canvass and address any other matter that might help ensure a smooth and timely appeal.
the appeal should be heard in closed session by the entire board of trustees, not a subcommittee (unless the board can show it has legal authority to delegate this decision to a subcommittee). Any trustee that votes on a decision in an appeal must have been present for the entire argument of the appeal.
a board of trustees, hearing an appeal from a refusal to admit, should consider whether the school board has justified the student’s initial exclusion from school and its continuation. The burden should be on the school board to justify the exclusion from school.
If the student is not successful on the appeal, they should have a further avenue to appeal to court, with mediation available, or to an expert tribunal established and designated to hear such cases.

69.10 the school board shall create an emergency process and fund for accelerating education disability accommodations needed to facilitate a student’s remaining at or promptly returning to school, in connection with an actual or contemplated refusal to admit.

69.11 information and data on refusals to admit shall be collected and aggregated data reported publicly by school boards and by the Ministry of Education.

69.12 the Ministry of Education should develop a central repository/mechanism for sharing effective practices of alternatives to exclusion/refusal to admits and modified days in order to support school board efforts to reduce the number and duration of refusal to admits and modified days.

Timeline: one year for boards; six months for the Ministry of Education

Watch AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on TVO’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” Any Time on YouTube – and – Ford Government Rams Bill 17, Its Controversial Housing Bill, Through the Legislature Without Amending It to Prevent Harm to Ontarians with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Watch AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on TVO’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” Any Time on YouTube – and – Ford Government Rams Bill 17, Its Controversial Housing Bill, Through the Legislature Without Amending It to Prevent Harm to Ontarians with Disabilities

June 4, 2025

SUMMARY

On YouTube, Watch “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” Addressing Disability Issues

At any time, you can watch AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s final interview on TVO’s flagship public affairs program “The Agenda with Steve Paikin.” The YouTube link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WtocN99aI8 It runs for about 21 minutes.

Steve Paikin has announced that he is leaving the show at the end of June after 19 years. We are very sad about this news and wish him the best in his next endeavours. At the end of this interview, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky presents him with a very fitting thank you!

This is the 23^rd time in 26 years that TVO programs associated with Steve Paikin have included interviews on our accessibility advocacy. Check out the brand new AODA Alliance video series that includes all of these interviews in chronological order.

2. Premier Ford Rams His Controversial Housing Legislation Through the Legislature, Preventing Us From Having a Chance to Ask for Amendments

Yesterday, the Ford Government rammed Bill 17, the controversial housing bill, through the Ontario legislature. Below you can read the paragraphs of the NDP disability critic Lise Vaugeois’s speech on Third Reading, where she raised our concerns. The NDP and Liberals were granted only 9 minutes each to speak to the bill, far less than is normally available for debates. There were no public hearings, despite our asking for a chance to appear and speak to the bill.

The bill guts the power of municipalities to enact bylaws regarding the construction of buildings. That includes bylaws on accessibility for people with disabilities. This is very harmful for people with disabilities.

How You Can Help

Send the link to yesterday’s interview on The Agenda with Steve Paikin to as many people as possible. Post it on social media. It helps us alert the public to some of our leading current accessibility issues. Again, that link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WtocN99aI8

A total of 154 days have passed since Ontario failed to meet the January 1, 2025 deadline for becoming accessible to people with disabilities set by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We’re still waiting to see the Ford Government’s plan of action.

MORE DETAILS

Ontario Hansard June 3, 2025 Third Reading Debates On Bill 17

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Here we are again, using time allocation to eliminate public hearings on a government bill because what, we are running out of time? I think the public would be shocked to know that the Conservatives limited legislative time to seven weeks between last summer and the election in February, then called for another six-and-a-half-week break and limited this current session to a mere six weeks, with bill after bill pushed through with public feedback completely eliminated—supposedly because there’s no time left for full public debate.

Bill 17 is a case in point. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance told the Minister of Housing in a letter last Wednesday that Bill 17 is harmful to Ontarians with disabilities, people who are plagued by Ontario’s desperate shortage of housing that is both affordable and accessible.

David Lepofsky, chair of the non-partisan grassroots AODA Alliance, a group that campaigns to tear down disability barriers in society, states very clearly: “Bill 17 makes things worse, not better, for us. It’s a crushing irony that the Ford government voted to skip public consultation during current National Accessibility Week.”

The AODA Alliance asked for an urgent meeting with the Minister of Housing to address how the bills harms people with disabilities and to propose an amendment during the expected public hearings. Unfortunately, no one responded to their letter, so let me be clear: This bill threatens the constitutional rights of Ontarians with disabilities.

Now, nobody should be surprised. This is coming from a government that has ignored the recommendations of its own hand-picked adviser commissioned to review the disabilities act, a government that failed to meet the Legislature’s 2025 deadline to make Ontario fully accessible to people with disabilities and a government that has stolen billions of dollars from workers who became disabled as the result of being injured or made ill on the job.

As the bill stands, it reduces the power of municipalities to set accessibility requirements for building construction, including housing, and overrules any municipal bylaw that has higher accessibility standards than the weak and inadequate Ontario building code. Instead of reducing municipal power to fill the huge gap that the province has left, as they do in this bill, the government needs to strengthen the Ontario building code’s accessibility provisions and spearhead the creation of substantially more homes and apartments that are accessible.

A simple amendment could make a very big difference. For example, notwithstanding section 4 of schedule 1, nothing in this statute reduces or limits the power of any municipality to have bylaws that promote the accessibility of buildings to people with disabilities. In other words, where a higher standard exists, that should be allowed to be there.

People with disabilities are not red tape. They matter. We matter. I believe that had public consultations been available, members of all parties might well have supported the amendment asked for by the AODA Alliance. We are foolish indeed if we think that it won’t ever be one of us who is faced with the daunting task of finding an affordable, accessible place to live. Every one of us is only one step away from being disabled. This matters. The government needs to do better.

New Video Series: TVO Interviews on 26 Years of the Battle to Get Strong Ontario Disability Legislation Enacted and Implemented – “The Paikin Interviews”

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Link to video: https://youtu.be/FMC0q5a6yv8

New Video Series: TVO Interviews on 26 Years of the Battle to Get Strong Ontario Disability Legislation Enacted and Implemented – “The Paikin Interviews”

June 3, 2025

SUMMARY

Would you like to learn about the grassroots non-partisan battle in Ontario to make this province fully accessible to millions of people with disabilities? For 26 years, a series of interviews on TVO have gradually told this story, one step at a time.

We have now compiled all these interviews in a video series, which we call “The Paikin Interviews!” All appeared on TVO, and in most, the interviewer was legendary journalist Steve Paikin. In a few cases, it was one of his colleagues. In most, but not all of these, it was David Lepofsky being interviewed. He is now Chair of the AODA Alliance and previously was the Co-Chair and then Chair of the predecessor coalition, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee.

Steve Paikin has recently announced that at the end of June, he is stepping down from his 19 year long stint with Ontario’s flagship public affairs program “The Agenda with Steve Paikin.” However, he says he is not retiring from journalism.

Over time, we have noted that disability issues don’t get the amount of media coverage they deserve. There are a number of journalists who buck that trend and have provided excellent coverage of this issue. This seems in some media contexts to be growing, which is a great thing.

Over the past 26 years, however, Steve Paikin has stood out as a leading journalist ready to give important airtime to our issues, all within the spirit of highly professional and even-handed journalism. We are and will always remain indebted to him and the public affairs programs on which he has appeared for this.

These videos are all public. They can be used by the media, by school and post-secondary course instructors and teachers, and by anyone else interested in these issues. We hope that this video series will interest anyone concerned with health care policy and practice, disability rights, human rights, social justice and activism, community organizing, public law, constitutional law, anti-discrimination law and policy, history, or political science. We welcome your feedback on these videos. Send your feedback to aodafeedback@gmail.com.

This update first gives a short listing of the videos in this series. After that, each video is described, with helpful links to additional information and background relative to each video.

How You Can Help

Please tell others about and widely post this video series. Check out the many other videos that the AODA Alliance has posted:
Visit the AODA Alliance website videos page.

Plow through the important video series on health care barriers facing patients with disabilities in our health care system, and how to fix them.
Flip through the equal education video series that the AODA Alliance earlier posted which addresses the grassroots campaign to make Ontario’s education system become barrier-free for students with disabilities.
Wander through the AODA Alliance’s disability advocacy history video series that documents the history of Ontario’s grassroots non-partisan campaign for the enactment and effective implementation of strong accessibility legislation for people with disabilities.
Sign up to follow the AODA Alliance YouTube channel, to get instant alerts every time we post another new video.

Quick Guide

June 15, 1999 Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee Chair David Lepofsky interview on TVO Studio 2

Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee February 20, 2000 Interview on TVO Fourth Reading with Steve Paikin

November 5 2001 Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee Chair David Lepofsky on TVO Studio 2 with Steve Paikin

October 2 2003 David Lepofsky on TVO Election Night Coverage of Ontario Election Results

TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin, January 28 2008

Agenda with Steve Paikin” May 29, 2010

Accessibility in Ontario – David Lepofsky Interview on TVOntario’s the Agenda with Steve Paikin September 22, 2011

Creating a Barrier-free Ontario – David Lepofsky’s January 16, 2013 Interview on TVOntario’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin”

The Agenda with Steve Paikin” June 11, 2014 Interview with David Lepofsky

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky Interviewed on TVOntario’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” February 2, 2015

Special Education Update – David Lepofsky’s Interview on TVOntario’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” March 3, 2016

A Champion for Disability Rights– Lainey Feingold on TVOntario’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” February 13, 2017

The Agenda with Steve Paikin Making Progress on Disability Issues

November 28, 2019 The Agenda with Steve Paikin – Fighting for a Barrier-Free Ontario

May 8, 2020 The Agenda with Steve Paikin – Demanding Disability Rights Amid COVID-19

December 8, 2020 The Agenda with Steve Paikin – “A Disaster”: Online Learning in Ontario for Students with Disabilities

January 13, 2021 TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin: Deciding Who Lives: Is Ontario’s Crisis Triage Discriminatory?

February 3, 2022 TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin: Does Ontario’s COVID Plan Ignore Disabled People?

May 11, 2022 TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin: The Most Important Election for People with Disabilities?

March 28, 2023 Interview on TVO’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” — Is Ontario Doing Enough for Students with Disabilities?

September 16, 2024 Interview with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on “The Agenda With Steve Paikin” on His Memoir About the Battle in 1980 to Get Disability Equality Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

February 25, 2025 David Lepofsky on the “Agenda with Steve Paikin” Discusses the Disability Issues in the 2025 Ontario Election

June 3, 2025 David Lepofsky’s Final Interview on “The Agenda with Steve Paikin”

Detailed Guide

Video 1) Title: June 15, 1999 Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee Chair David Lepofsky interview on TVO Studio 2

Description: TVO’s flagship current affairs program in the 1990s, “Studio 2” was the precursor to the “The Agenda with Steve Paikin.” In this June 15, 1999 interview on Studio 2, Steve Paikin’s cohost Paula Todd interviewed David Lepofsky, Chair of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee (precursor to the AODA Alliance) on the disability issues in the 1999 Ontario general election.

Related resources:

The Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee’s legacy website documents the battle from 1994 to 2005 to get the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act enacted. The work from 2005 to the present of its successor coalition, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, is documented on the AODA Alliance website.

Video 2) Title: Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee on February 20, 2000 Interview on TVO Fourth Reading with Steve Paikin

Link to video: https://youtu.be/KzZ7X7LV77o

Description: On February 20, 2000, TVO’s provincial public affairs show Fourth Reading included this interview with Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee

Chair David Lepofsky, with host Steve Paikin.

Related resources:

The Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee’s legacy website documents the battle from 1994 to 2005 to get the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act enacted. The work from 2005 to the present of its successor coalition, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, is documented on the AODA Alliance website.

Video 3) Title: November 5 2001 Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee Chair David Lepofsky on TVO Studio 2 with Steve Paikin

Link to video: https://youtu.be/0UcZj-mWgzg

Description: This is the November 5, 2001 interview of Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee Chair David Lepofsky on TVO’s Studio 2 program. The interview is introduced

by co-host Paula Todd, followed by co-host Steve Paikin. This interviewed occurred on the day when the Conservative Ontario Government of Premier Mike Harris introduced Bill 125 into the Ontario legislature, the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act, for First Reading, a bill that was widely criticized as too weak:

Related resources:

The Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee’s legacy website documents the battle from 1994 to 2005 to get the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act enacted. The work from 2005 to the present of its successor coalition, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, is documented on the AODA Alliance website.
The ODA Committee’s preliminary analysis of Bill 125, the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001, which was introduced into the Ontario Legislature for First Reading on the day of this interview.

Video 4) Title: October 2 2003 David Lepofsky on TVO Election Night Coverage of Ontario Election Results

Link to video: https://youtu.be/kaMYd_LqsQs

Description: This is an excerpt of the 2003 Ontario election night coverage on TVO, hosted by Steeve Paikin and Paula Todd, which aired live on October 2, 2003. In this excerpt, Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee Chair David Lepofsky is interviewed on the election results from the perspective of people with disabilities.

Related resources:

The Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee’s legacy website documents the battle from 1994 to 2005 to get the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act enacted. The work from 2005 to the present of its successor coalition, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, is documented on the AODA Alliance website.
The ODA Committee’s October 2, 2003 Update reflected on the election results that day.

Video 5) Title: TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin, January 28 2008

Link to video: https://youtu.be/zwWNswisUl4

Description: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky is a guest on The Agenda’s segment on Living With Disabilities, “Next Stop, Progress”.

Related resources:

For the issues the AODA Alliance was tackling at the time of this issue, go to the AODA Alliance website’s What’s new page and scroll down to the 2008 posts.

Video 6) Title: Agenda with Steve Paikin” May 29, 2010

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocRbsLQC_y4

Description: In this interview on TVOntario’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin, David Lepofsky talks about the accessibility barriers that impede voters with disabilities, and the steps needed to remove and prevent them.

Related Resources

The AODA Alliance’s multi-year campaign to remove the voting barriers impeding voters with disabilities in Ontario, available at this link.
The March 17, 2010 AODA Alliance brief to the Ontario Legislature which recommended amendments to strengthen Bill 231, a 2010 law aimed at modernizing Ontario elections., available at this link.
The June 26, 2013 AODA Alliance analysis and critique of Elections Ontario’s report on telephone and internet voting, for which the AODA Alliance continues to advocate, available at this link.

Video 7) Title: Accessibility in Ontario – David Lepofsky Interview on TVOntario’s the Agenda with Steve Paikin September 22, 2011

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB3yTuq1ErE

Description: In this interview, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky discusses the disability accessibility issues that are in play during the October 2011 Ontario general election.

Related resources

The summary of the September 2, 2011 AODA Alliance Queen’s Park news conference on the disability issues in the Ontario 2011 general election and the positions of the political parties on these issues, available at this link.
The AODA Alliance’s comparison of the major parties’ positions and promises on the 2011 Ontario election’s disability accessibility issues, available at this link.
The September 23, 2011 Toronto Star article on the disability accessibility issues in the 2011 Ontario general election, available at this link.

Video 8) Title: Creating a Barrier-free Ontario – David Lepofsky’s January 16, 2013 Interview on TVOntario’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin”

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHWxUCzhTsU

Description: In this January 16, 2013 TVOntario interview, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky gives an update on progress towards a fully accessible province. He also addresses the disability issues as they relate to the then-ongoing leadership race in the Ontario Liberal Party, to choose the replacement for outgoing Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. The AODA Alliance had solicited commitments on accessibility from each of the candidates for Liberal leadership.

Related Resources

The commitments on accessibility which the AODA Alliance sought from the candidates for leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party, available at this link.
The accessibility commitments which Kathleen Wynne made on accessibility in her December 3, 2012 letter to the AODA Alliance, available at this link. Kathleen Wynne was to go on to win the leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party and to become Ontario’s premier.

Video 9) Title: The Agenda with Steve Paikin” June 11, 2014 Interview with David Lepofsky

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLlYIhS6f_E&t=29s

Description: In this interview on TVOntario, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky discusses the disability accessibility issues in the 2014 Ontario general election.

Related resources

The AODA Alliance’s May 16, 2014 virtual news conference on the 2014 Ontario election’s disability accessibility issues, and related background information, earlier in this video series (all information available at this link).

Video 10) Title: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky Interviewed on TVOntario’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” February 2, 2015

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JRhfg4U9Us

Description: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and the Ontario Government’s Special Advisor on Accessibility David Onley (formerly Ontario Lieutenant Governor) give an update on progress and challenges on the road to a fully accessible Ontario for people with disabilities. This interview came on the eve of the Ontario Government’s public release of the 2014 final report of the Mayo Moran Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation and enforcement.

Related resources

The June 30, 2014 AODA Alliance brief to the Mayo Moran Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation and enforcement, available at this link.
To download the Final Report of the Mayo Moran Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation and enforcement, which the Ontario Government made public on February 13, 2015, visit this link.
The February 13, 2015 AODA Alliance news release responding to the Government’s release of the final report of the Mayo Moran AODA Independent Review ‘s final report, available at this link.
The AODA Alliance’s analysis of the final report of the Mayo Moran AODA Independent Review, including analysis of the findings and recommendations the AODA Alliance supports (link here), and the AODA Alliance ‘s analysis of the findings and recommendations the AODA Alliance does not support (link here).

Video 11) Title: Special Education Update – David Lepofsky’s Interview on TVOntario’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” March 3, 2016

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p00EN6Z7GOM

Description: In this interview on TVOntario, David Lepofsky addresses the need to substantially reform the way education is provided in Ontario to students with special education needs and to all students with disabilities. He draws on his role as AODA Alliance chair, and as chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee of Canada’s largest school board, the Toronto District School Board.

Related resources

The AODA Alliance’s long campaign to get the Ontario Government to enact an Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA, available at this link.
The work and recommendations for reform of the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Toronto District School Board, available at this link.
Later in this video series, David Lepofsky’s November 29, 2016 lecture on why Ontario needs to enact an Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA (link here), and his January 30, 2017 lecture on why all teachers should be trained to teach all students, including students with disabilities (link here). See also the background documents listed under those two videos.

Video 12) Title: A Champion for Disability Rights– Lainey Feingold on TVOntario’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” February 13, 2017

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WOsT1Ppf44

Related resources

Lainey Feingold’s February 10, 2017 lecture to the first year class at the Osgoode Hall Law School, included in this video series (and available at this link, and the documents and resources listed there for more information.

Video 13) Title: The Agenda with Steve Paikin Making Progress on Disability Issues

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFp5Ni1x4lQ&list=UUu_u-P3cBFO7D-sAjxd_I-w&index=42

Description: During the 2018 Ontario general election, TVO’s flagship public affairs program “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” discussed the disability accessibility issues being raised at the grassroots during the campaign, and the major parties’ platforms on this issue. Steve Paikin interviewed Osgoode Hall Law School visiting professor and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, and YVONNE FELIX.

Related resources:

Video 14) Title: November 28, 2019 The Agenda with Steve Paikin – Fighting for a Barrier-Free Ontario

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8MDvJ3cGUE

Description: On November 28, 2019, the eve of the 25th anniversary of the birth of Ontario’s non-partisan grassroots movement campaigning for accessibility legislation Ontario’s flagship public affairs TV program, TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin, interviewed Osgoode Hall Law School visiting professor and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and Thea Kurdi, an accessibility consultant specializing in making the built environment accessible to people with disabilities (with DesignAble Environments). This interview focused in large part on disability barriers in the built environment.

Related resources:

Video 15) Title: May 8, 2020 The Agenda with Steve Paikin – Demanding Disability Rights Amid COVID-19

Link to video: https://youtu.be/KmMlTrNbud8

Description: In 2020, Ontario’s flagship public affairs TV program, TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin, twice included panels on COVID-19’s impact on people with disabilities that included Osgoode Hall Law School visiting professor and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky as a panelist. In this, the first of these two episodes that aired on May 8, 2020, Steve Paikin interviewed both David Lepofsky and Wendy Porch, the executive director of CILT, the Centre for Independent Living in Toronto. The panel addressed the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on people with disabilities, and the heightened barriers they face during the pandemic, especially in access to health care and education. This interview took place less than two months into the pandemic. The issues it raised persisted for months afterwards.

Related resources:

Video 16) Title: December 8, 2020 The Agenda with Steve Paikin – “A Disaster”: Online Learning in Ontario for Students with Disabilities

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO0MDM54gnA&feature=youtu.be

Description: In this December 8, 2020 interview with Osgoode Hall Law School visiting professor and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, Ontario’s flagship public affairs program, The Agenda with Steve Paikin, presented a panel on the hardships facing students with disabilities in Ontario schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, both those engaged in distance learning and those attending re-opened schools. On the panel in addition to David Lepofsky were Laura Kirby-McIntosh (parent of two children with autism, a high school teacher, and president of the Ontario Autism Coalition) and Paula Boutis (parent of a child with disabilities, member of her community school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee, and president of Integration Action Now. This panel presented a very different picture from the perspective of students with disabilities than the rosy picture of distance learning in Ontario that had earlier been presented by a different panel in the November 13, 2020 edition of The Agenda with Steve Paikin, available at https://www.tvo.org/transcript/2627590/online-learning-during-covid-19.

Related resources:

Video 17) Title: January 13, 2021 TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin: Deciding Who Lives: Is Ontario’s Crisis Triage Discriminatory?

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkq1NmaXLwk

Description: In the January 13, 2021 edition of TVO’s flagship public affairs program The Agenda with Steve Paikin, a debate was held on the impact of Ontario’s critical care triage protocol during the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with disabilities. That protocol was circulated to Ontario hospitals to direct which patients should be refused needed life-saving critical care if pandemic hospital overloads meant that hospitals could not serve all patients and would have to ration critical care services. Disability advocates contended that this critical care triage protocol discriminates against a number of vulnerable patients with disabilities. Debating were AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and ARCH Disability Law Centre lawyer Mariam Shanouda on one side, and Physician Dr. James Downar (an author of the critical care triage protocol) and philosophy/bioethics progressor Udo Schüklenk.

Related resources

The AODA Alliance’s February 25, 2021 report: “A Deeply Troubling Issue of Life and Death An Independent Report on Ontario’s Seriously-Flawed Plans for Rationing or “Triage” of Critical Medical Care If COVID-19 Overwhelms Ontario Hospitals”
The AODA Alliance website’s critical care triage page.
David Lepofsky’ s May 3, 2021 Osgoode Hall Law School lecture on disability discrimination issues in Ontario’s critical care triage protocol.

Video 18) Title: February 3, 2022 TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin: Does Ontario’s COVID Plan Ignore Disabled People?

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJcpIGlPd84

Description: On February 3, 2022, after two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, TVO’s flagship Ontario public affairs program The Agenda with Steve Paikin interviews Osgoode Hall Law School Visiting Professor of Disability Rights and Legal Education and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky about the impact of the pandemic on people with disabilities, and the Ontario Government’s ongoing failure to protect the urgent needs of people with disabilities during the pandemic.

Related resources

The AODA Alliance website’s COVID-19 page.
David Lepofsky’ s November 17, 2020 Osgoode Hall Law School lecture: “Advocating to Address Added Hardships COVID-19 Imposes on People with Disabilities”

Video 19) Title: May 11, 2022 TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin: The Most Important Election for People with Disabilities?

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBAKVZG9gOY

Description: On May 11, 2022 David Lepofsky, chair of the AODA Alliance, discusses why he thinks this is the most important election in two decades for people with disabilities in the province and what commitments the parties need to make to get Ontario closer to its goal of being accessible by 2025.

Related resources

The AODA Alliance website’s 2022 Ontario election page, which sets out its efforts to raise disability issues in the 2022 Ontario provincial election.
The AODA Alliance’s November 22, 2021 letter to the Ontario party leaders, setting out the commitments on accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities that the parties were being asked to make.
The AODA Alliance’s May 3, 2022 news release that unveils the commitments of the Ontario political parties in the 2022 Ontario provincial election on making Ontario accessible for Ontarians with disabilities.
The May 18, 2022 Ontario all-candidates debate on disability issues in the 2022 Ontario provincial election.

Video 20) Title: March 28, 2023 Interview on TVO’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” — Is Ontario Doing Enough for Students with Disabilities?

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0ikc7C31kY

Description: How well is the province doing at ensuring students with disabilities get the kind of education they deserve? On March 28, 2023, TVO’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin interviewed David Lepofsky, the volunteer chair of the AODA Alliance. On the same day that this interview later aired, Ontario’s Education Minister tweeted: “@SFLecce The best educator. That’s what students deserve.” This interview however shows that in an Ontario school system full of disability barriers, that too often is not what students with disabilities now get. This is so due to failed Ontario Government leadership and despite the best intentions and efforts of Ontario’s front-line teachers and other education workers.

Related resources:

In this interview, David Lepofsky referred to the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s final report. It documents the serious barriers impeding students with disabilities in Ontario schools and makes detailed recommendations for reform.
Instead of reading that entire report, learn about its reform roadmap by watching a captioned video by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky that summarizes it.
During the interview, David Lepofsky talked in part about serious barriers impeding students with vision loss. He has extensive first-hand experience with those barriers. Learn more about those by visiting the Ontario Parents of Visually Impaired Children website’s advocacy page.
David Lepofsky told Steve Paikin that the Ontario Parents of Visually Impaired Children has twice written Ontario Education Minister Stephen Lecce, asking him to direct his Ministry to take action on the unfair barriers facing students with vision loss. The Minister has not answered either letter. This is just one illustration of the many barriers facing students with disabilities. You can read OPVIC’s April 6, 2021 letter to Education Minister Stephen Lecce, and OPVIC’s January 29, 2023 letter to Stephen Lecce.

Video 21) Title: September 16, 2024 Interview with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on “The Agenda With Steve Paikin” on His Memoir About the Battle in 1980 to Get Disability Equality Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rELGQu2ulSI

Description: On September 16, 2024, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky was interviewed on TVO’s public affairs program “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” about his new published memoir about the battle in 1980 to get equality for people with disabilities enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The memoir, which is available for free download on the web, is entitled “Swimming Up Niagara Falls – The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Related resources:

Free Download “Swimming Up Niagara Falls- The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” on the AODA Alliance website’s publication page in MS Word, Epub, or pdf format or as a free open source audio book. It is also available for purchase As a hard copy print book from Amazon and as an e-book from Kindle.
Purchase “Swimming Up Niagara Falls The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky as a paperback or e-book on Amazon
Video: A Personal Perspective on the 1980-82 Advocacy to Amend the Canadian Charter of Rights to Protect Disability Equality
Video: December 12, 1980: David Lepofsky at Parliamentary Committee on Constitution of Canada at this link.
Video: (Audio only) David Lepofsky November 26, 1981 Interview on CBC Radio This Country in the Morning re Disability Amendment to Charter of Rights

Transcript of the three disability organizations’ presentations in the 1980 fall to the Joint Committee calling for the Charter disability amendment.
David Lepofsky January 29, 1981 Interview on CBC Radio This Country in the Morning re Disability Amendment to Charter of Rights
Introduction to the Duty to Accommodate People with Disabilities

Video 22) Title: February 25, 2025 David Lepofsky on the “Agenda with Steve Paikin” Discusses the Disability Issues in the 2025 Ontario Election

Link to video: https://youtu.be/SQB4dGdxGXk?si=8YHFAhP9PyOoFbq7

Description: On February 25, 2025, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky appeared on “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” to discuss the disability issues in the 2025 Ontario election that was then underway. Because Steve Paikin was sick, he was interviewed by guest host Jeyan Jeganathan.

Related resources:

The Accessible Ontario Pledge that the AODA Alliance asked all Ontario political parties to make during the 2025 Ontario general election.
The AODA Alliance’s Ontario elections advocacy page, which details the efforts to raise disability issues in the 2025 Ontario general election.

Video 23) Title: June 3, 2025 David Lepofsky’s Final Interview on “The Agenda with Steve Paikin”

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WtocN99aI8

Description: On June 3, 2025, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky had his final interview on “The Agenda with Steve Paikin.” Steve Paikin announced a few eeks earlier that he would be leaving the program at the end of June 2025. The interview addressed current issues in the battle for accessibility for people with disabilities, especially in the area of education for students with disabilities.

Related resources:

For the latest efforts by the AODA Alliance to raise disability issues, visit the AODA Alliance website’s What’s new page and scroll to the 2025 Updates.

Tomorrow Night at 8 or 11 PM EDT, Watch AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on TVO’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” for the Latest News about the Grassroots Non-Partisan Campaign for Accessibility

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Tomorrow Night at 8 or 11 PM EDT, Watch AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on TVO’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” for the Latest News about the Grassroots Non-Partisan Campaign for Accessibility

June 2025

Tomorrow night at 8 and 11 pm EDT, TVO’s influential flagship affairs program “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” will include a 20-minute interview with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. It is also expected to stream live on the X (previously Twitter) feed and Facebook page of “The Agenda with Steve Paikin.” In addition, it will be permanently available on the program’s YouTube channel.

In this interview, viewers can catch up on the latest developments in the non-partisan grassroots battle for accessibility for people with disabilities in Ontario. This will be the 23^rd time that TVO programs in which Steve Paikin is involved have included interviews on our campaign. To mark this, by around 8 pm or so tomorrow night, we will post online on the AODA Alliance website’s videos page a compilation of all 23 interviews, to be called “The Paikin Interviews.” Stay tuned!

This interview was recorded before the AODA Alliance raised its serious concerns last week that the Ford Government is drastically shortening debates in the Legislature over Bill 17, its housing bill that is harmful for people with disabilities. We have now raised strong objections that this bill eliminates the power of Ontario’s municipalities to pass bylaws regarding the construction of buildings. This would include local bylaws on building accessibility to people with disabilities.

The last thing Ontario now needs is more inaccessible housing. We have a crisis-level shortage of accessible housing! We asked the Ford Government to let us present our concerns at public hearings at the Legislature regarding Bill 17. Yet the Ford Government is trying to make sure there are no public hearings at all on that bill. Check out the the May 29, 2025 and May 30, 2025 AODA Alliance news releases for more on this issue.

Sadly, Steve Paikin has announced that after 19 years of hosting “The Agenda with Steve Paikin,” he will be concluding his role on the show. He is not retiring from journalism. We eagerly await his next adventures in journalism

Over the past 26 years, Steve Paikin has led the way within the journalism community in giving the extensive, fair, and objective media coverage of disability issues that they deserve, such as the need to make our society fully accessible. We again thank him for this leadership among journalists and urge other news organizations to do what they can to follow his lead.

How You Can Help

Encourage as many people as possible to watch this interview.
Urge other news organizations to give disability issues the kind of coverage that Steve Paikin has so admirably done.

A total of 152 days have passed since Ontario failed to meet the January 1, 2025 deadline for becoming accessible to people with disabilities set by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We’re eager to see the Ford Government’s plan of action.

Kitchener Senior with Disabilities Faces Nightmare Keeping Her Accessible Parking Spot, Illustrating Accessible Housing Crisis

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Kitchener Senior with Disabilities Faces Nightmare Keeping Her Accessible Parking Spot, Illustrating Accessible Housing Crisis

May 31, 2025

SUMMARY

While Premier Ford plans to prevent any public hearings on Bill 17, the Government’s controversial housing construction bill, the cruel reality facing too many Ontarians with disabilities in terms of accessible housing was highlighted by an upsetting May 30, 2025 CBC News report. Read that article below.

An 87-year-old Kitchener tenant with disabilities relies on parking in her building. However, the landlord reportedly is requiring tenants to park elsewhere during renovations. No accessible parking has been provided to this tenant sufficiently close to the building where she lives.

This is yet more proof that Ontario desperately needs the Government to enact a Residential Housing Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It also needs to adopt and implement a strong and comprehensive strategy to substantially increase the supply of affordable and accessible housing in Ontario. Ontario has a festering and growing crisis-level shortage of accessible housing.

As the May 29, 2025 and May 30, 2025 AODA Alliance news releases show, Premier Ford’s housing bill, Bill 17, does nothing to increase the supply of affordable and accessible housing. To the contrary, it strips from municipalities any power to enact bylaws regarding the construction of buildings, including bylaws on disability accessibility. In other words, a municipality that wants to pass bylaws regarding construction to prevent the very barrier in this new CBC News report could find that Bill 17 has taken away its power to do so.

We have called on the Ford Government to amend that bill to exempt municipal bylaws on disability accessibility. Ford’s Housing Minister has not answered our request. Instead of fixing this bill, the Ford Government plans to ram it through the Legislature with no hearings, no clause-by-clause debate, a paltry 30 minutes for Third Reading debates, and no real chance for people with disabilities and others to be heard. Each opposition party gets a pathetic nine minutes to speak to Bill 17 in its entirety on Third Reading, according to the Ford Government’s plan to rush it through the Legislature.

How You Can Help

Write Premier Ford at premier@ontario.ca and Housing Minister Rob Flack at mah@ontario.ca. Also write your member of the Ontario Legislature. Tell them to hold public hearings on Bill 17 so people with disabilities and others can have a voice.

Press your local press to cover this issue.

MORE DETAILS

CBC News May 30, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-senior-with-mobility-issues-faces-months-without-accessible-parking-1.7546191

Kitchener senior with mobility issues faces months without accessible parking

Renate Euteneier is facing the threat of losing her parking spot, and with it, her independence.

Euteneier, who turns 87 this fall, requires an accessible parking permit. While the parking garage in her Kitchener apartment building undergoes renovations, she’s been told she has to park elsewhere.

“I’m having nightmares,” she told CBC News.

Euteneier said she’s worried losing her spot means she’ll be housebound for fear of having to park too far away. But she admits, “I have to get out sometime.”

From accessible to inaccessible overnight

When Euteneier moved into the building nearly 10 years ago, she didn’t have accessibility requirements. Since then, her mobility has deteriorated, but luckily, the parking space included in her lease has always worked for her needs.

However, with renovations slated from June to October, building managers M. Schiketanz Real Estate say she’ll have to use a temporary lot half of a kilometre downhill from her building — a distance Euteneier says she simply can’t manage anymore.

“I’m not walking as fast as I used to,” she said, adding that she now uses a walking stick for mobility.

When she got a notice saying she would be losing her spot for a time, she reached out to management to let them know about her situation, saying she was hopeful they would accommodate her disability.

A patio is blocking accessible parking in Belmont Village. Advocates say that’s not fair

Photo of a construction sign

The parking garage Renate Euteneier uses will be closed from June until October. (Cameron Mahler/CBC)

So when several visitor parking spaces opened up close to the building, she asked if she could use one of them.

Euteneier said their response was “no.”

She said that despite speaking to managers on the phone and attending an in-person meeting, they’ve offered “no solutions.”

In an emailed statement, M. Schiketanz president Mark Machel said Euteneier is not on the company’s “ambulatory list,” which helps determine priority for accessible parking. He acknowledged the situation is challenging, but said the company is “doing our best considering the situation.”

The statement said that visitor spots at the building would be first-come-first-serve. Machel said some spots had been converted to accessible spaces, but they would also be unassigned.

“Providing a reserved space for tenants creates a problem that everyone else wants one too,” he said.

“We do understand tenant needs and are trying to accommodate everyone, but it is difficult.”

A lack of reasonable alternatives

Street parking has also been suggested, but the stretch of road outside Euteneier’s building is shared with two nearby schools, meaning there’s a lot of congestion and limited availability during the day. She said she’s worried there’s no guarantee she’ll be able to park near her home.

She said if management “would give us some room somewhere, some consideration somewhere,” it would help.

And Euteneier’s not alone. She worries about what this means for other residents with mobility issues, too.

“It’s not only us few who have a handicapped sticker, it’s a lot of other old people who don’t have it.”

What does the law say?

In Ontario, landlords are required to accommodate tenants with disabilities under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).

“It’s not just a matter of, ‘shucks, there’s nothing we can do,'” said David Lepofsky, chair of the AODA Alliance.

David Lepofsky, of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, says in Ontario, landlords are required to accommodate tenants with disabilities under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). (Mike Smee/CBC)

“They have to show it would be impossible to do anything more for this individual without undue hardship,” he said.

Lepofsky said that includes a duty for the landlords to investigate reasonable alternatives.

In Euteneier’s case, Lepofsky believes the building managers will have a hard time making the case that it’s impossible to accommodate her.

Her story resonates with others in Waterloo region, too.

CJ Janzen, vice-chair of Cambridge’s Accessibility Advisory Committee, said they went through a similar situation last year when their parking spot was under renovation.

Janzen, who uses a wheelchair, said they had to “fight to have special cones placed in the one spot so that I could park my van and have the ramps come out at curb level.”

“At least I didn’t have to go half a mile.”

A person sits in a wheelchair.

CJ Janzen is vice-chair of Cambridge’s Accessibility Advisory Committee. (Ieva Lucs/CBC)

A broader issue

Advocates say Euteneier’s situation is just one example of a broader issue.

“We have an accessible housing crisis in Canada, not just a shortage — a crisis,” said Lepofsky.

Edward Faruzel, executive director of Kitchener-Waterloo AccessAbility, said the region isn’t exempt from these issues. He said the supply of housing that meets accessibility needs is far too low.

A portrait of a man in a wheelchair.

Edward Faruzel is executive director of KW AccessAbility. (Carmen Groleau/ CBC)

“Especially for somebody that needs wheelchair access,” he said.

Faruzel said the waiting list for accessible housing in Waterloo region “is up to 10 years.”

Euteneier said she feels stuck. She’s unable to rely on accessible parking, but she also can’t afford to leave. In addition, Faruzel said it’s unlikely she’d find a suitable apartment in just five months, anyway.

But that doesn’t mean she isn’t considering it.

“I’ve been too independent,” she said. “So now I’ve learned to not be so independent.”

“Maybe I’ll go into a nursing home for a few months,” she said.

She’s also considering moving into her son’s Georgetown, Ont., home, “just to get out.”

‘Oh my god, I have sleepless nights’

With the countdown on before the parking garage shuts down, Euteneier is running out of options.

“Oh my god, I have sleepless nights,” she said.

She’s hopeful her building managers will reconsider and work with her to find a solution. But if not, she says, she may have no choice but to leave the place she’s called home for a decade.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Cameron Mahler

Cameron is a reporter with CBC Kitchener-Waterloo. Cameron has previously interned with CBC Toronto’s Enterprise Unit. For story ideas, you can contact him at cameron.mahler@cbc.ca.

Follow Cameron on X @cam_mahler

Ford Vetoes Hearings on Housing Bill, Blocking Ontarians with Disabilities from Seeking Amendments to Protect Their Rights

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ford Vetoes Hearings on Housing Bill, Blocking Ontarians with Disabilities from Seeking Amendments to Protect Their Rights

May 30, 2025 Toronto: Premier Ford is slamming the door in the faces of 2.9 million Ontarians with disabilities and preventing them from having a say on a harmful bill before the legislature by using its majority to impose “Time Allocation” (closure) on Bill 17, the so-called Building Smarter and Faster Act.” Aimed at speeding up new home construction, that bill threatens to undermine the constitutional rights of Ontarians with disabilities by forbidding municipalities from passing any bylaws respecting the construction of buildings. Among other things, this would take away a municipality’s ability to make bylaws imposing accessibility requirements that exceed the weak and ineffective Ontario Building Code.

“We wrote the Housing Minister with a request to present our serious concerns about Bill 17 at Standing Committee hearings, but the Government’s only response is to shut down any hearings on the bill whatsoever, which is not a very democratic response,” said David Lepofsky, Chair of the grassroots non-partisan AODA Alliance which campaigns to tear down disability barriers. “We just want a chance to present a simple, short uncontroversial amendment to protect vulnerable people with disabilities and bring this bill in compliance with the Charter of Rights, the Ontario Human Rights Code, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.”

Unless the Ford Government changes course, the only voice that people with disabilities will have during the debate on this bill takes the form of two scant paragraphs in a May 26, 2025 Second Reading Speech by the NDP accessibility critic Lise Vaugeois, set out below.

The Ford Government’s track record on tearing down disability barriers has been extremely poor. It has enacted no new accessibility standards under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act in almost seven years in office. It has announced billions of public dollars for building new schools without ensuring that they are designed to be fully accessible to people with disabilities, including students, teachers, staff, and parents. It opened a new billion dollar Toronto courthouse two years ago that is replete with disability barriers, that are revealed in a widely viewed AODA Alliance video. It failed to meet the AODA’s 2025 deadline for Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities.

“This is not building smarter and faster – It’s governing wastefully,” said Lepofsky. “They could fix this bill simply by amending it to provide that nothing in the bill “reduces or limits the power of any municipality to enact bylaws or take any other action respecting the construction of any building that promotes the accessibility of buildings to people with disabilities.” However, Ford’s closure motion gives a scant nine minutes to the NDP and nine minutes to the Liberals to speak at Third Reading on this bill, in which they have to cover every issue they want to raise and not just ours. Ontarians with disabilities deserve better from the Government.”

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Excerpt from May 26, 2025 Ontario Legislature Second Reading Debate on Bill 17

Draft Hansard Bill 17 May 26

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): I recognize the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: But I want to focus a little bit on the fact that it is National Accessibility Week. I heard this afternoon from David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, who wrote to me about Bill 17 and his disappointment on this. I’d like to read this out loud:

“They have not consulted us on this. There is a very long failure by the Ontario government to enact proper, current and mandatory standards for new construction or renovations in Ontario, whether residential or other forms of construction. This has led to new buildings being built with new barriers that could have been prevented at little or no cost. This all flies in the face of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It gets even worse when public money is used to finance this construction in whole or in part. Public money should never be used to create or perpetuate barriers against people with disabilities. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance has been asking the Ontario government to effectively address this.

Premier Ford has never agreed to meet. The accessibility minister has not met to have a substantive discussion with us on this or any other accessibility issue for over three years. Rich Donovan, the person the Ford government selected to conduct the most recent independent review of the disabilities act, declared two years ago that Ontario is in an accessibility crisis. He called for the Premier to lead a crisis response. The Ford government has implemented no crisis response. It has not even acknowledged this crisis.”

I want to thank David Lepofsky for this, and I would like to recommend that we—first of all, that the Minister of Housing and that the Premier meet with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Alliance. It’s incredibly important. If we are building anew, why aren’t we building with the best possible standard?

I’d like to make a bold recommendation: Why don’t we make it standard to have wider doorways right from the get-go? It’s not expensive when you do it the first time; it’s very expensive if you’ve got to cut away drywall and two-by-fours in order to put in a new door. Why don’t we make that standard? Make the hallways standard that they’re wide enough that you can take a wheelchair down them.

If you do it right the first time, it’s not much of an additional cost. In fact, over the long run, it means that the places that you are building could be occupied by anyone with a disability, without a disability, or somebody as they age who needs to use a walker to get down to stay in their own place. They’d like to stay in their own places, but they need to be accessible. Let’s do it right.

Ford Government’s Bill 17 “Building Faster and Smarter Act” is Harmful to Ontarians with Disabilities Who are Plagued by Crisis Shortage of Affordable Accessible Housing

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ford Government’s Bill 17 “Building Faster and Smarter Act” is Harmful to Ontarians with Disabilities Who are Plagued by Crisis Shortage of Affordable Accessible Housing

May 29, 2025 Toronto: The Ford Government’s Bill 17, the “Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act,” threatens to undermine the constitutional rights of Ontarians with disabilities, according to a disability coalition’s letter to Housing Minister Rob Flack (set out below). The bill takes away from municipalities the power to pass bylaws “respecting the construction… of buildings.”

“Many people incorrectly think that our outdated and inadequate Ontario Building Code requires all new buildings in Ontario to be designed to be fully accessible to people with disabilities, but sadly it falls far short. Some municipalities have commendably tried to fill the gap by promoting higher accessibility requirements,” said built environment expert and critic Thea Kurdi. “Ontario must not continue to leave seniors and people with disabilities out in the cold as they try to find places they can live.”

A jaw-dropping illustration of the problem is the Ontario Government’s new billion-dollar criminal courthouse in Toronto. A widely viewed AODA Alliance video reveals that it was built with a series of accessibility blunders. Some Ontario municipalities commendably have passed bylaws imposing stronger accessibility requirements, but Bill 17 purports to forbid municipalities from doing this.

“We need the Ford Government to spearhead the creation of substantially more homes and apartments that are accessible and to strengthen the Ontario Building Code’s weak accessibility provisions. Ontario’s accessible housing shortage is a crisis,” said David Lepofsky, Chair of the non-partisan grassroots AODA Alliance which campaigns to tear down disability barriers in society. “But Bill 17 makes things worse, not better for us. It’s a crushing irony that the Ford Government voted to approve this bill on Second Reading in the Legislature during the current National AccessAbility Week!”

The AODA Alliance has called on the Ford Government to make a simple amendment to Bill 17 to ensure that the bill does not reduce or limit the power of any municipality to enact bylaws or take other action respecting the construction of any building that promotes the accessibility of buildings to people with disabilities.” It calls for the Government to hold public hearings on Bill 17 and for Housing Minister Flack to agree to meet with AODA Alliance representatives.

“Two years ago, the Ford Government was told that Ontario is in an accessibility crisis that requires an emergency response led by the Premier. It received this advice from the expert whom the Government hand-picked to conduct an Independent Review of the Disabilities Act,” said Lepofsky. “Earlier this year, the Government failed to meet the Legislature’s 2025 deadline for leading Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities.”

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Text of AODA Alliance Letter to Housing Minister

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance
United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities
Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com Twitter: @aodaalliance

May 29, 2025
To: The Hon Rob Flack, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Via email: minister.mah@ontario.ca rob.flack@ontario.ca

Dear Minister,

Re Bill 17 Threatens Fundamental Rights of Ontarians with Disabilities,

I write regarding Bill 17, the “Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act.” This bill, as now written, would create a very troubling new legal disability barrier to effectively tackling the crisis-level shortage of accessible housing for people with disabilities in Ontario.

I write on behalf of the AODA Alliance. We are a widely recognized non-partisan grassroots coalition that advocates to tear down the many barriers in Ontario that impede over 2.9 million people with disabilities. All the political parties in the Legislature have recognized our expertise in the area of accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities.

We here identify a serious problem in one schedule of Bill 17. We provide a simple solution. We ask your help to implement this solution. Our solution does not contradict the bill’s aims. We do not take a position on the bill’s other contents.

We agree that it is important to increase the supply of affordable housing in Ontario. To be effective, any government strategy must effectively address the crisis shortage of accessible housing for purchase or rent. Otherwise, this crisis will only get worse as our population grows and continues to age. Aging is the biggest cause of disabilities. As people get older, they want to be able to stay in their home, wherever it is. This is widely known as “aging in place.”

Schedule 1 of Bill 17 includes this provision:

“4 Section 35 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

Same

(1.1) For greater certainty, sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and sections 7 and 8 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 do not authorize a municipality to pass by-laws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings.”

At present the Ontario Building Code is widely recognized, especially by disability accessibility experts, as setting accessibility requirements for new and substantially renovated buildings in Ontario that are seriously inadequate. A new building can be built to comply with the Ontario Building Code’s accessibility requirements and yet be replete with disability barriers.

A powerful example of this is the new Toronto Courthouse on Armoury Street, which opened two years ago at a cost of almost one billion dollars. A widely viewed video that the AODA Alliance created shows that that building has every serious disability barriers. Visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6XNVMoUmB8

Enforceable accessibility standards enacted to date under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act do not fill this gap. This is so even though the AODA’s legislative purpose is to have led Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. This includes the accessibility of buildings.

To their credit, some Ontario municipalities have filled the gap by adopting and implementing strategies that set higher accessibility requirements than the Ontario Building Code. We need municipalities to be as free as possible to do this and indeed to expand these efforts.

Yet Bill 17 goes in the opposite direction. It prohibits municipalities from making bylaws respecting the construction of buildings.

It is bad enough that Bill 17 doesn’t help us tackle the crisis shortage in accessible housing. Bill 17 fires a strong shot across the bows of municipalities, deterring them from any effort at addressing the construction of buildings.

The risk is harmful enough that some or all municipalities would interpret Bill 17 as we do. We need the bill clarified to ensure that it does not cause harm to people with disabilities.

In October 2023, your Government received the draft report of the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee, which the Government appointed under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It found among other things, the following:

“Among the areas of the Ontario Building Code that the committee felt needed most improvement were the requirements for residential accessibility. The committee discussed the immediate need for a greater supply of accessible housing in multi-unit residential buildings as well as specific regulatory changes to ensure a fully barrier-free experience in these units.”

This bill received Second Reading during National AccessAbility Week. It is terrible public policy and goes against the core messages in the guarantees of equality to people with disabilities in Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Ontario Human Rights code, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

You can easily fix this. As a first step, please agree now to amend Bill 17 by adding a provision that provides:

“Notwithstanding anything in this statute, such as Section 4 of Schedule 1, nothing in this statute reduces or limits the power of any municipality to enact bylaws or take any other action respecting the construction of any building that promotes the accessibility of buildings to people with disabilities.”

Second, we ask for this bill to go to public hearings and for us and other disability advocates to be afforded a chance to testify before a Standing Committee of the Legislature. We also urgently ask for a meeting with you to discuss this issue. It is exceedingly difficult to decode this abstruse and complicated bill to screen it for other possible accessibility issues.

Sincerely,
David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont.,
Chair AODA Alliance

cc: The Hon Premier Doug Ford Email premier@ontario.ca

Raymond Cho, Minister for Seniors and Accessibility Raymond.cho@ontario.ca

Martha Greenberg, Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing martha.greenberg@ontario.ca

Peter Kaftarian Interim Deputy Minister for Seniors and Accessibility peter.kaftarian@ontario.ca

Ford Government At Long Last Announced It Will Not Claw Back the Canada Disability Benefit

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Ford Government At Long Last Announced It Will Not Claw Back the Canada Disability Benefit

May 27, 2025

Today, the Ford Government announced that it will not claw back the Canada Disability Benefit. Its announcement includes:

TORONTO – The Ontario government intends to exempt the Canada Disability Benefit (CDB) as income so that social assistance recipients would receive the benefit without seeing a reduction in their provincial social assistance payments or entitlements. The changes would help recipients of the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), Ontario Works and the Assistance for Children with Severe Disabilities (ACSD) program receive their maximum entitlements.

“In a time of unprecedented economic uncertainty brought on by U.S. tariffs and trade barriers, our government is taking action to keep costs down and protect Ontario families,” said Michael Parsa, Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. “This starts with safeguarding our most vulnerable, which is why we are exempting the Canada Disability Benefit as income so people who rely on social assistance receive the benefit without seeing any reductions in their social assistance payments.”

The CDB offers up to $200 each month ($2,400 each year) for eligible low-income, working-age Canadians with disabilities. By exempting the CDB, social assistance recipients will be able to fully benefit from the new program. Today’s announcement furthers Ontario’s commitment to protect families by building a more effective and efficient social assistance system that supports those who need it most.

We commend the Ontario Government for this announcement. Alberta reportedly is the only province that plans to claw back this new federal benefit. We don’t know how the Federal Government plans to deal with the Alberta situation. If it pays the Canada Disabilities Benefit to Albertans who qualify for it, the money will end up in the province’s coffers.

When Bill C-22 was in Parliament, we proposed an amendment to ensure that the Federal Government could start paying out the Benefit in provinces that agreed not to claw it back but withhold paying it in provinces when there is no such agreement. Our amendment went nowhere. The Federal Government never said at that time how it would deal with such a situation.

We also do not know what the Federal Government has done, if anything, to protect recipients of the Canada Disabilities Benefit from having it clawed back by private insurance companies. We and others convinced the Senate to amend Bill C-22 in 2023 to prevent such clawbacks. The Trudeau Liberals vetoed that amendment when Bill C-22 came back to the House of Commons.

To learn all about our part in the battle to strengthen the Canada Disabilities Benefit and Bill C-22, visit the AODA Alliance’s Bill C-22 page.

The Long-Overdue Canada Disability Benefit is Supposed to Start Being Paid Out in July, But There’s Still No Way to Apply For It

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

The Long-Overdue Canada Disability Benefit is Supposed to Start Being Paid Out in July, But There’s Still No Way to Apply For It

May 26, 2025

SUMMARY

The Federal Government starts National AccessAbility Week with its implementation of the Canada Disabilities Benefit in a certain amount of chaos.

Five years ago, the Federal Government promised to create the Canada Disabilities Benefit. It was supposed to fulfil the Government’s commitment that no people with disabilities should ever live in poverty in Canada. Yet we are still waiting for the first cheques to be paid to any impoverished people with disabilities. Below are two recent published articles that explain where we now stand, one in the May 26, 2025, Globe and Mail and the other in the May 19, 2025, Policy Magazine.

In a nutshell, the vast majority of those people with disabilities who now languish in poverty won’t even qualify for a dime under this new Canada Disabilities Benefit. Of those who do qualify, the maximum they can receive will be a paltry $200 per month. Every dollar helps, but it is far from what people need to lift them out of poverty. As these articles reveal, a scant month before cheques are supposed to start being paid to those who qualify for one, there is still no application form! There is no way to apply.

Even if an application form materializes today, we are doubtful that the Federal Government can get it communicated to all who qualify, that those applicants will all be able to complete the application process, and that the Federal Government will be able to process all those applications and prepare cheques to put in the mail, all before July. And let’s not even start to imagine what happens if there’s a postal strike!

When Parliament was debating Bill C-22 in 2022 and 2023, the Disabilities Minister Carla Qualtrough said that the Government has a “red line” that no provinces and territories would claw back any of the Canada Disabilities Benefit. She said she had been working with the provincial and territorial governments on this. Here again we were told to trust the Government. We were one of the organizations that did not believe that trusting the Government was a sufficient solution.

Now, one month before the Canada Disabilities Benefit is supposed to begin, the articles set out below report that Alberta plans to claw back the Canada Disabilities Benefit. Ontario has not said what it will do. We don’t know if the Government will nevertheless pay the Canada Disabilities Benefit in those two provinces. If they do, and it is clawed back, then federal money, intended to lift people with disabilities out of poverty, will instead to go into the provincial coffers to fund the Alberta or Ontario Premier’s pet projects.

None of this chaos needs to have happened. In 2022 and 2023, when the Canada Disabilities Benefit act was being debated in Parliament, an impressive list of disability and community organizations campaigned hard to get strong amendments to the bill passed, which would have prevented the current ordeal. The AODA Alliance was one of those organizations.

Regrettably, the governing Liberals did not adopt many of the amendments we sought. They claimed that they had to rush the bill through Parliament “as is” in order to get the Canada Disabilities Benefit into the pockets of impoverished people with disabilities as soon as possible. They said we should trust the Disabilities Minister, then Carla Qualtrough, to ensure that there is a good Canada Disabilities Benefit paid out in a timely way.

Making our efforts in 2022 and 2023 harder, the Federal Government got some disability charities to echo the Government’s line and to actively oppose Parliament’s passing any amendments to strengthen the weak Bill C-22. It is great that a large number of disability organizations are now publicly complaining about the current nightmare confronting those people with disabilities who live in poverty. Those now complaining include disability organizations that had opposed strengthening Bill C-22 back in 2022 and 2023.

The Federal Government is now being confronted by a united front of the disability community regarding the Canada Disabilities Benefit. Indeed, one of the disability organizations that had vocally opposed amendments to strengthen Bill C-22 back in 2022 and 2023 is now one of the Government’s most vocal and hard-hitting critics. That organization is quoted in the Globe and Mail article set out below.

During the recent Federal election, we asked all parties to make the Accessible Canada Pledge. That included specific commitments to strengthen the Canada Disabilities Benefit. Only the Green Party made the pledge.

Canada has a minority government. Opposition parties have the clout in Parliament to force Prime Minister Carney to address this. But Prime Minister Carney doesn’t even have a Disabilities Minister. He eliminated that Cabinet post which had existed for a decade.

How You Can Help

Email or phone Prime Minister Carney to ask him to strengthen the paltry Canada Disabilities Benefit and to restore the Cabinet post of Minister for Disability Issues, which he eliminated. His email address is pm@pm.gc.ca

Urge more media to cover this issue.

Let us know what you do and what are told in response. Contact us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

MORE DETAILS

Globe and Mail May 26, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/article-new-federal-disability-benefit-launches-in-july-but-canadians-cant/

New federal disability benefit launches in July – but Canadians can’t apply for it yet

Erica Alini

Weeks ahead of the planned rollout of a new federal benefit for people with disabilities, Canadians still have no instructions on how to apply for it, and recipients in Ontario are unclear whether their payments will be clawed back by the province.

The Trudeau government announced in its last federal budget, in 2024, that the newly created Canada Disability Benefit, or CDB, would provide up to $2,400 a year – or $200 a month – to eligible low-income beneficiaries, starting in July of this year. The payments are meant to supplement existing financial supports for Canadians with disabilities, many of whom live in poverty.

But as of the end of May, the administrative rollout of the CDB, now overseen by the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney, remains mired in uncertainty. Ottawa has yet to publish an application form for the benefit, a delay advocates say could cause some people to miss out on at least the first monthly payment.

Another issue is whether the benefit will trigger reductions of social assistance payments. So far, all provinces and territories except Alberta and Ontario have committed to avoiding clawbacks.

Alberta has said it will dial back payments for those also receiving the CDB.

Ontario, on the other hand, hasn’t clearly stated what it will do.

Barriers to access: New Canada Disability Benefit will leave many people with disabilities behind

The government of Premier Doug Ford has said it is waiting on Ottawa to pass legislation that will exempt the benefit from being treated as income for tax purposes, a move that would make it administratively easier for provincial governments to avoid automatic reductions of social assistance payments.

But Ottawa has yet to introduce such a change. In the meantime, whether Canada’s most populous province will allow clawbacks remains an “unknown factor,” said Rabia Khedr, national director of Disability Without Poverty, a grassroots advocacy group.

The lack of information on key details is the latest source of frustration among many Canadians with disabilities and advocates, who have been critical of how Ottawa designed the program.

Topping out at $200 a month, the benefit is far smaller than what experts say is needed to significantly reduce poverty rates among those living with disabilities.

Policy Magazine May 19, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.policymagazine.ca/time-is-running-out-to-fix-canadas-new-disability-benefit/

Time is Running out to Fix Canada’s New Disability Benefit

Shutterstock

By Asif Khan

May 19, 2025

The much-anticipated Canada Disability Benefit (CDB) is set to roll out with first payments in July 2025. For Canadians with disabilities and their advocates, the path to CDB has been a long and hard-fought one. Yet with the rollout nearing, victory still feels far away.

While the CDB has been promoted by the federal government as a major move forward in supporting people with disabilities who live in poverty, the interactions among federal and provincial benefits, social assistance policy, tax law, and income treatment require complicated navigation that most people do not have the time or ability to steer through.

The CDB has been capped at a monthly $200 maximum per individual, which has sparked justified outrage. Originally touted as a means to bridge “the gap between the poverty line and what people receive in their respective provinces,” the CDB falls catastrophically short. The regulations show it will lift only 20,000 recipients—just 2% of the 917,000 working-age Canadians with disabilities in poverty—above the poverty line in the first year, and only 25,000 by year ten. This is not the meaningful support that people with disabilities have fought for.

The benefit amount is not the only problematic aspect of the CDB. Access is another major hurdle. Under the current regulations, the Canada Disability Benefit (CDB) relies entirely on the Disability Tax Credit (DTC) as its sole eligibility gateway, locking out many of those who need it most. The DTC’s restrictive definition of disability does not align with the broader, more inclusive criteria set out in the Canada Disability Benefit Act. Since the DTC is a non-refundable tax credit, low-income people with disabilities see no point in applying because they owe little to no income tax. Compounding this design flaw, the Canada Revenue Agency’s complex eligibility and dispute process renders the DTC an inaccessible and overly restrictive gatekeeper for CDB access.

The CDB’s punitive income treatment has been another major source of concern. Currently, the CDB is classified as social assistance under the Income Tax Act and included in net income for tax purposes. While not taxable specifically, this inclusion means the CDB will increase an individual or family’s total income for tax filing purposes, resulting in a decrease in other income-tested benefits, such as the Canada Child Benefit, Canada Workers Benefit, GST Credit, and numerous other provincially administered benefits.

Moreover, the CDB regulations count provincial or territorial social assistance, such as the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), as income when determining eligibility for the CDB. Applying the CDB’s income thresholds ($23,000 for singles, $32,500 for couples) to those receiving last-resort assistance creates unnecessary barriers for the most vulnerable CDB applicants.

Worse still, for Ontarians with disabilities living in poverty, the provincial government has remained non-committal on whether social assistance recipients will get to count the CDB as a top-up to their other income support.

The Curious Case of Ontario

While most provinces, including larger ones such as British Columbia and Quebec, have pledged not to claw back the CDB from provincial social assistance income, Ontario has stayed troublingly silent.

Since they have not made a clear statement or commitment that the CDB is going to be exempt from being counted as income, the provincial government has created major worry and concern for people with disabilities living on social assistance in Ontario, who already live on incomes between 40%-60% below the poverty line.

Ontario’s social assistance schemes claw back some types of benefit income from other government sources by decreasing a person’s social assistance benefits dollar for dollar. If the provincial government decides to count the CDB as part of a recipient’s income, it will reduce their social assistance benefit amount. This is a cynical, one-step forward, two-steps back move, which would allow the province to use the CDB as a cost-mitigation opportunity. Balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in the province is unacceptable and will do nothing to reduce disability poverty in Ontario.

This policy direction is not inevitable. There is an administratively feasible and cost-neutral way of exempting the CDB from the income calculation in Ontario’s social assistance legislation. Following the treatment of the Canada Child Benefit, the provincial government could add the CDB as an exemption in the statute’s regulations, at no cost to the government, to prevent clawbacks.

The CDB is Flawed, but Fixes Exist

In addition to addressing Ontario’s policy inaction on the CDB, there are other practical, feasible solutions that the federal government could undertake.

To address its exclusionary eligibility criteria, the federal government could expand CDB access by incorporating the Canada Pension Plan disability benefits (CPP-D) as an alternative pathway. Like the DTC, CPP-D uses a tiered definition of severe and prolonged disability and a similar determination process, and its inclusion would broaden eligibility without compromising integrity.

The federal government can also amend the Income Tax Act, as it proposed in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement, to exempt the CDB from being treated as income. The government could then take this amendment one step further and exempt provincial/territorial social assistance from the CDB’s income threshold. With a new federal government and Parliament’s recall approaching, now is the time to act.

Disability communities have repeatedly and clearly presented their recommendations for improving the CDB at every opportunity but have been largely ignored. Formal consultation engagement has been immense: The government itself reported receiving nearly 3000 comments from nearly 1000 individuals and organizations on the proposed CDB regulations that would address many of these previously identified flaws. Yet, despite this outpouring of input, the final regulations made no meaningful changes to core concerns such as benefit amounts and eligibility, which has left communities largely frustrated.

However, the final CDB regulations did include the important addition of an accessible reconsideration and appeal process. Ontario community legal clinics who support individuals with disabilities living in poverty advocated for this change. The amended regulations now allow individuals to appeal overpayment decisions to the Social Security Tribunal. This expansion promotes fairness, accountability, and better outcomes for people with disabilities. In a process where progress has been scarce, this is a meaningful step worth recognizing. It provides hope that more positive regulatory change may occur in the future.

Improving the CDB isn’t just a good poverty reduction policy – it’s honouring a commitment made to nearly a million Canadians with disabilities who have waited too long for essential income support. It should not be this difficult to obtain.

Solutions are not lacking. What’s missing is a recognition that delivery on promises is about more than just implementation.

Asif Khan is the Research and Policy Analyst for the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC).

Canada Kicks Off National AccessAbility Week Tomorrow with No National Disabilities Minister for the First Time in a Decade

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Canada Kicks Off National AccessAbility Week Tomorrow with No National Disabilities Minister for the First Time in a Decade

May 24, 2025

SUMMARY

What a blistering irony. Tomorrow, National AccessAbility Week begins, but for the first time in a decade, Canada has no National Disabilities Minister to lead the week’s events across this country! The Toronto Star included an excellent article covering this today. See below.

This comes on yet another important anniversary in the long grassroots battle for accessibility legislation in Canada. Thirty years ago today, Ontario’s Conservative leader Mike Haris wrote the AODA Alliance‘s predecessor, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. In his famous or infamous May 24, 1995 letter, Mike Harris promised that he’d enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in his first term and that he’d work with the ODA Committee to develop it. This started a chain of events whose impact is still felt today, three decades later.

Mike Harris was elected Ontario Premier in the June 1995 election. Premier Harris prided himself as the politician who emphasized that he’d keep all his promises or resign. Yet in his 7 years in office, he refused every request for a meeting with the ODA Committee. Sound familiar? As well, he did not pass the promised Ontarians with Disabilities Act in his first term as promised, and he certainly did not keep his word about resigning.

In his second term, Mike Harris eventually passed a very weak Ontarians with Disabilities Act in December 2001. It was the last law passed under his tenure as premier. It was toothless and ineffective.

However, it paved the way to the stronger Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act being passed in 2005 by the successor Liberal Government under Premier Dalton McGuinty That is the law that we’re still campaigning to get effectively implemented.

All in all, today is a historic anniversary.

How You Can Help

We remind you to email Prime Minister Carney to ask him to restore the Cabinet post of Minister for Disability Issues, which he cancelled. Get others to email him too. His email address is pm@pm.gc.ca

Urge the media to cover this topic. For example, if your local CBC morning radio program did not cover it, tell them it’s not too late. If it is newsworthy enough for CBC in Toronto, Quebec City, Fredericton, Sudbury, Moncton, Edmonton, Saint John, Prince George/Prince Rupert, Vancouver, White Horse, Victoria, Kelowna, and Kitchener-Waterloo, it’s newsworthy in your community too!

Let us know what you hear in response. Contact us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star May 24, 2025

Cabinet cut worries disability advocates

PM’s priorities questioned over loss of dedicated minister and lack of information about benefits

Serena Austin Toronto Star

The first payments of a national monthly benefit for low-income people with disabilities are expected to go out in just over a month.

But without a minister for disability inclusion in cabinet, advocates are concerned about how much of a priority this and other disability issues will be.

June is the first month of eligibility for the Canada Disability Benefit. Though its first payments are expected in July, there’s still little information available on how people can apply to receive it.

Employment and Social Development Canada, the department responsible for the benefit, said a firm date for when applications will open hasn’t been set yet, but it confirmed it is expected to launch by the end of June, and said the benefit’s webpage will be updated in the coming weeks.

With tariffs, the economy and Canada’s relationship with the U.S. being top of mind leading into the election and in Prime Minister Carney’s first few weeks in office, advocates say issues specific to people with disabilities have been sidelined, citing the lack of a disability inclusion minister as proof.

Canada has had a minister responsible for disability inclusion in some capacity since 2015.

The elimination of the portfolio is a “slap in the face” to the eight million people with disabilities in Canada, but it’s also “eminently fixable,” said David Lepofsky, who is blind and chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

He wrote to the prime minister on behalf of the AODA Alliance, asking him to assign the portfolio to one of the existing cabinet ministers, but said he hasn’t heard back.

The fact that there are portfolios for women, seniors and Indigenous people, but not for disabled people, sends a “very loud and clear” signal, said Lepofsky. “Disability is just not a priority.”

He recognized that having a dedicated minister won’t “guarantee success” when it comes to addressing issues affecting people with disabilities, like accessible and affordable housing, but said not having one will “guarantee that things are going to be worse.”

Rabia Khedr, national director of Disability Without Poverty and CEO of DEEN Support Services, a charity founded by Muslims with disabilities, said she’s glad the Canada Disability Benefit is now law, but is disappointed with the amount budgeted for it, some of its criteria and with how long it has taken to roll out.

At a maximum of $200 a month, the benefit is “too little for too few,” said Khedr.

The purpose of the Canada Disability Benefit Act is to “reduce poverty and support the financial security” of working-age people with disabilities. And while the act was going through second reading, Paula Qualtrough, then minister of employment, workforce development and disability inclusion, declared that “in Canada, no person with a disability should live in poverty.”

In 2020, 12 per cent of people with disabilities ages 25 to 64 were living in poverty compared to seven per cent of people without disabilities, according to Statistics Canada.

Lepofsky said some disability organizations wanted to see the act strengthened to ensure it would fulfil its purpose of reducing poverty, but that they were told doing so would slow down the benefit’s rollout, and that with a committed cabinet minister to “steer it through,” things would be fine. The benefit that was announced turned out to be “miles short of what’s needed,” he said.

Now without a minister for disability inclusion, the possibility of the benefit being increased seems even more distant, though Khedr said she hopes Patty Hajdu, the minister of jobs and families, which now oversees Employment and Social Development Canada, will reach out to Disability Without Poverty and other groups that contributed to discussions about the benefit.

Khedr also raised concerned about the possibility of provincial governments clawing back their benefits for people with disabilities once the Canada Disability Benefit kicks in, and said amending the Income Tax Act to prevent that should be prioritized.

The Liberals included plans to reform the Disability Tax Credit in their election platform, but without a voice representing people with disabilities in cabinet, some are worried it won’t lead to an improvement.

The Disability Tax Credit is a non-refundable tax credit that aims to offset some of the costs associated with having a disability by lowering the amount of income tax people with disabilities and their supporting family members have to pay.

People with disabilities need to be eligible for the tax credit in order to be eligible for the Canada Disability Benefit, a regulation Khedr said comes with “extra hurdles.”

“It’s a lot of paperwork and it also requires a physician completing a portion of it,” which is a challenge with an ongoing doctor shortage, Khedr said.

“Some physicians feel that they’re gatekeepers,” and if they don’t think they’ve seen “disability significant enough to warrant somebody qualifying for this benefit,” they may not sign off on their application, she said.

While it’s unclear what a reformed Disability Tax Credit might look like under Carney’s Liberal government – the Star contacted the Prime Minister’s Office, but did not get a response in time for publication – Khedr and Lepofsky stressed the application processes for disability benefits and tax credits should be streamlined so people who have already qualified for provincial disability benefits, like ODSP, for example, are automatically eligible for the Disability Tax Credit and Canada Disability Benefit.

“When times are tough we want to cut back government,” said Khedr. “This is one way to cut back.”

Yet More Proof that Too Many Students with Disabilities are Severely Underserved in Ontario Schools

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Yet More Proof that Too Many Students with Disabilities are Severely Underserved in Ontario Schools

May 23, 2025

SUMMARY

You would think that elected politicians running a provincial government would make it a priority to effectively serve students with disabilities in Ontario schools!

Last month, on April 23, 2025, the Toronto Star reported on an extremely disturbing report that Community Living Ontario had made public entitled “Crisis in the Classroom – Exclusion, Seclusion and Restraint of Students with Disabilities in Ontario Schools.” Read that Star article below.

This Community Living Ontario report reaffirmed other earlier reports and media reporting, when it concluded:

29% of caregivers reported that their child had been secluded in school, i.e., placed in a separate space away from their peers, often behind locked or blocked doors.

14% of caregivers reported that their child had been restrained in school, including being held down on the ground, held while standing, and held while being forced to walk.

Students living in households with lower parental education and income levels were at increased risk for both seclusion and restraint.

A large percentage of respondents reported experiences of exclusion:

One in five students were attending school on a part-time or modified schedule.
31% of students had been sent home or instructed to stay home because the school was unable to meet their needs.
More than half of caregivers reported that their children were ‘sometimes,’ ‘often,’ or ‘always’ excluded from academic events and opportunities.
One in four students represented in the survey ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ enjoy school or feel valued or accepted by school staff.
40% of students avoided school or were reluctant to attend because of anxiety and fear caused by their experiences within the school community.”

The Ford government’s failure for over three years to implement the comprehensive recommendations of the K-12 Standards Development Committee through the enactment of a strong Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act continues to hurt hundreds of thousands of Ontario’s students with disabilities. This new report and the Toronto Star coverage of it is just more proof of that sad fact.

Just last month, the April 14, 2025 AODA Alliance Update reported:

“On April 1, 2025, there was a very disturbing report in The Trillium, a respected news source that reports on Queen’s Park. It revealed hitherto-secret Ford Government internal data from the Ministry of Education about the numbers of school days that students have lost because their principal has refused to allow them to come to school. The AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition, Autism Ontario, Community Living Ontario, and other disability advocates have been sounding the alarm for years that this arbitrary power, which the Education Act gives school principals in Ontario, has disproportionately been used on students with disabilities. It is unfair, overbroad, and in desperate need of reform. The Trillium article is set out below.”

Two weeks earlier, the March 30, 2025 AODA Alliance Update reported this troubling news:

“A March 28, 2025, CBC News report, set out below, reveals that almost a year after a vulnerable student with disabilities was found dead in a Trenton school’s isolation room, the school board has not taken important steps needed to publicly account for the cause of this death, and to prevent such future tragedies from happening.

It has been almost a year since a high school student with disabilities, Landyn Ferris, was found dead in a high school’s isolation room in Trenton, Ontario. So far, there has been no public accounting for the cause of his death. No coroner’s inquest has been called. The school board has not made public any report explaining what happened and why, leading to this death. The Ford Government has been asleep at the switch.”

Now look back almost half a year, to the December 4, 2024 AODA Alliance Update. We then revealed this:

For almost five years, the AODA Alliance, as well as any number of other disability organizations, have been trying to get the Ontario Government to rein in the sweeping power of every school principal in an Ontario-funded school to exclude a student from school. This power has disproportionately been used against students with disabilities. When students with disabilities are excluded from school, their fundamental right to an education is denied.

For years, the Ontario Government has done nothing to fix this, as far as we could tell. In July 2020, we made public a scathing report, that shows that practices vary wildly from school board to school board. That report is entitled “For Too Much of Ontario, Each School Principal Is a Law Unto Themselves, When It Comes to the Right of Students with Disabilities to Go To School — A Report by the AODA Alliance on the Sweeping Power of Ontario School Principals to Refuse to Admit a Student to School.” The Ford Government has never disputed its accuracy or even responded to it.

In the past few days, we learned via the grapevine that the Ontario Ministry of Education is considering the possibility of issuing a “Policy and Program Memorandum” (PPM) to every school board giving directions for the first time that could regulate or limit how this sweeping power is used. The Government is holding some sort of a consultation on this.

The Government did not tell the AODA Alliance or key disability advocacy organizations about this. We have never been invited to take part in this, which is inexcusable. We and other disability organizations have been very public for years, advocating for reform. All should be included in an open consultation.

On December 4, 2024, the AODA Alliance wrote a strong letter to the Ministry of Education officials who appear to be responsible for this consultation, which we set out below. We have asked to attend the December 10, 2024 consultative webinar that the Government appears to have scheduled. We have also insisted that a wide spectrum of disability organizations be invited as well. We object to the Government’s apparent plan to keep confidential the draft PPM that they have under consideration. The public, including students with special education needs and their families, have a right to know what this draft now says, and to have their voices heard.

We got indirect word that that private consultation meeting, to which we were never invited, was cancelled, to be rescheduled at a future date. As far as we have heard, it has never been rescheduled.

How You Can Help

Contact Premier Ford. Tell him to enact the promised Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

For background, check out:

The final report of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, which the Ford Government received on January 28, 2022.
The AODA Alliance website’s education page, which documents the grass roots campaign since 2009 to get the Ontario Government to enact the much-needed Education Accessibility Standard to make Ontario’s education system accessible to and barrier-free for hundreds of thousands of students with disabilities.

There have been 142 days since Ontario failed to meet the January 1, 2025 deadline for becoming accessible to people with disabilities set by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. What is the Ford Government’s plan of action?

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star April 23, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/kids-held-on-the-ground-by-staff-others-sent-home-ontario-students-with-disabilities-are/article_3190abf1-5d52-4224-946f-c377d9999393.html

Students with disabilities in crisis, report finds

Community Living Ontario outlines use of secluding, restraining, excluding children in schools

Isabel Teotonio Toronto Star

Children with special education needs being held on the ground by staff. Kids having major meltdowns and being locked in a small room of the school. And students being sent home – or asked to stay there – because of staff’s inability to manage their behaviour.

Those are some of the scenes playing out provincewide, according to the report “Crisis in the Classroom,” released Wednesday by Community Living Ontario, a non-profit provincial association that advocates for those with intellectual disabilities and their families.

It presents data highlighting how students with disabilities are being subjected to restraint, seclusion and exclusion in Ontario schools, and is based on the survey findings of 541 parents and caregivers about their children’s experiences during the 2022-23 academic year.

Twenty-nine per cent said their children had been separated from peers, often behind locked or blocked doors; 14 per cent said that they had been restrained by school staff, including on the ground; and 31 per cent said their kids had been sent home – or told to stay home – because the school couldn’t meet their needs.

“I was shocked,” said Shawn Pegg, director of social policy and strategic initiatives at Community Living Ontario, who authored the report. “I feel like members of the public wouldn’t believe this is actually happening in their schools … We need to do something.

“What we heard over and over again from parents, teachers, principals, unions is that there aren’t enough supports in the classroom to support the learning and emotional needs of many students with disabilities,” said Pegg, noting one in five students have special education needs. “Also many school staff don’t have the knowledge and training needed to prevent what we’re calling emotional dysregulation, so this can lead to children acting out.”

According to the report, there’s little or no provincial guidance on seclusion, restraint and exclusion, and no provincial data. Instead, school boards have created their own policies and principals implement them differently.

The association is calling on the province to increase staffing and supports for students; boost access to trauma-informed training for educational staff; implement “clear” regulations and policies on seclusion, restraint and exclusion; and require schools, boards and the Ministry of Education track the use of these measures.

Emma Testani, press secretary for Education Minister Paul Calandra, said all students, including those with special education needs, deserve access to the supports they need to succeed in school.

“Since coming into government, we have increased funding for special education supports every single year. We are investing almost $4 billion annually for special education – the largest investment in Ontario history. We have also added 4,000 education assistants to support teachers, parents, and students with special education needs,” she told the Star. “We will continue to work with parents and educators to meet the changing needs of our classrooms, but it is absolutely critical that all schools have a plan in place to ensure the safety of their students. School boards must deliver on their mandate to support our students for success.”

Elizabeth Garkowski, co-founder of Ontario Parents for Education Support, said “our children are severely undersupported.” Schools are doing the best they can, “but they can only do so much with the resources that they’re given.”

Garkowski said her daughter, who has Down syndrome and autism, hasn’t experienced seclusion, restraint or exclusion, but she has heard from many families provincewide who have.

David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, said the report “adds to the mountain of proof that we have an exceedingly serious problem in Ontario schools which cries out for immediate, well-known action.”

As chair of the Toronto District School Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee — comprised of members from organizations representing parents who have kids with disabilities or special education needs — Lepofsky has been sounding the alarm about exclusions, noting, “Every student is supposed to have the fundamental legal right to go to school.” The committee wants the TDSB to create a central number parents can call if their child is excluded from school. It also wants teachers to use a unique attendance code to mark absences, so the TDSB can track how many kids are excluded.

But a TDSB spokesperson said specific attendance codes, and a tracking process, already exist.

“Placing a student on a modified day schedule is a collaborative decision and accommodation involving parents, the principal and the superintendent,” said the spokesperson.

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s Monthly Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Across Ontario Calls on Premier Ford to Agree to Meet

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s Monthly Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Across Ontario Calls on Premier Ford to Agree to Meet

May 20, 2025

SUMMARY

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s May column in the Toronto Star’s many Metroland publications around Ontario urges Premier Doug Ford to agree to a meeting. This meeting is needed to share ideas on how the Premier can speed up the Government’s implementation of the landmark Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. You can read this column below.

How You Can Help

Email Premier Doug Ford. Tell him he should meet with the AODA Alliance Chair. His email address is Premier@Ontario.ca or fill out the form to submit a message to him at https://correspondence.premier.gov.on.ca/EN/feedback/default.aspx
Forward the Premier a copy of this Metroland column. Copy a local news organization near you on your email to the Premier.
You can also phone the Premier’s office at 416-325-1941. Let us know what response you get. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com
Let your local media know what response you get from the Premier’s office.

MORE DETAILS

Inside Halton May 15, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.insidehalton.com/opinion/columnists/advocate-invites-premier-to-build-legacy-with-disabilities-act/article_cebaa2a0-7702-5530-b3ff-265bf8cfd1a0.html

Advocate invites premier to build legacy with disabilities act

Ontario is in an accessibility crisis and needs to implement a crisis response, writes David Lepofsky.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

May 10 was a profoundly bittersweet day for 2.9 million Ontarians with disabilities.

Twenty years ago, on May 10, 2005, the Ontario Legislature unanimously passed the historic Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), after people with disabilities tenaciously campaigned for a decade to win its enactment.

I had the honour of leading that grassroots campaign. Many who took part in our blitz in communities across Ontario are still alive to mark this anniversary.

Sadly, too many are no longer with us. I fondly cherish the visionary dedication of them all.

May 10 was a sweet anniversary because our relentless efforts led to Canada’s first comprehensive accessibility law being enacted in Canada.

The AODA required the Ontario government to have led the province to become accessible to people with all kinds of disabilities by 2025.

You can watch the historic final vote in the Legislature on May 10, 2005, the enthusiastic standing ovation that MPPs gave the act’s passage, and the optimistic Queen’s Park news conference that day with speakers from the government, myself giving the disability perspective, and the business sector.

The idea for this legislation and its key ingredients all came bottom-up from the disability community, not top-down from the government.

It inspired later passage of accessibility legislation in Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and at the federal level. We await other provinces that will hopefully follow suit.

At the same time, this May 10 was a bitter anniversary.

Two decades later, Ontario is nowhere near its mandatory goal of full accessibility. There have been improvements in accessibility over these 20 years, thanks to our efforts.

However, Ontarians with disabilities continue to face barrier after barrier when they try to get a job, ride public transit, get an education in our schools, get health care services, or try to enjoy the other things that other residents take for granted.

Ontario is in an accessibility crisis and needs to implement a crisis response.

That is the wise advice that the government received two years ago from an independent review of the disabilities act conducted by Rich Donovan.

The government selected Donovan to conduct a mandatory review of the disabilities act’s implementation and enforcement.

An earlier government-appointed independent review by former Lt. Gov. David Onley sounded a comparable alarm more than six years ago.

Premier Ford now has a fresh new mandate to govern, and a majority government that can act boldly in this area. We need him to do so. Everyone has a disability now or is bound to get one later.

Disability accessibility is a bipartisan and non-partisan issue.

We invite and encourage the premier to take a fresh look at this file and to decide that he wants a positive legacy of his government to be fulfilment of the aims of the act.

A positive and helpful way for Ford to begin his new term in office would be a meeting with AODA Alliance representatives.

The alliance and other disability advocates are now gearing up to forge ahead with our accessibility campaign.

We’re as tenacious as ever and are ready to offer the government constructive ideas. The premier has prided himself in being a leader who will pick up the phone and reach out directly. We’d welcome a call.

AODA Alliance Writes Prime Minister Carney – and – More Media Coverage of the Elimination of the Federal Disabilities Minister

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

AODA Alliance Writes Prime Minister Carney – and – More Media Coverage of the Elimination of the Federal Disabilities Minister Portfolio

May 20, 2025

SUMMARY

On May 19, 2025, the AODA Alliance wrote Prime Minister Mark Carney. We asked him to restore the Cabinet post of Minister for Disability Inclusion which he has eliminated from the federal Cabinet. Read that letter below.

We also include in this Update an excellent article with CBC News posted on May 18, 2025 on the same issue. Some of the CBC radio stations that interviewed AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on this issue last Friday are expected to air that interview today.

All the feedback we have received on this issue has been supportive of our position.

How You Can Help

We again ask you to email Prime Minister Carney to ask him to restore the Cabinet post of Minister for Disability Issues, which he eliminated. His email address is pm@pm.gc.ca

Urge your local media to cover this topic. For example, if your local CBC morning radio program did not cover it, tell them it’s not too late. If it is newsworthy enough for CBC in Toronto, Quebec City, Fredericton, Sudbury, Moncton, Edmonton, Saint John, Prince George/Prince Rupert, Vancouver, White Horse, Victoria, Kelowna, and Kitchener-Waterloo, it’s newsworthy in your community too!

Let us know what you are told in response. Contact us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

MORE DETAILS

Text of the May 19,2025 Letter from the AODA Alliance to Prime Minister Mark Carney

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

1929 Bayview Avenue,

Toronto, Ontario M4G 3E8

Email aodafeedback@gmail.com Twitter: @aodaalliance www.aodaalliance.org

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

May 19, 2025

To:

The Right Honourable Prime Minister Mark Carney

Via email: pm@pm.gc.ca

Office of the Prime Minister of Canada

80 Wellington Street

Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Twitter: MarkJCarney

Dear Prime Minister Carney,

Please accept our congratulations on your election to govern Canada. We are a well-recognized non-partisan grassroots disability coalition based in Ontario that advocates for accessibility for people with disabilities.

We welcome any opportunity to assist your Government with candid, reliable advice on what needs to be done to tear down the many accessibility barriers that continue to plague over 8 million people with disabilities in Canada. We have welcomed past invitations to provide input to any minister and Parliamentary Committee in this area.

We write to voice a serious concern that in last week’s Cabinet announcement, you have eliminated the Cabinet portfolio of Minister for Disability Inclusion. You have appointed portfolios for women’s issues, seniors’ issues, two for Indigenous Issues, and even a minister for sports, but you have cut the disability Cabinet post. This amounts to “equality for some.” Yet, “equality for some” is actually equality for none. In Canada, people with disabilities are a widely recognized, highly vulnerable, disadvantaged part of our society. We have had to battle for such basics as getting equality for people with disabilities included in the Charter of Rights in 1980 and winning the enactment of the Accessible Canada Act in 2019 and the Canada Disability Benefit Act in 2023. Even then, the commendable goals of those enactments are far from being realized.

People with disabilities desperately need a watchdog at the Cabinet table at all times, someone who is vigilant to help your Cabinet ensure that whatever measures it considers will fully include and benefit people with disabilities and will not create new disability barriers. Our Charter of Rights entitles people with disabilities to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law. That includes all federal programs and policies implemented under law.

There would be widespread public support for your designating one of your 28 Cabinet ministers as also having the portfolio of Minister for Disability Inclusion. There is no constituency in society who would oppose this. After all, everyone is bound to eventually get a disability as they age. We are the minority of everyone!

The Federal Government has commendably had a Disabilities Minister now for a decade. No one opposed it. Your elimination of it now sends a strong and harmful message both to 8 million people with disabilities in Canada and to the Federal Public service at all levels that tearing down disability barriers within federal responsibility is just not a significant priority for you and your new Government. That is the kind of “trickle-down” effect that can cause a great deal of damage, waste, and lost opportunity.

This Cabinet post is especially essential given your Government’s priorities, such as expanding affordable housing, building new infrastructure, restructuring the Federal Government and making needed transitions in the Canadian economy given the current trade conflict. From ample past experience, there is a serious risk that new disability barriers will be inadvertently created unless you have a Disabilities Minister at the Cabinet table at all times to be a watchdog on these issues. For example, if your housing strategy does not effectively tackle the growing crisis shortage in accessible housing, we risk the problem of inaccessible housing getting even worse for the growing number of people with disabilities in Canada who are struggling to find an accessible home to rent or buy.

Having a Disabilities Minister is not a guarantee that all our problems will magically be solved. However, eliminating this portfolio is a virtual guarantee that things will get worse.

It would not be sufficient for the Government to announce that disability issues are a priority. We’ve heard such statements for decades from politicians, parties and governments of all political stripes. We need action, not words.

We emphasize that what people with disabilities need now is a Cabinet minister with this responsibility. It should not be downgraded to the inferior post of Secretary of State. We need a Minister at the Cabinet table at all meetings. A Secretary of State, we understand, is not entitled to that opportunity.

You can solve this at the stroke of your pen. Please do so. Canada will welcome it.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont Chair, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

CBC News May 18, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/disability-ministry-removed-from-pm-s-cabinet-1.7537406

Advocates call absence of disability ministry in PM’s new cabinet ‘a real slap in the face’

Canadians with disabilities worried about what omission means for policy moving forward

Courtney Dickson

A man in a puffy jacket stands on the sidewalk with a walking stick in his hand.

David Lepofsky says a cabinet minister must take on disabilities as part of their portfolio. (

Paul Smith/CBC)

When Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled his new cabinet this week, one notable position was omitted from the roster: the minister of diversity, inclusion and persons with disabilities. Pre-election, the position was held by Kamal Khera, who lost her Brampton West seat to the Conservative Party’s Amarjeet Gill.

Instead of naming a new minister, the position was, in effect, abolished. Now, people with disabilities and those supporting them are raising concerns about what this will mean for federal policy moving forward.

“For the prime minister to do this is a real slap in the face to eight million people with disabilities in Canada,” said disability rights professor David Lepofsky. He said the move signals to people with disabilities that they are not a priority.

According to Statistics Canada, about 27 per cent of Canadians 15 and over identify as having one or more disabilities. Lepofsky said that number will only increase as the population ages.

Carissa Thorpe, who suffers from chronic pain, said she worries the omission will set people with disabilities back.

“It feels dangerous to me because people with disabilities are the most vulnerable in society, and we are already very far behind most of the rest of society,” she told CBC’s The Early Edition host Stephen Quinn.

“Nobody’s going to be thinking of us.”

A group of people sit together for a photo.

Prime Minister Mark Carney, fifth from left, poses with members of the newly sworn-in Liberal cabinet following a ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa on Tuesday, May 13, 2025. (Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press)

‘No watchdog’

Lepofsky, who is blind, said not having a minister dedicated to this work means that issues that go before cabinet, often behind closed doors, won’t be viewed through the lens of someone who is focused on ensuring people with disabilities are included in everything.

“There’s no watchdog there anymore to pipe up and say, ‘Hey, what are you doing to make sure you’re not creating new barriers with this initiative, or why did you leave people with disabilities out?'”

For example, he said, the affordable housing crisis requires consideration of those who require accessible housing, too. “There’s no one at the cabinet table to ensure that when they come forward with this kind of new strategy that the accessible housing crisis is effectively included in it and addressed by it.”

That housing component especially rings true for Thorpe. She said the last stable housing she had was a small converted shed in someone’s backyard, with no running water and stairs that she fell down several times.

The $1,552 she gets in disability payments each month has made it difficult for her to find both accessible and affordable housing that is also safe.

Having no cabinet minister responsible for disability doesn’t just impact future policy, said Yat Li, a B.C.-based advocate who is hard of hearing, “it threatens to unravel years of hard-won progress led by former ministers who took over this portfolio, specifically advancing accessibility and disability in Canada,” he said.

A man with short black hair and glasses sits with his back to a computer desk. He’s wearing a blue vest over a grey long-sleeve shirt.

Yat Li worries that not having a minister advocating for Canadians with disabilities will undo the work that’s been done in recent years. (Ryan McLeod/CBC)

“We cannot let this recent news take us a step backwards. Even though the cabinet ministry doesn’t include a minister of disability, we need to continue to have a collective voice, continue to urge and ensure that a cabinet minister is explicitly tasked with the responsibility of advancing disability rights in Canada.”

Add disability to another portfolio, Lepofsky suggests

Lepofsky is also the chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, which is calling on Canadians to email the prime minister’s office to express their thoughts on the lack of a disability minister.

He said the group would be happy if disability were added to one of the existing portfolios, but doesn’t want to see the issue given to a secretary of state.

“They are not full cabinet members. They don’t go to all cabinet meetings. We need a watchdog in every cabinet meeting.”

CBC News requested a response from the prime minister’s office, but did not receive one by deadline.

Yet More Media Reports Blast Prime Minister Carney for Eliminating the Federal Disabilities Minister Post from Cabinet

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Yet More Media Reports Blast Prime Minister Carney for Eliminating the Federal Disabilities Minister Post from Cabinet

May 16, 2025

SUMMARY

There has been yet more excellent media reporting on Prime Minister Carney’s unjustified decision to eliminate the post of Minister for Disability Issues from the federal Cabinet. That position had had existed for the past decade.

Below is a powerful May 15, 2025 report from Toronto’s Now Magazine. As well, this morning at CBC’s request, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky did fully 13 separate interviews across Canada on a series of CBC morning radio shows from coast to coast. Some aired this morning. Others will air next wee. This included Toronto, Quebec City, Fredericton, Sudbury, Moncton, Edmonton, Saint John, Prince George/Prince Rupert, Vancouver, White Horse, Victoria, Kelowna, and Kitchener-Waterloo. This may be the most extensive or intensive single blast of radio interviews in the AODA Alliance‘s two decades.

How You Can Help

Send an email today to Prime Minister Mark Carney at pm@pm.gc.ca Press him to revive the Cabinet position of Minister Responsible for Disability Issues. It can be added to the assignments of one of his existing 28 Cabinet ministers. Send him this Update.
Call or email your local media. Urge them to cover this issue. Tell them why it matters to you.

Learn more about the battle to get the Accessible Canada Act strengthened and effectively implemented by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s Canada Page.

Explore our battle to strengthen the weak Canada Disability Benefit Act by checking out the AODA Alliance website’s Bill C-22 page.

MORE DETAILS

Now Magazine Toronto May 15, 2025

Originally posted at https://nowtoronto.com/news/carney-not-including-disability-minister-in-cabinet/

‘A worrisome message,’ Carney criticized for not including disability minister in cabinet

When Prime Minister Mark Carney’s new cabinet was sworn in on Tuesday, it included 28 ministers, but not one dedicated to issues impacting Canadians with disabilities. This left many people questioning why this is. (Courtesy: Mark Carney/ X)

Advocates for disabled communities in Canada are upset that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s newly sworn-in cabinet does not include a minister dedicated to people with disabilities.

Earlier this year, Carney received criticism for eliminating several roles from his initial cabinet when he stepped in to replace Justin Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party. This included ministers responsible for women, gender equality, youth, official languages, diversity, inclusion, persons with disabilities and seniors.

When his new cabinet was sworn in on Tuesday, it included 28 ministers, but not one dedicated to issues impacting Canadians with disabilities. This left many people questioning why this is.

Inclusion Canada, an organization advocating for the full inclusion and human rights of people with intellectual disabilities across the country, told Now Toronto that this is concerning as people with disabilities need a strong voice in Ottawa.

“Over 27% of people in Canada identify as having one or more disabilities,” Inclusion Canada said in a statement on Thursday. “Having a Minister dedicated to advancing the full inclusion of persons with disabilities and their families will ensure that a disability lens is consistently brought to the cabinet table.”

The organization said that every government decision must take into consideration the impacts on people with disabilities, and whether the actions of that government advance the full inclusion and rights of this community.

“Ideally, every Minister and Secretary of State would be well-versed in disability issues and apply that lens to government decisions,” the statement continues. “The reality is that it does not happen.”

It says this is why the disability community is intensely disappointed by the lack of a minister or secretary of state dedicated to their interests.

“Before the appointment of the cabinet, it was reported that priority areas for government would be given to Secretaries of State. With no mention of disability, what does this say about whether people with disabilities will be a priority for the new government?”

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance (AODA) is a disability consumer advocacy group that works to support the implementation of full and effective accessibility standards in Ontario. It pointed out that while Carney’s cabinet does not have a disability minister, it does have two ministers responsible for Indigenous peoples, as well as ministers for women, seniors, and sports.

“We of course recognize the value of sports in Canada, but are the urgent needs of people with

disabilities less important than sports?” the organization questioned in a statement shared with Now Toronto.

“This sends a strong and deeply worrisome message to millions of people with disabilities in Canada that they and their issues are a low priority in the world view of Canada’s new prime minister,” the statement continued, adding that the organization finds this more concerning due to Carney’s plans to undertake major restructuring of Canada’s economy and government in response to threats posed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

“If disability considerations are not fully factored into those plans, we can expect that yet more serious new disability barriers will be created in Canada,” the organization said. “This will violate the requirement in the Accessible Canada Act that the Federal Government lead this country to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2040, a deadline that we have already fallen quite behind on reaching.”

AODA told Now Toronto that during the recent federal election, it reached out to all federal party leaders requesting they make detailed commitments on disability issues, and make the Accessible Canada Pledge. The organization said only the Green Party did so.

However, the advocacy group says that having a minister dedicated to disability issues does not guarantee that the Canadian government will meet the needs of the country’s disabled communities.

AODA said that while former Disability Minister Carla Qualtrough spearheaded both the Accessible Canada Act and the Canada Disabilities Benefit Act, and played a part in ensuring an emergency disability benefit was available during the pandemic, both those bills were far too weak.

“Their implementation has been crushingly sluggish and ineffectual. The single disability benefit during the entire pandemic took an absurd amount of time to reach impoverished people with disabilities,” AODA said.

“At the same time as these measures were being developed, the Federal Government was excessively liberalizing doctor-assisted suicide, applicable only to people with disabilities, without ensuring proper safeguards for society’s most vulnerable.”

However, it says that it is reasonable to conclude that these measures would have been weaker if there had not been a disability minister at the time. Therefore, AODA is calling for Carney to add responsibilities for disabled communities to the portfolio of a current minister.

“The last thing people with disabilities now need is for the Federal Government to be backtracking in any way on disability issues.”

Devon Banfield

Writer / Editor

News Outlets Around Canada Report on Disability Community Objections to Prime Minister Carney’s Eliminating the Cabinet Post of Minister for Disability Issues

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

News Outlets Around Canada Report on Disability Community Objections to Prime Minister Carney’s Eliminating the Cabinet Post of Minister for Disability Issues

May 15, 2025

SUMMARY

Canada’s news media has quickly picked up on disability community objections to Prime Minister Carney’s eliminating the Cabinet post of Minister for Disability Issues, including objections from the AODA Alliance among others. Below you can find the May 15, 2025 Toronto Star report by the Canadian Press. This CP report has been picked up by a number of media outlets around Canada.

As the May 13, 2025 AODA Alliance Update noted, from 2015 to early 2025, Canada’s Federal Government had a cabinet minister designated as responsible for people with disabilities. In Mark Carney’s new Cabinet announced two days ago, there is a minister responsible for women, a minister responsible for seniors, two separate ministers responsible for Indigenous Peoples, and even a minister of sport.

It would not be sufficient for Prime Minister Carney to simply proclaim that he considers disability issues a major priority for his Government. We have gotten similar proclamations from government after government and political leader after leader. If we had a dollar for every time we’ve gotten such statements, we could retire the national debt! It’s their actions, not their words, that matter.

Eliminating the Minister for Disability Issues sends a strong signal to federal public servants that disability issues are de-prioritized. Public officials watch for and act on such signals.

Over its last term in office, the federal Liberals publicly embraced and repeated the disability community slogan “Nothing about us without us.” Having no voice at the Cabinet table flies in the face of their repeated invocation of this important principle.

In his new Cabinet, Prime Minister Carney has revived the idea of appointing several Secretaries of State for different issues. It would not be sufficient for him to now create a Secretary of State for Disability Issues. A Secretary of State is not a full member of Cabinet who attends and can speak at all Cabinet meetings. We need a minister who attends and can speak at all Cabinet meetings to be assigned with the disability portfolio. Disability issues can arise across most issues that will come before Cabinet. People with disabilities need a watchdog there at all times.

How You Can Help

Email Prime Minister Mark Carney at pm@pm.gc.ca and tell him to revive the Cabinet position of Minister Responsible for Disability Issues.
Contact your local media. Urge them to cover this issue. Tell them why it matters to you.

Learn more about the battle to get the Accessible Canada Act strengthened and effectively implemented by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s Canada Page.

Explore our battle to strengthen the weak Canada Disability Benefit Act by checking out the AODA Alliance website’s Bill C-22 page.

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star May 15, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/politics/we-are-not-a-priority-disability-advocates-say-lack-of-minister-sends-a-message/article_d3590f9a-36f1-5786-bba4-32767d53e4e2.html

Disability advocates say lack of minister sends a message

Move threatens millions of Canadians, they warn

Nicole Thompson The Canadian Press

The lack of a minister for disabilities threatens to sideline the needs of millions of Canadians during what Mark Carney promises will be a period of transformation, advocates said Wednesday.

The prime minister announced his smaller, “purpose-built” cabinet meant to deliver change on Tuesday, but the 38-member team doesn’t include anyone explicitly responsible for representing the interests of disabled Canadians.

“Not having big and bold disability inclusion and accessibility as part of a ministerial portfolio headline sends a message,” said Rabia Khedr, national director of Disability Without Poverty.

“Unfortunately, people with disabilities are being left behind.”

She worries there won’t be improvements to the Canada Disability Benefit, which offers a maximum of $200 per month to those eligible. That’s not enough to accomplish the government’s goal of lifting disabled Canadians out of poverty, she said.

“According to the government’s own data, it will lift 25,000 people out of poverty, when we know that there’s 1.6 million Canadians living with disabilities in poverty,” she said.

“We got the legislation, great. We made history after a lot of work. We got the budget but it was really disappointing. The regulations were adopted, but there’s still work to be done to make them as robust as they should be.”

The benefit is set to start rolling out on July 1, and the previous Liberal government committed in its fall economic update to making sure it was tax-exempt. That still needs to be done, and without a disability minister, it’s not clear who will champion the initiative.

There’s also the question of the Accessible Canada Act, a piece of legislation that was passed in 2019 with the goal of making Canada “barrier-free” by 2040. It’s already woefully behind schedule, she said.

“The Accessible Canada Act truly needs a champion at the cabinet table to ensure that the Disability Inclusion Action Plan (developed in 2022) is indeed adopted through a whole-of-government approach, advancing accessibility in all facets of governing this country,” she said.

David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, said the need for a disability minister goes beyond accessibility-specific legislation.

“This is a prime minister who has an ambitious goal of restructuring Canada’s economy, building new infrastructure and restructuring the federal government,” he said.

“They’re huge goals. More than ever, that’s when you need a strong voice because people with disabilities so often get left out, get forgotten.”

Take the issue of housing, for instance.

“We’ve heard tons of talk about housing and needing to increase the amount of housing in Canada – affordable housing. What they don’t talk about is the need for a dramatic increase in the amount of accessible housing. We have an accessible housing shortage that is a crisis,” he said.

Lepofsky said he remembers what it was like trying to advocate for accessibility before 2015, when the disability minister role was created, and he fears returning to that era.

“If you don’t have a voice at the cabinet table, if you don’t have a cabinet minister who could walk over to the prime minister – as a minister – and have a direct conversation about needing more action, you are really in a far more vulnerable position,” he said.

Representatives for the Prime Minister’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the criticism, or which cabinet member would be responsible for accessibility legislation.

Deborah Gold, CEO of the Toronto-based non-profit Balance for Blind Adults, said she worries the lack of a dedicated disabilities minister is indicative of this government’s overall priorities.

“It’s more of a fiscal-oriented government,” she said. “I’m concerned that it may speak to a shift away from the social policy … of the previous Liberal government.”

The Canadian Press

Prime Minister Carney’s New Cabinet Has No Minister for People with Disabilities But Has a Minister for Seniors, a Minister for Women, Two Ministers for Indigenous People, and Even a Minister for Sport!

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Prime Minister Carney’s New Cabinet Has No Minister for People with Disabilities But Has a Minister for Seniors, a Minister for Women, Two Ministers for Indigenous People, and Even a Minister for Sport!

May 13, 2025

For a decade, from 2015 to early 2025, Canada’s Federal Government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had a cabinet minister designated as responsible for people with disabilities. This was an important and commendable effort to try to ensure that the needs of millions of people with disabilities in Canada had a voice at the Cabinet table when important issues were raised.

Now, under Prime Minister Mark Carney, that cabinet post has inexcusably been abolished. He first eliminated it when he became leader of the federal Liberals earlier this year and took over as prime minister. At that point, he hurriedly appointed a substantially reduced Cabinet. While it was a bad sign that he eliminated the Disabilities Minister position, we anticipated that this situation was temporary. His party was rushing into a snap election.

However, with the announcement of his new Cabinet today, he has not revived that position. In sharp contrast, he still has a minister responsible for women, a minister responsible for seniors, two separate ministers responsible for Indigenous Peoples, and even a minister of sport. We of course recognize the value of sports in Canada, but are the urgent needs of people with disabilities less important than sports?

After Mark Carney named his initial Cabinet earlier this year, he was blasted for having eliminated both the minister responsible for people with disabilities and the minister responsible for women’s issues. In this new Cabinet, he took that criticism seriously enough to restore the position of minister responsible for women’s issues, but not seriously enough to restore the minister for people with disabilities.

This sends a strong and deeply worrisome message to millions of people with disabilities in Canada that they and their issues are a low priority in the world view of Canada’s new prime minister. This is even more worrisome because Prime Minister Carney aims to undertake major restructuring of Canada’s economy and reorganization of the Federal Government due to the Trump threat. If disability considerations are not fully factored into those plans, we can expect that yet more serious new disability barriers will be created in Canada. This will violate the requirement in the Accessible Canada Act that the Federal Government lead this country to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2040, a deadline that we have already fallen quite behind on reaching.

Making all this even worse is the fact that Prime Minister Carney did not even answer our written request of all federal party leaders during the recent election to make detailed commitments on disability issues. We had asked all the parties to make the Accessible Canada Pledge. Only the Green Party did so.

Of course, having a minister responsible for disability issues in the federal Cabinet is not a guarantee that the Federal Government will effectively meet the urgent needs of people with disabilities in Canada. On the one hand, the longest serving minister in this role, Carla Qualtrough, spearheaded two important pieces of new federal legislation, the Accessible Canada Act and the Canada Disabilities Benefit Act. She also played a key role in getting an emergency disability benefit paid during the pandemic.

On the other hand, both those bills were far too weak. Their implementation has been crushingly sluggish and ineffectual. The single disability benefit during the entire pandemic took an absurd amount of time to reach impoverished people with disabilities. At the same time as these measures were being developed, the Federal Government was excessively liberalizing doctor-assisted suicide, applicable only to people with disabilities, without ensuring proper safeguards for society’s most vulnerable.

However, it is reasonable to conclude that weak as these measures were, they would have been even weaker had there not been a minister at the Cabinet table with direct public responsibility for disability issues. We urge Prime Minister Carney to designate one of his ministers whom he has already appointed with an explicit and clear mandate to be the voice for people with disabilities at the Cabinet table. The last thing people with disabilities now need is for the Federal Government to be backtracking in any way on disability issues.

How You Can Help

Contact your newly elected MP. Tell them to press Prime Minister Carney to appoint a Minister for People with Disabilities.

Learn more about the battle to get the Accessible Canada Act strengthened and effectively implemented by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s Canada Page.

Explore our battle to strengthen the weak Canada Disability Benefit Act by checking out the AODA Alliance website’s Bill C-22 page.

Saturday, May 10, 2025 is a Bittersweet Anniversary for 2.9 Million Ontarians with Disabilities Trying to Tear Down Accessibility Barriers

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

News Release – For Immediate Release

Saturday, May 10, 2025 is a Bittersweet Anniversary for 2.9 Million Ontarians with Disabilities Trying to Tear Down Accessibility Barriers

May 9, 2025 Toronto: Tomorrow will be a profoundly bittersweet day for 2.9 million Ontarians with disabilities. Twenty years ago tomorrow, on May 10, 2005, the Ontario Legislature unanimously passed the historic Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) after people with disabilities across Ontario tenaciously campaigned for a decade to win its enactment.

It is a sweet anniversary, because it led to Canada’s first comprehensive law being enacted, one that required the Ontario Government to lead the province to become accessible to people with all kinds of disabilities by 2025. Watch the historic final vote in the Legislature on May 10, 2005, the standing ovation that MPPs gave the Act’s passage, and the Queen’s Park news conference with speakers from the Government, the disability community, and the business sector. The idea for this legislation and its key ingredients all came bottom-up from the disability community, not top-down from the Government. It inspired later passage of accessibility legislation in Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and at the federal level.

It is bitter because 20 years later, Ontario is nowhere near its mandatory goal of full accessibility. Despite some improvements, Ontarians with disabilities continue to face barrier after barrier when they try to get a job, ride public transit, get an education in our schools, or get health care services.

“Ontario is in an accessibility crisis and needs to implement a crisis response,” said non-partisan AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, who led the campaign from 1994 to 2005 to get the Disabilities Act enacted. “That is the wise advice that the Ontario Government received two years ago from an Independent Review of the Disabilities Act conducted by Government-appointed Rich Donovan.”

A positive and helpful way for Premier Ford to begin his new term in office would be for him to agree to meet with AODA Alliance representatives.

“The AODA Alliance and other disability advocates are now gearing up to forge ahead with our accessibility campaign,” said Lepofsky. “We’re as tenacious as ever and are ready to offer the Government constructive ideas for fulfilling its mandate under the Disabilities Act.”

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com Twitter: @aodaalliance

Looking Back at the 2025 Federal Election Campaign from a Disability Perspective

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Looking Back at the 2025 Federal Election Campaign from a Disability Perspective

May 8, 2025

SUMMARY

With the federal election now behind us all, it is worthwhile to take a moment to reflect on the results from a disability perspective.

It is always absurdly difficult to get public and media attention focused on disability issues during an election campaign. It was even harder during this recent federal election, because the Donald Trump trade war with Canada sucked up much of the media oxygen.

Yet an election campaign should be the time when it is easiest to attract public attention to our issues. They concern the urgent and vital needs of millions of people. They are or should be non-partisan issues.

This is all the truer with this federal election. A CBC reporter told AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky last month that audience feedback to the “Ask CBC News” initiative revealed that there was a substantial audience interest in disability issues in the election. The general media failure to address these issues, with a few shining exceptions, constitutes a large institutional failure by the mainstream media and its reporters, editors and pundits.

We were proud that during this federal election, for the first time in memory, we got a national TV news report on disability issues. CBC’s The National included a detailed report on April 13, 2025. Also, several local media outlets published reports on disability issues in the election. But major outlets like CTV, Global News City TV, the Globe and Mail, the National Post, and the Sun newspapers left our issues out of their election coverage.

Two days before Voting Day, and well after millions of votes were cast at advance polls, the Toronto Star ran one article on the election’s disability issues. We set that article out below. It’s of course better late than never, but earlier would have been far preferred.

It is deeply troubling that of the three major national parties that won a number of seats in Parliament, none answered the AODA Alliance’s written request for election commitments. We heard nothing back from the Liberals, Conservatives, or NDP. Only the Green Party answered and commendably made the entire Accessible Canada Pledge that we were seeking.

This is hard to fathom, since the issues on which we sought commitments were ones on which all the major parties voiced strong commitments in debates in Parliament during the last government. These parties tried to show that they were stronger on disability issues than the other parties. When it came to turning that into election commitments, however, they were inexcusably unresponsive to us.

This of course does not mean that we can or should give up our efforts on these issues. Canada has a new Parliament with many new MPs. We have a new prime minister and will soon have a new Cabinet. The Liberals won a minority government and will need the support of at least one other party to get legislation enacted. We have lots to work with.

Let’s look positively on what we presented to Canadians during this election campaign, which occurred on the heels of what we presented Ontarians in the provincial election that came right before it. People with disabilities and their supporters advocated effectively when faced with back-to-back snap elections, called sooner than was necessary. The AODA Alliance was honoured to be part of the consortium that convened successful candidates’ debates on very short notice in both elections. It is a compelling argument that Donald Trump presents Canadians with an important issue, but it is not the only issue that our new Federal Government is obliged to effectively address.

We thank everyone who tried to raise disability issues in the two elections that have preoccupied us in the opening months of 2025. Let’s now look forward to the next steps in our campaign to make our society barrier-free for all people with disabilities.

You can review our non-partisan efforts during this federal election campaign on the AODA Alliance website’s Canada page.

We always welcome your feedback and your creative ideas. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star April 26, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/is-the-canada-disability-benefit-high-enough-what-the-major-federal-parties-are-saying-about/article_6c18d9bd-2e1c-4587-9bc9-7cc5c7f367e2.html

Is the Canada Disability Benefit high enough?

Activists lobby to raise payments above poverty line

Serena Austin Toronto Star

Working-age Canadians with disabilities are scheduled to receive their first Canada Disability Benefit payments this summer, but advocates say $200 a month isn’t enough.

“Our Parliament’s united commitment to end disability poverty by enacting the Canada Disability Benefit is a commendable goal, but the benefit they actually created falls miles short of what’s needed,” said David Lepofsky, who is blind and the chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

The Canada Disability Benefit Act, in place since 2024, aims to provide financial support for low- and modest-income working-age people with disabilities.

Ahead of Monday’s election, the AODA Alliance and 27 other disability organizations signed a letter urging the federal party leaders to make the “Accessible Canada Pledge,” ensuring the act lifts people with disabilities above the poverty line so they can afford clothing, food, transportation and shelter. So far, the Greens have made the pledge, but in its platform, the NDP has committed to doubling the benefit. The Conservatives and Liberals have plans to reform the Disability Tax Credit, which people need to be approved for to qualify for the benefit.

Asked about a potential minority government, NDP spokesperson Anne McGrath said in an email the party will continue to fight for the rights of people with disabilities, adding that “it’s because NDP MPs worked alongside people with disabilities and forced the Liberal government to act that we have this benefit in the first place.”

Lepofsky feels doubling the benefit is helpful, though “it doesn’t address the commitment that no person with a disability in Canada should ever live in poverty.”

As of 2022, 27 per cent of Canadians, or eight million people, 15 or older had one or more disabilities limiting them in daily life, according to the Canadian Survey on Disability. In the same year, Statistics Canada says 12.3 per cent of Canadians with a disability 15 and older lived below the poverty line.

The Canadian Down Syndrome Society is one of the groups that asked party leaders to make the pledge. Its website has a letter that users can fill out that advocates for increased Canada Disability Benefit payments, expanded eligibility and for the Disability Tax Credit to be reformed so people with lifelong disabilities will be automatically approved for the benefit, and so that the cost of professional assessments required to apply for the credit are covered.

“Most individuals with Down syndrome have a disability tax credit,” but the Society doesn’t want them to have to submit another application to get the Canada Disability Benefit, said executive director Laura LaChance.

The Liberals’ platform says they’ll review and reform the Disability Tax Credit’s application process, and consider expanding eligibility to other ailments. The Conservatives have said they would stream- line the tax credit to make eligibility for its related benefits automatic, renaming it a “Certification of Disability.”

LaChance also wants the next government to prioritize inclusive education and employment, building accessible housing and investing in research and resources to improve the health of people with disabilities.

The Liberals’ platform includes plans to make workplaces more accessible by boosting the Enabling Accessibility Fund, and incorporating more “barrier-free” designs in- to housing plans.

The pledge also asks leaders to ensure the “effective implementation” of the Accessible Canada Act to achieve a barrier-free country by 2040, and to ensure equal access to air travel. The act took effect in 2019 and calls for the development of voluntary accessibility standards which could then be adapted into mandatory regulations, but both Lepofsky and Marcia Yale, president of the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, say progress has been lagging.

As of this April, Accessibility Standards Canada has 19 standards un- der development, and has recommended its standard for information and communication technologies products and services to the minister responsible for the Accessible Canada Act. So far, the only regulations in place under the act require organizations to publish and keep accessibility plans and progress reports, to make them available in different formats and to develop processes for accepting feedback.

“We have the Accessible Canada Act, but we’ve still got no regulations to tell federal bodies what they’re supposed to do and how they’re supposed to do it,” said Yale, who was born blind.

“Nothing is going to change until there is either the will to do it — and that’s very doubtful — or there’s regulations that say you must do it, or else.”

AODA Alliance Chair’s Monthly Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications and Two Other Recent Media Reports Address Canadians with Disabilities’ Urgent Issues in This Election

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Originally posted at https://www.simcoe.com/opinion/columnists/housing-poverty-and-maid-among-urgent-issues-for-candidates-raised-by-those-living-with-disabilities/article_c065a7e9-c9ac-5666-9d55-59f3023007a3.html

AODA Alliance Chair’s Monthly Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications and Two Other Recent Media Reports Address Canadians with Disabilities’ Urgent Issues in This Election

April 18, 2025

SUMMARY

Here are three recent published news articles that address our efforts to raise disability issues in the current federal election that are vital for millions of voters with disabilities, and which most major media have not covered. Below you can read:

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky ‘s monthly column for April 2025 in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications around Ontario. It summarizes key issues that were raised at the April 8, 2025 Candidates Debate on Disability Issues held at CNIB Toronto, which was organized by 13 disability organizations including the AODA Alliance.
The April 16, 2025 CBC online report.
The April 17, 2025 opinion piece in The Hub, an online publication, by its editor.

The CBC online April 16, 2025 report is especially significant for our blitz during this election. During this election, CBC has been inviting members of the public to write them and tell them what election issues matter to them. This is CBC’s laudable Ask CBC News initiative. You can write CBC for this at ask@cbc.ca

CBC approached the AODA Alliance last week to request an interview on disability issues. The CBC report, set out below, includes quotations from that interview, which took place on Friday, April 11, 2025. During that interview, CBC told the AODA Alliance that it received a lot of feedback from their audience indicating the importance of disability issues in response to its Ask CBC News activity. This further proves that there is a huge gap between what the public wants to hear from the media and what the media has been covering. We applaud CBC for acting on this public feedback, in so far as this current report and the unprecedented April 13, 2025 report on CBC TV’s “The National” are concerned.

As a clarification, the CBC report incorrectly states that the AODA Alliance hosted the April 8, 2025 Candidates Debate on Disability Issues. In fact, the AODA Alliance was one member of the team that organized the event, which included 13 disability organizations.

The April 17, 2025 opinion piece in The Hub uses the Tories’ failure to send a candidate to the April 8, 2025 Candidates Debate on Disability Issues as a starting point to address a broader pattern of some Tory candidates not attending local candidates debates at all.

We emphasize yet again that the non-partisan AODA Alliance does not support, endorse or oppose any party or candidate. We aim to get all parties to make the strongest commitments we can get on disability issues.

With only 9 days left until April 28, voting day, only the Green Party has made the Accessible Canada Pledge that over two dozen disability organizations have called on all party leaders to make.

Advance polls open today. Be sure to vote early, in case you encounter disability barriers in the voting process and need to take action to try to overcome those barriers.

How You Can Help

Email or tweet these two new articles to candidates. You can find the email addresses and Twitter handles for as many candidates as we could find on the online candidates list posted on the AODA Alliance website.
Send these articles to your friends and family. Invite them to share them with others. Blitz them to others on social media.
Send these articles link to other news organizations.
Write letters to the editor of other media. Tell them their audience deserves to know about this election’s disability issues that are important for over 8 million people with disabilities in Canada.

For background, check out:

The Accessible Canada Pledge that we have asked all federal party leaders to make and the open letter from over 2 dozen disability organizations supporting that Pledge.
The report on this election’s disability issues on the April 13, 2025 broadcast of CBC TV’s “The national”
The 3-minute April 8, 2025 CBC Toronto local news report on this election’s disability issues.
The archived video of the April 8, 2025 Candidates Debate on Disability Issues.
The earlier April 2, 2025 column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications on this election’s disability issues, written by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky.
The AODA Alliance website’s federal elections campaign page, which sets out our advocacy efforts on disability issues during this election.
The AODA Alliance website’s Canada page to see our advocacy to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act.
The AODA Alliance website’s Bill C-22 page to learn about the AODA Alliance’s efforts to strengthen the grossly inadequate new Canada Disability Benefit.

MORE DETAILS

Simcoe Today April 17, 2025

Housing, poverty and MAID among urgent issues for candidates raised by those living with disabilities

Yes, tariffs are important, but it is not the only issue in this election, advocate writes.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

What issues did 350 in-person and online attendees raise at the April 8 candidates’ debate on federal disability issues, organized by 13 major disability organizations and held at CNIB in Toronto?

This debate offered extraordinary insight into important issues for eight million people living with disabilities and those who will acquire disabilities later.

The parties were invited to send any candidate they wished. Liberals, NDP and Greens sent a candidate. The Conservatives and Bloc, which has no candidates in Ontario, sent no one.

We’re non-partisan. We want to hear what all parties will do for us. Voters will size up what it means when a party doesn’t show up.

It is a disrespectful disservice to Canadians with disabilities that no Conservative candidate came. They have lots of candidates around Toronto.

I left a voice mail for Karen Stintz, my riding’s Tory candidate, urging her to attend. She’s the head of Variety Village. Her website says it serves children with disabilities.

I got no response.

The core message to candidates was this: Trump’s outrageous tariff war is a very important issue, but it isn’t the only one. The next federal government must also deal with other issues, including the urgent needs of millions with disabilities.

You can watch a recording of the debate at AODA Alliance’s YouTube feed. Sadly, the audio at points could be better. Here are just some issues raised. We didn’t have time for most of the hundreds of questions that attendees wanted to ask.

The media reports that party leaders have said lots on the campaign trail about increasing affordable housing. Yet, we’ve heard nothing about what will be done to substantially increase the supply of accessible housing. Canada has a shortage of accessible housing. This crisis gets worse as society ages.

The paltry $200 per month Canada Disability Benefit maximum that the federal government starts paying in July to some people with disabilities who are living in poverty, as a top-up to their provincial benefits like ODSP, is grossly insufficient to lift many people with disabilities out of poverty. Much more is needed.

The federal government’s weak implementation of the 2019 Accessible Canada Act has not improved life for people with disabilities. We are behind schedule for becoming accessible by 2040, that act’s deadline.

The National Building Code’s weak accessibility provisions must be drastically strengthened. For example, they don’t ensure that visual fire alarms are always installed in all places where they’re needed to warn deaf people when there is a fire.

Canada’s massive liberalization of doctor-assisted suicide (Medical Assistance in Dying, MAID) lacks desperately needed safeguards. It seriously endangers vulnerable people with disabilities. For example, people shouldn’t resort to it because society has not provided the supports they need to live with a disability.

Our government should provide needed supports, instead of making it easier to get a doctor to help them die by suicide.

How did Green, Liberal and NDP candidates respond? The Greens announced they would make the three-plank Accessible Canada Pledge we have requested to tear down disability barriers, raise the Canada Disability Benefit and end the horrible mistreatment of air passengers with disabilities by Canadian airlines. The Liberal and NDP candidates expressed personal support for people with disabilities on all the issues raised.

In many cases, they could not give commitments on behalf of their parties. The Liberals’ platform had not yet been announced.

The NDP said they’d double the Canada Disability Benefit, raising the rate from $200 to $400. Every dollar helps, but it still leaves a great many people with disabilities languishing in poverty.

There’s still time for parties to make commitments on our issues.

Over the election’s final days, it’s important to press all parties and candidates to do more for people with disabilities. This is when politicians are most willing to pay attention.

CBC News April 16, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elections-disabilities-vote-1.7511654

What people with disabilities want to hear from party leaders in this election | CBC News Loaded

Ask CBC News

What people with disabilities want to hear from party leaders in this election

Activists call for changes to disability amount, qualification process from parties

Mouhamad Rachini CBC News

As the federal election campaign enters the final stretch, advocates are urging the next government to improve the Canada Disability Benefit not only by increasing the payments but also by ensuring that provinces don’t claw money back.

Election day is less than two weeks away, but Rowena Edwards is still unsure who she should vote for.

“Honestly, I don’t like any candidates,” the 63-year-old told CBC News through an email interview.

Edwards is one of more than eight million Canadians living with a disability. She says she spends around 20 hours a day in a hospital bed at home in Sherwood Park, Alta. — by herself and unable to work.

She says she feels forgotten by Canada’s federal party leaders.

“Our leaders don’t even think about us,” she said. “I have no faith that things will change for us.”

She’s not the only person who feels that way. Disability activist and retired lawyer David Lepofsky, who is blind, says people with disabilities are victims of a “vicious cycle that muzzles their voice.”

Two yellow signs that say “Vote Here”

Activists are calling on federal parties to remember people with disabilities in the final weeks ahead of the April 28 election. (CBC)

Lepofsky says Canada is “miles behind” other countries when it comes to disability support programs and accessibility. And while U.S. tariffs are an important issue in this year’s election, he says it’s not the only one.

“The next government that takes power after this election in Ottawa is gonna be mandated to govern for four years,” he said. “Not just about tariff barriers, but about all barriers, including those which impede people with disabilities from equal opportunity in our society.”

“There’s no good reason why our politicians shouldn’t be answering what they would do to tear those barriers down,” said Lepofsky, who is also chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Alliance.

More disability benefits

Last week, Lepofsky hosted a debate to hear what the federal parties were promising in this election.

Candidates from the Liberal, New Democratic and Green parties — but not the Conservatives — attended.

“We’re looking for real concrete commitments from all the politicians and all the parties on key issues that matter to over eight million people with disabilities and everyone else in Canada who’s gonna get a disability later in life,” he said.

I wish each candidate had to live our lives for one week, only then do I believe things would change

-Rowena Edwards

Part of that includes improving on the Canada Disability Benefit (CDB) Act, which came into effect in 2024. The act established the CDB, which gives working-age, low-income people with disabilities up to $200 a month if they qualify — a “paltry” amount, according to Lepofsky.

“People with disabilities don’t just have the cost of living that everybody else has,” he said. “There are added costs associated with living with a disability, possibly getting supports or expensive technology or services.”

Even if you factor in provincial support plans, Lepofsky says people with disabilities are going to be “languishing in poverty.”

David Lepofsky, of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, says the aides that school boards provide to students with disabilities are a right not a privilege.

Retired lawyer David Lepofsky, who is blind, is calling on all parties to make the Accessible Canada Pledge, which he says would tackle a significant number of barriers impacting Canadians with disabilities. (Mike Smee/CBC)

“For example, a person with a disability in Ontario, if they’re living in poverty, can qualify for the Ontario Disability Support Plan,” he said. “It will give an individual a maximum of… under $1,400 a month. The poverty line is over $2,000 a month.”

“The paltry $200 a month maximum [of the new CDB]… is not going to lift the vast majority of impoverished people with disabilities.”

This is a greater challenge for people with disabilities who can’t work, such as Edwards.

She says her disability income for 2024 was just over $22,000. She mainly uses it on rising grocery costs and hired labour. Edwards says she often has to keep her meals between a dollar or two, and set her thermostat to just 14 C on winter days because she “can’t afford the heating bills.”

“It’s been years since I bought a steak, even though I dream about having one, but I can’t justify spending the money,” she said.

That’s why some advocates are calling for an increase in benefit payments, by “$1,000 to $2,000 a month, at least,” said the Disability Justice Network of Ontario’s Brad Evoy.

“An extra thousand [dollars] a month would be life-changing,” Edwards said. “Maybe I could have my heat at 16 next winter, what a luxury that would be.”

Furthermore, most disability benefits have an end date at age 65, including the CDB and Canada Pension Plan disability benefits.

Some benefits may kick in at that stage, like the Old Age Security (OAS) pension. OAS eligibility isn’t determined by employment history, but it is determined by how long a person has lived in Canada after the age of 18.

Still, some people are worried about losing CBD and provincial benefits when they turn 65.

“Don’t kick us off of disability when we reach 65,” she said. “We are still disabled. This is extremely important and this part of the system has definitely failed us.”

Streamlining applications

Disability activists also want to see politicians streamline the benefit application process.

Since she first started having disability difficulties in 2011, Edwards has moved from Alberta to British Columbia and then back to Alberta.

She said it took her four to five years to get an official diagnosis due to the difficulty of the application process.

And even when she got on B.C.’s provincial benefits, she had to start the whole process again when applying for federal benefits.

A button people who use wheelchairs can push to open doors.

Rowena Edwards says she has little faith in things changing for the better for people with disabilities post-election. (Michael Wilson/CBC)

“Once you are on provincial disability, you must apply for federal disability and start the whole process over, with it again being very difficult to get accepted,” she said.

“And what needs to change is there is no interprovincial acceptance. So when I moved back to Alberta in 2022, I had to apply for a third time on [the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped program].”

Lepofsky says he predicted this problem when the CDB was before the House of Commons in 2024. He said disability organizations asked that “anyone who qualifies for disability benefits should automatically qualify for the federal top-up to those benefits.”

“That’s not what Parliament did. Instead, they restricted the Canada Disability Benefit to the very problematic qualifications and bureaucratic way to qualify for the narrow Canada Disability Tax Credit,” he said.

“So they’ve set up a legal barrier to people who are in poverty, who need the Canada Disability Benefit, and a process that costs money potentially to even apply for it. It’s a catch-22.”

Taking the pledge

Lepofsky is calling on all parties to make the Accessible Canada Pledge, which he says would tackle a significant number of barriers impacting Canadians with disabilities.

“So far, the only party that’s answered us and commendably made the Accessible Canada Pledge is the Green Party,” he said. “It’s time for the other four candidates for prime minister to step up to the plate and to show us that people with disabilities in Canada matter too.”

But Edwards says she has little faith in things improving for people with disabilities post-election.

“I wish each candidate had to live our lives for one week, only then do I believe things would change,” she said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mouhamad Rachini

Journalist

Mouhamad Rachini is a Canadian Lebanese writer and producer for CBC Radio’s digital team. He’s worked for CBC Radio shows including Day 6 and Cross Country Checkup. He’s particularly passionate about telling stories from Muslim and Middle Eastern communities. He also writes about soccer on his website Between the Sticks. You can reach him at mouhamad.rachini@cbc.ca.

With files from Ali Chiasson

The Hub April 17, 2025

Originally posted at https://thehub.ca/2025/04/17/harrison-lowman-its-time-for-conservatives-to-grow-up-and-show-up-at-local-debates/

Harrison Lowman: It’s time for Conservatives to grow up and show up at local debates

Commentary

Last week, a group of 13 major disability organizations held their only all-candidates debate. It was an attempt to bring attention to the needs of the most vulnerable members of Canadian society, who rely on government support the most. The Liberals, NDP, and Greens sent a candidate. The Conservatives were no-shows. They didn’t even bother returning the organizer’s phone calls.

“The Tories never answered us,” longtime disability rights activist David Lepofsky told me.

This week, when Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre takes part in the national leaders’ debates, he will be one of the only candidates in his party across the country stepping up onto a debate stage during the election.

In doing so, the Conservatives will continue a long (un)proud tradition of unofficially forbidding candidates from participating in debates in their ridings. It’s a mistake that I believe is objectionable, electorally harmful, and flies in the face of a new conservative movement not afraid to fight on the battlefield of ideas.

It’s also cowardly. If you want to prove you can and should end 10 years of Liberal rule, the least you could do is show up to tell voters how you plan to do it.

Years of flying under the radar

I’m not sure when the custom first began. It used to be an expectation that candidates would attend at least one all-candidates debate in their riding; it was embarrassing if you didn’t. But it appears just over a decade ago, both the federal Conservatives and their provincial Progressive Conservative (PC) cousins began to shy away from church basements and community centres during the writ period.

During the last Ontario provincial election, a PC source told The Trillium, it was “against party policy” for candidates to participate in local debates. Yesterday, a former senior member of the Conservative Party of Canada told me it was “unofficial doctrine” that their candidates do not attend debates.

Ironically, when I repeatedly questioned the party about whether they had formally barred candidates from attending debates this election, they didn’t show up to that conversation either.

If they were speaking frankly with me, I’m sure they’d say that debates are one of the riskiest events a candidate can attend. They are the opposite of campaign control. One embarrassing flub and your candidate can be clipped into oblivion on social media. Not to mention they can be a huge time suck during a short election where every moment matters. Debates mean lengthy candidate prep around niche issues with limited returns. Often, the debates themselves feature left-leaning parties and moderators ganging up on the Tory, attended by folks who have probably made up their minds. They’d tell me it’s far more efficient and rewarding to door knock or post a few more slogans on Instagram.

Time to show up

But not attending debates also means Conservatives are avoiding scrutiny from their opponents, and, more importantly, the constituents they’re hoping to serve.

Conservative thinkers like Burke and Hayek taught us that society reforms and improves itself by letting ideas compete in the public square. Debate thus serves as a proving ground, where good ideas are tested and refined, and bad ones are exposed. Preaching to the converted at raucous rallies feels great, but persuading voters who are on the fence—the very voters the Conservatives could use right now—could prove far more beneficial to the party.

Debate is also the gateway drug that has brought many young people, especially young men, into the conservative movement. Today, an unprecedented 45 percent of voters aged 18 to 34 are planning to vote blue. These young Canadians were raised on an online diet of conservative personalities who dared to go behind enemy lines onto hostile university campuses armed only with a poster that said “Change My Mind,” inviting swarms of people with opposing viewpoints to debate them. Young conservatives crave courageous politicians who can publicly defend what they believe in. It’s hard to “own the libs” if you refuse to share a debate stage with the libs.

Finally, during our 51st state bout with the Americans, it would help if we distinguished ourselves from them. By banning Conservatives from debates in their constituencies, the party is telling voters they don’t need to get to know their local candidates. They’re telling voters that when they mark their ballots, they should only be thinking about the leader—almost as if we were an American-style republic with an elected president. But we are Canadians. We don’t vote for prime ministers. We vote for MPs who we believe will best represent us in Ottawa.

Practice debating locally could even mean that if they do make it to Ottawa, candidates might gain enough oratorical skills to not have to read off a sheet of paper when arguing with their new opponents in Question Period.

Conservatives should stop hiding. It’s time to break their unspoken rule. It’s time for Conservatives to buck up and show up for debates in their communities.

Harrison Lowman

Harrison Lowman is The Hub’s Managing Editor. He has worked for more than a decade in journalism, including at TVO’s The Agenda.

The Charter of Rights’ Guarantee of Equality to People with Disabilities Went Into Force 40 Years Ago Today, but Canadians with Disabilities are Still Battling During this Election to Get These Rights Honoured

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

News Release – For Immediate Release

The Charter of Rights’ Guarantee of Equality to People with Disabilities Went Into Force 40 Years Ago Today, but Canadians with Disabilities are Still Battling During this Election to Get These Rights Honoured

April 17, 2025 Toronto: It is a powerful message that today, the date of the federal party leaders national televised leaders’ debate, is also the 40^th anniversary of the Charter of Rights’ equality rights guarantee in Section 15 going into effect. It includes a guarantee of equality before and under the law, and the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination on several grounds, including mental or physical disability. The Charter went into effect in 1982, but Section 15’s operation was delayed to April 17, 1985.

In 1980, people with disabilities had to fight to get disability added to the list of grounds of discrimination prohibited by Section 15. When the Federal Government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced the Charter of Rights into Parliament for debate in October 1980, it included Section 15, the equality rights provision. However, that provision did not include equality rights for people with disabilities.

Four decades later, people with disabilities must once again wage an uphill battle in this federal election to get the party leaders to commit to effectively implement that right.

A recently published memoir tells the saga of how the 1980 uphill battle to get disability rights included in the Charter was won despite enormous obstacles, written by blind lawyer, AODA Alliance Chair and law professor David Lepofsky, one of the many grassroots disability activists who waged the campaign over four decades ago to win this ground-breaking constitutional right. In Swimming Up Niagara Falls — The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” David Lepofsky explains how it happened, step by step. (Available for free download at https://www.aodaalliance.org/publications/)

“Just like we had to fight for the disability amendment to the Charter in 1980, Canadians with disabilities had to battle again to get Parliament to pass the Accessible Canada Act in 2019 and the Canada Disability Benefit Act in 2023. Now we must fight once more to get the federal party leaders to pledge to implement these rights,” said David Lepofsky. “In this election, only the Green Party has made the Accessible Canada Pledge so far, and we want all parties to do the same. It feels like trying to swim up Niagara falls again and again!”

“Trump’s trade war against Canada is an important election issue, but it’s not the only issue. We urge the journalists at tonight’s televised English language Leaders’ Debate to ask the party leaders what they’ll do to honour the urgent needs of over 8 million people with disabilities in Canada,” said Lepofsky. “That question is especially timely today, the 40^th anniversary of our constitutional right to equality coming into force. Forty years is more than far too long for us to have to wait for our rights to become a reality!”

The AODA Alliance made the Accessible Canada Pledge public on March 20, 2025. The Accessible Canada Pledge aims to ensure that the sluggish implementation and enforcement of the Accessible Canada Act becomes swift, strong and effective, that air passengers with disabilities stop suffering horrific mistreatment by Canadian airlines, and that the Canada Disabilities Benefit Act fulfils its purpose of lifting people with disabilities out of poverty.

Contact AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

For background, check out:

The Accessible Canada Pledge that we have asked all federal party leaders to make.
The archived video of the April 8, 2025 Candidates Debate on Disability Issues.
The April 2, 2025 column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications on this election’s disability issues, written by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky.
The AODA Alliance website’s federal elections campaign page.
The AODA Alliance website’s Canada page to see our advocacy to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act.
The AODA Alliance website’s Bill C-22 page to learn about the AODA Alliance’s efforts to strengthen the grossly inadequate new Canada Disability Benefit.

TTC Again Makes Riding Public Transit Harder for Passengers with Disabilities After it Violated the Disabilities Act’s 2025 Deadline for Becoming Accessible

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

TTC Again Makes Riding Public Transit Harder for Passengers with Disabilities After it Violated the Disabilities Act’s 2025 Deadline for Becoming Accessible

April 16, 2025

SUMMARY

An April 9, 2025 Toronto Star report, set out below, shows that the Toronto Transit Commission is making it even harder for transit passengers with disabilities to ride the TTC well after it failed to meet the 2025 deadline for becoming accessible to people with disabilities. Years ago, the TTC publicly pledged to an audience of riders with disabilities that it would ensure that all subway stations are accessible by 2025, winning a hardy round of applause. Yet well into 2025, it still has some inaccessible subway stations. As this new Toronto Star report reveals, it has made the St. Lawrence subway station even more problematic for people with disabilities while it is doing renovations to install an elevator. The cruel irony of this is as obvious as it is inexcusable.

Meanwhile, the Ford Government continues to appear to be asleep at the switch. It has been sitting on recommendations to strengthen the weak Transportation Accessibility Standard that was enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act for almost eight years. In the spring of 2018, the Ontario Government made public the final recommendations it had received from the Government-appointed Transportation Standards Development Committee to revise that accessibility standard. We have lots of constructive ideas on how to improve that accessibility standard, beyond the recommendations in the 2018 final report of the Transportation Standards Development Committee. However, the Ford Government has been totally inactive on this issue since it took office. A widely viewed 2018 AODA Alliance video reveals how Ontario continues to build new public transit stations with accessibility blunders.

Beyond that, the Ford Government has announced no comprehensive plan to strengthen or accelerate the AODA’s implementation or enforcement, either in the last election campaign or since it was re-elected. MPP Raymond Cho was re-appointed as the minister responsible for accessibility after having served in that role for almost eight years. He is the longest-serving minister in that role in Ontario history. He should therefore be able to move more quickly than any prior minister. Instead, the Ford Government appears to be in suspended animation in this area.

It has been 677 days since the Ford Government received the final report of the Government-appointed 4^th Independent Review of the AODA conducted by Rich Donovan. That report declared that Ontario was in an accessibility crisis and needed a crisis response. The Ford Government has neither recognized that there is an accessibility crisis nor announced a comprehensive new plan to deal with it.

How You Can Help

Contact your Ontario MPP and Premier Ford. Tell them to recognize that Ontario is in an accessibility crisis. Press them to strengthen and speed up the AODA’s implementation and enforcement. You can write Premier Ford at premier@ontario.ca
Get friends and family to sign up to get AODA Alliance Updates. Tell them to visit the AODA Alliance website’s home page to sign up.

More details

Toronto Star April 9, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/the-ttc-is-trying-to-make-this-station-accessible-construction-is-making-it-less-so/article_f2092c3e-4cc2-4e88-a0eb-c7ae13fe2e08.html

The TTC is trying to make this station accessible. Construction is making it less so — and delays are mounting

Seniors, the disabled and people going to Sunnybrook are affected as transferring between the Lawrence Station subway and buses gets harder.

April 9, 2025

The bus platform and main entrances at Lawrence Station are closed so elevators can be installed, making the station more accessible, but in the meantime, passengers who need to transfer to bus service have to walk a few blocks to board.

By Serena AustinStaff Reporter

A TTC construction project intended to make Lawrence Station more accessible is having the opposite effect for many riders — especially seniors, people with mobility issues, and those who rely on the 124 Sunnybrook bus.

Krushnaa Sankhe, who commutes through Lawrence Station daily to get to her job at Sunnybrook hospital, says the project has disrupted her routine and made life noticeably harder for fellow commuters. “I do commend the TTC for making stations more accessible,” she said. “But what about the people who need it right now?”

Where riders could previously access the station’s bus platform level from the subway by stairs or escalator, since the bus platform closed for construction, transferring between subway and bus service has become rife with obstacles.

Initially, riders could at least wait for their buses inside the station, sheltered from the weather. But with the closure of the station’s main entrances last summer, commuters must now navigate two flights of stairs to exit via the north end, then walk down Yonge Street to board buses outside. That four-minute walk for an able-bodied person can take much longer — or be impossible — for others.

“I do see people with walkers, canes, and seniors,” said Sankhe. “Seniors who can walk, yes, but it’s quite a walk and they’re climbing up and down those stairs,” often taking one step at a time.

The inconvenience is compounded by repeated delays. A notice from November 2023 said the bus platform would reopen by fall 2024, but signs now say the full “Easier Access” project won’t be completed until mid-2026 — nearly two years after it was originally scheduled to be complete, by the end of 2024.

That’s especially troubling given the deadline of Jan. 1, 2025, set by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to make facilities and services within the province fully accessible. The TTC has known since 2023 it wouldn’t meet the province’s deadline.

“These delays are really unacceptable from my perspective,” said Sophia Chapman, a member of the transit advocacy group TTC Riders. “These stations should have been accessible a long time ago.”

Chapman, who also commutes through Lawrence Station, said the entrance closure has added up to 10 minutes to her trip and made it difficult to carry groceries. “For riders who are elderly or have physical disabilities, it takes even longer,” she said. “It’s a real challenge, and I see it in my community.”

Beyond the physical strain, Chapman said unclear signage has left many riders disoriented. “There are often people standing around at Yonge and Lawrence trying to figure out how to get into the station.”

On a recent visit to the station the Star saw groups of seniors, parents with strollers, and others navigating the temporary route, with some asking for directions after mistakenly approaching the sealed-off main entrance.

A look at TTC accessibility through the eyes of a rider who uses two canes

City Hall

A look at TTC accessibility through the eyes of a rider who uses two canes

A TTC report from December 2024 lists Lawrence among the stations most affected by unexpected construction issues, including the discovery of asbestos and the need for design changes, which has contributed to the slow progress. The project, which includes the installation of two elevators, accessible doors and upgraded way-finding signage, is currently over 68 per cent complete.

TTC spokesperson Stuart Green said the agency understands riders’ frustrations, the importance of ensuring accessible transit service “particularly along routes serving health-care institutions like Sunnybrook hospital,” and remains “fully committed” to accessibility. The main entrances are still expected to reopen in 2025, with the full project finishing by mid-2026.

“We’ve tried to minimize the impact as best we could,” said Green. He advised riders needing accessible alternatives to use nearby accessible stations like Eglinton or York Mills to connect to Lawrence Avenue via the 97 Yonge bus, or to use Wheel-Trans.

But for many riders like Sankhe and Chapman, that’s cold comfort.

“It would be much more reliable and quicker to use the subway,” said Chapman, “but that’s the situation people are in.”

Correction – April 9, 2025

Serena Austin

Serena Austin is a Toronto-based general assignment reporter at the Star. Reach her via email: serenaaustin@thestar.ca

CBC’s “The National” is Only National Media Covering Federal Election’s Disability Issues -No Party Except the Greens Has Yet Made the Accessible Canada Pledge

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

CBC’s “The National” is Only National Media Covering Federal Election’s Disability Issues –No Party Except the Greens Has Yet Made the Accessible Canada Pledge

April 15, 2025

SUMMARY

Check out the excellent news item on this federal election’s disability issues. Watch this report on the AODA Alliance‘s YouTube channel. It was included in CBC TV’s flagship national news report “The National” on April 13, 2025.

Many other major news outlets, like CTV, Global, City News, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun newspapers have not covered these disability issues. We applaud CBC for showing leadership on this. This is likely the first time that disability issues have been covered by a national network during any federal election campaign in recent memory.

Issues affecting over 8 million people with disabilities in Canada are newsworthy! This is especially so when only one federal party, the Greens has so far made the Accessible Canada Pledge we are seeking. There are only 13 days remaining in this election campaign.

Canadians with disabilities need more from the media and from the federal parties!

How You Can Help

Email or tweet the link to this news report to candidates. It is easy to cut and paste this link: https://youtu.be/wbzPc9mu1Uo
You can find the email addresses and Twitter handles for as many candidates as we could find on the online candidates list posted on the AODA Alliance website.
Send your friends and family the link to this story. Invite them to watch it and share it with others. Blitz it to others on social media.
Send this news report’s link to other news organizations. If it is newsworthy for CBC, it is newsworthy for other media outlets as well.
Write letters to the editor of other media. Tell them their audience deserves to know about this election’s disability issues that are important for over 8 million people with disabilities in Canada.

For background, check out:

The Accessible Canada Pledge that we have asked all federal party leaders to make.
The 3-minute April 8, 2025 CBC News report on this election’s disability issues.
The archived video of the April 8, 2025 Candidates Debate on Disability Issues.
`The April 2, 2025 column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications on this election’s disability issues, written by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky.
The AODA Alliance website’s federal elections campaign page.
The AODA Alliance website’s Canada page to see our advocacy to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act.
The AODA Alliance website’s Bill C-22 page to learn about the AODA Alliance’s efforts to strengthen the grossly inadequate new Canada Disability Benefit.

More Media Attention on the Sweeping and Arbitrary Power of Ontario’s School Principals to Exclude Students from School

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

More Media Attention on the Sweeping and Arbitrary Power of Ontario’s School Principals to Exclude Students from School

April 14, 2025

SUMMARY

Has an Ontario school told your family not to send your child with a disability to school? Have they told you that you must pick up your child with a disability from school and keep them home? Consider telling your local media about this. The news media is always looking for stories about these instances when a school has refused to allow a student with disabilities to be at school, whether for a day, part of a day, or longer stretches of time.

The Ontario Legislature re-opens today with a new session after this winter’s snap election. We will be watching to see if the Ford Government will give more attention to disability issues, like the need to substantially improve education for students with disabilities in Ontario schools, colleges and universities.

On April 1, 2025, there was a very disturbing report in The Trillium, a respected news source that reports on Queen’s Park. It revealed hitherto-secret Ford Government internal data from the Ministry of Education about the numbers of school days that students have lost because their principal has refused to allow them to come to school. The AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition, Autism Ontario, Community Living Ontario, and other disability advocates have been sounding the alarm for years that this arbitrary power, which the Education Act gives school principals in Ontario, has disproportionately been used on students with disabilities. It is unfair, overbroad, and in desperate need of reform. The Trillium article is set out below.

Over three years ago, on January 28, 2022, the Ford Government received the comprehensive final report of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. It provided the most comprehensive review of Ontario’s K-12 school system in our lifetimes from the perspective of students with disabilities. Among other things, it found serious problems with the current power of principals to refuse to admit a student to school. It called for major reforms to rein in that arbitrary power. After The Trillium article, we set out the 5-page extract from the K-12 final report that addresses this issue.

The Ford Government told the K-12 Standards Development Committee that it does not track data from school boards on the numbers of these exclusions from school and does not require school boards to track these data. That final report states:

“The Ministry of Education does not track data on exclusions and does not require school boards to track data on them, in contrast to suspensions and expulsions.”

In the more than three years since the Government received that report, the Ford Government has never disputed this statement. Yet this new article in The Trillium reveals that the Ford Government does in fact track at least some of these data. The Trillium commendably used the Freedom of Information legislation to force the Government to reveal it. As the article also shows, there is good reason to believe that the actual number of exclusions is higher than these data reveal. Even then, the data are severely worrisome. It cries out for immediate Government action, not a third of a decade of Government foot-dragging.

Five years ago, on July 23, 2020, the AODA Alliance made public a comprehensive survey of all 72 school boards in Ontario. It documented the policies on exclusions at each school board we could unearth. It showed that a number of boards had no policy at all on how principals should use this power. Other boards had policies, but they varied wildly from one board to the next. We concluded that in Ontario, each principal is too often a law unto themselves.

This is horribly unfair to students with disabilities and their families. Every student has the fundamental right to be in school and to receive an education. Excluding a student from school under this unfair power violates that right.

It is also unfair to school boards and school principals. The Ontario Government leaves them floundering as they try to figure out what they can and should do with this arbitrary power when operating their schools.

Last year, the December 4, 2024 AODA Alliance Update revealed that we had heard through the grapevine that the Ford Government had been planning some sort of a closed consultation session on possible reforms. The AODA Alliance was not invited. We wrote to ask to be included. We then heard through the grapevine that the webinar was postponed. We have not heard anything since.

During the February 2025 snap Ontario election, we asked all parties to make a series of commitments to people with disabilities. Among other things, we asked the parties to commit to substantially reform Ontario’s education system as it relates to students with disabilities. Premier Ford’s Conservatives were the only party that declined to answer our request for accessibility commitments.

Every school board is required to have a Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC). AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky is the current chair of the SEAC for the Toronto District School Board, Canada’s largest school board. TDSB’s SEAC has recently encountered difficulty in getting TDSB to reveal the total number of exclusions at that board. At two SEAC meetings this year, TDSB told its SEAC that it cannot reveal the total number of exclusions. TDSB said that the number is “small” and that to reveal that total number of exclusions would reveal the identity of individual students whom TDSB had excluded from school, violating their privacy.

SEAC members responded that TDSB’s excuse for not revealing the total number of students whom TDSB had excluded from school is absurd. If TDSB said that 5 or 10 or 20 or 500 or 1,000 students had been subjected to an exclusion from school, it would not reveal to anyone the names of the excluded students. You can watch the TDSB’s presentations to the TDSB SEAC on the topic of excluding students from school and the responses of SEAC members at these pinpoint links for the January 13, 2025 TDSB SEAC meeting and the March 17, 2025 TDSB SEAC meeting.

How You Can Help

Write or call your Ontario MPP. Tell them to pressure the Ministry of Education to rein in the sweeping and unfair power of school principals to refuse to admit a student from school.
Insist that the Ministry of Education hold an open, inclusive public consultation now, with no secrecy about it, and which is not invitation-only.

For More Background

Visit the AODA Alliance website’s education page to see what we have been doing for the past 16 years to advocate for equal educational opportunities for students with disabilities.

MORE DETAILS

The Trillium April 1, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.sootoday.com/local-news/ontario-kids-missing-more-school-due-to-exclusions-education-ministry-data-10465047

Ontario kids missing more school due to exclusions: Education Ministry data

Advocates believe the data, obtained by The Trillium, showing students were excluded for 11,776 days in 2022-23 is the ‘tip of the iceberg’

By Sneh Duggal

Each time Danica Ainger receives a call from her son Kylo’s school, her “heart drops.”

“When I pick up the phone, they go, ‘Don’t worry, everything’s okay,’ or they go, ‘Hey,’ and then I know I have to come pick him up,” said Ainger, whose son is in Grade 3 at the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. “It’s traumatic having the school call you often because your child is in distress.”

Kylo was diagnosed with ADHD and autism.

For Ainger, calls from her son’s school have been occasional this year. She received one a couple of weeks ago. In past years, like when Kylo was in senior kindergarten or Grade 2, she received them up to three times a week.

Kylo experienced “sensory overload” and ended up on a modified schedule, just going to school for half-days “because of his being dysregulated and them not knowing how to handle it.”

“When I pick him up, there’d be like four or five adults in a room staring at him, and he’d be under a desk crying, or like spitting at them or something, because he obviously feels overwhelmed,” she said.

Things were better for Kylo in Grade 1, Ainger said. He had a “phenomenal” teacher who even made a “safe cave” in the classroom for him, she explained.

Although Kylo has tested above his grade level in many areas, Ainger said he’s “disconnected” because he “knows he’s behind” after missing so much school.

The Ottawa mom who runs a home daycare has hit hurdles even outside of the classroom.

“For a field trip, unless I can go, he can’t go,” she said.

Ainger said she thinks having a dedicated educational assistant (EA) for Kylo who could provide him one-on-one support “would have made a massive difference.”

“I’ve had calls where it’s been like, ‘Hey, can you pick him up? We don’t have an EA this afternoon, so we’re not going to be able to support him if anything happens,’” she said.

Ainger said all this has been “extremely hard on my mental health.”

“As a parent with a special needs kid, you’re already feeling like a lot of time like you’re failing, because you want to just make things easier for them and help them and you’re trying the best you can, but you can only reach a certain limit,” she said. “But then to also have the people who are supposed to know what to do, who are supposed to be there … then almost be like, ‘Okay, well we give up, we can’t do it, so here you deal with it.’”

Ainger’s experience is not unique, according to advocates for children with disabilities, who have been raising the alarm for years about kids being excluded from school. They believe that the Ministry of Education data showing an increase in the amount of time Ontario students are excluded from classrooms in recent years only scratch the surface of the problem.

The Education Act gives principals the power to “refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils.”

But while boards refer to this section of the act as part of the formal process for barring students from attending school, advocates say informal or “soft exclusions” are happening regularly, including due to a lack of supports.

They’re calling on the province to require boards to track all types of exclusions, including the informal kind they say many families experience in the form of a phone call from the school asking them to pick up their child early, and to take steps to address the issue.

In 2022-23, 499 elementary and high school students were excluded for 11,776 days, according to ministry data obtained by The Trillium through the freedom of information process. Around 58 per cent, or 289 students, were receiving special education services.

This was up from the previous two years. In 2021-22, 410 students — 210 of whom were getting special education supports — were excluded for 8,427 days.

In 2020-21,160 students missed a total of 5,695 days of school. About 67 per cent, or 107 students, were receiving special education services.

The data, which were broken down by school board, were incomplete for 2023-24 as only 49 boards and school authorities had submitted data to the ministry as of October 2024.

For 2022-23, the boards reporting the highest number of total days students were excluded included the Greater Essex County District School Board (2,235 days), Grand Erie District School Board (1,671 days), Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (1,433 days) and Toronto District School Board (1,328 days).

The data were also broken down by the reason for the exclusion: behavioural concern, medical concern, mental health concern and others.

Several boards, including the Durham District School Board, the District School Board of Niagara, the Halton Catholic District School Board had no exclusions listed, according to the ministry data.

When asked about this, the DDSB, for example, said it has “a number of reporting pathways.”

‘Tip of the iceberg’

“There’s no way that those are the full amount of exclusions,” Kate Dudley-Logue, vice-president of community outreach for the Ontario Autism Coalition (OAC), said.

She said the data likely represents “hard exclusions,” where as a result of an incident a student is “put on what they call a ‘pause for safety’ and told to stay home for an extended period while supports and a safety plan are put in place.”

Dudley-Logue said what she hears about most often are “soft exclusions” — calls made to parents saying something like, “You’re going to have to come pick up your child, we don’t have the supports in place, and they’re having a hard time.”

“Those are happening daily and in very large numbers,” she said. “There are literally families who just sit and wait by the phone because they know it’s going to happen multiple times a week. “

An OAC survey on families’ experiences with special education in public schools — which included 429 responses covering children in 60 school boards for the 2023-24 school year — found six per cent of families said their children were “fully excluded” from school, so they didn’t attend. More than a third said their children were “partially excluded,” which could include the school asking the family to pick up their child early or the child not being able to participate in activities such as field trips.

Dudley-Logue said she’s heard from school boards that they “don’t have a great tracking mechanism in order to explain these occurrences to the ministry.”

The Durham District School Board outlined a process it had for making formal exclusions. When asked about “soft exclusions,” it said, “When a student poses a significant risk of harm to themselves or others, we may ask the family to pick up their kids early to ensure their safety and well-being, or the safety of those around them.”

“Currently, DDSB does not provide a specific report to the Ministry of Education regarding these types of situations,” the board said, adding that students aren’t sent home due to staffing issues.

The Near North District School Board (NNDSB) said it doesn’t support the use of “soft exclusions.”

According to the 2023-24 data, students in the NNDSB missed more than 1,000 days of school that year. The previous year, it was 561 days.

“‘Soft’ exclusions are misleading; they generate issues with accurately capturing attendance on the register. All school boards in Ontario must account for a student when they are absent from school,” the board’s Safe Schools Team said in a statement.

As for why the board has higher exclusion data than some others, the NNDSB said, “It may be a result of other boards utilizing these ‘soft’ exclusions” and not completing the paperwork needed for formal exclusions.

The board added that in most exclusion cases, “the student has engaged in multiple situations that present great risk to themselves, their classmates and the staff” and are “not issued quickly.”

“They are taken very seriously and only utilized when the safety risk is so high that we are unable to mitigate it,” the board said.

Noting the use of “soft exclusions” by some boards, Dudley-Logue said, “It shouldn’t be rocket science.” Schools should have a way to indicate on their attendance systems when a student is sent home due to insufficient supports, for example, she said.

David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, agreed. He has also been advocating for boards to use such a system, saying that the current code to indicate an absence could cover several reasons.

Like Dudley-Logue, Lepofsky also said the overall data is the “tip of the iceberg” and that families experiencing “soft exclusions” is a real issue.

“This isn’t imaginary. This is a serious problem,” he said.

“It’s a legitimate worry that refusals to admit are being used in some instances because of a belief there isn’t enough funding for staff,” Lepofsky said. “If a principal were to say to parents of a student with a disability, ‘Your (education assistant) is sick today, so don’t come in,’ I argue that’s illegal, just illegal. They have a duty to accommodate students with disabilities.”

Gabriel Reznick, a staff lawyer at the ARCH Disability Law Centre, echoed the sentiment.

“The numbers themselves, even as low as they are, are so concerning,” said Reznick, noting the centre has dealt with cases of kids being excluded from school for more than a year. “(I) strongly believe that they’re not accurately reflecting the picture of students not being in school.”

He said they constantly hear from parents “telling us that they have to, almost on a daily basis, pick their student with a disability up from school.”

Reznick said the centre’s efforts on exclusions have focused on supporting individual student cases and trying to encourage law reforms.

He said he doesn’t think the section of the Education Act used to exclude students was “intended to be used for the purpose that it’s currently being used — that being to exclude students, specifically now to exclude students with disabilities.”

This is one thing, he said, that needs to change — “just the idea of using exclusions for students and more specifically … students with disabilities.”

The other issue, he said, is that the act doesn’t specifically outline what the appeals process for an exclusion is, making it the “wild west” amongst school boards.

In addition to addressing these issues, he questioned what the government is doing with the data it’s collecting on exclusions.

“The government has shown no willingness to ever deal with these issues, so what are they going to do with this information?” Reznick said. “Are they going to be willing to take some of this information, see that it’s concerning, see that a lot of students are not in school and actually do something about it?”

Dudley-Logue agreed.

“It’s pretty unconscionable to us that government has continued to not really care to find a solution,” she said. “There’s really no bigger indication of the lack of support for students with disabilities in our schools than what’s happening with these exclusions.”

The Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board saw students miss more than 1,100 school days in 2023-24 due to exclusions. In 2022-23, it was 264 days. The board said there is a “shortage of intensive support programs and Education and Community Partnership Program (ECPP) classes in the community for students with treatment needs.”

“Waiting lists are extremely long and students with multiple areas of need can be disqualified for access by virtue of their diagnoses. Investment in this area would reduce the number of student exclusions,” the board said in a statement.

Joe Bell, superintendent of student well-being for the Greater Essex County District School Board, said an increase in mental health support in schools and in communities could help reduce exclusions, which he said are a “last resort.” He also called for more supports for “social-emotional and well-being supports in schools.”

Education Minister Paul Calandra’s office did not respond to questions before publication.

Kirsten Marcelin, whose 5-year-old son Régis has been diagnosed with autism, called for more transparency when it comes to exclusions.

“I think that some of these things are really swept under the carpet,” she said, adding that people get defensive when the term “exclusion” is used.

“If we were really transparent about it, parents would also be able to look at it and see what’s happening and know … it’s not just me,” she said, adding that having measures in place to properly report on exclusions and then address them is key.

“How are we going to move past this sort of institutionalized exclusion where it is okay to do this to kids? Like I think everybody needs to be able to learn regardless of the diagnosis,” she said.

Marcelin said Régis started junior kindergarten at the Durham District School Board in the fall of 2023, but had his first full day of school only in April 2024.

Until then, he was attending school for “bits and parts of the day,” sometimes staying for lunch.

She said they decided to keep Régis home since November, following a “classroom-clearing incident” and frequent calls from the school to pick him up.

“With the adequate support, he could have started full-day from Day 1, as opposed to all of these scenarios that he just couldn’t navigate,” said Marcelin, adding that while the school really tried to “make it work,” they noticed several “micro-exclusions built into the day” where he wouldn’t participate in certain activities because his educational assistant was busy.

“And as a kid, by then, he sees that everybody stays at school, and he wanted to be there,” she said.

Explore the full dataset below.

-Data visualizations by Jessica Smith Cross

Excerpt from the January 28, 2022 K-12 Education Standards Development Committee Final Report

Exclusions/refusals to admit to school/reduced school hours recommendations

Barrier: parents/caregivers have concerns with the use of the principal’s power to exclude students from school. (Also called refusal to admit to school) Section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act requires principals to:

Parents/caregivers identified a lack of due process, such as:

not being told the reason for the refusal to admit or how to challenge it
no limit on how long the refusal to admit can continue
the absence of a plan for the student’s return to school
no assured provision of alternative education program while the student is excluded
no consistent and fair process to appeal the refusal to admit

Our recommendations regarding Refusal to Admit are:

The K-12 Education Accessibility Standards should require the following of any school board and of the Ministry of Education where it operates schools:

69.2 refusal to admit of a student shall not last more than five consecutive school days, unless formally extended following the due process requirements required for an initial refusal to admit.

a student and their families should have all the procedural protections that are required when a school board is going to impose discipline such as a suspension or expulsion.
the prior review and written approval of the superintendent should be required before a refusal to admit is imposed. If it is an emergency, then the superintendent should be required to review and approve this decision as quickly afterwards as possible, or else the refusal to admit should be terminated.
superintendent should independently assess whether the school board has sufficient grounds to refuse to admit the student and has met all the requirements of the school board’s refusal to admit policy (including ensuring alternative education programming is in place for the student).
the principal should be required to immediately notify the student and his or her family in writing, co-signed by the superintendent, of the refusal to admit, the reasons for it, and the duration. The letter should be in plain language, translated if necessary, and include:
1. what a refusal to admit is and the duration
2. the permissible reasons

the school board’s process for reviewing that decision, and

the student/family’s right to appeal (including how to use that right of appeal)
steps that the school board has taken or will be taking to provide an alternative education and to expedite a student’s return to school
the expected timeline for the completion of these steps

a refusal to admit a student to school should not be extended for an accumulated total of more than 15 days (within a surrounding 30-day period) without the independent review and written approval of the director of the, school board or their designate.
an extension of refusal to admit must first consider excluding the student from a single class, and then the option of excluding the student from that entire school, and only as a last resort, excluding the student from all schools at that school board.
the refusal to admit shall be documented, and the record shall include information on:
1. the reason for the refusal to admit
2. the duration of the refusal to admit and any extensions

the plan to provide an educational program to the student for the duration of the refusal to admit

the plan for the student to return to full time school attendance

while the student is excluded, the school board should undertake ongoing efforts to facilitate the student’s return to school as quickly as possible. The return to school plan shall include meetings with the family and student to plan for the return and review the additional supports that may be needed.

69.9 to ensure that appeals to the school board under section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act from a refusal to admit a student to school are prompt and fair, the following should be required:

a student excluded from school or their parent/caregiver should be permitted to launch an appeal from a refusal to admit at any time that the refusal to admit continues. no time limit for filing an appeal should be imposed.
no school board shall set an arbitrary length of time that an appeal hearing can take. The appeal hearing should take as long as needed for a fair hearing. The excluded student or their family should not have an arbitrary prior time limit imposed on their oral presentation of their appeal. They should be allowed the time they need to present their appeal. They shall be permitted to present relevant evidence to support their appeal if they wish.
at an appeal, the school staff should present their reasons first on why the exclusion is justified and should continue. The student or their family shall then be given a chance to present their case on why the student should not have been excluded and why they should be allowed to return to school.
an appeal should be held quickly to minimize the time the student is away from school. The board of trustees shall hear and/or determine the appeal within fifteen business days of receiving the notice of intention to appeal (unless the parties agree to an extension).
once an appeal is launched, the school board shall prepare for the student, their parents/caregivers, and the trustees, a report on the reasons for the refusal to admit, the factual background, and the efforts to return the student to school since the exclusion began. The board staff shall arrange a meeting (pre-appeal meeting) with the student and their family to try to resolve the case or narrow the issues, explain the process, disclose any information the student and their family need, and canvass and address any other matter that might help ensure a smooth and timely appeal.
the appeal should be heard in closed session by the entire board of trustees, not a subcommittee (unless the board can show it has legal authority to delegate this decision to a subcommittee). Any trustee that votes on a decision in an appeal must have been present for the entire argument of the appeal.
a board of trustees, hearing an appeal from a refusal to admit, should consider whether the school board has justified the student’s initial exclusion from school and its continuation. The burden should be on the school board to justify the exclusion from school.
If the student is not successful on the appeal, they should have a further avenue to appeal to court, with mediation available, or to an expert tribunal established and designated to hear such cases.

69.11 information and data on refusals to admit shall be collected and aggregated data reported publicly by school boards and by the Ministry of Education.

Timeline: one year for boards; six months for the Ministry of Education

Email and Tweet Federal Election Candidates! Press Them to Make the Accessible Canada Pledge

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Email and Tweet Federal Election Candidates! Press Them to Make the Accessible Canada Pledge

April 13, 2025

SUMMARY

The AODA Alliance has posted online a list of all the 2025 federal election candidates across Canada we can find, with email addresses and Twitter handles (when available). Please email and/or tweet as many as you can. Urge them to make the Accessible Canada Pledge, and urge their party leader to do the same. This Update gives you everything you need.

There’s no need to reach out to Green Party candidates. The Green Party has already made the Accessible Canada Pledge. It is the only party to do so up to now. We’ll announce if and when we hear from any other parties.

The Accessible Canada Pledge would ensure that the sluggish implementation and enforcement of the Accessible Canada Act becomes swift, strong and effective, that air passengers with disabilities stop suffering horrific mistreatment by Canadian airlines, and that the Canada Disabilities Benefit Act at last fulfils its purpose of lifting people with disabilities out of poverty.

The AODA Alliance sent the three-plank Accessible Canada Pledge to the federal party leaders on March 20, 2025. Over two dozen major disability organizations co-signed an open letter that calls on federal party leaders to make the Accessible Canada Pledge to meet the urgent needs of over 8 million people with disabilities in Canada.

The AODA Alliance is non-partisan. We don’t support or oppose any party. We want all parties to make the Accessible Canada Pledge. Check out a great 3-minute, April 3, 2025 CBC News report on this issue at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5b6cc4dNOk

How You Can Help

Visit the AODA Alliance‘s list of federal election candidates to get contact information for the candidates. It is at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/list-of-all-candidates-in-the-2025-federal-election-that-the-aoda-alliance-could-find-broken-down-by-party/

Email candidates. Ask them to make the Accessible Canada Pledge. Tell them they can find the Accessible Canada Pledge at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/disability-advocates-press-federal-party-leaders-to-make-the-accessible-canada-pledge-in-the-impending-federal-election-to-address-the-urgent-needs-of-over-8-million-people-with-disabilities-in-ca/ Ask them to press their party leader to make the Accessible Canada Pledge on behalf of their entire party. It is best to write a single candidate in a single email, rather than addressing your email to a bunch of candidates. Candidates are far more likely to read your email if it is only addressed to them. If you live in their riding, emphasize that in your email.

If you are on Twitter (also called “X”), send tweets to candidates. If you don’t have time to write your own tweets, then just follow @AODAAlliance and @DavidLepofsky and retweet our tweets to the candidates over the next days.

Here are four tweets you might wish to use. Put a candidate’s Twitter handle right before this text. The AODA Alliance is using tweets like these too!

Tweet #1

Will you make the Accessible Canada pledge to tear down barriers impeding 8 million people with disabilities in Canada and to lift impoverished people with disabilities out of poverty? https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/disability-advocates-press-federal-party-leaders-to-make-the-accessible-canada-pledge-in-the-impending-federal-election-to-address-the-urgent-needs-of-over-8-million-people-with-disabilities-in-ca/ #Xlxn2025

Tweet #2

Will you press your party leader to make the Accessible Canada Pledge? The Green Party of Canada made this pledge. So should your party! https://www.aodaalliance.org/canada/green-party-makes-the-accessible-canada-pledge-to-over-8-million-people-with-disabilities-in-canada-will-the-other-federal-parties-do-the-same/ #Elxn2025

Tweet #3

Have you watched the @CBCNews report on this election’s disability issues? Make the Accessible Canada Pledge! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5b6cc4dNOk #Elxn2025

Tweet #4

Read the @Metroland column on this election’s disability issues! Trump’s tariff war is an important issue but isn’t this election’s only issue! https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/aoda-alliance-chairs-monthly-column-in-the-toronto-stars-metroland-publications-explores-federal-elections-disability-issues-that-the-mainstream-media-hasnt-covered/ #Elxn2025

For background, check out:

The Accessible Canada Pledge that we have asked all federal party leaders to make.
The 3-minute April 8, 2025 CBC News report on this election’s disability issues.
The archived video of the April 8, 2025 Candidates Debate on Disability Issues.
The April 2, 2025 column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications on this election’s disability issues, written by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky.
The AODA Alliance website’s Canada page to see our advocacy to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act.
The AODA Alliance website’s Bill C-22 page to learn about the AODA Alliance’s efforts to strengthen the grossly inadequate new Canada Disability Benefit.

List of All Candidates in the 2025 Federal Election that the AODA Alliance Could Find, Broken Down by Party

Liberal Party Candidates

Abbotsford–South Langley

Candidate: Kevin Gillies

Email: kevin@kevingillies.ca

Twitter: n/a

Abitibi–Baie-James–Nunavik–Eeyou

Candidate: Mandy Gull-Masty

Email: mandy.gull@cngov.ca

Twitter: @Mandyingaround

Abitibi–Témiscamingue

Candidate: Jonathan Andresen

Email: n/a

Twitter: @JonAndresenQC

Acadie–Annapolis

Candidate: Ronnie LeBlanc

Email: info@ronnieleblanc.ca

Twitter: n/a

Acadie–Bathurst

Candidate: Serge Cormier

Email: Serge.Cormier@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @sergecormierlib

Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Candidate: Mélanie Joly

Email: Melanie.Joly@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @melaniejoly

Airdrie–Cochrane

Candidate: Sean Secord

Email: sean.secord@airdriecochranemp.com

Twitter: @sean_secord

Ajax

Candidate: Jennifer McKelvie

Email: councillor_mckelvie@toronto.ca

Twitter: @votemckelvie

Alfred-Pellan

Candidate: Angelo Iacono

Email: Angelo.Iacono@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @IaconoMP

Algonquin–Renfrew–Pembroke

Candidate: Cyndi Mills

Email: mscyndilou@gmail.com

Twitter: @VoteCyndiMills

Argenteuil–La Petite-Nation

Candidate: Stéphane Lauzon

Email: Stephane.Lauzon@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @stephanelauzon5

Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill

Candidate: Leah Taylor Roy

Email: leah.taylorroy@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @LeahTaylorRoy1

Avalon

Candidate: Paul Connors

Email: paulconnors@avalonliberal.com

Twitter: n/a

Barrie South–Innisfil

Candidate: John Olthuis

Email: n/a

Twitter: @JohnOlthuis

Barrie–Springwater–Oro Medonte

Candidate: Rose Zacharias

Email: info@rosezacharias.ca

Twitter: @drrosezacharias

Battle River–Crowfoot

Candidate: Brent Sutton

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Battlefords–Lloydminster–Meadow Lake

Candidate: Larry Ingram

Email: n/a

Twitter: @LarryIngramLPC

Bay of Quinte

Candidate: Christopher Malette

Email: councillor.malette@belleville.ca

Twitter: n/a

Beaches–East York

Candidate: Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Email: nathaniel.erskine-smith@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @beynate

Beauce

Candidate: Maryelle-Henriette Doumbia

Email: maryellehenriettedoumbia@gmail.com

Twitter: @MaryelleDoumbia

Beauharnois–Salaberry–Soulanges–Huntingdon

Candidate: Miguel Perras

Email: equipe.miguelperras@gmail.com

Twitter: @PerrasMigu65595

Beauport–Limoilou

Candidate: Steeve Lavoie

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Beauséjour

Candidate: Dominic LeBlanc

Email: Dominic.Leblanc@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @DLeBlancNB

Bellechasse–Les Etchemins–Lévis

Candidate: Glenn O’Farrell

Email: n/a

Twitter: @GlennOFarrell

Beloeil–Chambly

Candidate: Nicholas Malouin

Email: n/a

Twitter: @NicholasMalouin

Berthier–Maskinongé

Candidate: Stéphane Bilodeau

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Bourassa

Candidate: Abdelhaq Sari

Email: abdelhaq.sari@montreal.ca

Twitter: @sari_ab

Bow River

Candidate: Bentley Barnes

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Bowmanville–Oshawa North

Candidate: Bridget Girard

Email: info@bridgetgirard.ca

Twitter: @bgirard_liberal

Brampton Centre

Candidate: Amandeep Sodhi

Email: info@amandeepsodhi.ca

Twitter: @sodhiaman2001

Brampton–Chinguacousy Park

Candidate: Shafqat Ali

Email: shafqat.ali@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @shafqatalimp

Brampton East

Candidate: Maninder Sidhu

Email: maninder.sidhu@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @MSidhuLiberal

Brampton North–Caledon

Candidate: Ruby Sahota

Email: Ruby.Sahota@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @rubysahotalib

Brampton South

Candidate: Sonia Sidhu

Email: sonia.sidhu@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @SoniaLiberal

Brampton West

Candidate: Kamal Khera

Email: kamal.khera@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @KamalKheraLib

Brandon–Souris

Candidate: Ghazanfar Ali Tarar

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Brantford–Brant South–Six Nations

Candidate: Joy O’Donnell

Email: joy@joyodonnell.ca

Twitter: @VoteforJoy25

Brome–Missiquoi

Candidate: Louis Villeneuve

Email: associationliberalebm@gmail.com

Twitter: @louisvlleneuve

Brossard–Saint-Lambert

Candidate: Alexandra Mendès

Email: alexandra.mendes@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: n/a

Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound

Candidate: Anne Marie Watson

Email: amreidwat@yahoo.com

Twitter: n/a

Burlington

Candidate: Karina Gould

Email: Karina.Gould@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @karinagould

Burlington North–Milton West

Candidate: Adam van Koeverden

Email: Adam.vanKoeverden@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @vankayak

Burnaby Central

Candidate: Wade Chang

Email: connect@wadechang.ca

Twitter: @WadeChangTpe

Burnaby North–Seymour

Candidate: Terry Beech

Email: terry.beech@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @terrybeech

Bécancour–Nicolet–Saurel–Alnôbak

Candidate: Pierre Tousignant

Email: info@votezpierretousignant.ca

Twitter: n/a

Calgary Centre

Candidate: Lindsay Luhnau

Email: n/a

Twitter: @LLuhnau

Calgary Confederation

Candidate: Corey Hogan

Email: n/a

Twitter: @coreyhoganyyc

Calgary Crowfoot

Candidate: Shahnaz Munir

Email: n/a

Twitter: @YYCShahnazMunir

Calgary East

Candidate: Priti Obhrai-Martin

Email: n/a

Twitter: @pritimama

Calgary Heritage

Candidate: Scott Arnott

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Calgary McKnight

Candidate: George Chahal

Email: george.chahal@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @ChahalGeorge

Calgary Midnapore

Candidate: Sunjiv Raval

Email: sunjivraval@yahoo.com

Twitter: @Sunjivraval

Calgary Nose Hill

Candidate: Tom Becker

Email: NoseHillYYC@gmail.com

Twitter: @LPC_YYCNoseHill

Calgary Shepard

Candidate: Gul Khan

Email: n/a

Twitter: @GulKhanLiberal

Calgary Signal Hill

Candidate: Bryndis Whitson

Email: bryndis@bryndis.ca

Twitter: @bryndisyyc

Calgary Skyview

Candidate: Hafeez Malik

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Cambridge

Candidate: Bryan May

Email: bryan.may@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @_BryanMay

Cape Breton–Canso–Antigonish

Candidate: Jaime Battiste

Email: contact@jaimeybattiste.com

Twitter: @JaimeBattiste

Cape Spear

Candidate: Tom Osborne

Email: TOsborne@gov.nl.ca

Twitter: @TomOsborneMHA

Cardigan

Candidate: Kent MacDonald

Email: kent4cardigan@outlook.com

Twitter: n/a

Cariboo–Prince George

Candidate: Clinton Emslie

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Carleton

Candidate: Bruce Fanjoy

Email: n/a

Twitter: @brucefanjoy

Carlton Trail–Eagle Creek

Candidate: Katelyn Zimmer

Email: campaign@ctecliberals.ca

Twitter: n/a

Central Newfoundland

Candidate: Lynette Powell

Email: admin@lynettepowell.com

Twitter: @tlynettepowell

Central Nova

Candidate: Sean Fraser

Email: sean.fraser@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @SeanFraserMP

Charlesbourg–Haute-Saint-Charles

Candidate: Louis Bellemare

Email: n/a

Twitter: @LouisBellemare7

Charlottetown

Candidate: Sean Casey

Email: sean.casey@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @SeanCaseyLPC

Chatham-Kent–Leamington

Candidate: Keith Pickard

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Chicoutimi–Le Fjord

Candidate: Stéphane Proulx

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Chilliwack–Hope

Candidate: Zeeshan Khan

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Churchill–Keewatinook Aski

Candidate: Rebecca Chartrand

Email: 2025@rebeccachartrand.com

Twitter: @ind_strategy

Châteauguay–Les Jardins-de-Napierville

Candidate: Nathalie Provost

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Cloverdale–Langley City

Candidate: Kyle Latchford

Email: info@kylelatchford.ca

Twitter: @KyleLatchford

Columbia–Kootenay–Southern Rockies

Candidate: Reggie Goldsbury

Email: Reg.Goldsbury@gmail.com

Twitter: @KootColumbia

Compton–Stanstead

Candidate: Marianne Dandurand

Email: info@DandurandPLC.ca

Twitter: @MADandurand

Coquitlam–Port Coquitlam

Candidate: Ron McKinnon

Email: ron.mckinnon@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @RonMcKinnonLib

Courtenay–Alberni

Candidate: Brian Cameron

Email: briancameronliberalcandidate@gmail.com

Twitter: @BrianCameronLPC

Cowichan–Malahat–Langford

Candidate: Blair Herbert

Email: n/a

Twitter: @rlpduncan

Cumberland–Colchester

Candidate: Alana Hirtle

Email: info@electalana.ca

Twitter: @ElectAlana

Côte-du-Sud-Rivière-du-Loup-Kataskomiq-Témiscouata

Candidate: Rémi Massé

Email: remimasseliberal@gmail.com

Twitter: @Remi_Masse1

Côte-Nord–Kawawachikamach–Nitassinan

Candidate: Kevin Coutu

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Dartmouth–Cole Harbour

Candidate: Darren Fisher

Email: Team@VoteFisher.ca

Twitter: @DarrenFisherNS

Davenport

Candidate: Julie Dzerowicz

Email: info@voteforjulie.ca

Twitter: @JulieDzerowicz

Delta

Candidate: Jill McKnight

Email: jillfordelta@gmail.com

Twitter: @JMcknightDelta

Desnethé–Missinippi–Churchill River

Candidate: Buckley Belanger

Email: n/a

Twitter: @BuckleyBelanger

Don Valley North

Candidate: Maggie Chi

Email: maggie@maggiechi.ca

Twitter: @maggiechidvn

Don Valley West

Candidate: Rob Oliphant

Email: rob@roboliphant.ca

Twitter: @Rob_Oliphant

Dorval–Lachine–LaSalle

Candidate: Anju Dhillon

Email: anju.dhillon@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @adhillonDLL

Drummond

Candidate: Ghada Jerbi

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Dufferin–Caledon

Candidate: Malalai Halimi

Email: info@votemalalai.ca

Twitter: @malalaihalimi

Edmonton Centre

Candidate: Eleanor Olszewski

Email: n/a

Twitter: @Eleanor4Centre

Edmonton Gateway

Candidate: Jeremy Hoefsloot

Email: jeremy4gateway@gmail.com

Twitter: @JeremyHoef

Edmonton Griesbach

Candidate: Patrick Lennox

Email: n/a

Twitter: @PatrickLennox_

Edmonton Manning

Candidate: Blair-Marie Coles

Email: blairmarie.liberal@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Edmonton Northwest

Candidate: Lindsey Machona

Email: lindseysmachona@gmail.com

Twitter: @lindseysmachona

Edmonton Riverbend

Candidate: Mark Minenko

Email: Minenko2025@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Edmonton Southeast

Candidate: Amarjeet Sohi

Email: n/a

Twitter: @AmarjeetSohiYEG

Edmonton Strathcona

Candidate: Ronald Thiering

Email: mail@ronthiering2025.ca

Twitter: n/a

Edmonton West

Candidate: Brad Fournier

Email: Brad@bradfournier.ca

Twitter: @BradPolitico

Eglinton–Lawrence

Candidate: Vince Gasparro

Email: info@vincegasparro.ca

Twitter: @vgasparro

Egmont

Candidate: Robert Morrissey

Email: robert.morrissey@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @MorrisseyEgmont

Elgin–St. Thomas–London South

Candidate: David Goodwin

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Elmwood–Transcona

Candidate: Ian MacIntyre

Email: ianmacintyre@liberal.ca

Twitter: @IanMacIntyreET

Esquimalt–Saanich–Sooke

Candidate: Stephanie McLean

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Essex

Candidate: Chris Sutton

Email: electsutton@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Etobicoke Centre

Candidate: Yvan Baker

Email: Yvan.Baker@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @Yvan_Baker

Etobicoke–Lakeshore

Candidate: James Maloney

Email: Contact@jamesmaloney.ca

Twitter: @j_maloney

Etobicoke North

Candidate: John Zerucelli

Email: info@johnzerucelli.ca

Twitter: n/a

Flamborough–Glanbrook–Brant North

Candidate: Chuck Phillips

Email: info@chuckphillips.ca

Twitter: @chuckphillipsfg

Fleetwood–Port Kells

Candidate: Gurbux Saini

Email: info@gurbuxsaini.ca

Twitter: @gurbuxsaini

Foothills

Candidate: John Bruinsma

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Fort McMurray–Cold Lake

Candidate: Kaitlyn Staines

Email: n/a

Twitter: @StainesKaitlynn

Fredericton–Oromocto

Candidate: David Myles

Email: n/a

Twitter: @mylesdavid

Fundy Royal

Candidate: Bill Kudla

Email: n/a

Twitter: @billkudla

Gaspésie–Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine–Listuguj

Candidate: Diane Lebouthillier

Email: vote@DianeLebouthillier.ca

Twitter: @DiLebouthillier

Gatineau

Candidate: Steven MacKinnon

Email: Steven.MacKinnon@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @stevenmackinnon

Grande Prairie

Candidate: Maureen McLeod

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Guelph

Candidate: Dominique O’Rourke

Email: info@dominiqueforguelph.ca

Twitter: @orourke4guelph

Haldimand–Norfolk

Candidate: Colin Walsh

Email: VoteColinWalsh@colinwalshliberal.ca

Twitter: @CWALSHMATH

Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes

Candidate: Nell Thomas

Email: info@nellthomasliberal.ca

Twitter: n/a

Halifax

Candidate: Shannon Miedema

Email: info@shannonforhalifax.ca

Twitter: @HfxShan

Halifax West

Candidate: Lena Metlege Diab

Email: hwliberals@gmail.com

Twitter: @LenaMetlegeDiab

Hamilton Centre

Candidate: Aslam Rana

Email: n/a

Twitter: @EngAslamRana

Hamilton East–Stoney Creek

Candidate: Chad Collins

Email: chad.collins@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @ChadCollinsHESC

Hamilton Mountain

Candidate: Lisa Hepfner

Email: lisa.hepfner@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @lisahepfner

Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas

Candidate: John-Paul Danko

Email: campaign@jpdanko.ca

Twitter: @JohnPaulDanko

Hastings–Lennox and Addington–Tyendinaga

Candidate: Tracey Sweeney Schenk

Email: elect.tracey.2025@gmail.com

Twitter: @TSweeneySchenk

Hochelaga–Rosemont-Est

Candidate: Marie-Gabrielle Ménard

Email: mg.menard.pourhre@gmail.com

Twitter: @MarieGab_Menard

Honoré-Mercier

Candidate: Eric St-Pierre

Email: n/a

Twitter: @ESPESP

Hull–Aylmer

Candidate: Greg Fergus

Email: Greg.Fergus@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @GregFergus

Humber River–Black Creek

Candidate: Judy Sgro

Email: Hrbcassociation@gmail.com

Twitter: @honjudysgro

Huron–Bruce

Candidate: James Rice

Email: jamesriceforhuronbruce@gmail.com

Twitter: @JamesRice4HB

Joliette–Manawan

Candidate: Marc Allaire

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Jonquière

Candidate: William Van Tassel

Email: n/a

Twitter: @vanhug3

Kamloops–Shuswap–Central Rockies

Candidate: Ken Robertson

Email: n/a

Twitter: @Robertson_LPC

Kamloops–Thompson–Nicola

Candidate: Iain Currie

Email: n/a

Twitter: @IainCurrie4MP

Kanata

Candidate: Jenna Sudds

Email: contact@kanataliberals.ca

Twitter: @JennaSudds

Kapuskasing–Timmins–Mushkegowuk

Candidate: Steve Black

Email: info@teamsteveblack.ca

Twitter: n/a

Kelowna

Candidate: Steve Fuhr

Email: info@fuhr25.ca

Twitter: @FuhrMP

Kenora–Kiiwetinoong

Candidate: Charles Fox

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Kildonan–St. Paul

Candidate: Thomas Naaykens

Email: thomasnaaykens@gmail.com

Twitter: @ThomasForKSP

King–Vaughan

Candidate: Mubarak Ahmed

Email: mubarakgta@gmail.com

Twitter: @mubarakahmedlib

Kings–Hants

Candidate: Kody Blois

Email: info@kodyblois.ca

Twitter: @KodyBloisNS

Kingston and the Islands

Candidate: Mark Gerretsen

Email: Mark.Gerretsen@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @MarkGerretsen

Kitchener Centre

Candidate: Brian Adeba

Email: info@brianadeba.org

Twitter: @kalamashaka

Kitchener–Conestoga

Candidate: Tim Louis

Email: Tim.Louis@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @TimLouisKitCon

Kitchener South–Hespeler

Candidate: Valerie Bradford

Email: Valeriebradfordcampaign@gmail.com

Twitter: @ValBradfordKSH

La Pointe-de-I’Île

Candidate: Viviane Minko

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

La Prairie–Atateken

Candidate: Jacques Ramsay

Email: JacquesRamsay.Liberal@gmail.com

Twitter: @jacquesramsaypl

Labrador

Candidate: Philip Earle

Email: n/a

Twitter: @PhilipEarle

Lac-Saint-Jean

Candidate: Denis Lemieux

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Lac-Saint-Louis

Candidate: Francis Scarpaleggia

Email: fscarpaleggia@gmail.com

Twitter: @ScarpaleggiaLSL

Lakeland

Candidate: Barry Milaney

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Lanark–Frontenac

Candidate: Michelle Foxton

Email: n/a

Twitter: @MFoxtonLF

Langley Township–Fraser Heights

Candidate: John Aldag

Email: john@johnaldag.ca

Twitter: @jwaldag

LaSalle–Émard–Verdun

Candidate: Claude Guay

Email: n/a

Twitter: @ClaudeGuay

Laurentides–Labelle

Candidate: Emrick Vienneau

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Laurier–Sainte-Marie

Candidate: Steven Guilbeault

Email: Steven.Guilbeault@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @s_guilbeault

Laval–Les Îles

Candidate: Fayçal El-Khoury

Email: faycal.el-khoury@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @F_ElKhoury

Leduc–Wetaskiwin

Candidate: Ronald Brochu

Email: n/a

Twitter: @RonaldBrochu

Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands–Rideau Lakes

Candidate: Lorna Jean Edmonds

Email: edmondslj2026@gmail.com

Twitter: @edmondslj

Lethbridge

Candidate: Chris Spearman

Email: n/a

Twitter: @Spearmac

London Centre

Candidate: Peter Fragiskatos

Email: Peter.Fragiskatos@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @pfragiskatos

London–Fanshawe

Candidate: Najam Naqvi

Email: peaceca3@gmail.com

Twitter: @NajamNaqvi2025

London West

Candidate: Arielle Kayabaga

Email: arielle.kayabaga@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @KayabagaArielle

Long Range Mountains

Candidate: Don Bradshaw

Email: info@donbradshaw.ca

Twitter: @DonBradshawLRM

Longueuil–Charles-LeMoyne

Candidate: Sherry Romanado

Email: Sherry.romanado@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @SherryRomanado

Longueuil–Saint-Hubert

Candidate: Natilien Joseph

Email: n/a

Twitter: @NatilienJ

Louis-Hébert

Candidate: Joël Lightbound

Email: joel.lightbound@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @JoelLightbound

Louis-Saint-Laurent–Akiawenhrahk

Candidate: Rhode-Malaure Pierre

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Lévis–Lotbinière

Candidate: Ghislain Daigle

Email: ghislain.daigle1@gmail.com

Twitter: @ghislaindaigle

Madawaska–Restigouche

Candidate: Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Email: guillaumecampagne2025@gmail.com

Twitter: @guillaumedth

Malpeque

Candidate: Heath MacDonald

Email: heathmacdonaldlib@gmail.com

Twitter: @CornwallHeath

Marc-Aurèle-Fortin

Candidate: Carlos Leitão

Email: carlosleitao.maf@gmail.com

Twitter: @CarlosJLeitao

Markham–Stouffville

Candidate: Helena Jaczek

Email: Helena.Jaczek@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @HelenaJaczek

Markham–Thornhill

Candidate: Tim Hodgson

Email: info@timhodgson.ca

Twitter: @timhodgsonmt

Markham–Unionville

Candidate: Peter Yuen

Email: n/a

Twitter: @PeterYuenMU

Medicine Hat–Cardston–Warner

Candidate: Tom Rooke

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Middlesex–London

Candidate: Kent Keenan

Email: info@kentkeenan.ca

Twitter: n/a

Milton East–Halton Hills South

Candidate: Kristina Tesser Derksen

Email: n/a

Twitter: @KristinaTesserD

Mirabel

Candidate: Robert Fleming

Email: info@robertdfleming.ca

Twitter: @robertdfleming

Miramichi–Grand Lake

Candidate: Lisa Harris

Email: Vote@lisaharris.ca

Twitter: n/a

Mission–Matsqui–Abbotsford

Candidate: Jeff Howe

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Mississauga Centre

Candidate: Fares Al Soud

Email: n/a

Twitter: @faresaalsoud

Mississauga East–Cooksville

Candidate: Peter Fonseca

Email: peter.fonseca@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @PeterFonsecaMP

Mississauga–Erin Mills

Candidate: Iqra Khalid

Email: info@teamiqra.ca

Twitter: @iamIqraKhalid

Mississauga–Lakeshore

Candidate: Charles Sousa

Email: charles.sousa@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @SousaCharles

Mississauga–Malton

Candidate: Iqwinder Gaheer

Email: iqwinder.gaheer@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @IqwinderSGaheer

Mississauga–Streetsville

Candidate: Rechie Valdez

Email: rechie.valdez@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @rechievaldez

Moncton–Dieppe

Candidate: Ginette Petitpas Taylor

Email: ginette.petitpastaylor@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @GinettePT

Mont-Saint-Bruno–L’Acadie

Candidate: Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

Email: n/a

Twitter: @olimat04

Montcalm

Candidate: Fatima Badran

Email: n/a

Twitter: @FatimaBadran_X

Montmorency–Charlevoix

Candidate: Alex Ouellet-Bélanger

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Moose Jaw–Lake Centre–Lanigan

Candidate: Tabitha Mukamusoni

Email: n/a

Twitter: @TMUKAMUSONI

Mount Royal

Candidate: Anthony Housefather

Email: anthony.housefather@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @AHousefather

Mégantic–L’Érable–Lotbinière

Candidate: Charles McKaig

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Nanaimo–Ladysmith

Candidate: Michelle Corfield

Email: liberals@nanaimo-ladysmith.ca

Twitter: @MCorfieldLPC

Nepean

Candidate: Mark Carney

Email: n/a

Twitter: @MarkJCarney

New Tecumseth–Gwillimbury

Candidate: Mike Hanrahan

Email: ntg@mikehanrahan.ca

Twitter: @mikehanrahan_

New Westminster–Burnaby–Maillardville

Candidate: Jake Sawatzky

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Newmarket–Aurora

Candidate: Jennifer McLachlan

Email: jennifer@jennifermclachlan.ca

Twitter: @jennmclachlan

Niagara Falls–Niagara-on-the-Lake

Candidate: Andrea Kaiser

Email: andrea.kaiser@niagararegion.ca

Twitter: n/a

Niagara South

Candidate: Vance Badawey

Email: vance.badawey@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @VBadawey

Niagara West

Candidate: Jennifer Korstanje

Email: campaign@jenniferkorstanje.ca

Twitter: n/a

Nipissing–Timiskaming

Candidate: Pauline Rochefort

Email: elect@paulinerochefort.ca

Twitter: @PaulineRochef17

North Island–Powell River

Candidate: Jennifer Lash

Email: outreach@jenniferlash.ca

Twitter: n/a

North Vancouver–Capilano

Candidate: Jonathan Wilkinson

Email: jonathan.wilkinson@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @JonathanWNV

Northumberland–Clarke

Candidate: John Goheen

Email: info@johngoheenliberal.ca

Twitter: @JGoheenLiberal

Northwest Territories

Candidate: Rebecca Alty

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Westmount

Candidate: Anna Gainey

Email: info@annagainey.ca

Twitter: @annamgainey

Nunavut

Candidate: Kilikvak Kabloona

Email: n/a

Twitter: @kilikvak

Oakville East

Candidate: Anita Anand

Email: Info@AnitaforOakvilleEast.ca

Twitter: @AnitaAnandOE

Oakville West

Candidate: Sima Acan

Email: info@simaacan.ca

Twitter: @SimaAcan

Okanagan Lake West–South Kelowna

Candidate: Juliette Sicotte

Email: Juliette@juliettesicotte.ca

Twitter: @SicotteJuliette

Orléans

Candidate: Marie-France Lalonde

Email: OFLA.ALFO@gmail.com

Twitter: @mflalonde

Oshawa

Candidate: Isaac Ransom

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Ottawa Centre

Candidate: Yasir Naqvi

Email: Yasir.Naqvi@yasirnaqvi.ca

Twitter: @YasirNaqviCDN

Ottawa South

Candidate: David McGuinty

Email: david.mcguinty@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @DavidMcGuinty

Ottawa–Vanier–Gloucester

Candidate: Mona Fortier

Email: mona.fortier@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @MonaFortier

Ottawa West–Nepean

Candidate: Anita Vandenbeld

Email: anita.vandenbeld@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @anitavandenbeld

Outremont

Candidate: Rachel Bendayan

Email: Rachel.Bendayan@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @RachelBendayan

Oxford

Candidate: David Hilderley

Email: hilderley2025@gmail.com

Twitter: @HilderleyLPC

Papineau

Candidate: Marjorie Michel

Email: marjoriepourpapineau@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Parkland

Candidate: Ashley Fearnall

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Parry Sound–Muskoka

Candidate: Geordie Sabbagh

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Les Pays-d’en-Haut

Candidate: Tim Watchorn

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Peace River–Westlock

Candidate: Luke Markowski

Email: n/a

Twitter: @Luke4PeaceRiver

Perth–Wellington

Candidate: David Mackey

Email: pwliberals@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Peterborough

Candidate: Emma Harrison

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Pickering–Brooklin

Candidate: Juanita Nathan

Email: jnathan@markham.ca

Twitter: @JuanitaNathan

Pierre-Boucher–Les Patriotes–Verchères

Candidate: Laurent de Casanove

Email: laurent@laurentdecasanove.ca

Twitter: @laurentdc

Pierrefonds–Dollard

Candidate: Sameer Zuberi

Email: Info@sameerzuberi.ca

Twitter: @SameerZuberi

Pitt Meadows–Maple Ridge

Candidate: Angie Rowell

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Ponoka–Didsbury

Candidate: Zarnab Zafar

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Pontiac–Kitigan Zibi

Candidate: Sophie Chatel

Email: SophieChatelPontiac@gmail.com

Twitter: @SophieChatel1

Port Moody–Coquitlam

Candidate: Zoë Royer

Email: n/a

Twitter: @ZoeRoyer

Portage–Lisgar

Candidate: Robert Kreis

Email: n/a

Twitter: @KreisMr

Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier

Candidate: Antonin Leroux

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Prescott–Russell–Cumberland

Candidate: Giovanna Mingarelli

Email: n/a

Twitter: @MingarelliG

Prince Albert

Candidate: Chris Hadubiak

Email: chadubiak@liberal.ca

Twitter: n/a

Prince George–Peace River–Northern Rockies

Candidate: Peter Njenga

Email: pnnjenga@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Provencher

Candidate: Trevor Kirczenow

Email: trevor.liberal@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Québec Centre

Candidate: Jean-Yves Duclos

Email: Info@jevoteduclos.ca

Twitter: @jyduclos

Red Deer

Candidate: Ayaz Bangash

Email: ayaz_bangash@hotmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Regina–Lewvan

Candidate: Mac Hird

Email: info@machird.ca

Twitter: @MacHirdRL

Regina–Qu’Appelle

Candidate: Rahima Mian

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Regina–Wascana

Candidate: Jeffrey Walters

Email: n/a

Twitter: @JeffWaltersSask

Repentigny

Candidate: Pierre Richard Thomas

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Richmond–Arthabaska

Candidate: Alain Saint-Pierre

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Richmond Centre–Marpole

Candidate: Wilson Miao

Email: wilson.miao@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @WilsonMiaoRCM

Richmond East–Steveston

Candidate: Parm Bains

Email: Info@parmbains.ca

Twitter: @pbainsy

Richmond Hill South

Candidate: Majid Jowhari

Email: votejowhari2025@gmail.com

Twitter: @MajidJowhari

Riding Mountain

Candidate: Terry Hayward

Email: terry@terryhayward.ca

Twitter: n/a

Rimouski–La Matapédia

Candidate: Alexander Reford

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Candidate: Linda Lapointe

Email: equiperdmiliberal@gmail.com

Twitter: @LapointeLinda

Rivière-du-Nord

Candidate: Mary-Helen Walton

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie

Candidate: Jean-Sébastien Vallée

Email: jsvpourrosemontlapetitepatrie@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Saanich–Gulf Islands

Candidate: David Beckham

Email: info@davidjamesbeckham.ca

Twitter: @BeckhamLiberal

Sackville–Bedford–Preston

Candidate: Braedon Clark

Email: campaign@braedonclark.ca

Twitter: @Braedon_Clark

Saint-Hyacinthe–Bagot–Acton

Candidate: Mélanie Bédard

Email: melaniebedard261@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Jean

Candidate: Patrick Agbokou

Email: campagne.patrick.agbokou@gmail.com

Twitter: @patrickagbokou

Saint John–Kennebecasis

Candidate: Wayne Long

Email: wayne.long@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: n/a

Saint John–St. Croix

Candidate: Karen Ludwig

Email: hq@electkarenludwig.ca

Twitter: @KarenLudwigNB

Saint-Laurent

Candidate: Emmanuella Lambropoulos

Email: emmanuella.lambropoulos@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @emlambropoulos

Saint-Léonard–Saint-Michel

Candidate: Patricia Lattanzio

Email: patricia.lattanzio2025@gmail.com

Twitter: @PatriciaLattan3

Saint-Maurice–Champlain

Candidate: François-Philippe Champagne

Email: francois-philippe.champagne@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @FP_Champagne

Sarnia–Lambton–Bkejwanong

Candidate: George Vandenberg

Email: georgevandenberg@hotmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Saskatoon South

Candidate: Rokhan Sarwar

Email: rokhan@rokhansarwar.ca

Twitter: @RokhanSarwar

Saskatoon–University

Candidate: Greg Poelzer

Email: contact@electgreg.ca

Twitter: @electgregskuni

Saskatoon West

Candidate: Chad Eggerman

Email: n/a

Twitter: @eggermac

Sault Ste. Marie–Algoma

Candidate: Terry Sheehan

Email: Terry.sheehan@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @TerrySheehanMP

Scarborough–Agincourt

Candidate: Jean Yip

Email: Jean.Yip@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @JeanYip3

Scarborough Centre–Don Valley East

Candidate: Salma Zahid

Email: info@salmazahid.ca

Twitter: @SalmaZahid15

Scarborough–Guildwood–Rouge Park

Candidate: Gary Anandasangaree

Email: gary.anand@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @gary_srp

Scarborough North

Candidate: Shaun Chen

Email: info@shaunchen.ca

Twitter: @Shaun_Chen

Scarborough Southwest

Candidate: Bill Blair

Email: info@votebillblair.ca

Twitter: @BillBlair

Scarborough–Woburn

Candidate: Michael Coteau

Email: info@vote4michael.ca

Twitter: @coteau

Selkirk–Interlake–Eastman

Candidate: Rhonda Nichol

Email: rhonda@manitobaliberals.ca

Twitter: n/a

Shefford

Candidate: Félix Dionne

Email: felix@dionneliberal.ca

Twitter: n/a

Sherbrooke

Candidate: Élisabeth Brière

Email: info@elisabethbriere.ca

Twitter: @ElisabethBriere

Sherwood Park–Fort Saskatchewan

Candidate: Tanya Holm

Email: n/a

Twitter: @TanyaHolm123

Simcoe–Grey

Candidate: Bren Munro

Email: campaign@brenmunro.ca

Twitter: @BrenMunro

Simcoe North

Candidate: Ryan Rocca

Email: ryan@ryanrocca.ca

Twitter: n/a

Similkameen–South Okanagan–West Kootenay

Candidate: Gloria Morgan

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Skeena–Bulkley Valley

Candidate: Inderpal Dhillon

Email: info@inderdhillon.ca

Twitter: @InderDhillon25

Souris–Moose Mountain

Candidate: Aziz Mian

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

South Shore–St. Margarets

Candidate: Jessica Fancy-Landry

Email: candidate2025@liberalsssm.ca

Twitter: n/a

South Surrey–White Rock

Candidate: Ernie Klassen

Email: southsurreywhiterock25@gmail.com

Twitter: @ernieklassen

Spadina–Harbourfront

Candidate: Chi Nguyen

Email: info@electchi.ca

Twitter: @RunChiNguyenRun

St. Albert–Sturgeon River

Candidate: Lucia Stachurski

Email: stachurskilucia@gmail.com

Twitter: @LuciaStachurski

St. Boniface–St. Vital

Candidate: Ginette Lavack

Email: n/a

Twitter: @GinetteLavack

St. Catharines

Candidate: Chris Bittle

Email: Chris.Bittle@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @Chris_Bittle

St. John’s East

Candidate: Joanne Thompson

Email: hello@joannethompson.ca

Twitter: @Joanne_NL

Stormont–Dundas–Glengarry

Candidate: Sarah Good

Email: Info@sarahgood.ca

Twitter: n/a

Sudbury

Candidate: Viviane Lapointe

Email: teamviv@vivianelapointe.ca

Twitter: @VivianeLapointe

Sudbury East–Manitoulin–Nickel Belt

Candidate: Marc Serré

Email: marc.serre@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @MarcGSerre

Surrey Centre

Candidate: Randeep Sarai

Email: randeep.sarai@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @randeepssarai

Surrey Newton

Candidate: Sukh Dhaliwal

Email: sukh.dhaliwal@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @sukhdhaliwal

Swift Current–Grasslands–Kindersley

Candidate: William Caton

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Sydney–Glace Bay

Candidate: Mike Kelloway

Email: info@votekelloway.ca

Twitter: @mikekelloway

Taiaiako’n–Parkdale–High Park

Candidate: Karim Bardeesy

Email: info@votekarim.ca

Twitter: @kbardeesy

Terra Nova–The Peninsulas

Candidate: Anthony Germain

Email: anthony@anthonygermain.ca

Twitter: @AnthonyGermain

Terrebonne

Candidate: Tatiana Auguste

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Thornhill
Candidate: Liane Kotler

Email: n/a

Twitter: @Kotler2025

Thunder Bay–Rainy River

Candidate: Marcus Powlowski

Email: info@re-electmarcus.ca

Twitter: @MarcusPowlowski

Thunder Bay–Superior North

Candidate: Patty Hajdu

Email: Patty.Hajdu@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @PattyHajdu

Thérèse-De Blainville

Candidate: Madeleine Chenette

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Tobique–Mactaquac

Candidate: Julian Moulton

Email: julian.moulton@nbliberal.ca

Twitter: @Julian4TM

Toronto Centre

Candidate: Evan Solomon

Email: n/a

Twitter: @EvanLSolomon

Toronto–Danforth

Candidate: Julie Dabrusin

Email: julie.dabrusin@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @juliedabrusin

Toronto–St. Paul’s

Candidate: Leslie Church

Email: n/a

Twitter: @lesliechurch

Trois–Rivières

Candidate: Caroline Desrochers

Email: info@carolinedesrochers.ca

Twitter: @desrocherscd

University–Rosendale

Candidate: Chrystia Freeland

Email: campaign@chrystiafreeland.ca

Twitter: @cafreeland

Vancouver Centre

Candidate: Hedy Fry

Email: hedy.fry@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @HedyFry

Vancouver East

Candidate: Mark Wiens

Email: hello@votemarkwiens.ca

Twitter: n/a

Vancouver Fraserview–South Burnaby

Candidate: Gregor Robertson

Email: n/a

Twitter: @gregorrobertson

Vancouver Granville

Candidate: Taleeb Noormohamed

Email: taleeb.noormohamed@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @Taleeb

Vancouver Kingsway

Candidate: Amy Gill

Email: info@vancouverkingsway.ca

Twitter: n/a

Vancouver Quadra

Candidate: Wade Grant

Email: n/a

Twitter: @WadeGrant

Vaudreuil

Candidate: Peter Schiefke

Email: Peter.Schiefke@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @PeterSchiefke

Vaughan–Woodbridge

Candidate: Francesco Sorbara

Email: info@VoteSorbara.ca

Twitter: @fsorbara

Vernon–Lake Country–Monashee

Candidate: Anna Warwick Sears

Email: n/a

Twitter: @voteanna4mla

Victoria

Candidate: Will Greaves

Email: hello@votewill.ca

Twitter: @WillWJGreaves

Ville-Marie–Le Sud-Ouest–Île-des-Soeurs

Candidate: Marc Miller

Email: info@marcmiller.ca

Twitter: @MarcMillerVM

Vimy

Candidate: Annie Koutrakis

Email: Annie.Koutrakis@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @AnnieKoutrakis

Waterloo

Candidate: Bardish Chagger

Email: Bardish.Chagger@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @BardishKW

Wellington–Halton Hills North

Candidate: Sean Carscadden

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast–Sea to Sky Country

Candidate: Patrick Weiler

Email: Patrick.weiler@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @PatrickBWeiler

Whitby

Candidate: Ryan Turnbull

Email: Ryan.Turnbull@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @TurnbullWhitby

Willowdale

Candidate: Ali Ehsassi

Email: ali@aliehsassi.ca

Twitter: @AliEhsassi

Windsor–Tecumseth–Lakeshore

Candidate: Irek Kusmierczyk

Email: Irek.Kusmierczyk@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @Irek_K

Windsor West

Candidate: Richard Pollock

Email: info@richardpollock.ca

Twitter: @votepollock

Winnipeg Centre

Candidate: Rahul Walia

Email: info@rahulwalia.ca

Twitter: @rahulwaliawpg

Winnipeg North

Candidate: Kevin Lamoureux

Email: mail@mpkevin.ca

Twitter: @Kevin_Lamoureux

Winnipeg South

Candidate: Terry Duguid

Email: terry@terryduguid.ca

Twitter: @TerryDuguid

Winnipeg South Centre

Candidate: Ben Carr

Email: ben.carr@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @BenCarrwpg

Winnipeg West

Candidate: Doug Eyolfson

Email: Doug@DougEyolfson.ca

Twitter: @DougEyolfson

Yellowhead

Candidate: Michael Fark

Email: Campaign@michaelfark.ca

Twitter: n/a

York Centre

Candidate: Ya’ara Saks

Email: hello@yaarasaks.ca

Twitter: @YaaraSaks

York–Durham

Candidate: Rob Grossi

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

York South–Weston–Etobicoke

Candidate: Ahmed Hussen

Email: Ahmed.Hussen@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @HonAhmedHussen

Yorkton–Melville

Candidate: Luke Guimond

Email: n/a

Twitter: @luke_guimond

Yukon

Candidate: Brendan Hanley

Email: Info@BrendanHanley.ca

Twitter: @drbrendanhanley

Conservative Party Candidates

Abbotsford–South Langley

Candidate: Sukhman Gill

Email: info@sukhmangill.ca

Twitter: @SukhmanGillASL

Abitibi–Baie-James–Nunavik–Eeyou

Candidate: Steve Corriveau

Email: stevecorriveaupcc@conservateurs-quebec.ca

Twitter: n/a

Abitibi–Témiscamingue

Candidate: Steve Tardif

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Acadie–Annapolis

Candidate: Chris D’Entremont

Email: Chris4AcadieAnnapolis@gmail.com

Twitter: @CdEntremontMP

Acadie–Bathurst

Candidate: James Brown

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Candidate: Margie Ramos

Email: n/a

Twitter: @MargieRamosPCC

Airdrie–Cochrane

Candidate: Blake Richards

Email: info@voterichards.ca

Twitter: @BlakeRichardsMP

Ajax

Candidate: Greg Brady

Email: info@votegregbrady.com

Twitter: @gregbradyajax

Alfred-Pellan

Candidate: Louis Ialenti

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Algonquin–Renfrew–Pembroke

Candidate: Cheryl Gallant

Email: cheryl.gallant@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @cherylgallant

Argenteuil–La Petite-Nation

Candidate: Martin Charron

Email: MartinCharronPCC@gmail.com

Twitter: @MartCharron

Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill

Candidate: Costas Menegakis

Email: n/a

Twitter: @CostasMenegakis

Avalon

Candidate: Steve Kent

Email: avalon@stevekent.ca

Twitter: @stephenkent

Barrie South–Innisfil

Candidate: John Brassard

Email: john.brassard@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @JohnBrassardCPC

Barrie–Springwater–Oro Medonte

Candidate: Doug Shipley

Email: DougShipleyBSOM@gmail.com

Twitter: @DougShipleyBSOM

Battle River–Crowfoot

Candidate: Damien Kurek

Email: Info@battleriver-crowfoot.ca

Twitter: @dckurek

Battlefords–Lloydminster–Meadow Lake

Candidate: Rosemarie Falk

Email: info@battlefordslloydminstermeadowlake.ca

Twitter: @rosemarie_falk

Bay of Quinte

Candidate: Ryan Williams

Email: ryan@votewilliams.ca

Twitter: @Ryan_r_Williams

Beaches–East York

Candidate: Jocelyne Poirier

Email: votejocelyne@gmail.com

Twitter: @beyjoce

Beauce

Candidate: Jason Groleau

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Beauharnois–Salaberry–Soulanges–Huntingdon

Candidate: Priska St-Pierre

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Beauport–Limoilou
Candidate: Hugo Langlois

Email: n/a

Twitter: @hugolanglois

Beauséjour

Candidate: Nathalie Vautour

Email: vote4nathalievautour@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Bellechasse–Les Etchemins–Lévis

Candidate: Dominique Vien

Email: dominique.vien@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: n/a

Beloeil–Chambly

Candidate: Sylvain Goulet

Email: info@sylvaingouletpcc.ca

Twitter: n/a

Berthier–Maskinongé

Candidate: Peter Saliba

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Bourassa

Candidate: Nehemie Dumay

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Bow River

Candidate: David Bexte

Email: Bexte4BowRiver@gmail.com

Twitter: @davidbexte

Bowmanville–Oshawa North

Candidate: Jamil Jivani

Email: jamil.jivani@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @jamiljivani

Brampton Centre

Candidate: Taran Chahal

Email: n/a

Twitter: @Taran6Chahal

Brampton–Chinguacousy Park

Candidate: Tim Iqbal

Email: tim@timiqbal.ca

Twitter: @Tim_IQBAL

Brampton East

Candidate: Bob Dosanjh Singh

Email: n/a

Twitter: @BobDosanjh

Brampton North–Caledon

Candidate: Amandeep Judge

Email: judgeformalton@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Brampton South

Candidate: Sukhdeep Kang

Email: n/a

Twitter: @SukhdeepKangCPC

Brampton West

Candidate: Amarjeet Gill

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Brandon–Souris

Candidate: Grant Jackson

Email: votegrantjackson@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Brantford–Brant South–Six Nations

Candidate: Larry Brock

Email: contact@larrybrock.ca

Twitter: @LarryBrockMP

Brome–Missiquoi

Candidate: Steve Charbonneau

Email: info@stevecharbonneau.ca

Twitter: n/a

Brossard–Saint-Lambert

Candidate: William Huynh-Jan

Email: n/a

Twitter: @WilliamHuynhJan

Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound

Candidate: Alex Ruff

Email: info@alexruff.ca

Twitter: @AlexRuff17

Burlington

Candidate: Emily Brown

Email: emily@emilybrown.ca

Twitter: @emilyabrown2025

Burlington North–Milton West

Candidate: Nadeem Akbar

Email: info@nadeemakbar.ca

Twitter: @NadeemAkbarCPC

Burnaby Central

Candidate: James Yan

Email: james@electjames.ca

Twitter: @JamesYanBurnaby

Burnaby North–Seymour

Candidate: Mauro Francis

Email: mauro@maurofrancis.ca

Twitter: @MauroAFrancis

Bécancour–Nicolet–Saurel–Alnôbak

Candidate: Michel Plourde

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Calgary Centre

Candidate: Greg McLean

Email: Greg@GregMcLean.ca

Twitter: @GregMcLeanYYC

Calgary Confederation

Candidate: Jeremy Nixon

Email: votejeremynixon@gmail.com

Twitter: @JeremyPNixon

Calgary Crowfoot

Candidate: Pat Kelly

Email: Vote4PatKelly@shaw.ca

Twitter: @PatKelly_MP

Calgary East

Candidate: Jasraj Singh Hallan

Email: jasrajsingh.hallan@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @jasrajshallan

Calgary Heritage

Candidate: Shuv Majumdar

Email: shuvaloy.majumdar@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @shuvmajumdar

Calgary McKnight

Candidate: Dalwinder Gill

Email: info@dalgill.ca

Twitter: n/a

Calgary Midnapore

Candidate: Stephanie Kusie

Email: info@stephaniekusie.ca

Twitter: @StephanieKusie

Calgary Nose Hill

Candidate: Michelle Rempel Garner

Email: info@teamrempel.ca

Twitter: @MichelleRempel

Calgary Shepard

Candidate: Tom Kmiec

Email: info@tomkmiec.ca

Twitter: @tomkmiec

Calgary Signal Hill

Candidate: David McKenzie

Email: david@davidmckenzie.ca

Twitter: @DMcKenzieCPC

Calgary Skyview

Candidate: Amanpreet Gill

Email: Vote@AmanpreetGill.Ca

Twitter: @AmanpreetSGill

Cambridge

Candidate: Connie Cody

Email: connie@conniecody.ca

Twitter: @ConnieCodyCA

Cape Breton–Canso–Antigonish

Candidate: Allan MacMaster

Email: allan@allanmacmaster.com

Twitter: @AllanMacMaster

Cape Spear

Candidate: Corey Curtis

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Cardigan

Candidate: James Aylward

Email: aylward4cardigan@gmail.com

Twitter: @jsjaylward

Cariboo–Prince George

Candidate: Todd Doherty

Email: Todd.Doherty@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @ToddDohertyMP

Carleton

Candidate: Pierre Poilievre

Email: pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @PierrePoilievre

Carlton Trail–Eagle Creek

Candidate: Kelly Block

Email: CTECConservative@gmail.com

Twitter: @KellyBlockmp

Central Newfoundland

Candidate: Clifford Small

Email: Votecliffordsmall@gmail.com

Twitter: @CliffordSmallMP

Central Nova

Candidate: Brycen Jenkins

Email: brycenjenkinsforcentralnova@gmail.com

Twitter: @brycenjenkins

Charlesbourg–Haute-Saint-Charles

Candidate: Pierre Paul-Hus

Email: Pierre.Paul-Hus@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @PierrePaulHus

Charlottetown

Candidate: Natalie Jameson

Email: Natalie.jameson.charlottetown@gmail.com

Twitter: @NatalieJ_PEI

Chatham-Kent–Leamington

Candidate: Dave Epp

Email: info@daveeppckl.com

Twitter: @daveeppckl

Chicoutimi–Le Fjord

Candidate: Richard Martel

Email: richard.martel@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @richardmartelpc

Chilliwack–Hope

Candidate: Mark Strahl

Email: info@markstrahl.ca

Twitter: @markstrahl

Churchill–Keewatinook Aski

Candidate: Lachlan DeNardi

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Châteauguay–Les Jardins-de-Napierville

Candidate: David De Repentigny

Email: n/a

Twitter: @RepentignyDe

Cloverdale–Langley City

Candidate: Tamara Jansen

Email: info@tamarajansen.ca

Twitter: n/a

Columbia–Kootenay–Southern Rockies

Candidate: Rob Morrison

Email: team@robmorrison.ca

Twitter: @robmorrisonmp

Compton–Stanstead

Candidate: Jaques Painchaud

Email: jacquespainchaudpcc@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Coquitlam–Port Coquitlam

Candidate: Iain Black

Email: info@ianblack.ca

Twitter: @iainblackbc

Courtenay–Alberni

Candidate: Kris McNichol

Email: kris@krismcnichol.com

Twitter: n/a

Cowichan–Malahat–Langford

Candidate: Jeffrey Kibble

Email: info@jeffkibble.ca

Twitter: @JeffKibbleCML

Cumberland–Colchester

Candidate: Stephen Ellis

Email: stephen.ellis@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @drsdelliscc

Côte-du-Sud-Rivière-du-Loup-Kataskomiq-Témiscouata

Candidate: Bernard Genereux

Email: bernard.genereux@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @GenereuxBernard

Côte-Nord–Kawawachikamach–Nitassinan

Candidate: Mélanie Dorion

Email: melaniedorionpcc@conservateurs-quebec.ca

Twitter: n/a

Dartmouth–Cole Harbour

Candidate: Isabelle Obeid

Email: vote@obeid.ca

Twitter: @IsabelleObeid

Davenport

Candidate: Francis Lavoie

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Delta

Candidate: Jessy Sahota

Email: info@jessysahota.ca

Twitter: @jessysahota_

Desnethé–Missinippi–Churchill River

Candidate: Jim Lemaigre

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Don Valley North

Candidate: Joe Tay

Email: joe@joetay.ca

Twitter: @joetay1212

Don Valley West

Candidate: Robert Pierce

Email: rob4conservative.dvw@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Dorval–Lachine–LaSalle

Candidate: Alioune Sarr

Email: n/a

Twitter: @AliouneSarr74

Drummond

Candidate: François Fréchette

Email: conservateur.drummond@outlook.com

Twitter: @Frechette01

Dufferin–Caledon

Candidate: Kyle Seeback

Email: info@kyleseeback.com

Twitter: @kyleseeback

Edmonton Centre

Candidate: Sayid Ahmed

Email: info@sayidahmed.ca

Twitter: @SayidAhmedYEG

Edmonton Gateway

Candidate: Tim Uppal

Email: info@votetimuppal.ca

Twitter: @TimUppal

Edmonton Griesbach

Candidate: Kerry Diotte

Email: kerry.diotte@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Edmonton Manning

Candidate: Ziad Aboultaif

Email: ziad.aboultaif@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @aboultaifziad_

Edmonton Northwest

Candidate: Billy Morin

Email: info@billymorin.ca

Twitter: @billymorinECN

Edmonton Riverbend

Candidate: Matt Jeneroux

Email: matt@mattjeneroux.ca

Twitter: n/a

Edmonton Southeast

Candidate: Jagsharan Singh Mahal

Email: connect@votejagmahal.com

Twitter: @Jagsharan_Mahal

Edmonton Strathcona

Candidate: Miles Berry

Email: info@miles-berry.ca

Twitter: n/a

Edmonton West

Candidate: Kelly McCauley

Email: kelly.mccauley.c1@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @KellyMcCauleyMP

Eglinton–Lawrence

Candidate: Karen Stintz

Email: info@karenstintz.ca

Twitter: @KarenStintz

Egmont

Candidate: Logan McLellan

Email: vote@loganmclellan.com

Twitter: @logancmclellan

Elgin–St. Thomas–London South

Candidate: Andrew Lawton

Email: andrew@andrewlawton.ca

Twitter: @AndrewLawton

Elmwood–Transcona

Candidate: Colin Reynolds

Email: votecolin@colinreynolds.ca

Twitter: @_Colin_Reynolds

Esquimalt–Saanich–Sooke

Candidate: Grant Cool

Email: info@grantcool.ca

Twitter: n/a

Essex

Candidate: Chris Lewis

Email: Chris.Lewis@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @ChrisLewisEssex

Etobicoke Centre

Candidate: Ted Opitz

Email: tedopitzcpc@gmail.com

Twitter: @TedOpitz

Etobicoke–Lakeshore

Candidate: Bernard Trottier

Email: n/a

Twitter: @Be_Trottier

Etobicoke North

Candidate: Natalie Weed

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Flamborough–Glanbrook–Brant North

Candidate: Dan Muys

Email: Dan.Muys@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @DanMuysMP

Fleetwood–Port Kells

Candidate: Sukh Pandher

Email: n/a

Twitter: @SukhSPandher

Foothills

Candidate: John Barlow

Email: JohnBarlowCampaign@gmail.com

Twitter: @JohnBarlowMP

Fort McMurray–Cold Lake

Candidate: Laila Goodridge

Email: laila.goodridge@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @LailaGoodridge

Fredericton–Oromocto

Candidate: Brian Macdonald

Email: n/a

Twitter: @BrianTMacdonald

Fundy Royal

Candidate: Rob Moore

Email: RobMooreFundyRoyal@gmail.com

Twitter: @RobMoore_CPC

Gaspésie–Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine–Listuguj

Candidate: Jean-Pierre Pigeon

Email: n/a

Twitter: @JPierrePigeon

Gatineau

Candidate: Kethlande Pierre

Email: n/a

Twitter: @KethlandeP

Grande Prairie

Candidate: Chris Warkentin

Email: chris@chriswarkentin.ca

Twitter: @chriswarkentin

Guelph

Candidate: Gurvir Khaira

Email: n/a

Twitter: @GurvirForGuelph

Haldimand–Norfolk

Candidate: Leslyn Lewis

Email: vote@leslynlewis.ca

Twitter: @LeslynLewis

Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes

Candidate: Jamie Schmale

Email: jamie.schmale@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @Jamie_Schmale

Halifax

Candidate: Mark Boudreau

Email: Markboudreauhalifax@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Halifax West

Candidate: Rob Batherson

Email: info@halifaxwestconservatives.ca

Twitter: @rbatherson

Hamilton Centre

Candidate: Hayden Lawrence

Email: hayden@votehayden.ca

Twitter: n/a

Hamilton East–Stoney Creek

Candidate: Ned Kuruc

Email: votenedcp@gmail.com

Twitter: @NedKuruc

Hamilton Mountain

Candidate: Ken Hewitt

Email: kenhewittHM2025@gmail.com

Twitter: @KenHewitt2025

Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas

Candidate: Erika Alexander

Email: erikaalexander.hwad@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Hastings–Lennox and Addington–Tyendinaga

Candidate: Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Email: shelby.kramp-neuman@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @Shelby_Kramp

Hochelaga–Rosemont-Est

Candidate: Carl Belley

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Honoré-Mercier

Candidate: Ingrid Fernanda Megni

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Hull–Aylmer

Candidate: Jill Declare

Email: jilldeclarepcc@conservateurs-quebec.ca

Twitter: n/a

Humber River–Black Creek

Candidate: Bijay Paudel

Email: votebijay4MP@gmail.com

Twitter: @bijaypaudelvp

Huron–Bruce

Candidate: Ben Lobb

Email: ben.lobb@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @BenLobbMP

Joliette–Manawan

Candidate: Pascal Bapfou Vozang Siewe

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Jonquière

Candidate: Fanny Boulanger

Email: fannyboulangerjonquiere@gmail.com

Twitter: @fannyboulanger2

Kamloops–Shuswap–Central Rockies

Candidate: Mel Arnold

Email: melarnold@mel4mp.ca

Twitter: @MelArnoldMP

Kamloops–Thompson–Nicola

Candidate: Frank Caputo

Email: Votefrankcaputo@gmail.com

Twitter: @FrankCaputoKTN

Kanata

Candidate: Greg Kung

Email: Info@gregkung.ca

Twitter: @G_kung

Kapuskasing–Timmins–Mushkegowuk

Candidate: Gaétan Malette

Email: info@votegaetan.ca

Twitter: @votegaetan

Kelowna

Candidate: Tracy Gray

Email: hello@teamtracygray.ca

Twitter: @TracyGrayKLC

Kenora–Kiiwetinoong

Candidate: Eric Melillo

Email: info@ericmelillocpc.ca

Twitter: @Eric_Melillo

Kildonan–St. Paul

Candidate: Raquel Dancho

Email: info@raqueldancho.com

Twitter: @RaquelDancho

King–Vaughan

Candidate: Anna Roberts

Email: info@annaroberts4kingvaughan.ca

Twitter: @annarobertsmp

Kings–Hants

Candidate: Joel Hirtle

Email: info@hirtle.ca

Twitter: n/a

Kingston and the Islands

Candidate: Bryan Paterson

Email: info@bryan4kingston.ca

Twitter: @bpatersonygk

Kitchener Centre

Candidate: Kelly DeRidder

Email: deriddercampaign@gmail.com

Twitter: @Kelly_De_Ridder

Kitchener–Conestoga

Candidate: Doug Treleaven

Email: info@dougtreleaven.ca

Twitter: @drtreleaven

Kitchener South–Hespeler

Candidate: Matt Strauss

Email: matt@mattstrauss.ca

Twitter: @strauss_matt

La Pointe-de-I’Île

Candidate: Violetta Potapova

Email: votez@violettapotapova.ca

Twitter: @Violetta_PCC

La Prairie–Atateken

Candidate: Dave Pouliot

Email: davepouliotcpc@gmail.com

Twitter: @PouliotDave

Labrador

Candidate: Ella Wallace

Email: ellawallace.ca@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Lac-Saint-Jean

Candidate: Dave Blackburn

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Lac-Saint-Louis

Candidate: Matthew Rusniak

Email: n/a

Twitter: @MatthewRusniak

Lakeland

Candidate: Shannon Stubbs

Email: info@shannonforlakeland.ca

Twitter: @ShannonStubbsMP

Lanark–Frontenac

Candidate: Scott Reid

Email: MP@scottreid.ca

Twitter: @ScottReidCPC

Langley Township–Fraser Heights

Candidate: Tako van Popta

Email: tako.vanpopta@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @takovanpopta

LaSalle–Émard–Verdun

Candidate: Zsolt Fischer

Email: n/a

Twitter: @fischer2025lev

Laurentides–Labelle

Candidate: Daniel Paquette

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Laurier–Sainte-Marie

Candidate: Mathieu Fournier

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Laval–Les Îles

Candidate: Konstantinos Merakos

Email: n/a

Twitter: @KMerakos

Leduc–Wetaskiwin

Candidate: Mike Lake

Email: mike.lake@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @MikeLakeMP

Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands–Rideau Lakes

Candidate: Michael Barrett

Email: Michael.Barrett@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @MikeBarrettON

Lethbridge

Candidate: Rachel Thomas

Email: info@lethbridgeconservatives.ca

Twitter: @RachaelThomasAB

London Centre

Candidate: Stephen Gallant

Email: contact@stephengallant.com

Twitter: @SGallantCPC

London–Fanshawe

Candidate: Kurt Holman

Email: votekurtholman@gmail.com

Twitter: @HolmanKurt

London West

Candidate: Adam Benni

Email: contact@adambenni.ca

Twitter: @AdamBenni4LW

Long Range Mountains

Candidate: Carol Anstey

Email: info@carolbrakeanstey.ca

Twitter: @AnsteyCarolAnn

Longueuil–Charles-LeMoyne

Candidate: Terry Roberts

Email: n/a

Twitter: @TerryRobertsCPC

Longueuil–Saint-Hubert

Candidate: Martine Boucher

Email: martineboucherpcc@gmail.com

Twitter: @MartineBPCC

Louis-Hébert

Candidate: Claude Dussault

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Louis-Saint-Laurent–Akiawenhrahk

Candidate: Gerard Deltell

Email: gerard.deltell@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @gerarddeltell

Lévis–Lotbinière

Candidate: Jacques Gourde

Email: apclevis.lotbiniere@gmail.com

Twitter: @JacquesGoudeMP

Madawaska–Restigouche

Candidate: Michel Morin

Email: michel.morinPCC2025@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Malpeque

Candidate: Jamie Fox

Email: n/a

Twitter: @JamieDFox

Marc-Aurèle-Fortin

Candidate: Janina Moran

Email: n/a

Twitter: @JMALCreation24

Markham–Stouffville

Candidate: Niran Jeyanesan

Email: info@niranjey.ca

Twitter: @niranjeycpc

Markham–Thornhill

Candidate: Lionel Loganathan

Email: n/a

Twitter: @Lionel4Markham

Markham–Unionville

Candidate: Michael Ma

Email: Michael.Ma@MUconservative.ca

Twitter: @MichaelMaCPCMU

Medicine Hat–Cardston–Warner

Candidate: Glen Motz

Email: Glen.Motz@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @GlenMotz

Middlesex–London

Candidate: Lianne Rood

Email: Info@voteliannerood.ca

Twitter: @Lianne_Rood

Milton East–Halton Hills South

Candidate: Parm Gill

Email: n/a

Twitter: @ParmGill

Mirabel

Candidate: Serge Dubord

Email: sergedubordpcc@conservateurs-quebec.ca

Twitter: n/a

Miramichi–Grand Lake

Candidate: Mike Dawson

Email: electmikedawson.mp@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Mission–Matsqui–Abbotsford

Candidate: Brad Vis

Email: info@brad.vis.ca

Twitter: @BradleyVis

Mississauga Centre

Candidate: Muhammad Ishaq

Email: ishaq@voteishaq.ca

Twitter: @IshaqCPC

Mississauga East–Cooksville

Candidate: Nita Kang

Email: info@nitakang.ca

Twitter: @NitaKang

Mississauga–Erin Mills

Candidate: Milad Mikael

Email: info@miladmikael.com

Twitter: @MiladMikae2956

Mississauga–Lakeshore

Candidate: Tom Ellard

Email: contact@tomellard.ca

Twitter: @TomEllardCPC

Mississauga–Malton

Candidate: Jaspreet Sandhu

Email: n/a

Twitter: @JasSandhuCPC

Mississauga–Streetsville

Candidate: Sue McFadden

Email: sue@suemcfadden.ca

Twitter: @Sue_McFadden_

Moncton–Dieppe

Candidate: Jocelyn Dionne

Email: jdmonctondieppe@gmail.com

Twitter: @jocedionne

Mont-Saint-Bruno–L’Acadie

Candidate: Nicolas Godin

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Montcalm

Candidate: Jean-Sébastien Lepage

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Montmorency–Charlevoix

Candidate: Gabriel Hardy

Email: executivedirector@ficdn.ca

Twitter: @Gab_Hardy

Moose Jaw–Lake Centre–Lanigan

Candidate: Fraser Tolmie

Email: frasertolmiesk@gmail.com

Twitter: @FraserTolmie

Mount Royal

Candidate: Neil Oberman

Email: neiloberman@neiloberman.com

Twitter: @NeilOberman

Mégantic–L’Érable–Lotbinière

Candidate: Luc Berthold

Email: luc.berthold2025@outlook.com

Twitter: @LucBerthold

Nanaimo–Ladysmith

Candidate: Tamara Kronis

Email: tamara@tamarakronis.ca

Twitter: @KronisTamara

Nepean

Candidate: Barbara Bal

Email: info@barbarabal.ca

Twitter: @BarbaraBalCPC

New Tecumseth–Gwillimbury

Candidate: Scot Davidson

Email: info@votescot.ca

Twitter: @ScotDavidsonMP

New Westminster–Burnaby–Maillardville

Candidate: Indy Panchi

Email: indypanchicampaign@gmail.com

Twitter: @indypanchimp

Newmarket–Aurora

Candidate: Sandra Cobeña

Email: n/a

Twitter: @SandraCobena_

Niagara Falls–Niagara-on-the-Lake

Candidate: Tony Baldinelli

Email: info@tonybaldinelli.ca

Twitter: @Tony_Baldinelli

Niagara South

Candidate: Fred Davies

Email: freddavies4mp@freddavies.ca

Twitter: @freddaviescpc

Niagara West

Candidate: Dean Allison

Email: Dean@DeanAllison.com

Twitter: @DeanAllisonMP

Nipissing–Timiskaming

Candidate: Garry Keller

Email: n/a

Twitter: @garry_keller

North Island–Powell River

Candidate: Aaron Gunn

Email: n/a

Twitter: @AaronGunn

North Vancouver–Capilano

Candidate: Stephen Curran

Email: info@stephencurran.ca

Twitter: @specurran

Northumberland–Clarke

Candidate: Philip Lawrence

Email: info@philiplawrence.ca

Twitter: @PLawrenceCAN

Northwest Territories

Candidate: Kimberly Fairman

Email: candidate@kimberlyfairman.ca

Twitter: n/a

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Westmount

Candidate: Neil Drabkin

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Nunavut

Candidate: James Arreak

Email: Elect@jamesarreak.ca

Twitter: n/a

Oakville East

Candidate: Ron Chhinzer

Email: cpc@oakvilleeast.ca

Twitter: @RealRonChhinzer

Oakville West

Candidate: Tim Crowder

Email: Contact_Us@oakvillewestconservatives.ca

Twitter: @tim_d_crowder

Okanagan Lake West–South Kelowna

Candidate: Dan Albas

Email: info@danalbas.ca

Twitter: @DanAlbas

Orléans

Candidate: Steve Mansour

Email: Steve@stevemansour.ca

Twitter: n/a

Oshawa

Candidate: Rhonda Kirkland

Email: info@rhondakirkland.ca

Twitter: @rhondaforoshawa

Ottawa Centre

Candidate: Paul D’Orsonnens

Email: vote@pauldorsonnens.ca

Twitter: n/a

Ottawa South

Candidate: Blair Turner

Email: info@blairturner.ca

Twitter: @BlairTurnerCan

Ottawa–Vanier–Gloucester

Candidate: Dean Wythe

Email: Info@deanwythe.ca

Twitter: @deanwythe

Ottawa West–Nepean

Candidate: Ryan Telford

Email: info@ryantelford.ca

Twitter: @RyanTelfordOWN

Outremont

Candidate: Ronan Reich

Email: contactronanreich@gmail.com

Twitter: @RonanReich

Oxford

Candidate: Arpan Khanna

Email: arpan@arpankhanna.ca

Twitter: @ArpanKhanna

Papineau

Candidate: Julio Rivera

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Parkland

Candidate: Dane Lloyd

Email: Info@danelloyd.com

Twitter: @DaneLloydMP

Parry Sound–Muskoka

Candidate: Scott Aitchison

Email: scottcampaignpsm@gmail.com

Twitter: @ScottAAitchison

Les Pays-d’en-Haut

Candidate: Vincent Leroux

Email: electeur@vincentleroux.ca

Twitter: n/a

Peace River–Westlock

Candidate: Arnold Viersen

Email: arnold.viersen@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @ArnoldViersen

Perth–Wellington

Candidate: John Nater

Email: johnnater@nater.ca

Twitter: @JohnNaterMP

Peterborough

Candidate: Michelle Ferreri

Email: info@votemichelleferreri.ca

Twitter: @mferreriptbokaw

Pickering–Brooklin

Candidate: Alicia Vianga

Email: secretary@pbceda.ca

Twitter: @AliciaVianga

Pierre-Boucher–Les Patriotes–Verchères

Candidate: Vincent Kunda

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Pierrefonds–Dollard

Candidate: Tanya Toledano

Email: n/a

Twitter: @TanyaToledanoPD

Pitt Meadows–Maple Ridge

Candidate: Marc Dalton

Email: marc.dalton@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @MarcDalton

Ponoka–Didsbury

Candidate: Blaine Calkins

Email: voteblainecalkins@outlook.com

Twitter: @BlaineFCalkins

Pontiac–Kitigan Zibi

Candidate: Brian Nolan

Email: Brian@BrianNolan.ca

Twitter: n/a

Port Moody–Coquitlam

Candidate: Paul Lambert

Email: paul@paullambert.ca

Twitter: @votepaullambert

Portage–Lisgar

Candidate: Branden Leslie

Email: branden.leslie@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @BrandenCPC

Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier

Candidate: Joel Godin

Email: joel.godin@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @Joelgodinpjc

Prescott–Russell–Cumberland

Candidate: Julie Séguin

Email: julie@votejulieseguin.ca

Twitter: @july_2209

Prince Albert

Candidate: Randy Hoback

Email: info@randyhoback.com

Twitter: @Randy_HobackCPC

Prince George–Peace River–Northern Rockies

Candidate: Bob Zimmer

Email: Bob.zimmer@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @bobzimmermp

Provencher

Candidate: Ted Falk

Email: votetedfalk@gmail.com

Twitter: @Ted_Falk_

Québec Centre

Candidate: Chanie Thériault

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Red Deer

Candidate: Burton Bailey

Email: VoteForBurton@BurtonBailey.ca

Twitter: @BurtonBaileyRD

Regina–Lewvan

Candidate: Warren Steinley

Email: warren.steinley@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @WarrenSteinley

Regina–Qu’Appelle

Candidate: Andrew Scheer

Email: info@andrewscheer.com

Twitter: @AndrewScheer

Regina–Wascana

Candidate: Michael Kram

Email: info@michaelkram.ca

Twitter: @MichaelKramSK

Repentigny

Candidate: Charles Champagne

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Richmond–Arthabaska

Candidate: Eric Lefebvre

Email: n/a

Twitter: @EricLefebvrePCC

Richmond Centre–Marpole

Candidate: Chak Au

Email: info@chakau.ca

Twitter: @ChakAuRichmond

Richmond East–Steveston

Candidate: Zach Segal

Email: n/a

Twitter: @zachsegal_RES

Richmond Hill South

Candidate: Vincent Ho

Email: vincent@vincentneilho.com

Twitter: @vincentneilho

Riding Mountain

Candidate: Dan Mazier

Email: Dan.Mazier@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @MBDan7

Rimouski–La Matapédia

Candidate: Nancy Joannette

Email: dv.agentofficiel.nj@gmail.com

Twitter: @JoannetteN85270

Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Candidate: Eliza Lopez

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Rivière-du-Nord

Candidate: Patricia Morrisette

Email: n/a

Twitter: @Patriciam_74

Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie

Candidate: Laetitia Tchatat

Email: n/a

Twitter: @LaetitiaTchatat

Saanich–Gulf Islands

Candidate: Cathie Ounsted

Email: connect@votecathie.ca

Twitter: @Cathie4SGI

Sackville–Bedford–Preston

Candidate: Dave Carroll

Email: davecarrollforsbp@gmail.com

Twitter: @VoteDaveCarroll

Saint-Hyacinthe–Bagot–Acton

Candidate: Gaëtan Deschênes

Email: info@gaetandeschenes.ca

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Jean

Candidate: Marie Louis-Seize

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Saint John–Kennebecasis

Candidate: Melissa Young

Email: melissa@votemelissa.ca

Twitter: @MelissaYoungSJK

Saint John–St. Croix

Candidate: John Williamson

Email: info@votejohnwilliamson.ca

Twitter: @JohnWilliamson_

Saint-Laurent

Candidate: Richard Serour

Email: rserourconservative@gmail.com

Twitter: @SerourRichard

Saint-Léonard–Saint-Michel

Candidate: Panagiota Koroneos

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Maurice–Champlain

Candidate: Pierre-Augustin Allard

Email: n/a

Twitter: @augustin_allard

Sarnia–Lambton–Bkejwanong

Candidate: Marilyn Gladu

Email: marilyn.gladu@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @MarilynGladuSL

Saskatoon South

Candidate: Kevin Waugh

Email: info@reelectkevin.ca

Twitter: @KevinWaugh_CPC

Saskatoon–University

Candidate: Corey Tochor

Email: Corey.Tochor@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @ctochor

Saskatoon West

Candidate: Brad Redekopp

Email: info@bradredekopp.ca

Twitter: @BradRedekopp

Sault Ste. Marie–Algoma

Candidate: Hugh Stevenson

Email: hugh@hughstevenson.ca

Twitter: @Stevenhu1313

Scarborough–Agincourt

Candidate: Aris Movsessian

Email: info@arismovsessian.ca

Twitter: @ArisMovsessian

Scarborough Centre–Don Valley East

Candidate: Belent Mathew

Email: belent@belentmathew.ca

Twitter: @BelentMathew

Scarborough–Guildwood–Rouge Park

Candidate: Suchita Jalan

Email: info@suchitajalan.ca

Twitter: @Suchita_Jalan

Scarborough North

Candidate: Gurmit Sandhu

Email: vote@gurmitsandhu.com

Twitter: @Gurmitsandhusn

Scarborough Southwest

Candidate: Asm Tarun

Email: n/a

Twitter: @AsmTarun

Scarborough–Woburn

Candidate: Reddy Muttukuru

Email: n/a

Twitter: @RMuttukuru

Selkirk–Interlake–Eastman

Candidate: James Bezan

Email: vote@votejamesbezan.ca

Twitter: @jamesbezan

Shefford

Candidate: James Seale

Email: Shefford.conservative.seale@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Sherbrooke

Candidate: Esteban Méndez-Hord

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Sherwood Park–Fort Saskatchewan

Candidate: Garnett Genius

Email: Garnett.Genuis@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @GarnettGenuis

Simcoe–Grey

Candidate: Terry Dowdall

Email: Terry.Dowdall@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @TerryDowdall

Simcoe North

Candidate: Adam Chambers

Email: adam@adamchambers.ca

Twitter: @adamchamb

Similkameen–South Okanagan–West Kootenay

Candidate: Helena Konanz

Email: vote@helenakonanz.ca

Twitter: @HelenaKonanz

Skeena–Bulkley Valley

Candidate: Ellis Ross

Email: electellisross@gmail.com

Twitter: @ellisbross

Souris–Moose Mountain

Candidate: Steven Bonk

Email: electstevenbonk@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

South Shore–St. Margarets

Candidate: Rick Perkins

Email: rick.perkins@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @RickPerkinsMP

South Surrey–White Rock

Candidate: Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Email: team@votefindlay.ca

Twitter: @KerryLynneFindl

Spadina–Harbourfront

Candidate: Diana Filipova

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

St. Albert–Sturgeon River

Candidate: Michael Cooper

Email: michaelcooper4sasr@gmail.com

Twitter: @MichaelCooperMP

St. Boniface–St. Vital

Candidate: Shola Agboola

Email: info@sholaagboola.ca

Twitter: @Sholagboola4MP

St. Catharines

Candidate: Bas Sluijmers

Email: Info@VoteBas.ca

Twitter: n/a

St. John’s East

Candidate: David Brazil

Email: vote@davidbrazil.ca

Twitter: @davidbrazil10

Stormont–Dundas–Glengarry

Candidate: Eric Duncan

Email: info@sdgconservative.ca

Twitter: @EricDuncanSDG

Sudbury

Candidate: Ian Symington

Email: IanSymington.CPC@outlook.com

Twitter: @_iansymington

Sudbury East–Manitoulin–Nickel Belt

Candidate: Jim Belanger

Email: jim@jimbelanger.ca

Twitter: n/a

Surrey Centre

Candidate: Rajvir Dhillon

Email: info@rajvirsinghdhillon.ca

Twitter: @dhillon4surrey

Surrey Newton

Candidate: Harjit Singh Gill

Email: n/a

Twitter: @hostharjitgill

Swift Current–Grasslands–Kindersley

Candidate: Jeremy Patzer

Email: Jeremy.Patzer@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @jeremy_patzer

Sydney–Glace Bay

Candidate: Anna Manley

Email: anna@annamanley.ca

Twitter: @nnamanley

Taiaiako’n–Parkdale–High Park

Candidate: Wladyslaw Lizon

Email: contact@phpconservative.ca

Twitter: @wladyslawlizon

Terra Nova–The Peninsulas

Candidate: Jonathan Rowe

Email: Info@VoteRowe.ca

Twitter: n/a

Terrebonne

Candidate: Adrienne Charles

Email: adriennecharlespcc@conservateurs-quebec.ca

Twitter: @CharlesAdr56907

Thornhill
Candidate: Melissa Lantsman

Email: melissa.lantsman@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @MelissaLantsman

Thunder Bay–Rainy River

Candidate: Brendan Hyatt

Email: Info@brendanhyattcampaign.com

Twitter: n/a

Thunder Bay–Superior North

Candidate: Bob Herman

Email: info@votebobherman.ca

Twitter: n/a

Thérèse-De Blainville

Candidate: Julie Bergeron

Email: juliebergeronpcc@conservateurs-quebec.ca

Twitter: n/a

Tobique–Mactaquac

Candidate: Richard Bragdon

Email: Info@richardbragdon.ca

Twitter: @RichardBragdon

Toronto Centre

Candidate: Luis Ibarra

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Toronto–Danforth

Candidate: Ashik Hussain

Email: mail@voteashik.ca

Twitter: n/a

Toronto–St. Paul’s

Candidate: Don Stewart

Email: contact@votedonstewart.ca

Twitter: @donstewartTO

Trois–Rivières

Candidate: Yves Lévesque

Email: yves3011@hotmail.com

Twitter: n/a

University–Rosedale

Candidate: Liz Grade

Email: liz@votelizgrade.ca

Twitter: @grade_liz

Vancouver Centre

Candidate: Elaine Allan

Email: elaineallancampaign@gmail.com

Twitter: @AllanElaine

Vancouver East

Candidate: Lita Cabal

Email: n/a

Twitter: @LitaCabal

Vancouver Fraserview–South Burnaby

Candidate: Avi Nayyar

Email: conservative@voteavinayyar.ca

Twitter: @Voteavinayyar

Vancouver Granville

Candidate: Marie Rogers

Email: n/a

Twitter: @marierogers604

Vancouver Kingsway

Candidate: Ravinder Bhatia

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Vancouver Quadra

Candidate: Ken Charko

Email: vote@kencharko.ca

Twitter: @KenCharko

Vaudreuil

Candidate: Thomas Barré

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Vaughan–Woodbridge

Candidate: Michael Guglielmin

Email: info@michael4vw.ca

Twitter: @MikeGuglielmin

Vernon–Lake Country–Monashee

Candidate: Scott Anderson

Email: anderson4mp@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Victoria

Candidate: Angus Ross

Email: campaign@conservativevictoria.ca

Twitter: @AngusRossVIC

Ville-Marie–Le Sud-Ouest–Île-des-Soeurs

Candidate: Steve Shanahan

Email: steveshanahan2025@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Vimy

Candidate: Grace Daou

Email: n/a

Twitter: @GraceDaou_PCC

Waterloo

Candidate: Waseem Botros

Email: info@waseembotros.ca

Twitter: @waseemwaterloo

Wellington–Halton Hills North

Candidate: Michael Chong

Email: michael.chong@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @MichaelChongMP

West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast–Sea to Sky Country

Candidate: Keith Roy

Email: n/a

Twitter: @RealtorKeithRoy

Whitby

Candidate: Steve Yamada

Email: yamadas@whitby.ca

Twitter: @SteveYamadaCPC

Willowdale

Candidate: James Lin

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Windsor–Tecumseh–Lakeshore

Candidate: Kathy Borrelli

Email: kathy@kathyborrelli4windsor-tecumseh.ca

Twitter: @KathyBorrelliWT

Windsor West

Candidate: Harb Gill

Email: harbgill.cpc@gmail.com

Twitter: @HarbGill

Winnipeg Centre

Candidate: Thomas Bambrick

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Winnipeg North

Candidate: Rachel Punzalan

Email: info@voterachel.ca

Twitter: @RLPpunzalanlaw

Winnipeg South

Candidate: Janice Morley-Lecomte

Email: n/a

Twitter: @JaniceMLPCSeine

Winnipeg South Centre

Candidate: Royden Brousseau

Email: info@roydenbrousseau.ca

Twitter: @roy_brousseau

Winnipeg West

Candidate: Marty Morantz

Email: Marty.Morantz@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @marty_morantz

Yellowhead

Candidate: William Stevenson

Email: hello@votewilliam.ca

Twitter: @Will_Stevenson

York Centre

Candidate: Roman Baber

Email: info@romanbaber.ca

Twitter: @Roman_Baber

York–Durham

Candidate: Jacob Mantle

Email: support@jacobmantle.ca

Twitter: @jacobmantle

York South–Weston–Etobicoke

Candidate: Nicolas Pham

Email: info@PutCanadaFirst.org

Twitter: n/a

Yorkton–Melville

Candidate: Cathy Wagantall

Email: cathay@cathaywagantall.ca

Twitter: @cathayw

Yukon

Candidate: Ryan Leef

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

NDP Candidates

Abbotsford–South Langley

Candidate: Dharmasena Yakandawela

Email: dharmasena.yakandawela@ndp.ca

Twitter: @Dharmasena87773

Abitibi–Baie-James–Nunavik–Eeyou

Candidate: Thai Dillon Higashihara

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Abitibi–Témiscamingue

Candidate: Jérémie Juneau

Email: n/a

Twitter: @JuneauNpd

Acadie–Annapolis

Candidate: Ingrid Deon

Email: ingrid.deon@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Acadie–Bathurst

Candidate: Ty Boulay

Email: ty.boulay@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Candidate: Idil Issa

Email: idilissa@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Airdrie–Cochrane

Candidate: Sarah Zagoda

Email: sarah.zagoda@ndp.ca

Twitter: @SarahZagoda

Ajax

Candidate: Kyle Forster

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Alfred-Pellan

Candidate: Jordan Larochelle

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Algonquin–Renfrew–Pembroke

Candidate: Eileen Jones Whyte

Email: eileen.whyte@ndp.ca

Twitter: @EileenNDP

Argenteuil–La Petite-Nation

Candidate: Michel Welt

Email: michel.welt@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill

Candidate: Danielle Maniuk

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Avalon

Candidate: Judy Vanta

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Barrie South–Innisfil

Candidate: Andrew Harrigan

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Barrie–Springwater–Oro Medonte

Candidate: Gabriela Trujillo

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Battle River–Crowfoot

Candidate: James MacKay

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Battlefords–Lloydminster–Meadow Lake

Candidate: William Petryk

Email: william.petryk@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Bay of Quinte

Candidate: Kate Crothers

Email: kate.crothers@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Beaches–East York

Candidate: Shannon Devine

Email: shannon.devine@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Beauce

Candidate: Annabelle Lafond-Poirier

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Beauharnois–Salaberry–Soulanges–Huntingdon

Candidate: Tyler Jones

Email: tyler.jones@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Beauport–Limoilou
Candidate: Raymond Côté

Email: n/a

Twitter: @RCoteNPD

Beauséjour

Candidate: Alex Gangé

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Bellechasse–Les Etchemins–Lévis

Candidate: Marie-Philippe Gagnon-Gauthier

Email: marie-philippe.gagnon-gauthier@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Beloeil–Chambly

Candidate: Marie-Josée Béliveau

Email: mariejosee.beliveau@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Berthier–Maskinongé

Candidate: Ruth Ellen Brosseau

Email: ruthellen.brosseau@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Bourassa

Candidate: Catherine Gauvin

Email: catherine.gauvin@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Bow River

Candidate: Louisa Gwin

Email: Louisa.gwin@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Bowmanville–Oshawa North

Candidate: Elenor Marano

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Brampton Centre

Candidate: Anil Boodhai

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Brampton–Chinguacousy Park

Candidate: Teresa Yeh

Email: n/a

Twitter: @teresa_yeh

Brampton East

Candidate: Haramrit Singh

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Brampton North–Caledon

Candidate: Ruby Zaman

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Brampton South

Candidate: Rajni Sharma

Email: rajni.sharma@ndp.ca

Twitter: @RajniNdp

Brampton West

Candidate: Zaigham Kayani

Email: zaigham.kayani@ndp.ca

Twitter: @ZaighamJKayani

Brandon–Souris

Candidate: Quentin Robinson

Email: quentin.robinson@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Brantford–Brant South–Six Nations

Candidate: Anne Gajerski-Cauley

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Brome–Missiquoi

Candidate: Zoé Larose

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Brossard–Saint-Lambert

Candidate: Zeinab Akkaoui

Email: Zmistou@hotmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound

Candidate: Chris Neudorf

Email: chris.neudorf@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Burlington

Candidate: Michael Beauchemin

Email: michael.beauchemin@ndp.ca

Twitter: @BurlingtonNDP

Burlington North–Milton West

Candidate: Naveed Ahmed

Email: n/a

Twitter: @NaveedAhmedNDP

Burnaby Central

Candidate: Jagmeet Singh

Email: jagmeet.singh@ndp.ca

Twitter: @theJagmeetSingh

Burnaby North–Seymour

Candidate: Michael Charrois

Email: michael.charrois@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Bécancour–Nicolet–Saurel–Alnôbak

Candidate: Tommy Gagnon

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Calgary Centre

Candidate: Beau Shaw

Email: beau.shaw@ndp.ca

Twitter: @Beau_F_Shaw

Calgary Confederation

Candidate: Keira Gunn

Email: keira.gunn@ndp.ca

Twitter: @Keira_Gunn_YYC

Calgary Crowfoot

Candidate: Jim Samuelson

Email: jim.samuelson@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Calgary East

Candidate: Jennifer Geha

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Calgary Heritage

Candidate: Becki Zimmerman

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Calgary McKnight

Candidate: Arlington Antonio Santiago

Email: arlington.santiago@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Calgary Midnapore

Candidate: Austin Mullins

Email: austin.mullins@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Calgary Nose Hill

Candidate: Ahmed Khan

Email: ahmed.khan@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Calgary Shepard

Candidate: Tory Tomblin

Email: tory.tomblin@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Calgary Signal Hill

Candidate: Khalis Ahmed

Email: khalis.ahmed@ndp.ca

Twitter: @KhalisNDP

Calgary Skyview

Candidate: Rajesh Angral

Email: rajesh.angral@gmail.com

Twitter: @angral4northndp

Cambridge

Candidate: José de Lima

Email: Jose.delima@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Cape Breton–Canso–Antigonish

Candidate: Joanna Clark

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Cape Spear

Candidate: Brenda Walsh

Email: n/a

Twitter: @BrendaWalshNDP

Cardigan

Candidate: Lynne Thiele

Email: lynne.thiele@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Cariboo–Prince George

Candidate: Angie Bonazzo

Email: angie.bonazzo@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Carleton

Candidate: Beth Prokaska

Email: beth.prokaska@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Carlton Trail–Eagle Creek

Candidate: Cheryl Loadman

Email: cheryl.loadman@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Central Newfoundland

Candidate: Darian Vincent

Email: darian.vincent@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Central Nova

Candidate: Jesiah MacDonald

Email: jesiah.macdonald@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Charlesbourg–Haute-Saint-Charles

Candidate: Dominique Harrison

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Charlottetown

Candidate: Joe Byrne

Email: joe.byrne@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Chatham-Kent–Leamington

Candidate: Seamus McInnis Fleming

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Chicoutimi–Le Fjord

Candidate: Raphaël Émond

Email: raphael.emond@npd.ca

Twitter: @RaphaelEmond

Chilliwack–Hope

Candidate: Teri Westerby

Email: teri.westerby@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Churchill–Keewatinook Aski

Candidate: Niki Ashton

Email: niki.ashton@ndp.ca

Twitter: @nikiashton

Châteauguay–Les Jardins-de-Napierville

Candidate: Hannah Wolker

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Cloverdale–Langley City

Candidate: Vanessa Sharma

Email: vanessa.sharma@ndp.ca

Twitter: @vanessavsharma

Columbia–Kootenay–Southern Rockies

Candidate: Kallee Lins

Email: kallee.lins@ndp.ca

Twitter: @kalleelins

Compton–Stanstead

Candidate: Valerie Laliberté

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Coquitlam–Port Coquitlam

Candidate: Laura Dupont

Email: Laura.Dupont@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Courtenay–Alberni

Candidate: Gord Johns

Email: courtenay-alberni-federal-ndp@shaw.ca

Twitter: @GordJohns

Cowichan–Malahat–Langford

Candidate: Alistair MacGregor

Email: alistair.macgregor@ndp.ca

Twitter: @AMacGregor4CML

Cumberland–Colchester

Candidate: Larry Duchesne

Email: larry.duchesne@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Côte-du-Sud-Rivière-du-Loup-Kataskomiq-Témiscouata

Candidate: Iseult L’Heureux-Hubert

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Côte-Nord–Kawawachikamach–Nitassinan

Candidate: Marika Lalime

Email: marika.lalime@npd.ca

Twitter: @lalime_marika

Dartmouth–Cole Harbour

Candidate: Keith Morrison

Email: keith.morrison@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Davenport

Candidate: Sandra Sousa

Email: sousadavenport@gmail.com

Twitter: @sousadavenport

Delta

Candidate: Jason McCormick

Email: n/a

Twitter: @DeltaSouthNDP

Desnethé–Missinippi–Churchill River

Candidate: Doug Racine

Email: doug.racine@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Don Valley North

Candidate: Naila Saeed

Email: naila.saeed@ndp.ca

Twitter: @nailasaeed_ndp

Don Valley West

Candidate: Linnea Löfström-Abary

Email: linnea@ontariondp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Dorval–Lachine–LaSalle

Candidate: Angélique Soleil Lavoie

Email: angelique.soleil.lavoie@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Drummond

Candidate: François Choquette

Email: françois.choquette@npd.ca

Twitter: @F_Choquette

Dufferin–Caledon

Candidate: Viktor Karklins

Email: viktor.karklins@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Edmonton Centre

Candidate: Trisha Estabrooks

Email: trisha.estabrooks@ndp.ca

Twitter: @TrishEstabrooks

Edmonton Gateway

Candidate: Madeline Mayes

Email: madeline.mayes@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Edmonton Griesbach

Candidate: Blake Desjarlais

Email: blake.desjarlais@ndp.ca

Twitter: @DesjarlaisBlake

Edmonton Manning

Candidate: Lesley Thompson

Email: lesley.thompson@ndp.ca

Twitter: @Lesley_NDP

Edmonton Northwest

Candidate: Omar Abubakar

Email: omar.abubakar@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Edmonton Riverbend

Candidate: Susan Cake

Email: susan.cake@ndp.ca

Twitter: @SusanCakeNDP

Edmonton Southeast

Candidate: Harpreet Grewal

Email: harpreet.grewal@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Edmonton Strathcona

Candidate: Heather McPherson

Email: heather@edmontonstrathcona.ca

Twitter: @HMcPhersonMP

Edmonton West

Candidate: Sean McQuillan

Email: sean.mcquillan@ndp.ca

Twitter: @luckysean

Eglinton–Lawrence

Candidate: Allison Tanzola

Email: allison.tanzola@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Egmont

Candidate: Carol Rybinski

Email: carol.rybinski@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Elgin–St. Thomas–London South

Candidate: Paul Pighin

Email: paul.pighin@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Elmwood–Transcona

Candidate: Leila Dance

Email: leila.dance@ndp.ca

Twitter: @VoteLeilaDance

Esquimalt–Saanich–Sooke

Candidate: Maja Tait

Email: maja.tait@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Essex

Candidate: Lori Wightman

Email: lori.wightman@ndp.ca

Twitter: @LoriEssexNDP

Etobicoke Centre

Candidate: Ji Won Jung

Email: ji-won.jung@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Etobicoke–Lakeshore

Candidate: Cory Wagar

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Etobicoke North

Candidate: Benjamin Abis

Email: benjamin.abis@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Flamborough–Glanbrook–Brant North

Candidate: Peter Werhun

Email: peter.werhun@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Fleetwood–Port Kells

Candidate: Shannon Permal

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Foothills

Candidate: Kaitte Aurora

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Fort McMurray–Cold Lake

Candidate: You-Ju Choi

Email: You-Ju.Choi@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Fredericton–Oromocto

Candidate: Nicki Lyons-Macfarlane

Email: nicki.lyons-macfarlane@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Fundy Royal

Candidate: Cindy Andrie

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Gaspésie–Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine–Listuguj

Candidate: Denise Giroux

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Gatineau

Candidate: Daniel Simoncic

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Grande Prairie

Candidate: Jennifer Villebrun

Email: jennifer.villebrun@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Guelph

Candidate: Janice Folk-Dawson

Email: janice.folk-dawson@ndp.ca

Twitter: @FolkDawson

Haldimand–Norfolk

Candidate: Shannon Horner-Shepherd

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes

Candidate: Aylea Teel

Email: aylea.teel@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Halifax

Candidate: Lisa Roberts

Email: lisa.roberts@ndp.ca

Twitter: @LisaRobertsHfx

Halifax West

Candidate: Rae Tench

Email: rae.tench@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Hamilton Centre

Candidate: Matthew Green

Email: matthew.green@ndp.ca

Twitter: @MathewGreenNDP

Hamilton East–Stoney Creek

Candidate: Nayla Mithani

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Hamilton Mountain

Candidate: Monique Taylor

Email: monique.taylor@ndp.ca

Twitter: @MTaylorNDP

Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas

Candidate: Roberto Henriquez

Email: roberto.henriquez@ndp.ca

Twitter: @robertohnrqz

Hastings–Lennox and Addington–Tyendinaga

Candidate: Ava Duffy

Email: ava.duffy@ndp.ca

Twitter: @AvaDuffyNDP

Hochelaga–Rosemont-Est

Candidate: Julie Girard-Lemay

Email: Julie.girard-lemay@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Honoré-Mercier

Candidate: Djaouida Sellah

Email: djaouida.sellah@ndp.ca

Twitter: @DSellahNPD

Hull–Aylmer

Candidate: Pascale Matecki

Email: pascale.matecki@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Humber River–Black Creek

Candidate: Matias de Dovitiis

Email: info@matiasdedovitiis.ca

Twitter: @MatiasdeD

Huron–Bruce

Candidate: Melanie Burrett

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Joliette–Manawan

Candidate: Vanessa Gordon

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Jonquière

Candidate: Lise Garon

Email: lise.garon@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Kamloops–Shuswap–Central Rockies

Candidate: Phaedra Idzan

Email: Phaedra.Idzan@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Kamloops–Thompson–Nicola

Candidate: Miguel Godau

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Kanata

Candidate: Melissa Simon

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Kapuskasing–Timmins–Mushkegowuk

Candidate: Nicole Fortier-Levesque

Email: nicole.fortier-levesque@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Kelowna

Candidate: Trevor McAleese

Email: trevor.mcaleese@ndp.ca

Twitter: @trevor_ndp

Kenora–Kiiwetinoong

Candidate: Tania Cameron

Email: tania.cameron@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Kildonan–St. Paul

Candidate: Emily Clark

Email: emily.clark@ndp.ca

Twitter: @EmilyClarkNDP

King–Vaughan

Candidate: Samantha Sanchez

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Kings–Hants

Candidate: Paul Doerr

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Kingston and the Islands

Candidate: Daria Juüdi-Hope

Email: daria.juudi-hope@ndp.ca

Twitter: @Daria_NDP

Kitchener Centre

Candidate: Heather Zaleski

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Kitchener–Conestoga

Candidate: Maya Bozorgzad

Email: maya.bozorgzad@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Kitchener South–Hespeler

Candidate: Lorne Bruce

Email: n/a

Twitter: @LorneBruceNDP

La Pointe-de-I’Île

Candidate: Ghada Chaabi

Email: ghada.chaabi@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

La Prairie–Atateken

Candidate: Mathieu Boisvert

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Labrador

Candidate: Marius Normore

Email: marius.normore@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Lac-Saint-Jean

Candidate: Hugues Boily-Maltais

Email: hugues.boily-maltais@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Lac-Saint-Louis

Candidate: Gregory Evdokias

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Lakeland

Candidate: Des Bissonnette

Email: des.bissonnette@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Lanark–Frontenac

Candidate: Danielle Rae

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Langley Township–Fraser Heights

Candidate: Holly Isaac

Email: holly.isaac@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

LaSalle–Émard–Verdun

Candidate: Craig Sauvé

Email: Craig.Sauve@npd.ca

Twitter: @CraigSauve

Laurentides–Labelle

Candidate: Michel Noël de Tilly

Email: michel.noel.de.tilly@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Laurier–Sainte-Marie

Candidate: Nimâ Machouf

Email: equipe@nimamachouf.org

Twitter: @nimamachoufnpd

Laval–Les Îles

Candidate: Étienne Loiselle-Schiettekatte

Email: Etienne.Loiselle-Schiettekatte@npd.ca

Twitter: @e_loiselle_s

Leduc–Wetaskiwin

Candidate: Katherine Swampy

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands–Rideau Lakes

Candidate: Paul Lancione

Email: paul.lancione@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Lethbridge

Candidate: Nathan Svoboda

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

London Centre

Candidate: Dirka Prout

Email: dirka.prout@ndp.ca

Twitter: @DirkaProut

London–Fanshawe

Candidate: Lindsay Mathyssen

Email: lindsay.mathyssen@ndp.ca

Twitter: @LMathys

London West

Candidate: Shinade Allder

Email: shinade.allder@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Long Range Mountains

Candidate: Sarah Parsons

Email: sarah.parsons@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Longueuil–Charles-LeMoyne

Candidate: Marie-Andrée Gravel

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Longueuil–Saint-Hubert

Candidate: Nesrine Benhadj

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Louis-Hébert

Candidate: Jean-Paul Lussiaà-Berdou

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Louis-Saint-Laurent–Akiawenhrahk

Candidate: Colette Ducharme

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Lévis–Lotbinière

Candidate: Molly Cornish

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Madawaska–Restigouche

Candidate: Daisy Petersen

Email: daisy.petersen@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Malpeque

Candidate: Cassie MacKay

Email: cassie.mackay@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Marc-Aurèle-Fortin

Candidate: Alexandrah Cardona-Fortin

Email: n/a

Twitter: @Cardodrah

Markham–Stouffville

Candidate: Serena Cheung

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Markham–Thornhill

Candidate: Aftab Qureshi

Email: Aftab.Qureshi@ndp.ca

Twitter: @Aftab4ndp

Markham–Unionville

Candidate: Sameer Qureshi

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Medicine Hat–Cardston–Warner

Candidate: Jocelyn Johnson

Email: jocelyn.johnson@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Middlesex–London

Candidate: Taylor McIntosh

Email: taylor.mcintosh@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Milton East–Halton Hills South

Candidate: Muhammad Riaz-Sahi

Email: muhammad.riaz-sahi@ndp.ca

Twitter: @SahiforMiltonE

Mirabel

Candidate: Albert Batten

Email: albert.batten@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Miramichi–Grand Lake

Candidate: Josh Floyd

Email: JoshFloyd0321@Gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Mission–Matsqui–Abbotsford

Candidate: Jules Côte

Email: jules.cote@ndp.ca

Twitter: @jules_ndp

Mississauga Centre

Candidate: Brandon Nguyen

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Mississauga East–Cooksville

Candidate: Khawar Hussain

Email: khawar.hussain@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Mississauga–Erin Mills

Candidate: Ehab Mustapha

Email: ehab.mustapha@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Mississauga–Lakeshore

Candidate: Evelyn Butler

Email: evelyn.butler@ndp.ca

Twitter: @EvelynButlerNDP

Mississauga–Malton

Candidate: Inderjeetsingh Ailsinghani

Email: inderjeetsingh.ailsinghani@ndp.ca

Twitter: @Inderjeeetsingh

Mississauga–Streetsville

Candidate: Bushra Asghar

Email: bushra.asghar@ndp.ca

Twitter: @bushra4sauga

Moncton–Dieppe

Candidate: Serge Landry

Email: serge.landry@ndp.ca

Twitter: @SergeLandryNB

Mont-Saint-Bruno–L’Acadie

Candidate: Mirabelle Leins

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Montcalm

Candidate: Denis Perreault

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Montmorency–Charlevoix

Candidate: Gérard Briand

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Moose Jaw–Lake Centre–Lanigan

Candidate: Britt Baumann

Email: britt.baumann@ndp.ca

Twitter: @Britt__Baumann

Mount Royal

Candidate: Adam Frank

Email: adam.frank@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Mégantic–L’Érable–Lotbinière

Candidate: Gabriel D’Astous

Email: Gabriel.d’astous@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Nanaimo–Ladysmith

Candidate: Lisa Marie Barron

Email: lisa.marie.barron@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Nepean

Candidate: Shyam Shukla

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

New Tecumseth–Gwillimbury

Candidate: Nancy Morrison

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

New Westminster–Burnaby–Maillardville

Candidate: Peter Julian

Email: peter.julian@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @MPJulian

Newmarket–Aurora

Candidate: Anna Gollen

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Niagara Falls–Niagara-on-the-Lake

Candidate: Shannon Mitchell

Email: shannon.mitchell@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Niagara South

Candidate: Chantal McCollum

Email: chantal.mccollum@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Niagara West

Candidate: Justin Abando

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Nipissing–Timiskaming

Candidate: Valerie Kennedy

Email: valerie.kennedy@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

North Island–Powell River

Candidate: Tanille Johnston

Email: tanille.johnston@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

North Vancouver–Capilano

Candidate: Tammy Bentz

Email: tammy.bentz@ndp.ca

Twitter: @NorthVanTam1

Northumberland–Clarke

Candidate: Ava Becker

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Northwest Territories

Candidate: Kelvin Kotchilea

Email: kelvin.kotchilea@ndp.ca

Twitter: @KKotchilea

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Westmount

Candidate: Malcolm Lewis-Richmond

Email: Malcolm.lewis.richmond@ndp.ca

Twitter: @richmondmalcolm

Nunavut

Candidate: Lori Idlout

Email: Lori.idlout@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: @loriidlout4ndp

Oakville East

Candidate: Hailey Ford

Email: hailey.ford@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Oakville West

Candidate: Diane Downey

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Okanagan Lake West–South Kelowna

Candidate: Harpreet Badohal

Email: harpreet.badohal@ndp.ca

Twitter: @HBadohal

Orléans

Candidate: Oulai B. Goué

Email: oulaibgoue@ndp.ca

Twitter: @OulaiBGoueNDP

Oshawa

Candidate: Sara Labelle

Email: sara.labelle@ndp.ca

Twitter: @saralabellefor1

Ottawa Centre

Candidate: Joel Harden

Email: joel@joelharden.ca

Twitter: @JoelDHardenNDP

Ottawa South

Candidate: Hena Masjedee

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Ottawa–Vanier–Gloucester

Candidate: Tristan Oliff

Email: tristan4ottawavanier@gmail.com

Twitter: @tristanoliff

Ottawa West–Nepean

Candidate: Josh Bizjak

Email: Josh@JoshBizjak.ca

Twitter: @Josh_Bizjak

Outremont

Candidate: Ève Péclet

Email: eve.peclet@npd.ca

Twitter: @evepeclet

Oxford

Candidate: Matthew Chambers

Email: Matthew.Chambers@ndp.ca

Twitter: @MatthewNewDem

Papineau

Candidate: Niall Ricardo

Email: niall.ricardo@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Parkland

Candidate: Keri Goad

Email: Keri.Goad@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Parry Sound–Muskoka

Candidate: Heather Hay

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Les Pays-d’en-Haut

Candidate: Eric-Abel Baland

Email: eric-abel.baland@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Peace River–Westlock

Candidate: Landen Tischer

Email: landen.tischer@ndp.ca

Twitter: @landentischer

Perth–Wellington

Candidate: Kevin Kruchywich

Email: kevin.kruchkywich@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Peterborough

Candidate: Heather Ray

Email: contact@pkndp.ca

Twitter: @ptbokndp

Pickering–Brooklin

Candidate: Jamie Nye

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Pierre-Boucher–Les Patriotes–Verchères

Candidate: Jean-François Filion

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Pierrefonds–Dollard

Candidate: Kakou Richard Kouassi

Email: kakou-richard.kouassi@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Pitt Meadows–Maple Ridge

Candidate: Daniel Heydenrych

Email: daniel.heydenrych@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Ponoka–Didsbury

Candidate: Logan Hooley

Email: logan.hooley@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Pontiac–Kitigan Zibi

Candidate: Gilbert W. Whiteduck

Email: gilbert.whiteduck@ndp.ca

Twitter: @GWhiteduck

Port Moody–Coquitlam

Candidate: Bonita Zarrillo

Email: bonita.zarrillo@ndp.ca

Twitter: @BonitaZarrillo

Portage–Lisgar

Candidate: Lisa Tessier

Email: lisa.tessier@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier

Candidate: Félix Couture

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Prescott–Russell–Cumberland

Candidate: Ryder Finlay

Email: ryder.finlay@ndp.ca

Twitter: @RyderFinlay_NDP

Prince Albert

Candidate: Virginia Kutzan

Email: virginia.kutzan@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Prince George–Peace River–Northern Rockies

Candidate: Cory Longley

Email: cory.longley@ndp.ca

Twitter: @cory_longley

Provencher

Candidate: Brandy Schmidt

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Québec Centre

Candidate: Tommy Bureau

Email: tommy.bureau@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Red Deer

Candidate: Elias Assefa

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Regina–Lewvan

Candidate: Ray Aldinger

Email: ray.aldinger@ndp.ca

Twitter: @RayAldinger

Regina–Qu’Appelle

Candidate: Chris Simmie

Email: chris.simmie@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Regina–Wascana

Candidate: Kaitlyn Stadnyk

Email: kaitlyn@saskndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Repentigny

Candidate: Nathalie Gagnon

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Richmond–Arthabaska

Candidate: Nataël Bureau

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Richmond Centre–Marpole

Candidate: Martin Li

Email: martin.li@ndp.ca

Twitter: @CityOfRMartin

Richmond East–Steveston

Candidate: Keefer Pelech

Email: keefer.pelech@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Richmond Hill South

Candidate: Ebrahim Astaraki

Email: ebrahim.astaraki@ndp.ca

Twitter: @EbrahimAstaraki

Riding Mountain

Candidate: Andrew Douglas Maxwell

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Rimouski–La Matapédia

Candidate: Salomé Salvain

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Candidate: Joseph Hakizimana

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Rivière-du-Nord

Candidate: Christel Marchand

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie

Candidate: Alexandre Boulerice

Email: alexandre@boulerice.org

Twitter: @alexboulerice

Saanich–Gulf Islands

Candidate: Colin Plant

Email: colin.plant@ndp.ca

Twitter: @ColinPlantNDP

Sackville–Bedford–Preston

Candidate: Isaac Wilson

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Hyacinthe–Bagot–Acton

Candidate: Raymonde Plamondon

Email: raymonde.plamondon@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Jean

Candidate: Danielle Dubuc

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Saint John–Kennebecasis

Candidate: Armand Cormier

Email: Saintjohnrothesayndp@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Saint John–St. Croix

Candidate: Andrew Hill

Email: andrew.hill@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Laurent

Candidate: Ryan Byrne

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Léonard–Saint-Michel

Candidate: Marwan El Attar

Email: marwan.el-attar@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Maurice–Champlain

Candidate: Nathalie Garceau

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Sarnia–Lambton–Bkejwanong

Candidate: Lo-Anne Chan

Email: Loanne.chan@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Saskatoon South

Candidate: Jacob Gadzella

Email: jacob.gadzella@ndp.ca

Twitter: @jgadzellandp

Saskatoon–University

Candidate: Melissa McGillivray

Email: melissa.mcgillivray@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Saskatoon West

Candidate: Rachel Loewen Walker

Email: rlw.ndp@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Sault Ste. Marie–Algoma

Candidate: Laura Mayer

Email: laura.mayer@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Scarborough–Agincourt

Candidate: Dan Lovell

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Scarborough Centre–Don Valley East

Candidate: Alyson Koa

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Scarborough–Guildwood–Rouge Park

Candidate: Kinglsey Kwok

Email: n/a

Twitter: @VoteKwok

Scarborough North

Candidate: Karishma Manji

Email: Karishma.manji@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Scarborough Southwest

Candidate: Fatima Shaban

Email: fatima.shaban@ndp.ca

Twitter: @FatimaShabanNDP

Scarborough–Woburn

Candidate: George Wedge

Email: george.wedge@ndp.ca

Twitter: @GeorgeWedge3

Selkirk–Interlake–Eastman

Candidate: Josef Estabrooks

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Shefford

Candidate: Patrick Jasmin

Email: patrick.jasmin@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Sherbrooke

Candidate: Jean-Pierre Fortier

Email: jean-pierre.fortier@npd.ca

Twitter: @JeanPierre22063

Sherwood Park–Fort Saskatchewan

Candidate: Chris Jones

Email: chris.jones@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Simcoe–Grey

Candidate: Jasleen Bains

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Simcoe North

Candidate: Melissa Lloyd

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Similkameen–South Okanagan–West Kootenay

Candidate: Linda Sankey

Email: linda.sankey@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Skeena–Bulkley Valley

Candidate: Taylor Bachrach

Email: taylor.bachrach@ndp.ca

Twitter: @taylorbachrach

Souris–Moose Mountain

Candidate: Sheena Muirhead Koops

Email: sheena.muirhead.koops@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

South Surrey–White Rock

Candidate: Jureun Park

Email: jureun.park@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Spadina–Harbourfront

Candidate: Norm Di Pasquale

Email: norm@votenorm.ca

Twitter: @normsworld

St. Albert–Sturgeon River

Candidate: Dot Anderson

Email: dot.anderson@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

St. Boniface–St. Vital

Candidate: Thomas Linner

Email: thomas.linner@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

St. Catharines

Candidate: Karen Orlandi

Email: karen.orlandi@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

St. John’s East

Candidate: Mary Shortall

Email: mary.shortall@ndp.ca

Twitter: @maryshortall

Stormont–Dundas–Glengarry

Candidate: Mario Leclerc

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Sudbury

Candidate: Nadia Verrelli

Email: nadia.verrelli@ndp.ca

Twitter: @nadiav

Sudbury East–Manitoulin–Nickel Belt

Candidate: Andréane Chénier

Email: andreane.chenier@ndp.ca

Twitter: @AndreaneChenier

Surrey Centre

Candidate: Dominic Denofrio

Email: n/a

Twitter: @DominicDenofrio

Surrey Newton

Candidate: Raj Singh Toor

Email: raj.toor.singh@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Swift Current–Grasslands–Kindersley

Candidate: Alex McPhee

Email: alex.mcphee@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Sydney–Glace Bay

Candidate: Kimberly Losier

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Taiaiako’n–Parkdale–High Park

Candidate: Bhutila Karpoche

Email: bhutila.karpoche@ndp.ca

Twitter: @BhutilaKarpoche

Terra Nova–The Peninsulas

Candidate: Liam Ryan

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Terrebonne

Candidate: Maxime Beaudoin

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Thornhill
Candidate: William McCarty

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Thunder Bay–Rainy River

Candidate: Yuk-Sem Won

Email: yuk-sem.won@ndp.ca

Twitter: @yuk_sem

Thunder Bay–Superior North

Candidate: Joy Wakefield

Email: joy.wakefield@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Thérèse-De Blainville

Candidate: Michel Lacroix

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Tobique–Mactaquac

Candidate: Michael Winter

Email: michael.winter@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Toronto Centre

Candidate: Samantha Green

Email: samantha.green@tcndp.ca

Twitter: @SamanthaGreenTO

Toronto–Danforth

Candidate: Clare Hacksel

Email: clare.hacksel@ndp.ca

Twitter: @clarehacksel

Toronto–St. Paul’s

Candidate: Bruce Levy

Email: bruce.levy@ndp.ca

Twitter: @Bruce15368194

Trois–Rivières

Candidate: Matthew Sévigny

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

University–Rosedale

Candidate: Serena Purdy

Email: serena.purdy@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Vancouver Centre

Candidate: Avi Lewis

Email: hello@voteavi.ca

Twitter: @avilewis

Vancouver East

Candidate: Jenny Kwan

Email: Jenny.Kwan@ndp.ca

Twitter: @JennyKwanBC

Vancouver Fraserview–South Burnaby

Candidate: Manoj Bhangu

Email: manoj.bhangu@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Vancouver Granville

Candidate: Sukhi Singh Sahota

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Vancouver Kingsway

Candidate: Don Davies

Email: don@dondavies.org

Twitter: @DonDavies

Vancouver Quadra

Candidate: Alim Fakirani

Email: alim.fakirani@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Vaudreuil

Candidate: Kalden Dhatsenpa

Email: kalden.dhatsenpa@npd.ca

Twitter: n/a

Vaughan–Woodbridge

Candidate: Ali Bahman

Email: ali.bahman@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Vernon–Lake Country–Monashee

Candidate: Leah Main

Email: leah.main@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Victoria

Candidate: Laurel Collins

Email: laurel.collins@ndp.ca

Twitter: @Laurel_BC

Ville-Marie–Le Sud-Ouest–Île-des-Soeurs

Candidate: Suzanne Dufresne

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Vimy

Candidate: Cindy Mercer

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Waterloo

Candidate: Héline Chow

Email: heline.chow@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Wellington–Halton Hills North

Candidate: Andrew Bascombe

Email: n/a

Twitter: @BascombeNDP

West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast–Sea to Sky Country

Candidate: Jäger Rosenberg

Email: jager.rosenberg@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Whitby

Candidate: Kevin Goswell

Email: kevin.goswell@ndp.ca

Twitter: @Goosewheel13

Willowdale

Candidate: Christy Kheirallah

Email: christy.kheirallah@ndp.ca

Twitter: @ChristyKheir

Windsor–Tecumseh–Lakeshore

Candidate: Alex Ilijoski

Email: alex.ilijoski@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Windsor West

Candidate: Brian Masse

Email: brian.masse@ndp.ca

Twitter: @BrianMasse4WW

Winnipeg Centre

Candidate: Leah Gazan

Email: info@reelectleahgazan.ca

Twitter: @LeahGazan

Winnipeg North

Candidate: Adebayo Akinrogunde

Email: Adebayo.Akinrogunde@ndp.ca

Twitter: @AdebayoAki50487

Winnipeg South

Candidate: Joanne Bjornson

Email: joanne.bjornson@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Winnipeg South Centre

Candidate: Jorge Requena Ramos

Email: jrrforwpgsc@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Winnipeg West

Candidate: Avery Selby-Lyons

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Yellowhead

Candidate: Avni Soma

Email: avni.soma@ndp.ca

Twitter: @AvniSoma

York Centre

Candidate: Yusuf Sinan Ulukanligil

Email: sinan.ulukanligil@ndp.ca

Twitter: @YUlukanligil

York–Durham

Candidate: Justin Graham

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

York South–Weston–Etobicoke

Candidate: Louise James

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Yorkton–Melville

Candidate: Michaela Krakowetz

Email: michaela.krakowetz@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Yukon

Candidate: Katherine McCallum

Email: katherine.mccallum@ndp.ca

Twitter: n/a

Bloc Québécois Candidates

Abitibi–Baie-James–Nunavik–Eeyou

Candidate: Sylvie Bérubé

Email: sylvieberube@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @BerubeABJNE

Abitibi–Témiscamingue

Candidate: Sébastien Lemire

Email: sebastienlemire@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @seblemire

Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Candidate: Nabila Ben Youssef

Email: nabilabenyoussef@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @youssef_nabila

Alfred-Pellan

Candidate: Isabel Dion

Email: isabeldion@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @IsabelDion12

Argenteuil–La Petite-Nation

Candidate: Martin Héroux

Email: martinheroux@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Beauce

Candidate: Gaétan Mathieu

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Beauharnois–Salaberry–Soulanges–Huntingdon

Candidate: Claude DeBellefeuille

Email: claudedebellefeuille@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @ClaudeDBF_bq

Beauport–Limoilou
Candidate: Julie Vignola

Email: julievignola@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @JulieVignolaBL

Bellechasse–Les Etchemins–Lévis

Candidate: Gaby Breton

Email: gabybreton@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Beloeil–Chambly

Candidate: Yves-François Blanchet

Email: yvesfrancoisblanchet@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @yfblanchet

Berthier–Maskinongé

Candidate: Yves Perron

Email: yvesperron@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @yvesperronbq

Bourassa

Candidate: Jency Mercier

Email: jencymercier@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Brome–Missiquoi

Candidate: Jeff Boudreault

Email: jeffboudreault@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Brossard–Saint-Lambert

Candidate: Soledad Orihuela-Bouchard

Email: soledadorihuelabouchard@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @soledad_OB

Bécancour–Nicolet–Saurel–Alnôbak

Candidate: Louis Plamondon

Email: louisplamondon@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Charlesbourg–Haute-Saint-Charles

Candidate: Bladimir Laborit Infante

Email: bladimirlaboritinfante@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Chicoutimi–Le Fjord

Candidate: Marc St-Hilaire

Email: marcsthilaire@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @marcsthilairebq

Châteauguay–Les Jardins-de-Napierville

Candidate: Patrick O’Hara

Email: patrickohara@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @POHaraBQ

Compton–Stanstead

Candidate: Nathalie Bresse

Email: nathaliebresse@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Côte-du-Sud-Rivière-du-Loup-Kataskomiq-Témiscouata

Candidate: Diane Sénécal

Email: dianesenecal@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @DianeSenecal

Côte-Nord–Kawawachikamach–Nitassinan

Candidate: Marilène Gill

Email: marilenegill@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @GillMarilene

Dorval–Lachine–LaSalle

Candidate: Pauline Postel

Email: paulinepostel@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Drummond

Candidate: Martin Champoux

Email: martinchampoux@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @martchampoux

Gaspésie–Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine–Listuguj

Candidate: Alexis Deschênes

Email: alexisdeschenes@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @AlexisDeschenes

Gatineau

Candidate: Richard Nadeau

Email: richardnadeau@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @RichardNadeauBQ

Hochelaga–Rosemont-Est

Candidate: Rose Lessard

Email: roselessard@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @RoseLessard5

Honoré-Mercier

Candidate: Edline Henri

Email: edlinehenri@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Hull–Aylmer

Candidate: Alice Grondin

Email: alicegrondin@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Joliette–Manawan

Candidate: Gabriel Ste-Marie

Email: gabrielstemarie@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @Gabriel_SMarie

Jonquière

Candidate: Mario Simard

Email: mariosimard@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @mariosimardbq

La Pointe-de-I’Île

Candidate: Mario Beaulieu

Email: mariobeaulieu@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @Mario_Beaulieu

La Prairie–Atateken

Candidate: Alain Therrien

Email: alaintherrien@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @ATherrienBQ

Lac-Saint-Jean

Candidate: Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Email: alexisbrunelleduceppe@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @Alduceppe

Lac-Saint-Louis

Candidate: Tommy Fournier

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

LaSalle–Émard–Verdun

Candidate: Louis-Philippe Sauvé

Email: louisphilippesauve@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @LP_Sauve

Laurentides–Labelle

Candidate: Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Email: mariehelenegaudreau@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @MHGaudreauBQ

Laurier–Sainte-Marie

Candidate: Emmanuel Lapierre

Email: emmanuellapierre@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @Emmanuel2845

Laval–Les Îles

Candidate: Catherine Dansereau-Redhead

Email: catherinedansereauredhead@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Longueuil–Charles-LeMoyne

Candidate: Beritan Oerde

Email: beritanoerde@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Longueuil–Saint-Hubert

Candidate: Denis Trudel

Email: denistrudel@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @trudel_denis

Louis-Hébert

Candidate: Valérie Savard

Email: valeriesavard@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Louis-Saint-Laurent–Akiawenhrahk

Candidate: Martin Trudel

Email: martintrudel@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Lévis–Lotbinière

Candidate: Pierre Julien

Email: pierrejulien@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Marc-Aurèle-Fortin

Candidate: Claude Tousignant

Email: claudetousignant@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Mirabel

Candidate: Jean-Denis Garon

Email: jeandenisgaron@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @JeanDenisGaron1

Mont-Saint-Bruno–L’Acadie

Candidate: Noémie Rouillard

Email: nrouillard@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @NRouillardmsbla

Montcalm

Candidate: Luc Thériault

Email: luctheriault@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @luctheriaultbq

Montmorency–Charlevoix

Candidate: Caroline Desbiens

Email: carolinedesbiens@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @carodesbiens

Mount Royal

Candidate:

Email:

Twitter:

Mégantic–L’Érable–Lotbinière

Candidate: Réjean Hurteau

Email: rejeanhurteau@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Westmount

Candidate: Félix-Antoine Brault

Email: felixantoinebrault@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Outremont

Candidate: Rémi Lebeuf

Email: remilebeuf@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @RemiLebeuf

Papineau

Candidate: Sophy Forget Bélec

Email: sophyforgetbelec@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Les Pays-d’en-Haut

Candidate: Ariane Charbonneau

Email: arianecharbonneau@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @Ariane_C_BQ

Pierre-Boucher–Les Patriotes–Verchères

Candidate: Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Email: xavierbarsalouduval@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @XBarsalouDuval

Pierrefonds–Dollard

Candidate: Katrina Archambault

Email: katrinaarchambault@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @KatrinaArcham13

Pontiac–Kitigan Zibi

Candidate: Suzanne Proulx

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier

Candidate: Christian Hébert

Email: christianhebert@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @CHebertQc

Québec Centre

Candidate: Simon Bérubé

Email: simonberube@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @Simberube

Repentigny

Candidate: Patrick Bonin

Email: patrickbonin@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @patbonin

Richmond–Arthabaska

Candidate: Daniel Lebel

Email: daniellebel@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @Daniel_Lebel_

Rimouski–La Matapédia

Candidate: Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Email: maximeblanchettejoncas@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @MBJDepute

Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Candidate: Luc Desilets

Email: lucdesilets@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @LucDesiletsBQ

Rivière-du-Nord

Candidate: Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Email: rhealfortin@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @RhealFortin

Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie

Candidate: Olivier Gignac

Email: oliviergignac@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @OGignac

Saint-Hyacinthe–Bagot–Acton

Candidate: Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Email: simonpierresavardtremblay@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @SPSTremblay

Saint-Jean

Candidate: Christine Normandin

Email: christinenormandin@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @ChristineNorm

Saint-Laurent

Candidate: Marielle Gendron

Email: mariellegendron@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Léonard–Saint-Michel

Candidate: Laurie Lelacheur

Email: laurielelacheur@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Maurice–Champlain

Candidate: Thierry Bilodeau

Email: thierrybilodeau@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @ThierryBilodeau

Shefford

Candidate: Andréanne Larouche

Email: andreannelarouche@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @A_Larouche_Shef

Sherbrooke

Candidate: Pierre-Étienne Rouillard

Email: pierreetiennerouillard@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Terrebonne

Candidate: Nathalie Sinclair Desgagné

Email: nathaliesinclairdesgagne@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @NathalieSincla3

Thérèse-De Blainville

Candidate: Marie-Noëlle Closson-Duquette

Email: mnclossonduquette@bloc.quebec

Twitter: n/a

Trois–Rivières

Candidate: René Villemure

Email: renevillemure@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @renevillemure

Vaudreuil

Candidate: Christopher Massé

Email: christophermasse@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @CMasseQC

Ville-Marie–Le Sud-Ouest–Île-des-Soeurs

Candidate: Kevin Majaducon

Email: kevinmajaducon@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @KevMajaducon

Vimy

Candidate: Alicia Parenteau-Malakhanian

Email: apm@bloc.quebec

Twitter: @AliciaParentQc

Green Party Candidates

Abbotsford–South Langley

Candidate: Melissa Snazell

Email: melissa.snazell@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @Melissasnazell

Acadie–Annapolis

Candidate: Matthew Piggott

Email: matthew.piggott@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Ajax

Candidate: Leigh Paulseth

Email: leigh.paulseth@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @LeighPaulseth

Algonquin–Renfrew–Pembroke

Candidate: Danilo Velasquez

Email: greenteam@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @CaballonNica

Argenteuil–La Petite-Nation

Candidate: Bertha Fuchsman-Small

Email: bertha.fuchsman-small@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill

Candidate: Tom Muench

Email: tom.muench@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @Councillor_Tom

Barrie–Springwater–Oro Medonte

Candidate: Greg Taylor

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Battle River–Crowfoot

Candidate: Douglas Gook

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Bay of Quinte

Candidate: Erica Charlton

Email: n/a

Twitter: @Erica__Charlton

Beaches–East York

Candidate: Jack Pennings

Email: jack.pennings@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Beauharnois–Salaberry–Soulanges–Huntingdon

Candidate: Kristian Solarik

Email: kristian.solarik@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @ksolarikpvc

Beauport–Limoilou
Candidate: Dalila Elhak

Email: dalila.elhak@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @ElhakDu

Beauséjour

Candidate: Josh Shaddick

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Berthier–Maskinongé

Candidate: Daniel Simon

Email: dann@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Bowmanville–Oshawa North

Candidate: Julie Dietrich

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Brampton Centre

Candidate: Raymond Shaver

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Brampton–Chinguacousy Park

Candidate: Michael Dancy

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Brampton West

Candidate: Sameera Khan

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Brantford–Brant South–Six Nations

Candidate: Karleigh Csordas

Email: karleigh.csordas@brantgreens.ca

Twitter: @KarleighCsordas

Brome–Missiquoi

Candidate: Michelle Corcos

Email: michelle.corcos@partivert.ca

Twitter: n/a

Brossard–Saint-Lambert

Candidate: Greg De Luca

Email: greg.deluca@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @GregTheGreenMan

Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound

Candidate: Natasha Akiwenzie

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Burlington

Candidate: Kyle Hutton

Email: kyle.hutton@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Bécancour–Nicolet–Saurel–Alnôbak

Candidate: Yanick Lapierre

Email: yanick.lapierre@partivert.ca

Twitter: @yanick_vert2025

Calgary Centre

Candidate: Jayden Baldonado

Email: jayden.baldonado@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @Jay_Baldonado

Calgary Confederation

Candidate: Richard Willott

Email: dick.willott@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Calgary Crowfoot

Candidate: Nanette Nerland

Email: nanette.nerland@gmail.com

Twitter: @nnerland

Calgary East

Candidate: Carey Rutherford

Email: carey.rutherford@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Calgary Heritage

Candidate: Ravenmoon Crocker

Email: ravenmoon.crocker@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @RavenmoonGreen

Calgary McKnight

Candidate: Evelyn Tanaka

Email: evelyn.tanaka@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @EvTanaka

Calgary Midnapore

Candidate: Adam Delgado

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Calgary Nose Hill

Candidate: Addison Fach

Email: addison.fach@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Calgary Shepard

Candidate: Robert Frasch

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Cambridge

Candidate: Luxon Burgess

Email: luxon.burgess@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @lux4cambridge

Cape Spear

Candidate: Kaelem Tingate

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Cardigan

Candidate: Maria Rodriguez

Email: maria.rodriguez@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Cariboo–Prince George

Candidate: Jodie Capling

Email: jodie.capling@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Carleton

Candidate: Mark Watson

Email: mark.watson@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Central Nova

Candidate: Gerald Harry Romsa

Email: gerald.romsa@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Charlesbourg–Haute-Saint-Charles

Candidate: David Lafond

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Charlottetown

Candidate: Daniel Cousins

Email: daniel.cousins@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @HumanDaniel

Chatham-Kent–Leamington

Candidate: James Plunkett

Email: james.plunkett@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Chicoutimi–Le Fjord

Candidate: Yves Laporte

Email: yves.laporte@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @ivlaporte

Chilliwack–Hope

Candidate: Salina Derish

Email: chilliwack.hope@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Châteauguay–Les Jardins-de-Napierville

Candidate: Martine Desrochers

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Cloverdale–Langley City

Candidate: Kevin Wilkie

Email: kevin.wilkie@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Columbia–Kootenay–Southern Rockies

Candidate: Steven Maffioli

Email: steven.maffioli@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Compton–Stanstead

Candidate: Sebastien Tremblay

Email: sebastien.tremblay@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Coquitlam–Port Coquitlam

Candidate: Michael Glenister

Email: michael.glenister@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Courtenay–Alberni

Candidate: Chris Markevich

Email: chris.markevich@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @cmarkevichgpc

Cowichan–Malahat–Langford

Candidate: Kathleen Code

Email: cmlgreens@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Cumberland–Colchester

Candidate: Kelly-Ann Callaghan

Email: kellyann.callaghan@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Côte-du-Sud-Rivière-du-Loup-Kataskomiq-Témiscouata

Candidate: Alexie Plourde

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Dartmouth–Cole Harbour

Candidate: Rana Zaman

Email: rana.zaman@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @ranazamanNS

Davenport

Candidate: Lilian Barrera

Email: lilian.barrera@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Don Valley North

Candidate: Andrew Armstrong

Email: andrew.armstrong@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @GreenAndrewA

Don Valley West

Candidate: Sheena Sharp

Email: sheena.sharp@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @VoteSheenaSharp

Dorval–Lachine–LaSalle

Candidate: Amir Badr Eldeen

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Dufferin–Caledon

Candidate: Ifra Baig

Email: ifra.baig@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Edmonton Griesbach

Candidate: Michael Hunter

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Edmonton Northwest

Candidate: Colleen Rice

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Edmonton Strathcona

Candidate: Atul Deshmukh

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Eglinton–Lawrence

Candidate: Wayne Ivan Chechuevskiy

Email: wayne.chechuevskiy@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @wchechuevskiy

Egmont

Candidate: Ranald MacFarlane

Email: ranald.macfarlane@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Elmwood–Transcona

Candidate: Nic Geddert

Email: nicolas.geddert@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Esquimalt–Saanich–Sooke

Candidate: Ben Homer-Dixon

Email: team.homer-dixon@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Etobicoke North

Candidate: Sarun Balaranjan

Email: sarun.balaranjan@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Flamborough–Glanbrook–Brant North

Candidate: Anita Payne

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Fleetwood–Port Kells

Candidate: Murali Krishnan

Email: murali.krishnan@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Foothills

Candidate: Emma Hoberg

Email: emma.hoberg@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Fort McMurray–Cold Lake

Candidate: Brian Deheer

Email: brian.deheer@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Fredericton–Oromocto

Candidate: Pamela Allen-LeBlanc

Email: pam.allen-leblanc@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Fundy Royal

Candidate: Hans Johnsen

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Guelph

Candidate: Anne-Marie Zajdlik

Email: amz@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @azajdlik

Haldimand–Norfolk

Candidate: Nate Hawkins

Email: nate.hawkins@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Halifax

Candidate: Amethyste Hamel-Gregory

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Halifax West

Candidate: Ron Parker

Email: ron.parker@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Hamilton Centre

Candidate: Sandy Crawley

Email: sandy.crawley@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @SandyCrawley4

Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas

Candidate: Georgie Beauchemin

Email: georgia.beauchemin@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @RaedenC31212

Hastings–Lennox and Addington–Tyendinaga

Candidate: Michael Holbrook

Email: michael.holbrook@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Hochelaga–Rosemont-Est

Candidate: Jacob Pirro

Email: jacob.pirro@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Honoré-Mercier

Candidate: Gaëtan Bérard

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Hull–Aylmer

Candidate: Frédéric Morin-Paquette

Email: frederic.morin-paquette@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Huron–Bruce

Candidate: Gregory McLean

Email: gregory.mclean@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @Walkertongreg

Joliette–Manawan

Candidate: Érica Poirier

Email: erica.poirier@partivert.ca

Twitter: n/a

Jonquière

Candidate: Marie-Josée Yelle

Email: marie-josee.yelle@partivert.ca

Twitter: n/a

Kamloops–Shuswap–Central Rockies

Candidate: Owen Madden

Email: teamowen@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Kamloops–Thompson–Nicola

Candidate: Jenna Lindley

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Kanata

Candidate: Jennifer Purdy

Email: jennifer.purdy@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @purdygreenKC

Kelowna

Candidate: Catriona Wright

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Kenora–Kiiwetinoong

Candidate: Jon Hobbs

Email: jon.hobbs@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

King–Vaughan

Candidate: Ann Raney

Email: ann.raney@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @annraneykv

Kings–Hants

Candidate: Karen Beazley

Email: karen.beazley@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Kingston and the Islands

Candidate: Fintan Hartnett

Email: fintan.hartnett@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Kitchener Centre

Candidate: Mike Morrice

Email: mike@mikemorrice.ca

Twitter: @morricemike

Kitchener South–Hespeler

Candidate: Ethan Russell

Email: ethan.russell@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

La Pointe-de-I’Île

Candidate: Oliver Huard

Email: olivier.huard@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

La Prairie–Atateken

Candidate: Barbara Joanette

Email: barbara.joannette@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Lac-Saint-Louis

Candidate: Raymond Frizzell

Email: raymond.frizzell@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Lakeland

Candidate: Bridget Burns

Email: bridget.burns@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @votebridgetb

Lanark–Frontenac

Candidate: Jesse Pauley

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Langley Township–Fraser Heights

Candidate: Debora Soutar

Email: debora.soutar@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

LaSalle–Émard–Verdun

Candidate: Bisma Ansari

Email: bisma.ansari@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Laurentides–Labelle

Candidate: Michel Le Comte

Email: michel.lecomte@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @MichelLeComteND

Laurier–Sainte-Marie

Candidate: Dylan Perceval-Maxwell

Email: dylanmontreal@gmail.com

Twitter: @PercevalDylan

Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands–Rideau Lakes

Candidate: Randi Ramdeen

Email: vote4randi@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @RandiRamdeen

Lethbridge

Candidate: Amber Murray

Email: amber.murray@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

London Centre

Candidate: Mary Ann Hodge

Email: mary-ann.hodge@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @MaryAnnHodge

London West

Candidate: Jeff Vanderzwet

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Malpeque

Candidate: Anna Keenan

Email: anna.keenan@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Markham–Stouffville

Candidate: Myles O’Brien

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Markham–Unionville

Candidate: Elvin Kao

Email: elvin.kao@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @ElvinKao

Medicine Hat–Cardston–Warner

Candidate: Andy Shadrack

Email: andy.shadrack@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Middlesex–London

Candidate: Jim Johnston

Email: lambtonkentmiddlesex@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Milton East–Halton Hills South

Candidate: Susan Doyle

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Mirabel

Candidate: Mario Guay

Email: mario.guay@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Miramichi–Grand Lake

Candidate: Matthew Ian Clark

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Mission–Matsqui–Abbotsford

Candidate: John Kidder

Email: john.kidder@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @kidderjohn

Mississauga–Erin Mills

Candidate: Sulaiman Khan

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Mississauga–Lakeshore

Candidate: Mary Kidnew

Email: mary.kidnew@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @marykidnew4mp

Mississauga–Streetsville

Candidate: Christopher Hill

Email: chris.hill@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @ChrisHillGreen

Moncton–Dieppe

Candidate: Marshall Dunn

Email: votegreen@thedunns.ca

Twitter: n/a

Mont-Saint-Bruno–L’Acadie

Candidate: Maria Korpijaakko

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Montmorency–Charlevoix

Candidate: Élie Prud’homme

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Moose Jaw–Lake Centre–Lanigan

Candidate: Mike Gardiner

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Nanaimo–Ladysmith

Candidate: Paul Manly

Email: electpaulmanly@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @paulmanly

Nepean

Candidate: Greg Hopkins

Email: greg.hopkins@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

New Tecumseth–Gwillimbury

Candidate: Callum McKinnon

Email: n/a

Twitter: @mckinnon_greens

New Westminster–Burnaby–Maillardville

Candidate: Tara Shushtarian

Email: bgp.tara@gmail.com

Twitter: @TaraShushtarian

Niagara Falls–Niagara-on-the-Lake

Candidate: Celia Taylor

Email: celia.taylor@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Niagara South

Candidate: Natashia Bergen

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Nipissing–Timiskaming

Candidate: Louise Poitras

Email: louise.poitras@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

North Island–Powell River

Candidate: Jessica Wegg

Email: jessica.wegg@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @jessicaann1983

North Vancouver–Capilano

Candidate: Andrew Robinson

Email: andrew.robinson@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Northumberland–Clarke

Candidate: Christina Wilson

Email: christina.wilson@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Northwest Territories

Candidate: Rainbow Eyes

Email: rainboweyes@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @rainboweyes0_0

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Westmount

Candidate: Arnold Downey

Email: arnold.downey@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Oakville East

Candidate: Bruno Sousa

Email: bruno.sousa@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @greenpartybruno

Oakville West

Candidate: Chris Kowalchuk

Email: chris.kowalchuk@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Okanagan Lake West–South Kelowna

Candidate: Louise Lecouffe

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Orléans

Candidate: Michelle Petersen

Email: michelle.petersen@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Oshawa

Candidate: Katherine Mathewson

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Ottawa Centre

Candidate: Amanda Rosenstock

Email: info@rosenstock4oc.ca

Twitter: n/a

Ottawa South

Candidate: Nira Dookeran

Email: nira.dookeran@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @NiraDookeran1

Ottawa–Vanier–Gloucester

Candidate: Christian Proulx

Email: christian.proulx@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @ChristianProu17

Ottawa West–Nepean

Candidate: Prashanta Dhakal

Email: prashanta.dhakal@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Outremont

Candidate: Jonathan Pedneault

Email: jonathan.pedneault@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @j_pedneault

Oxford

Candidate: Cheryle Baker

Email: bakergreenparty@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Parkland

Candidate: Daniel Birrell

Email: DanielBirrellGPC@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Parry Sound–Muskoka

Candidate: Ryan Baptiste

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Les Pays-d’en-Haut

Candidate: Karine Steinberger

Email: karine.steinberger@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Peterborough

Candidate: Jazmine Raine

Email: jazmine.raine@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Pickering–Brooklin

Candidate: Andrea Wood

Email: andrea.wood@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Pontiac–Kitigan Zibi

Candidate: Claude Bertrand

Email: claude.bertrand@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @BertrandGreen

Port Moody–Coquitlam

Candidate: Nash Milani

Email: milanifortrustee@gmail.com

Twitter: n/a

Portage–Lisgar

Candidate: Janine Gibson

Email: janine.gibson@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @Janine4Green

Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier

Candidate: Johann Queffelec

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Prescott–Russell–Cumberland

Candidate: Thaila Riden

Email: thaila.riden@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @voteThailaRiden

Prince George–Peace River–Northern Rockies

Candidate: Mary Forbes

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Provencher

Candidate: Blair Mahaffy

Email: blair.mahaffy@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Red Deer

Candidate: Ashley MacDonald

Email: ashley.macdonald@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @MacDonaldAshley

Regina–Lewvan

Candidate: Michael Wright

Email: mike.wright@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Regina–Wascana

Candidate: Kimberly Epp

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Richmond Centre–Marpole

Candidate: Michael Sisler

Email: michael.sisler@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Richmond East–Steveston

Candidate: Steven Ji

Email: steven.ji@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Richmond Hill South

Candidate: Alison Lam

Email: alison.lam@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Riding Mountain

Candidate: Liz Clayton

Email: liz.clayton@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Candidate: Alec Ware

Email: alec.ware@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie

Candidate: Benoît Morham

Email: benoit.morham@greenyparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Saanich–Gulf Islands

Candidate: Elizabeth May

Email: info@sgigreenparty.ca

Twitter: @ElizabethMay

Sackville–Bedford–Preston

Candidate: Andre Anderson

Email: andre.anderson@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Hyacinthe–Bagot–Acton

Candidate: Martin Grenier

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Jean

Candidate: Vincent Piette

Email: vincent.piette@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Saint John–Kennebecasis

Candidate: David MacFarquhar

Email: david.macfarquhar@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @MacFarFar

Saint John–St. Croix

Candidate: Gerald Irish

Email: gerald.irish@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Laurent

Candidate: Richard Chambers

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Saint-Maurice–Champlain

Candidate: Marie-Claude Gaudet

Email: marie-claude.gaudet@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @marie_stmaurice

Saskatoon South

Candidate: Hamish Graham

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Saskatoon–University

Candidate: Isaiah Hunter

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Saskatoon West

Candidate: Naomi Hunter

Email: naomi.hunter@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @GpcHunter

Sault Ste. Marie–Algoma

Candidate: Robyn Eshkibok

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Scarborough–Guildwood–Rouge Park

Candidate: Troy Rife

Email: troy.rife@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Scarborough Southwest

Candidate: Amanda Cain

Email: amanda.cain@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @AskAmandaCain

Scarborough–Woburn

Candidate: Gianne Broughton

Email: gianne.broughton@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @GianneBroughton

Selkirk–Interlake–Eastman

Candidate: Wayne James

Email: wayne.james@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Sherbrooke

Candidate: Kevin McKenna

Email: kevin.mckenna@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Sherwood Park–Fort Saskatchewan

Candidate: Randall Emmons

Email: randall.emmons@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Simcoe–Grey

Candidate: Allan Kuhn

Email: allan.kuhn@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @Allan_Kuhn

Simcoe North

Candidate: Ray Little

Email: ray.little@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Similkameen–South Okanagan–West Kootenay

Candidate: Philip Mansfield

Email: philip.mansfield@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Skeena–Bulkley Valley

Candidate: Adeana Young

Email: adeana.young@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @AdeanaYoung

Souris–Moose Mountain

Candidate: Remi Rheault

Email: remi.rheault@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

South Shore–St. Margarets

Candidate: Mark Embrett

Email: mark.embrett@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

South Surrey–White Rock

Candidate: Christine Kinnie

Email: christine.kinnie@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Spadina–Harbourfront

Candidate: Gord Rand

Email: n/a

Twitter: @GordRand

St. John’s East

Candidate: Otis Crandell

Email: otis.crandell@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @OtisCrandellGPC

Stormont–Dundas–Glengarry

Candidate: Gordon Kubanek

Email: gordon.kubanek@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @gordonjkubanek

Sudbury East–Manitoulin–Nickel Belt

Candidate: Himal Hossain

Email: himal.hossain@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Surrey Centre

Candidate: Krishan Khurana

Email: krishan.khurana@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Taiaiako’n–Parkdale–High Park

Candidate: Anna Gorka

Email: anna.gorka@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @AnnaGorkaGPC

Terrebonne

Candidate: Benjamin Rankin

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Thornhill
Candidate: Dominic Piotrowski

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Thunder Bay–Rainy River

Candidate: Eric Arner

Email: ericarner@gpo.ca

Twitter: n/a

Thunder Bay–Superior North

Candidate: John Northey

Email: johnnorthey@gpo.ca

Twitter: @JohnNorthey

Tobique–Mactaquac

Candidate: Liam MacDougall

Email: liam.macdougall@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Toronto Centre

Candidate: Olivia Iheme

Email: olivia.iheme@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Toronto–Danforth

Candidate: Silvia Stardust

Email: silvia.stardust@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Toronto–St. Paul’s

Candidate: Shane Philips

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Trois–Rivières

Candidate: David Turcotte

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

University–Rosedale

Candidate: Ignacio Mongrell

Email: ignacio.mongrell@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @ignaciomongrell

Vancouver Centre

Candidate: Scott MacDonald

Email: scott.macdonald@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Vancouver East

Candidate: Nikida Steel

Email: nikida.steel@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Vancouver Fraserview–South Burnaby

Candidate: Alexander Dow

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Vancouver Granville

Candidate: Jerry Kroll

Email: jerry.kroll@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Vancouver Kingsway

Candidate: Imtiaz Popat

Email: imtiaz.popat@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Vancouver Quadra

Candidate: Tom Digby

Email: tom.digby@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @ThomasDigby1

Vaudreuil

Candidate: Dave Hamelin-Schuilenburg

Email: dave.hamelin-schuilenburg@partivert.ca

Twitter: @DaveHSQc

Vernon–Lake Country–Monashee

Candidate: Blair Visscher

Email: vlcm.eda@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Victoria

Candidate: Michael Doherty

Email: michael.doherty@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Ville-Marie–Le Sud-Ouest–Île-des-Soeurs

Candidate: Nathe Perrone

Email: nathe.perrone@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Vimy

Candidate: Bernard Rondet

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Waterloo

Candidate: Simon Guthrie

Email: simon.guthrie@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Wellington–Halton Hills North

Candidate: Liam Stiles

Email: liam.stiles@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast–Sea to Sky Country

Candidate: Lauren Greenlaw

Email: lauren.greenlaw@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Whitby

Candidate: Andrew Di Lullo

Email: andrew.dilullo@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Windsor–Tecumseh–Lakeshore

Candidate: Roxanne Tellier

Email: roxanne.tellier@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Windsor West

Candidate: Louay Ahmad

Email: louay.ahmad@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Winnipeg Centre

Candidate: Gary Gervais

Email: gary.gervais@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Winnipeg North

Candidate: Angela Brydges

Email: angela.brydges@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Winnipeg South

Candidate: Mangit Gill

Email: n/a

Twitter: n/a

Winnipeg South Centre

Candidate: Chris Petriew

Email: chris.petriew@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Winnipeg West

Candidate: Dennis Bayomi

Email: dennis.bayomi@greenparty.ca

Twitter: @Dennis4KP

York–Durham

Candidate: Matthew Pearce

Email: matt.pearce@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Yorkton–Melville

Candidate: Valerie Brooks

Email: valerie.brooks@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Yukon

Candidate: Gabrielle Dupont

Email: gabrielle.dupont@greenparty.ca

Twitter: n/a

Green Party Makes the Accessible Canada Pledge to Over 8 Million People with Disabilities in Canada – Will the Other Federal Parties Do the Same?

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

News Release – For Immediate Release

Green Party Makes the Accessible Canada Pledge to Over 8 Million People with Disabilities in Canada – Will the Other Federal Parties Do the Same?

April 11, 2025 Toronto: The Green Party of Canada has become the first federal party to make the Accessible Canada Pledge to over 8 million people with disabilities. Over two dozen major disability organizations have co-signed an open letter that calls on federal party leaders to make the “Accessible Canada Pledge to meet the urgent needs of over 8 million people with disabilities in Canada. The AODA Alliance made the Accessible Canada Pledge public on March 20, 2025.

The Accessible Canada Pledge aims to ensure that the sluggish implementation and enforcement of the Accessible Canada Act becomes swift, strong and effective, that air passengers with disabilities stop suffering horrific mistreatment by Canadian airlines, and that the Canada Disabilities Benefit Act fulfils its purpose of lifting people with disabilities out of poverty.

“We’re delighted that the Green Party has made the Accessible Canada Pledge and call on all other party leaders in our spirit of non-partisanship to meet or beat the Greens’ pledge,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. “Donald Trump’s unfair trade war against Canada is an extremely important issue in this election, but it is not the only issue. Millions of voters with disabilities deserve to know how each party will address their urgent issues.”

On April 8, 2025, a consortium of 13 major disability organizations held a Candidates debate on disability issues in Toronto. Candidates from the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Green Party attended. The Conservative Party and Bloc Quebecois did not respond to the invitation to send a candidate.

Hundreds attended this debate in person or online. Hundreds more have watched it afterwards archived online. People with disabilities are raising disability issues with candidates across Canada.

Contact AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

Text of Green Party’s April 9, 2025 Email to the AODA Alliance

From: Marlene Wells <marlene.wells@greenparty.ca>
Sent: April 9, 2025 6:42 PM
To: David Lepofsky
Cc: Elizabeth May; Jonathan Pedneault; Mike Morrice <mike.morrice@greenparty.ca>

Subject: In support of the Accessible Canada Pledge

Dear Mr. Lepofsky,

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for the invaluable advocacy work you continue to do in advancing accessibility and inclusion.

I am writing to confirm that the Co-Leaders of the Green Party of Canada, Ms. Elizabeth May and Mr. Jonathan Pedneault, are in full support of the Accessible Canada Pledge, as well as the important initiatives championed by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

Thank you once again for your dedication to this vital cause. It is truly an honor to share this confirmation with you.

Best regards,
Marlene

Marlene Wells (she-her-elle)
Political Hub Director, Green Party of Canada

Voters with Disabilities Call on Federal Party Leaders to Prioritize People with Disabilities at Major Candidates Debate on Disability Issues

News Release – For Immediate Release

Voters with Disabilities Call on Federal Party Leaders to Prioritize People with Disabilities at Major Candidates Debate on Disability Issues

April 10, 2025 TORONTO: On April 8, 2025, a national coalition of major nonpartisan disability organizations held a federal election Candidates Debate focused on issues important to over 8 million Canadians with disabilities. The debate was held at CNIB’s Toronto headquarters and streamed nationally, attracting more than 300 virtual attendees and over 50 in-person participants.

Organized by a consortium of 13 organizations—including the AODA Alliance, Autism Ontario, Reena, Community Living Toronto, Ontario Autism Coalition, OASIS, ARCH Disability Law Centre, CNIB, CILT, Easter Seals, EKO, March of Dimes and Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital —the event provided a unique platform for Canadians with disabilities and their families to speak directly to federal candidates.

Federal candidates in attendance were George Wedge, NDP, Scarborough-Woburn, Mike Morrice, Green Party—Kitchener Centre and Liane Kotler (virtual), and Liberal Party—Thornhill. The Conservative Party and The Bloc Quebecois were invited but declined to send a representative.

David Lepofsky, chair of the AODA Alliance and a disability rights advocate, opened the evening. Veteran Toronto Star reporter David Rider moderated the debate. Over 150 questions pre-submitted from across Canada raised urgent topics such as the critical shortage of accessible housing, the pressing need to effectively address rampant poverty among hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities, the recurring horrific mistreatment of air passengers with disabilities by Canadian airlines, the need to speed up the sluggish implementation of the Accessible Canada Act, and the danger that liberalized medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) poses for vulnerable people with disabilities.

“This election represents a crucial opportunity for Canadians with disabilities, whose voices have long been underrepresented in federal policy,” said David Lepofsky. “We challenge all parties to make disability rights and inclusion a national priority.”

The debate was supported by ASL interpretation, real-time captioning, and on-site social work support, reflecting a strong commitment to full accessibility.

The AODA Alliance’s YouTube channel has a full recording of the debate. Voters are encouraged to raise disability issues with their local candidates and to participate in the upcoming federal election.

We encourage all Canadians to raise disability issues with their federal candidates in the lead-up to the election and to vote on April 28th.

–30–

For media inquiries, please contact:

David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

Media Advisory: Candidates Debate on Disability Issues Tonight 7:30 to 9 P.M. Eastern In Person and Online

April 8, 2025

MEDIA ADVISORY

WHAT: 2025 Federal Candidates Debate on Disability Issues

In partnership with AODA Alliance, Autism Ontario, Reena, Community Living Toronto, Ontario Autism Coalition, OASIS, ARCH Disability Law Centre, CNIB, CILT, Easter Seals, EKO, March of Dimes and Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital are hosting a political debate on disability issues ahead of the upcoming federal election.

WHERE: CNIB

1929 Bayview Ave.

Toronto ON M4G 3E8

WHEN: Tuesday, April 8, 2025

7:00pm – 7:30 pm Eastern In-person interviews with David Lepofsky, volunteer chair, AODA Alliance

7:30pm – 9:00 pm Debate with Federal Election Candidates

WHO: Confirmed candidates from the Liberal Party, NDP, and the Green Party. Attending in person will be:

Green Party – Mike Morrice – Kitchener Centre

Liberal Party – Liane Kotler – Thornhill

NDP – George Wedge – Scarborough—Woburn

The Conservative party was invited as well.

INFO: 750+ people have registered to join in person or virtually. For last minute sign-ups to attend as a member of the public, email a request to aodafeedback@gmail.com up to 4 p.m. today. The debate location is accessible, and both ASL interpretation and real-time captioning will be available. Two social workers are available for support as needed.

MEDIA: AODA Alliance Chair and disability rights law professor David Lepofsky is also available for phone/virtual interviews in advance of the debate

Contact David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com to arrange an interview

For journalists to get a link to attend, email a request to aodafeedback@gmail.com

It is intended that live stream will also be available through AODA Alliance’s YouTube channel, if technical problems do not prevent it.

Media Contact:

David Lepofsky aodafeedback@gmail.com

Many Voters with Disabilities Won’t Be Able to Independently Mark Their Ballot in Private and Verify Their Choice in this Federal Election

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Many Voters with Disabilities Won’t Be Able to Independently Mark Their Ballot in Private and Verify Their Choice in this Federal Election

April 7, 2025 Toronto: In this federal election, voters who cannot mark a print ballot by themselves due to a disability like blindness or dyslexia won’t be assured that they can independently mark their ballot in private and verify their choice. None of the voting options that Elections Canada provides for voters with disabilities ensures that all can mark their ballot on their own, without assistance and in secret, and then confirm that the ballot was marked for the candidate they chose. Elections Canada is the federal public agency responsible for administering federal elections and for accommodating voters with disabilities.

“The secret ballot is absolutely essential for every voter in a democratic election including voters with disabilities ,” said David Lepofsky, Chair of the non-partisan AODA Alliance, who is blind and who is a visiting professor of disability rights at the law faculties at the Universities of Western Ontario and of Ottawa. “It’s appalling that in 2025, this basic right is still not assured for all voters with disabilities in federal elections, 6 years after the Accessible Canada Act was passed and 42 years after the Charter of Rights was enacted.”

Elections Canada’s website concedes that voters with disabilities still face voting barriers and that it is its job to accommodate their accessibility needs. Elections Canada’s website commits:

“We make every effort to make voting as accessible as possible and to engage electors with disabilities as we develop and implement our services. Our research shows that electors with disabilities face barriers to participating in elections, and we are continuously striving to remove these barriers. By building on the initiatives we already have in place, our goal is to continue improving the accessibility of the electoral process.”

Elections Canada’s website also recognizes:

“there are four priority groups that face barriers to participating in elections: First Nations, Metis and Inuit electors, people with disabilities, youth and new Canadians.”

None of Elections Canada’s voting options in this election for blind voters ensure their basic rights. Having someone else mark their ballot for them violates the secret ballot, and the voter can’t check to verify if the ballot was marked as they requested. Tactile and braille voting templates risk that a voter with vision loss could accidentally spoil their ballot or mark the wrong choice, without being able to themselves verify their choice.

Elections Canada offers voters with disabilities even less than does Elections Ontario in provincial elections. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky has a human rights complaint going to a hearing this September against Elections Ontario at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, contending that Elections Ontario does not assure truly accessible voting for voters with vision loss.

Even though the media is mainly focused on the Donald Trump trade war, people with disabilities are trying to raise important disability issues in this election. Twenty-eight disability organizations sent a request to all federal party leaders that they make the Accessible Canada Pledge to address several urgent federal disability issues.

“If Canada doesn’t guarantee an accessible voting experience for all voters with disabilities, our democratic voice is unfairly stifled at the very time when it matters the most,” said Lepofsky.

On April 8, 2025 at 7:30 p.m. Eastern, a hybrid Candidates Debate on Disability Issues will be held in Toronto, organized by a consortium of major disability organizations, including the AODA Alliance. As of now, only the Liberals, NDP and Green Party have agreed to send a representative. For reporters to get a link to sign in to that event, email aodafeedback@gmail.com

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @davidlepofsky or @aodaalliance

For background, check out:

The Accessible Canada Pledge that all federal party leaders were asked to make.
The April 4, 2025 open letter to the federal party leaders from 28 disability organizations calling on the leaders to make the Accessible Canada Pledge.
The Announcement of the April 8, 2025 Candidates Debate on Disability Issues.
The AODA Alliance website’s federal elections page listing its efforts to raise disability issues in the 2025 federal election.
The AODA Alliance website’s Canada page to see its advocacy to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act.
The AODA Alliance website’s Bill C-22 page to learn about the AODA Alliance’s efforts to strengthen the grossly inadequate new Canada Disability Benefit.

The AODA Alliance website’s elections accessibility page which spells out the coalitions efforts for over 15 years to ensure accessible voting in Ontario for voters with disabilities.

Voters with Disabilities—Check Out Your Voting Options at Elections Canada to try to Avoid Disability Barriers to Voting

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Voters with Disabilities—Check Out Your Voting Options at Elections Canada to try to Avoid Disability Barriers to Voting

April 5, 2025

SUMMARY

It is essential in a democracy that all eligible voters are able to vote using a secret ballot and verify their choice. Voters with disabilities in Canada cannot take that right for granted. Elections Canada is the independent federal agency responsible for administering federal elections. Don’t assume Elections Canada operates federal elections the very same way that Elections Ontario runs provincial elections, as far as voters with disabilities are concerned.

Elections Canada’s website commits:

Elections Canada’s website also recognizes:

“there are four priority groups that face barriers to participating in elections: First Nations, Metis and Inuit electors, people with disabilities, youth and new Canadians.”

Don’t take accessible voting for granted. We caution all voters with disabilities to take pro-active steps now to try to avoid as many disability barriers as possible when you vote in the upcoming April 28, 2025 federal election:

Make sure you are registered to vote. Go to the Elections Canada website or call Elections Canada to look into this.
Try if possible to vote at an advance poll before voting Day. If you are not able to due to disability barriers, you at least have the option to come back later and try again. If you go to vote only on April 28, 2025, and run into insurmountable barriers, you won’t be able to come back another day to try again. Contact Elections Canada to find out when and where you can vote at an advance poll.
Check out your polling location to make sure it is disability-accessible.
Explore Elections Canada’s voting options for voters with disabilities.

Below is an excerpt from Elections Canada’s website describing what it offers for voters with disabilities.

Excerpt from Elections Canadas Website

Originally posted at https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=spe&document=index&lang=e

Accessibility services offered by Elections Canada

We offer several services before, during and after elections to support the equal participation of electors with disabilities.

Community relations officers for accessibility Voter information in accessible formats

Polling place accessibility

Accessibility tools and services at the polls

Advisory Group for Disability Issues

Inspire Democracy

Voter Information Campaign

Elections Canada is currently reviewing and updating its accessibility policy and service offering.

This document describes our commitment to identifying, preventing and removing barriers to voting. It also lists the tools and services that are available to people with disabilities when they vote in federal elections.

Community relations officers for accessibility

During general elections, we deploy a network of more than 2,000 community relations officers across the country to help improve access and reduce barriers to voting, including community relations officers specifically focused on accessibility.

The responsibilities of our community relations officers include:

Increasing election awareness
Providing information on where, when and the ways to register and vote
Explaining the benefits of registering in advance
Providing information on voter identification requirements, assistive voting tools and information available in alternate formats
Verifying accessibility of polling locations and ensuring that they meet accessibility standards
Acting as a resource for the central poll supervisor (CPS) to resolve any accessibility issues that may arise on polling day(s)
Assisting the returning officer (RO) with initial fact finding on issues reported on accessibility feedback forms during advance polling days, and advising the RO of findings

Voter information in accessible formats

Key information about registering and voting is available online, in print and in the following alternative formats upon request:

Large print
Braille
Audio CD and files (i.e. DAISY)
Full transcription
Captioning
ASL and LSQ videos
Multiple Indigenous and ethnocultural languages

Polling place accessibility

Using the polling place suitability checklist ensures that potential polling places are evaluated for accessibility before the election. Of the 37 accessibility criteria on the checklist, 15 are mandatory.

A polling place is considered suitable when it reaches a balance among the following three key principles:

Accessibility: The highest suitability priority is that polling places provide barrier-free access for persons with disabilities. Subsection 121(1) of the Canada Elections Act requires polling places to have level access. Elections Canada has also established additional mandatory accessibility criteria based on human rights principles.
Proximity: Whenever possible, electors should be assigned a polling place that is within reasonable distance from their ordinary residence.
Familiarity: Whenever possible, electors should be assigned a polling place that they are likely to recognize because it has been used for another service to the public or in previous municipal, provincial, territorial or federal elections.

If a returning officer (RO) cannot lease a polling place that meets the mandatory criteria, they must consider whether steps can be taken to mitigate accessibility issues. For example, they could post staff at the door if their polling place does not have an automatic door opener.

If the RO is unable to fully resolve accessibility issues by implementing appropriate mitigations, they must get authorization from the Chief Electoral Officer before they can proceed with signing a lease for a polling place that does not meet the mandatory accessibility criteria. The Directive on Accessibility Exemptions when Selecting a Suitable Polling Place outlines the steps ROs must take in order to get the authorization to use a location that does not meet the mandatory accessibility criteria.

During elections, you can find out if your polling place meets your accessibility needs by:

Entering your postal code in our Voter Information Service,
Calling us at 1-800-463-6868 or 1-800-361-8935 (TTY), or
Checking your voter information card, which is mailed to every registered elector.

Elections Canada offers additional methods of voting that do not require travelling to your polling place. Electors can:

Vote in another accessible location in your electoral district with a transfer certificate. Contact your local Elections Canada office for more information.
Vote at a local Elections Canada office (which must have the same mandatory criteria for accessibility).
Vote by mail using a special ballot.

1Accessibility tools and services at the polls

There are many services and tools available at polling places to help electors with disabilities vote, and election officers are trained to help.

The services offered include:

Assistance marking a ballot
Sign language interpretation (must be requested in advance)
Vouching
Signature guides (if someone needs assistance signing their name)

The tools to help electors vote include:

Large-print and braille lists of candidates (braille only available on election day)
Tactile and braille voting templates
Magnifiers
Large-grip pencils
Voting screens that let in more light

Inspire Democracy

Inspire Democracy is an Elections Canada program that works with stakeholders to reduce barriers to electoral participation. Our research has shown that

there are four priority groups that face barriers to participating in elections: First Nations, Metis and Inuit electors, people with disabilities, youth and new Canadians. Inspire Democracy gives

tools for engaging with community leaders and organizations that represent these communities.

Major Disability Organizations Unite Behind New Open Letter Pressing Federal Political Parties to Make the Accessible Canada Pledge in this Election

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Major Disability Organizations Unite Behind New Open Letter Pressing Federal Political Parties to Make the Accessible Canada Pledge in this Election

April 4, 2025 Toronto: Over two dozen major disability organizations have co-signed an open letter, unveiled today, that calls on federal party leaders to make the “Accessible Canada Pledge to meet the urgent needs of over 8 million people with disabilities in Canada. The AODA Alliance made the Accessible Canada Pledge public on March 20, 2025. (Open letter set out below)

The Accessible Canada Pledge is designed to ensure that the implementation and enforcement of the Accessible Canada Act (ACA) is swift, strong and effective, that air passengers with disabilities stop suffering horrific mistreatment by Canadian airlines, and that the Canada Disabilities Benefit Act fulfils its purpose of lifting people with disabilities out of poverty. So far, no federal party has substantively responded to this request. This open letter ramps up the pressure on the federal leaders to address urgent disability issues.

“In this election campaign, people with disabilities are raising disability issues across Canada,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. “That so many disability organizations reflecting the diversity of Canada’s disability community united behind this open letter is a strong signal that federal parties of all political stripes have to rise to the occasion and make the Accessible Canada Pledge.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Text of the April 4, 2025 open letter to the federal party leaders

We the undersigned organizations urge the leaders of the federal parties to make the Accessible Canada Pledge in this federal election, set out in the March 20, 2025 letter to the party leaders from the accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. The Accessible Canada Pledge is set out below, after the list of signatories to this open letter.

Signed,

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance
Centre for Independent Living in Toronto CILT
Canadian Council of the Blind
Community Living Central York.
Community Living Toronto
Independent Living Resource Centre Corp Sudbury Manitoulin ( ILSM )
March of Dimes Canada
Electromagnetic Pollution Illnesses Canada Foundation (E.P.I.C.)
Physicians of Ontario Neurodevelopmental Advocacy PONDA
Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians / l’Alliance pour l’Égalité des Personnes Aveugles du Canada
Balance for Blind Adults
Ontario Parents of visually Impaired Children OPVIC
Toronto Visionaries
Ontario Autism Coalition
Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities
Accessibility Hamilton Alliance (AHA)
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Elgin, London, Middlesex, Oxford Network
Canadian National Institute for the Blind CNIB
Canadian Educators for Safe Technology
Ontario Agencies Supporting Individuals with Special Needs (OASIS)
Vision Loss Rehabilitation Canada
Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Extend-A-Family Waterloo Region
ODSP Action Coalition
ARCH Disability Law Centre
Brain Injury Canada
Citizens with Disabilities Ontario CWDO
Canadian Down Syndrome Society

March 20, 2025, Letter from the AODA Alliance to the Five Federal Political Parties

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com Twitter: @aodaalliance

March 20, 2025

To:
Prime Minister Mark Carney, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Email: pm@pm.gc.ca

Pierre Poilievre, P.C., M.P., Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Email: pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca

Jagmeet Singh, M.P., Leader of the New Democratic Party
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Email: jagmeet.singh@parl.gc.ca

Yves-François Blanchet, M.P., Leader of the Bloc Québécois
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Email: yves-francois.blanchet@parl.gc.ca

Ms. Elizabeth May, M.P., Leader of the Green Party of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Email: elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca

Dear Party Leaders,

Re: Asking All Federal Party Leaders to Make the “Accessible Canada Pledge” in the Forthcoming Federal Election

With a federal election about to be called, we ask each federal party to make the “Accessible Canada Pledge.” Below please find the proposed text of this Pledge. Over eight million people with disabilities in Canada urgently need you all to make this Pledge. In this letter, we explain who we are and what we seek and why.

Founded in 2005, the AODA Alliance is a non-partisan grassroots community coalition that advocates in Ontario and federally for accessibility for people with disabilities. We were one of the disability organizations that gave testimony at Parliament on the issues addressed in the proposed Accessible Canada Pledge. During debates in Parliament, MPs and Senators relied on our submissions and commended our expertise in this area.

Please make the Accessible Canada Pledge to ensure that (a) the implementation and enforcement of the Accessible Canada Act (ACA) is swift, strong and effective, (b) air passengers with disabilities stop suffering horrific mistreatment by Canadian airlines, and (c) the Canada Disabilities Benefit Act fulfills its purpose of lifting people with disabilities out of poverty.

Your parties have all supported these three goals. Yet none of these goals will be achieved unless Canada implements achievable reforms. The Accessible Canada Pledge lists those needed reforms.

Our non-partisan request aims to get strong commitments from all parties. We never seek to elect or defeat any party or candidate. We will make public your responses to this request.

Every Canadian needs all parties to make the Accessible Canada Pledge. Everyone has a disability now or gets one later in life.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky, CM, O. Ont. Chair, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

The Accessible Canada Pledge

March 20, 2021

The AODA Alliance asks all parties in the House of Commons to make the Accessible Canada Pledge in the 2025 federal election. It addresses three areas where people with disabilities need major improvements:

Ensuring the effective Implementation of the Accessible Canada Act to achieve a barrier-free Canada by 2040.
Ensuring equal access to air travel for air passengers with disabilities, and
Ensuring that the Canada Disability Benefit Act lifts impoverished people with disabilities out of poverty.

I. General

If elected, will your Government comply with the Accessibility Canada Act and the guarantees to people with disabilities in the Charter of Rights and the Canada Human Rights Act?
Will your party commit not to reduce any protections in law that people with disabilities now enjoy in Canada?

II. Effective Implementation of the Accessible Canada Act

We commend Parliament and all parties for unanimously enacting the Accessible Canada Act (ACA) in 2019. It legislatively commits to achieve a barrier-free Canada for people with disabilities by 2040.

Unfortunately, the ACA is strong on good intentions but extremely weak on implementation and enforcement. It must be substantially strengthened and simplified if it is to achieve its purposes.

Progress towards an accessible Canada since the ACA’s enactment has been agonizingly slow. We are more than 25% through the 21-year period set by Parliament for making Canada accessible, yet Canada is nowhere near 25% of the way towards becoming barrier free for people with disabilities. Some federally regulated organizations have no doubt taken some action to remove some disability barriers but not because any ACA requirements required them to do so.

The weak ACA does not require a single disability barrier to ever be removed or prevented. It gives people with disabilities no substantive rights. It gives the Federal Government and federally regulated organizations many loopholes. It requires federally regulated organizations to make accessibility plans, but it does not require those plans to be strong and effective. It does not require those plans to be effectively implemented.

The long, complicated and convoluted ACA is incredibly hard if not impossible to decipher, even for experts. Its implementation and enforcement are excessively bureaucratized and wastefully splintered among three federal agencies, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA). Each has a poor record on effectively enforcing accessibility for people with disabilities. The ACA’s fragmented enforcement is confusing, bureaucratic and ineffective.

The Federal Government’s implementation of the ACA is far too slow. In six years, it has not enacted a single mandatory accessibility standard regulation. It has only passed a regulation on procedural matters. It is good that Accessible Standards Canada has developed some voluntary standards. However, voluntary, unenforceable measures are thin gruel compared to mandatory enforceable regulations. Who obeys a speed limit if it is voluntary?

In 2018 and 2019, the grassroots non-partisan AODA Alliance was one of the disability organizations that predicted these results when the Accessible Canada Act was going through Parliament. We proposed constructive amendments to prevent this. Most were rejected.

We therefore ask for the following commitments:

Enforceable Accessibility Standard Regulations Should Be Enacted Within Three Years

The ACA’s centerpiece is the enactment and enforcement of accessibility standard regulations. These regulations will specify what an organization must do and by when in order to become accessible. The ACA lets the Federal Cabinet, the CRTC and the CTA enact these regulations. However, it does not require any of these regulations ever to be enacted. If they are not enacted, the ACA will fail.

Will you commit to enact at least one accessibility standard regulation covering all obligated organizations within one year from now, with another four such accessibility standard regulations to be enacted within three years from now to cover all the areas that the ACA regulates (including federally funded housing)?

The ACA Should Be Effectively Enforced

The ACA is not being effectively enforced. We know from extensive experience with provincial accessibility legislation that the ACA will be ineffective unless it is effectively enforced.

Will your party commit to ensure that the ACA is effectively enforced and to amend the ACA in open consultation with Canada’s broad disability community to remove legislative barriers to its effective enforcement?

Federal Public Money Should Never Be Used to Create or Perpetuate Barriers Against People with Disabilities

The ACA does not require the Federal Government to ensure that federal money is never used by any recipient of those funds to create or perpetuate disability barriers. For example, the ACA doesn’t require the Federal Government to attach accessibility strings when it gives money to a province, municipality, college, university, local transit authority, or other organization to build new infrastructure. Those recipients of federal money are left free to design and build new infrastructure without ensuring that it is fully accessible to people with disabilities. The ACA doesn’t require the Federal Government to attach any federal accessibility strings when it gives out business development loans or grants.

The ACA lets the Federal Government impose accessibility requirements when it buys goods or services. However, it doesn’t require the Federal Government to do so.

This allows for a wasteful and harmful use of public money. The Senate’s Standing Committee on Social Affairs that held hearings on Bill C-81 made this important observation in its May 7, 2019 report to the Senate:

Your committee heard concerns that despite this legislation, federal funding may continue to be spent on projects that do not always meet accessibility standards. Therefore, we encourage the federal government to ensure that when public money is spent or transferred, the funding should never be used to create or perpetuate disability-related barriers when it is reasonable to expect that such barriers can be avoided.

Will your party ensure by legislation, and if not, then by public policy, that no one will use public money distributed by the Government of Canada in a manner that creates or perpetuates barriers, including for example payments by the Government of Canada to purchase or rent any goods, services or facilities, to contribute to the construction, expansion or renovation of any infrastructure or other capital project, or to provide a business development loan or grant?

The ACA Should Never Reduce the Rights of People with Disabilities

The ACA includes only limited and insufficient protection to ensure that nothing under the ACA reduces the rights of people with disabilities.

Will your party amend the ACA so that if a provision of the ACA or of a regulation enacted under it conflicts with a provision of any other Act or regulation, the provision that provides the highest level of accessibility shall prevail and that nothing in the ACA or in any regulations enacted under it or in any actions taken under it shall reduce any rights that people with disabilities otherwise enjoy under law?

A discriminatory provision was included in the Accessible Canada Act, which the Senate somewhat softened after extensive disability community advocacy efforts. However, it should be repealed altogether.

Making this worse, section 172(3) of the ACA unfairly takes away important rights from people with disabilities in a discriminatory way. It bars the CTA from awarding justly deserved monetary compensation to a passenger with a disability, even if the Agency finds that an airline or other federally regulated transportation provider has imposed an undue barrier against them, so long as a federal transportation accessibility regulation wrongly says that the airline did not have to provide the passenger with that accommodation. This is especially unfair since the House of Commons held public hearings in 2024 confirming that air passengers with disabilities continue to face horrific mistreatment by Canadian airlines, as is further addressed below.

This unfairly protects huge, well-funded airlines and railways from having to pay monetary compensation in situations where they should have to pay.

Will your party remove from the ACA its provisions unfairly limiting the remedies available to air travel and rail passengers with disabilities?

The Federal Government Should Be Required to Apply a Disability Lens to Its Decisions

The ACA should entrench in law that the Government must apply a disability lens to all Government policies and decisions.

Will your party commit to apply a disability lens to government decisions and to entrench this in the ACA?

The ACA’s Implementation and Enforcement Should be Consolidated in One Federal Agency, Not Splintered Among Several Agencies

The 105-page complicated ACA harmfully splinters the power to make accessibility standard regulations and the power to enforce the bill among a number of federal agencies, such as the new federal Accessibility Commissioner, the CTA, and the CRTC. This makes the ACA’s implementation and enforcement far less effective and more costly. It takes longer and costs more to get accessibility regulations enacted. It risks weak, contradictory or unnecessarily complex regulations.

This splintering makes it much harder to enforce the ACA. People with disabilities are burdened to learn to navigate as many as three or four different bewildering sets of accessibility rules, enforcement agencies, procedures, forms and timelines for presenting an accessibility complaint.

This splintering only helps existing federal bureaucracies that want more power and any large, obligated organizations that seek to dodge taking action on accessibility. Those organizations can exploit the bill’s confusing complexity to delay and impede its implementation.

The CTA and CRTC have had powers to promote accessibility for decades. Their record on accessibility is poor.

Will your party assign all responsibility for the ACA’s enforcement to the Accessibility Commissioner and all responsibility for enacting regulations under the ACA to the Federal Cabinet? If not, then at a minimum, would your party require by legislation or policy that the CRTC, CTA, and the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board must, within six months, establish policies, practices and procedures for expeditiously receiving, investigating, considering and deciding upon complaints under this Act which are the same as or as reasonably close as possible to those the ACA mandates for the Accessibility Commissioner?

No Federal Laws Should Ever Create or Permit Disability Barriers

No federal laws should ever impose or permit the creation of barriers against people with disabilities. For a federal law to do this violates the Charter of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Will your Party review all federal laws to identify any that require or permit any barriers against people with disabilities, and will your party amend Section 2 of the ACA (definition of “barrier”) to ensure that the ACA also effectively addresses barriers created by federal laws?

Federal Elections Should Be Accessible to Voters with Disabilities

Voters with disabilities continue to face disability barriers in federal elections, including, for example, barriers that can impede them from voting independently and in private and verifying their choice.

Will your party ensure that federal elections become barrier-free for voters and candidates with disabilities.

Unfair Power to Exempt Organizations from Some ACA Requirements Should be Eliminated

The ACA has too many loopholes. For example, it lets the Federal Government exempt itself from some duties under the ACA. The Government should not ever be able to exempt itself.

Will your Party eliminate the power to exempt organizations from some of the requirements imposed by the ACA, such as eliminating the power to exempt the Government of Canada, or a federal department or agency? If not, will your party commit not to grant any exemptions from the ACA?

Federally Controlled Courts and Tribunals Should be Made Disability Accessible

People with disabilities continue to face barriers when they try to take part in legal proceedings in courts for which the Federal Government is responsible.

Will your party develop and implement a plan to ensure that all federally operated courts (e.g., the Supreme Court of Canada and Federal Courts) and federally operated regulatory tribunals (like the CRTC and CTA) become accessible.

III. Ensuring Barrier-Free Air Travel for Air Passengers with Disabilities

The media has reported on episode after episode of Canadian airlines subjecting air passengers with disabilities to horrific treatment. Air travel in Canada for air passengers with disabilities is replete with far too many serious, unfair, and preventable disability accessibility barriers. Air passengers with disabilities have very good reason to dread entering Canadian air space. They cannot know in advance which trips will go smoothly, and which will be replete with infuriating mistreatment.

In 2024, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transportation held public hearings on

this, received wrenching evidence, found that this is a serious problem requiring new federal action, and issued a report with detailed and helpful recommendations.

These recurring disability barriers violate several Canadian laws, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canada Human Rights Act, the Accessible Canada Act, and the Canada Transportation Act. However, these laws are not effectively implemented and enforced. They unfairly depend too heavily on air passengers with disabilities to be private accessibility cops.

Making this worse, the federal agency mandated to enforce these rights, the CTA, has a long and very poor track record. It is too close to the airline industry that it is supposed to regulate in the public interest. It is a model illustration of regulatory capture.

Despite their self-promoting and self-serving news conferences and pledges to do better, airlines and airport authorities have not made it a real and effective priority to fix these systemic problems with effective systemic solutions. Fixing this is not rocket science.

Will your Party commit to these actions:
1. Implement the recommendations of the December 2024 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport.
2. Creating a new independent public agency to oversee the regulation and enforcement of disability accessibility for air passengers with disabilities in Canada, with substantial safeguards to protect against the airline industry’s regulatory capture of that agency.
3. Enact a strong, enforceable, unequivocal and comprehensive Air Passengers with Disabilities’ Bill of Rights.
4. Require the public agency regulating airlines’ disability accessibility to periodically conduct unannounced inspections of the supports and services that airlines provide to air passengers with disabilities, similar to secret shopper audits, with the results and findings made public.
5. Require airlines to alert all air passengers with disabilities, well in advance of their flight and in accessible formats, about all disability supports and services that are available from the beginning of their trip to the end, including curbside assistance when arriving at an airport. The public agency that regulates disability accessibility at airlines should be required to effectively monitor and enforce these requirements, including spot-checking content to ensure that it is comprehensive and provided in plain language. This information should be provided in multiple accessible ways, such as emails to air passengers with disabilities, printed notification in documents such as boarding passes provided to air passengers with disabilities, and regular audible and text announcements in all airports.
6. Require in any airport where the check-in desk is difficult to reach from the front door, such as Toronto Pearson Airport Terminal 1, to establish a disability check-in desk immediately inside a main door, and to notify air passengers with disabilities of the availability of that check-in desk.
7. Require that an airport or well-publicized provider provide all curbside assistance to air passengers with disabilities no matter which airline they are using for travel.
8. Require that except where impossible to do so, the airline should have a single staff member assist a passenger with disabilities during their entire journey through the airport.
9. Require that if airline or airport officials assisting air passengers with disabilities through the airport must leave them in any waiting area to wait, this must be in a designated seating area where a permanent airline or airport official is posted who can be asked for assistance while they wait to finish their journey through the airport.
10. Require airlines to consistently and reliably pre-board air passengers with disabilities as well as others needing pre-boarding before any other passengers are boarded on an aircraft.
11. Eliminate the systemic practice of requiring air passengers with disabilities to be the last passengers off the plane, particularly where this delay is unnecessary.
12. Require airlines and airports to install and maintain effective video monitoring of the entire handling of a wheelchair or other mobility device from the moment that air passengers with disabilities give up possession of them to the point where the device is returned. Where an incident occurs where the device is damaged, this video should be automatically shared with the passenger and the relevant regulatory authority.
13. Require airlines and airports to implement a one-stop disability help, fast-action hotline for air passengers with disabilities to call to seek help or report complaints.
14. Require the relevant regulatory authority to receive all requests and complaints and action reports on what results were reached through the disability fast-action help hotline, with overall results made public in an anonymized aggregated report.
15. Require airlines and airports to publicize to air passengers with disabilities and to the public the availability of the disability hotline for seeking help and for lodging complaints. This should be included in all standard airline communications with air passengers, such as emails that confirm a ticket purchase or inviting online check-in. This should also be publicized in airports, such as in posters and in regular audio and text announcements in airports.
16. Enact new accessibility standards for passenger aircraft design that requires such basic features as call buttons for flight attendants and controls for adjusting one’s seat to be accessible to passengers with disabilities rather than inaccessible touch screen buttons.
17. Providing for serious penalties with personal liability to be imposed on senior airline and airport officials in the case of accessibility infractions.

IV. Ensuring that The Canada Disability Benefit Lifts Impoverished People with Disabilities Out of Poverty

The Canada Disability Benefit Act (CDBA), which Parliament unanimously passed in 2023, has not lived up to the promise that it would lift hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities out of poverty. Capped by new regulations at about $200 per month maximum, it will leave most impoverished people with disabilities still languishing in poverty. Deserving impoverished people with disabilities will not even qualify for it. The CDBA lacks key safeguards. Moreover, its implementation has been far too slow.

The following reforms are needed to ensure that the CDBA is effective at tackling disability poverty.

Will your Government revise the Canada Disability Act and regulations to:
1. Require that the Canada Disability Benefit paid to people with disabilities living in poverty is sufficient to lift them above the poverty line?
2. Remove the requirement that to qualify for the Benefit, a person must have qualified for the Disability Tax Credit; instead, make a person eligible if they qualify for provincial or territorial disability social assistance?
3. Prevent the Benefit from being clawed back by private insurance companies or under any federal legislation or program?
4. Once the amount of the Canada Disability Benefit is initially established under these revisions to the CDBA, require that Parliamentary approval be obtained before a future Cabinet or Government can reduce or eliminate the Benefit or eligibility for it?
5. Address poverty among children and seniors with disabilities?

“Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky Now Available as Free Audio Book, MS Word or PDF Document, or From Amazon (Not Free) as Hard Copy Book or EBook

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

“Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky Now Available as Free Audio Book, MS Word or PDF Document, or From Amazon (Not Free) as Hard Copy Book or EBook

April 3, 2025

You can now get AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky ‘s book “Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” in multiple formats. Many options are free! This memoir includes a foreword by internationally renowned, retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice Rosalie Abella.

Forty years ago this month, on April 17, 1985, the equality rights provision of the Charter of Rights, Section 15, went into effect. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s personal memoir recounts how Canada ended up being the first of any western democracy to enshrine in its Constitution a guarantee of equality rights for people with disabilities. He explains how this uphill battle was won against enormous odds. He was one of the disability activists who waged the campaign to win this constitutional right.

If you want to learn strategies for disability advocacy, this book is for you. You can download this book for free as a pdf, an accessible MS Word document, or even as a free audio book. CNIB recorded it. David Lepofsky has agreed that this can be shared with the entire public, not just CNIB clients.

For those who want a hard copy print version of the book, it is available as a print-on-demand book on Amazon. The author priced it at the lowest price possible, so that it includes no royalties. It is available on Kindle as an e-book for 99 cents. Amazon insists on a 33-cent royalty as part of that price. David Lepofsky will donate any royalties received to charity. We are going to work on trying to get it into the public library system.

Here are links to get it:

The disability amendment to Canada’s Constitution laid the bedrock foundation for court cases and legislative reforms to advance the right of students with disabilities to an equal education, the right of patients with disabilities to barrier-free access to health care, and the right of all people with disabilities to the full anti-discrimination protection of federal and provincial Human Rights Codes. It is ultimately the bedrock foundation that is at the core of the disability advocacy during the current federal election to get all federal parties to make the Accessible Canada Pledge.

“Equality for people with disabilities was the only constitutional right added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms during the widely publicized eighteen-month epic battle over the patriation of Canada’s Constitution, which lasted from October 1980 to April 1982,” wrote Lepofsky. “It was won without any of the grassroots-organizing experience or the major technological tools that are today an indispensable part of the community organizer’s and disability advocate’s toolkit.”

The disability amendment to the Charter of Rights underpins the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Accessible Canada Act. Not many know that equality for people with disabilities in Canada’s Charter of Rights was the product of grassroots action. This memoir will be informative for those interested in Canadian political or legal history, social justice and human rights advocacy, community organizing, or Canadian constitutional law. It will also interest anyone who enjoys discovering past events that form a part of Canada’s tapestry. It was the subject of an interview on September 16, 2024 with the author on TVO’s flagship current affairs program The Agenda with Steve Paikin, and an entire hour of the CBC Radio provincewide program Ontario Today on September 26, 2024.

This memoir is published in Volume 39 of the Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, the law journal of the Faculty of Law of the University of Windsor.

How You Can Help

Let others know about the availability of this resource. It can be useful for anyone who wants to learn how to do grassroots disability advocacy.
If you teach any courses on human rights, social justice, constitutional law or social work, consider including this book in your course reading materials.

AODA Alliance Chair’s Monthly Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Explores Federal Election’s Disability Issues that the Mainstream Media Hasn’t Covered

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

AODA Alliance Chair’s Monthly Column in the Toronto Star’s Metroland Publications Explores Federal Election’s Disability Issues that the Mainstream Media Hasn’t Covered

April 2, 2025

SUMMARY

This month’s disability rights column by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky in the Toronto Star’s Metroland publications around Ontario focuses on the disability issues that are at stake in the current federal election. You can read that column below.

So far, well into this election campaign, no mainstream media appear to have covered this election’s disability issues. This is a huge disservice to over 8 million people with disabilities in Canada. While the US trade war is of course important to us all, it is not the only issue in this election. The media has enough room over the weeks of this election to cover our issues.

On March 21, 2025, the AODA Alliance wrote the major federal party leaders, asking them to each make the Accessible Canada Pledge in this election. So far, none of them have made the pledge.

As we announced earlier, a Candidates Debate on Disability Issues has been organized for April 8, 2025 at 7:30 p.m. Eastern in Toronto. So far, the Liberals, NDP and Green Party have agreed to send a speaker. The organizers have heard nothing so far from the Conservative Party.

How You Can Help

Please share this Metroland column with as many people as you can. Use email, social media and any website on which you can post it. Urge voters to consider these issues during this federal election.

Use the action tips for this election which are shared in the March 22, 2025 AODA Alliance Update.

Register now to attend the April 8, 2025 Candidates Debate on Disability Issues in the Federal Election. Get others to do the same. You can attend in person at CNIB Toronto or online. The AODA Alliance is one of the disability organizations that are organizing this debate.
Let us know what steps you take to help in our federal election blitz. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

For background, check out:

The Accessible Canada Pledge that we have asked all federal party leaders to make.
The AODA Alliance website’s Canada page to see our advocacy to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act.
The AODA Alliance website’s Bill C-22 page to learn about the AODA Alliance’s efforts to strengthen the grossly inadequate new Canada Disability Benefit.

MORE DETAILS

Inside Halton April 2, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.insidehalton.com/opinion/columnists/what-do-federal-election-candidates-pledge-for-millions-living-with-disabilities-in-canada/article_a1839cf7-5ca9-56b8-8985-f8fbd19797a7.html

Columnists

Opinion

What do federal election candidates pledge for millions living with disabilities in Canada?

Advocate asked parties to make the Accessible Canada pledge, with debate on disability issues in the federal election on April 8.

By David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

Metroland file photo

There are urgent issues in this federal election for more than eight million people with disabilities in Canada — but don’t expect major networks and newspapers to tell voters about them, if the past is any guide.

People with disabilities in Canada at long last deserve equal access to air travel and the many other services that the federal government regulates.

Last year, House of Commons Standing Committee hearings explored the recurring horrific mistreatment some air passengers with disabilities have suffered at the hands of Canada’s airlines.

Federal legislation requires Canada to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2040 — but after six years on the books, progress is barely detectable.

Parliamentary hearings last fall saw disability advocates testify that the legislation is absurdly complex, with its implementation and enforcement sluggish and terribly bureaucratic.

People with disabilities languishing in poverty deserve more than the paltry $200 per month maximum available under the new Canada Disabilities Benefit Act. That act was promised to lift hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities out of poverty. Senate hearings two years ago predicted that the new weak legislation risked that it would not live up to all the hype about it.

At all those hearings, I gave evidence on behalf of the non-partisan disability coalition (the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance) I have the honour of leading. It is striking that the federal parties agree with our disability community’s goals.

They all supported legislation aimed at making Canada an accessible country and lifting impoverished people with disabilities out of poverty. No one can or did dispute that action just hasn’t measured up.

So, what do we do?

Just before this election was called, the alliance which I chair wrote all federal party leaders, asking them all to make the Accessible Canada Pledge. It would ensure the implementation and enforcement of the Accessible Canada Act (ACA) is swift, strong and effective, that air passengers with disabilities stop suffering horrific mistreatment by Canadian airlines, and that the Canada Disability Benefit Act fulfils its purpose of lifting people with disabilities out of poverty.

So far, no party has answered.

A consortium of disability organizations, including the one I chair, is holding a candidates’ debate on disability issues in the federal election on April 8 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Sign up on Eventbrite to attend in-person or online.

In this election campaign, people with disabilities and anyone concerned about their rights will be raising disability issues across Canada. This can happen at the doorstep as canvassers and candidates knock on doors, wanting us to vote for them.

I encourage everyone of all political stripes to ask those candidates and canvassers what they’ll do, if elected, to lift impoverished people with disabilities out of poverty, to make Canada disability-accessible by 2040 and to end the recurring mistreatment of air passengers with disabilities in Canada.

As a voter, you’ll never know what you’ll hear at the door.

In the recent Ontario election, I answered my door to a man saying he’s canvassing for Doug Ford.

I followed my own advice and asked this pleasant person what his party will do for students with disabilities. He said they’ve made record investments.

I said the Ontario government just announced over $1 billion for new schools without ensuring they’re accessible. I told him to check out aodaalliance.org.

After he heard me mention that website, he said “Oh, I’m friends with David Lepofsky!”

Taken aback, I responded: “I’m David Lepofsky. Who are you?”

He swiftly walked away, saying “Have a nice day.”

Like I said, you just never know what will happen when you speak up in support of fairness for people with disabilities. Give it a try.

Sign Up Now to Attend the April 8, 2025 Candidate Debate on Disability Issues in the Federal Election

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/2025-federal-candidate-debate-on-disability-issues-tickets-1306790689129?aff=oddtdtcreator

Sign Up Now to Attend the April 8, 2025 Candidate Debate on Disability Issues in the Federal Election

April 1 2025

SUMMARY

Please sign up now to attend the April 8, 2025 Candidate Debate on Disability Issues in the federal Election. It runs from 7:30 to 9:00 pm EST. You can attend in person or online. Below is the official announcement with all the details, including how to sign up.

The major political parties have been invited to select a candidate to send to this debate. We certainly hope each of the parties sends a representative.

If you have any trouble signing up to attend using the link below, please email aodafeedback@gmail.com and we will get someone to help you sign up.

Please do whatever you can to publicize this event and to get people to sign up for it. This event is brought to you by a consortium of disability organizations, one of which is the AODA Alliance.

MORE DETAILS

Official Announcement of the April 8, 2025, All-Candidates Debate on Disability Issues

2025 Federal Candidate Debate on Disability Issues

When: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 | 7:30 P.M. – 9:00 P.M.

Where: CNIB, 1929 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M4G 3E8

Moderator: David Rider, Toronto Star reporter

Guests and other attendees will have the option to join virtually on Zoom or in-person at CNIB, 1929 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M4G 3E8.

Limited in-person attendance.

Note: The debate location is accessible, and both ASL interpretation and real-time captioning will be available. Please indicate on the registration form if you are interested in attendant service and we will do our best to accommodate your needs.

Click Here to Register and Submit Your Questions

Download, unzip and read as a free audio book David Lepofsky’s memoir entitled “Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”

Download, unzip and read as a free audio book David Lepofsky’s memoir entitled “Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”

Ford Government Has Still Not Set Provincial Standards or Ensured Effective School Board’s Public Accountability Regarding School Isolation or Sensory Rooms Almost One Year After a Vulnerable High School Student with Disabilities Was Found Dead in One

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Ford Government Has Still Not Set Provincial Standards or Ensured Effective School Board’s Public Accountability Regarding School Isolation or Sensory Rooms Almost One Year After a Vulnerable High School Student with Disabilities Was Found Dead in One

March 30, 2025

SUMMARY

A March 28, 2025, CBC News report, set out below, reveals that almost a year after a vulnerable student with disabilities was found dead in a Trenton school’s isolation room, the school board has not taken important steps needed to publicly account for the cause of this death, and to prevent such future tragedies from happening.

Thankfully, CBC News is still on the trail of this story. It is critical for news organizations to make public what is or is not going on. Below is a March 28, 2025, CBC news report.

On Monday, March 24, 2025, the Hastings And Prince Edward School Board trustees received and discussed a report from board staff on what it is doing in response to this inexcusable incident. It is staggering that the board staff have not provided the elected school board trustees a report on what actually happened and why Landyn Ferris died. This should have been the first order of business. You cannot fix a problem if you don’t know what caused it.

Combine the fact that there has been no Coroner’s inquest and no review of what happened by the elected trustees. What you get is an utter lack of effective public accountability on a life and death issue concerning the most vulnerable students in the school system. Unelected school staff have no public accountability. The elected trustees who are there to provide public accountability and oversight are cut out of this critical question.

What makes this worse is that last week, the school board staff provided those trustees with a plan of action arising from this incident that would not assure anyone that such an incident would be prevented. Had all those steps been taken prior to Landyn’s death, we have no assurance that this incident would have been prevented, or the danger of it happening would be materially reduced, or that there would be real public accountability. The staff report is brimming with empty stock lingo from education bureaucrats about revising their policies and doing staff training. Vulnerable students with disabilities and their families need and deserve much more.

The trustees’ discussion focused to some degree on the risk of a civil lawsuit by the family. Protecting the school board from the prospect of litigation is no justification for failing to provide swift and comprehensive public accountability.

Where is the Ford Government? Ontario has no mandatory requirements for school boards on the use of sensory or isolation rooms. That means that 72 school boards are left at sea. They can to whatever they choose in this area without effective provincial oversight. The Ford Government continues to inflict on parents of vulnerable students with disabilities the undue hardship of having to advocate to one school board at a time, in this and so many other areas. Vulnerable students with disabilities deserve much better from their provincial government.

The Ontario Government has not enacted the promised K-12 Education Accessibility Standard, over three years after it received the comprehensive report of the K-12 Standards Development Committee. That report details what that promised AODA accessibility standard needs to include.

How You Can Help

Circulate this AODA Alliance Update to your school board. Urge them to protect vulnerable students with disabilities from horrific events like the death of Landyn Ferris.
Contact your member of the Ontario Legislature. Press them to get the Ford Government to at long last enact the promised and long-overdue K-12 Education Accessibility Standard. It needs to include mandatory and effective requirements regarding isolation or sensory rooms in schools.

For More Background

Read the May 31, 2024 AODA Alliance News Release on the death of Landyn Ferris in a school isolation room.
Watch the June 4, 2024, Queen’s Park News Conference in which the AODA Alliance was a participant on the death of Landyn Ferris in a school isolation room.
Read some of the media reporting on this horrific death last spring in the June 13, 2024 AODA Alliance Update.
Check out the K-12 Standards Development Committee’s final report, submitted to the Ford Government on January 28, 2022.

MORE DETAILS

CBC News March 28, 2025

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/he-certainly-is-not-forgotten-board-wants-good-to-come-out-of-school-tragedy-1.7491627

‘He certainly is not forgotten’: Board wants good to come out of school tragedy | CBC News Loaded

Ottawa

Death of Landyn Ferris ‘cries out for a public accountability,’ advocate says

Landyn Ferris, 16, died in May 2024 under circumstances that remain unclear. Ferris’s family has alleged he was left alone in a private room at his school despite staff knowing he had a condition that meant he needed careful observation. (Facebook)

The Ontario school board that launched a review after the death of one its students last year says it wants some good to come out of the process, though some details, including the boy’s cause of death, remain unclear all these months later.

“There are still some gaps for us to have a full picture of what occurred that day,” the board’s top official says.

Landyn Ferris, a Grade 10 student at Trenton High School in central Ontario, died in May 2024 — soon after his 16th birthday, and under circumstances that remain unclear.

Ferris’s family has alleged he was left alone in a private room at his school, despite staff knowing he had a condition that meant he needed careful observation.

Amid the family’s threat of a lawsuit — which remains unrealized — the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board (HPEDSB) said little about the death.

But nearly 11 months later, the board is giving its most extended comments so far as it updates its trustees on an ongoing review of school protocols begun after Ferris’s death — though the briefing does not delve into the death itself.

“We looked inward and dealt with the information that we had to both honour Landyn but also honour our staff who are looking for ways to make a difference,” Katherine MacIver, the board’s director of education, told CBC in an interview.

“To have something positive come out of something incredibly tragic.”

Ensuring ‘optimal’ staff resources

On Monday, MacIver and another board official, Ken Dostaler, addressed the board’s publicly elected trustees about the review, which focused on internal processes related to students with special education and medical needs.

Ferris was in Trenton High’s life skills program for students with complex needs. According to Josh Nisker, the lawyer representing Ferris’s family, Ferris had Dravet syndrome, a rare type of genetic epilepsy that can cause seizures.

Before Ferris died, his mother had warned the school that he couldn’t be left alone, Nisker said — especially while sleeping, as that was a trigger for his seizures.

The family alleged Ferris was left by himself in a sensory room — a space to help calm or engage students in learning — only to be found cold and unresponsive some time later when staff went to put him on a school bus.

“The goal of the review was to ensure that staff have access to optimal resources, training and procedures,” Dostaler wrote in a summary report to trustees ahead of Monday’s board meeting.

Some of the planned improvements outlined in Dostaler’s update touch on issues that were relevant to Ferris’s death, some not, MacIver told CBC.

“I would say the bulk of them are just review of things we do regularly, but we’re tightening those processes up and making sure there’s tight onboarding for new staff,” Dostaler told trustees on Monday.

Among other things, the list of goals in the update includes:

Support and training for supply education assistants.
More mandatory training for all staff, whether permanent or temporary, who are responsible for the safety and well-being of students with complex needs.
Ensuring emergency supply candidates are prepared enough for their roles and that schools give them time to review individual education plans and “safety, behaviour and emergency medical plans of care.”
Making sure all staff working directly with students who have medical needs are given information regarding the student’s condition.

The update also mentions the responsibility of parents to give schools up-to-date information on their child’s serious medical situation “as a condition of attending a school,” as well as information on medications and possible side effects.

Read the board’s full update on the review.

The board will also review its sensory rooms and how they are used.

‘He was very loved’

Asked what happened that day, MacIver first mentioned how the loss had a major impact on staff.

“What I could say is this is probably the worst thing ever in the lives of this family and friends and of this staff in the school. The loss of Landyn is acutely felt throughout the system, [though] nowhere near what the family is going through…” MacIver said.

“He was very loved … and he certainly is not forgotten.”

MacIver went on to say the board focused in its review on areas it could address based on the information it had. That does not include Ferris’s cause of death.

“We don’t have that information,” she said. A spokesperson for the Office of the Chief Coroner said families get copies of coroner’s reports, but not school boards.

MacIver said she could not discuss the day Ferris was found due to student and family confidentiality.

Asked whether any school staff were disciplined or dismissed as a result of what happened, she said, “We had no indication that that was necessary based on our investigation or the investigation of police.”

Nisker declined to comment for this story but confirmed Ferris’s family has still “not yet” filed any legal action.

He did not respond when asked if the family knows Ferris’s cause of death.

Advocate calls for coroner’s inquest

Photos show Ferris had a bright smile and wore superhero-themed T-shirts. He’d attended Trenton High School since Grade 6, Nisker previously told CBC.

“He kept me soft-hearted even when I was mad at the world,” his mother, Brenda Davis, said in a statement to CBC in the early days of her grief.

Ferris’s death made provincial headlines and sparked debate in the Ontario legislature. The education minister at the time, Stephen Lecce, asked critics to allow for “an independent, fulsome investigation,” pointing to parallel inquiries by the coroner’s office and the OPP. The police force did not stay involved for long because there was no indication of foul play.

For David Lepofsky, the chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, Ferris’s death still “cries out for a public accountability” like a coroner’s inquest. (The coroner’s service says families in these circumstances can request an inquest, but they are not mandatory.)

“There’s no indication what, if any, protocols they had and what, if anything, went wrong,” Lepofsky said of the board’s update.

The board took some questions from trustees on Monday, though one, Ernie Parsons, said it might not be wise to talk about Ferris’s death, citing the “strong possibility” of a lawsuit.

“Identifying improvements is also interpreted as identifying shortfalls in the past,” he said.

David Lepofsky, of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, says the aides that school boards provide to students with disabilities are a right not a privilege.

MacIver said she didn’t see a problem with “identifying the fact that we can all improve in what we do” on a continual basis and concluded her remarks to trustees with a call to action.

“I would ask you to hold us accountable. Ask us about some of these goals that the team has set … Because I think we should be reporting back about how we are getting better day-to-day, month to month, year to year.”

Board chair Kari Kramp told CBC via email that trustees have “full confidence” in MacIver and staff “as they take thoughtful and informed steps” and that trustees take their own responsibility to oversee system improvements “seriously.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Guy Quenneville Reporter at CBC Ottawa

Guy was born and raised in Cornwall, Ont. He can be reached at guy.quenneville@cbc.ca

Save the Date! Federal Election Candidates’ Debate on Disability Issues Being Organized for April 8, 2025

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Save the Date! Federal Election Candidates’ Debate on Disability Issues Being Organized for April 8, 2025

March 29, 2025

Please mark your calendars. A group of disability organizations, including the AODA Alliance, are planning a candidates’ debate on disability issues for the federal election. It is being planned for Tuesday, April 8, 2025, starting at 7 pm Eastern time at CNIB headquarters, 1929 Bayview Avenue, Toronto. It will be in person and on Zoom. The debate will be moderated by veteran Toronto Star reporter David Rider. It will have an Ontario focus.

Details, including how to sign up to attend will be coming in the next few days. We’re all scrambling in an incredible rush to put this together.

How You Can Help

Please plan to attend this important event.
Spread the word to as many others as possible and encourage them to mark their calendars!
Get others to go to the AODA Alliance website’s home page to sign up to get AODA Alliance Updates, so they get the news as it is breaking!
Urge candidates from all federal parties to make the Accessible Canada Pledge that the AODA Alliance has requested of all the parties.
Spread the word about this event to your local media. Urge them to cover this election’s disability issues and to mark their calendars to cover this event.

For background, check out:

The Accessible Canada Pledge that we have asked all federal party leaders to make.
The AODA Alliance website’s Canada page to see our advocacy to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act.
The AODA Alliance website’s Bill C-22 page to learn about the AODA Alliance’s efforts to strengthen the grossly inadequate new Canada Disability Benefit.

Please Tell Ontario’s Customer Service Standards Development Committee to Adopt the AODA Alliance’s Recommendations in its Final Report to the Ford Government

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Twitter: @aodaalliance