What’s New

Yesterday, Disability Concerns About the Risk of Disability Discrimination if Critical Medical Care Must be Rationed Was Raised In the Ontario Legislature, the Media and Premier Ford’s News Conference

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Yesterday, Disability Concerns About the Risk of Disability Discrimination if Critical Medical Care Must be Rationed Was Raised In the Ontario Legislature, the Media and Premier Ford’s News Conference

December 4, 2020

            SUMMARY

Yesterday’s strong open letter to the Ford Government by 64 organizations and groups, spearheaded by the AODA Alliance and the ARCH Disability Law Centre, has increased public attention to our concerns about the Ford Government’s plans if a continuing surge in COVID-19 cases requires rationing or “triage” of hospital critical medical care. We have called on the Ford Government to at last release the secret report and recommendations of the Government’s Bioethics Table on this issue. This is especially important since the Ontario Human Rights Commission has publicly stated that it has human rights concerns with those recommendations.

What Happened Yesterday

Here is a summary of important developments on this issue yesterday, the International Day for Persons with Disabilities:

  1. In the Legislature during Question Period, Opposition disabilities critic NDP MPP Joel Harden pointed to this new open letter to The Government from the disability community. He asked the Government to make public the report and recommendations of the Government’s Bioethics Table (which the Government has kept secret for almost three months).

Conservative MPP Robin Martin, the Health Minister’s Parliamentary Assistant, responded, but very obviously did not answer the question. Below is the Hansard (formal transcript) of the exchange.

  1. Yesterday’s Toronto Star included an excellent report on our community’s open letter, written by reporter Brendan Kennedy, set out below.

As well, this issue was picked up by Ottawa Radio 1310’s Rob Snow program, which interviewed AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. Global News also included a story on this issue in yesterday’s evening TV news program.

  1. During the Premier’s midday December 3, 2020 news conference, Global News asked Premier Ford about our open letter and about making the Government’s plans public. In an answer which we transcribed and set out below, Health Minister Christine Elliott stated that discussions are now ongoing with the Ontario Human Rights Commission about the proper critical care triage protocol to put in place that is fair to everyone. She said she is not sure how long those discussions would be going on, “but that would come forward at the appropriate time.”

Reflections on What Happened Yesterday

The Government said nothing yesterday or previously to the Legislature or the media that explains, much less justifies its keeping secret the Bioethics Table’s report. Both the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Bioethics Table have called on The Government to make that report public.

We need the Bioethics Table’s report and recommendations to be made public now, and not at some unspecified future “appropriate time.” If such discussions are going on now that have a bearing on human rights for people with disabilities, we should not be shut out of them. We need to know what they are discussing, and we need to be part of those secret discussions.

You will see in the Toronto Star article, set out below, and to the Government’s statement in the Legislature in Question Period, also set out below, some references to the Government’s having increased the number of hospital beds. Not every hospital bed is a critical care bed, with all the services that a critical care patient needs to survive. We have seen no assurance that along with an increased number of beds, the Government has provided all the supports and services needed to ensure that they can provide effective critical medical care to all patients who will need critical care as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to surge, whether they need critical care due to COVID-19 or due to heart attacks, strokes, car accidents, or numerous other causes. Along with the hospital bed, there needs to be a sufficient number of intensive care doctors, nurses and other specialists, as well as ventilators and other equipment and supplies, and the required ventilator technicians. These critical care beds must be located in facilities that are equipped with the safety features needed to make sure that COVID-19 does not spread among patients and staff.

What You Can Do to Help

We strongly encourage one and all to write the Government. If you are concerned about the need for a non-discriminatory clinical triage protocol and the need for transparency in the process of developing it, you can write to your MPP to request the Ontario Government draft a non-discriminatory clinical triage protocol that ensures persons with disabilities have equal access to critical care resources during the pandemic. ARCH has launched a letter writing campaign. You can use this link to learn more: https://archdisabilitylaw.ca/write-to-your-mpp-about-ontarios-triage-protocol/

Please check out the AODA Alliance website’s health care page, detailing its efforts to tear down barriers in the health care system facing patients with disabilities, and our COVID-19 page, explaining our efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

Watch the AODA Alliance’s new captioned video explaining the entire critical care triage issue, and our new captioned video describing the broader campaign over the past eight months to overcome the serious new barriers that people with disabilities have had to face during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Delays and Delays and Delays

There have now been 673 days, or over 22 months, since the Ford Government received the ground-breaking final report of the Independent Review of the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by former Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Government has still announced no comprehensive plan of new action to implement that report. That makes even worse the serious problems facing Ontarians with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis, addressed in the new online video we unveiled last week.

            MORE DETAILS

Ontario Hansard December 3, 2020

Question Period

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Mr. Joel Harden: Today is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and 60 disability organizations sent the Premier a letter today. My question is for him. In September, the government’s bioethics table for the COVID-19 response recommended which patients should be refused critical medical care if overwhelmed hospitals ration it, but to date, the government is keeping those recommendations secret. People with disabilities have a right to know what the government is going to be thinking of doing in this life and death area. We hope that triage never becomes necessary, but Ontario has to be prepared.

Will the Premier keep his promise to be transparent to people with disabilities, publicize the COVID-19 plans of critical triage protocol and do what is the proper thing: make these bioethics table recommendations public?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Eglinton–Lawrence to reply.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

The health and well-being of Ontarians is our government’s top priority. In response to COVID-19, we’ve taken action to build more capacity in our health care system and effectively managed surges and future waves of COVID-19. That’s why we invested an additional $2.5 billion, or an increase of 13% from last year, to support our hospitals throughout the pandemic and build capacity, including 3,100 new beds across health facilities.

It’s critical that I remind the member opposite that at the request of health systems stakeholders, Ontario Health and the bioethics table of the provincial command structure drafted a clinical triage protocol for a major surge in the COVID pandemic for a potential worst-case scenario due to the spread of COVID-19. To be clear, this was a draft developed for engagement and consultation and should not be used. We’ve also asked our bioethics table to ensure that concerns and perspectives of Indigenous people, Black and racialized communities, persons with disabilities and others who may be disproportionately affected by critical care triage due to systemic discrimination are meaningfully considered and—

Toronto Star December 3, 2020

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/12/03/disability-rights-groups-decry-ford-government-secrecy-about-covid-19-triage-guidelines.html

Group decries virus triage secrecy

Letter seeks transparency on province’s priority protocols for hospitals

Brendan Kennedy Toronto Star

A coalition of disability rights groups is calling on Doug Ford’s government to make public the directions they plan to give hospitals about how to decide who should be prioritized for life-saving treatment if intensive care units become overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients.

The call comes after the government’s initial COVID-19 triage protocol – which leaked in March but was never officially released – was rescinded after it was criticized for discriminating against people with disabilities. “We write about a life-and-death issue now facing Ontarians,” reads the open letter, signed by more than 60 organizations and sent Thursday to Ford, Health Minister Christine Elliott and Raymond Cho, the minister responsible for seniors and accessibility.

The letter calls on the province to immediately release the latest recommendations from its Bioethics Table – the government-appointed group of physicians and bioethicists advising the ministry on a number of COVID-related issues – and ensure that any new triage guidelines “respect the constitutional and human rights of all patients, including patients with disabilities.”

The purpose of a triage protocol, which would be invoked only if critical care resources needed to be rationed, is to minimize overall mortality by prioritizing patients with the best chance of survival.

Among the concerns raised by disability advocates about the government’s initial protocol was its inclusion of the Clinical Frailty Scale, a nine-point grading tool they said was inherently discriminatory against people with disabilities and could lead to their exclusion from life-saving treatment.

In their letter, the organizations commend the government for rescinding the initial protocol, but the fact that nothing has taken its place also poses a danger. “If critical care triage becomes necessary, decisions over who gets refused life-saving critical care would be wrongly left to individual hospitals and doctors without safeguards against the serious danger of arbitrary and discriminatory decisions made because of disability,” the letter reads.

Roberto Lattanzio, executive director of the ARCH Disability Law Centre, said the province needs to ensure any new policy protects the rights of people with disabilities. “The pandemic doesn’t give governments a pass on ensuring that human rights and constitutional rights are respected,” he said. “We’ve been advocating for a framework free of discrimination for eight months now, and now we find ourselves in a very similar situation as we did from the outset.”

While the number of active COVID-19 cases in Ontario is nearly three times as high as during the peak of the first wave, hospitalizations and admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) are lower now than they were then. On Wednesday, the province reported that 656 people were hospitalized with COVID-19, including 183 people in ICUs. On May 1, by comparison, there were more than 1,000 patients in hospital, including 225 in ICUs.

The province significantly expanded its critical care capacity in April, increasing the number of ICU beds by nearly 1,500 to a total of 3,504. Roughly half of the province’s ICU beds were occupied as of Dec. 1, according to Critical Care Services Ontario’s daily report.

Last month, in response to a question in the legislature from the NDP, Progressive Conservative MPP Robin Martin confirmed the government had rescinded its initial protocol, which she said was only a draft, and that a “revised framework may be shared… should pandemic conditions deteriorate significantly.” But, Martin said: “We don’t anticipate getting anywhere near having to use such a protocol.”

David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, said cases have steadily increased since Martin’s assurances, and the lack of action by the government is inexcusable. “They can’t wait until the day where they need triage and then say, ‘By the way, here are the rules.'”

The Health Ministry sent a statement saying it asked the Bioethics Table to “ensure that concerns and perspectives of those representing Indigenous people, Black and racialized communities, persons with disabilities, and others who may be disproportionately affected by critical care triage due to systemic discrimination, are meaningfully considered and reflected in a revised protocol.” A spokesperson did not respond when asked whether the government would make the revised protocol public.

Text of an Exchange During Premier Doug Ford’s December 3 2020 NEWS CONFERENCE

Note: This entire news conference is posted on Youtube at https://youtu.be/UTp3yZTSBXA

Your final question comes from Miranda Anthistle with Global News. Please go ahead.

Miranda Anthistle: Hi there, thank you for my question.

Doug Ford: Hi. How are you?

Miranda Anthistle: Ok, so the first one is, the Ontarians With Disabilities Act Alliance has written an open letter to your government about transparency on how decisions will be made when it comes to prioritizing life-saving treatments and who will get them if hospitals become overwhelmed. So will this information be released and how does the government plan on prioritizing life-saving treatments?

Doug Ford: Pass that to the Minister:

Christine Elliott: Well this is a very important issue and one that health care professionals asked us to deal with very early on in the pandemic because they were concerned about Ontario becoming overwhelmed in the same way that Italy was, for example. So a draft protocol was developed that had been sent to hospitals, but this is really only meant for internal purposes

but I know that a number…and is not being acted upon. It was met with a lot of concern by a number of disabilities groups and seniors groups and so we reached out to the table at the Health Command Table reached out to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to obtain their assistance in redrafting a protocol and I understand there is still discussions ongoing with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in order to make sure that we reach a level place where everyone is dealt with fairly in terms of dealing with the triage protocol whether it’s for people with disabilities, for seniors, racialized communities, indigenous communities making sure that it’s there and level for all people.

So those discussions are ongoing. I’m not sure exactly how long they will be continuing but that will come forward at the appropriate time.

On the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, 64 Organizations Call for Immediate Action to ensure all Patients including those with Disabilities will Not be Discriminated Against if COVID Surge Requires Rationing of Critical Medical Care

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

ARCH Disability Law Centre

 

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

On the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, 64 Organizations Call for Immediate Action to ensure all Patients including those with Disabilities will Not be Discriminated Against if COVID Surge Requires Rationing of Critical Medical Care

December 3, 2020 Toronto: Today, to mark the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, 64 organizations and groups sent Premier Doug Ford a powerful open letter (below) pressing him to ensure that patients with disabilities face no discrimination in access to life-saving critical medical care if the skyrocketing COVID surge requires rationing or “triage” of critical care. They urge an end to protracted Government secrecy over its triage plans. They ask Ford to release the recommended triage rules that Ford’s Bioethics Table gave the Government in September.

Signatories represent people with vision loss, the Deaf, HIV & AIDS, persons labelled with intellectual disabilities, autism, mental health and psychosocial disabilities, communication disabilities, neuromuscular disabilities, neurological disabilities, and mobility disabilities, as well as respected cross-disability organizations.

“From the outset, this process has been plagued by secrecy and that lack of transparency continues to dominate. Last March, the Government sent Ontario hospitals a discriminatory critical care triage protocol which was never made public,” said Robert Lattanzio, Executive Director of the ARCH Disability Law Centre, a disability rights legal clinic. “If applied, the discriminatory nature of that protocol would have disproportionately impacted persons with disabilities and persons from other equity seeking groups. Following public outcry and over six months of advocacy, the Government finally cancelled that secret triage protocol but more must be done.”

“It’s a good partial step that Ford cancelled his earlier discriminatory March critical care triage protocol, but he’s created a dangerous vacuum if the COVID surge necessitates critical care triage. Doctors could choose whom to deny life-saving critical care based on stereotypes or unconscious bias about disabilities,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the non-partisan AODA Alliance that advocates for accessibility for 2.6 million Ontarians with disabilities. “It’s wrong for the Ford Government to promise openness in its response to COVID, but to keep secret its Bioethics Table’s new recommendations on how to fill this vacuum, especially when the Ontario Human Rights Commission said those recommendations raise human rights concerns.”

When the NDP pressed the Ford Government on November 5 to make public its secret Bioethics Table’s triage recommendations, the Government said it “may” send a new triage framework to health professionals if “conditions deteriorate significantly”. It never committed to let the public see that new triage framework. Since November 5, COVID-19 conditions have deteriorated significantly. New daily infections break records day after day. Government models project horrifying increases. A growing number of communities have been locked down.

  • 30 –

Contact:

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky

Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Robert Lattanzio, Executive Director

ARCH Disability Law Centre

Toll-free: 1-866-482-2724 extension 2233

Email: lattanr@lao.on.ca

For more background on this issue, check out:

  1. The November 5, 2020 exchange in Question Period on the critical care triage issue.
  2. The AODA Alliance’s unanswered September 25, 2020 letter, its November 2, 2020 letter and its November 9, 2020 letter to Health Minister Christine Elliott
  3. The August 30, 2020 AODA Alliance submission to the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table, and a captioned online video of the AODA Alliance’s August 31, 2020 oral presentation to the Bioethics Table on disability discrimination concerns in critical care triage.
  4. The September 1, 2020 submission and July 20, 2020 submission by the ARCH Disability Law Centre to the Bioethics Table.
  5. The November 5, 2020 captioned online speech by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on the disability rights concerns with Ontario’s critical care triage protocol
  1. The April 14, 2020 AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on Ensuring that Medical Triage or Rationing of Health Care Services During the COVID-19 Crisis Does Not Discriminate Against Patients with Disabilities.
  2. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, detailing its efforts to tear down barriers in the health care system facing patients with disabilities, and our COVID-19 page, detailing our efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.
  3. The ARCH Disability Law Centre website’s COVID-19 page offers more about ARCH’s work on the clinical triage protocol, including a September 15, 2020 published article, visitation ban policies, access to technology and other issues concerning the rights of persons with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

Text of the December 3, 2020 Open Letter to the Ontario Government

OPEN LETTER: Ontario’s COVID-19 Clinical Triage Protocol

December 3, 2020

To: Hon. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario

Legislative Building

Queen’s Park

Toronto, ON M7A 1A1

Via email: premier@ontario.ca

Hon. Christine Elliott, Deputy Premier and Minister of Health of Ontario

College Park 5th Floor,

777 Bay Street, Toronto, ON M7A 2J3

Via email: Christine.elliott@ontario.ca

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho, Minister of Seniors and Accessibility of Ontario

Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility

College Park, 5th Floor

777 Bay Street, Toronto, ON M5G 2C8

Via email: Raymond.cho@ontario.ca

Dear Hon. Premier Ford, Hon. Deputy Premier and Minister Elliott, and Hon. Minister Cho:

Re:     Ontario’s COVID-19 Clinical Triage Protocol

We write about a life-and-death issue now facing Ontarians over which the Ontario Government has key responsibility. COVID-19 continues to surge, repeatedly breaking prior records for daily new infections. Expert projections show that this surge will continue to get worse, reaching new record infection rates. Our hospitals are being strained to the limit. The risk grows that hospitals may get overwhelmed, with more demand for critical medical care than there are critical care beds, staff and services to meet that demand. If that happens, it would be necessary for there to be “triage” or rationing of critical care. Some patients, needing life-saving critical care, may be refused that care – a publicly-insured medical service covered by OHIP.

Last spring, the Ontario Government sent a March 28, 2020 critical care protocol to all Ontario hospitals, directing how hospitals should decide whom to refuse critical care they need, if triage becomes necessary. The Government did not make public its March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol, or the fact that it had been sent to Ontario hospitals.

When word of that protocol leaked, an April 8, 2020 open letter to the Ontario Government was sent by over 200 disability organizations and groups, and over 4,800 individuals. It expressed the serious concern that the Government’s March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol would discriminate against some patients with disabilities. It called for that protocol to be cancelled, and for the Government to consult people with disabilities on this issue.

In response to an opposition question during Question Period in the Legislature on November 5, 2020, the Government revealed that it had cancelled the March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol. We commend the Government for cancelling it.

However, to our knowledge, the Government has not put in place a replacement for the March 28, 2020 protocol. If critical care triage becomes necessary, decisions over who gets refused life-saving critical care would be wrongly left to individual hospitals and doctors, without safeguards against the serious danger of arbitrary and discriminatory decisions made because of disability.

Last winter, the Ontario Government appointed a “Bioethics Table”, including doctors and bioethicists, to give advice in this area. That Table wrote the March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol, now cancelled. Last summer, the Bioethics Table held meetings and consultations on this issue, including meetings with some disability advocates and experts.

In mid-September 2020, The Bioethics Table submitted a report to the Ontario Government Ministry of Health, to Ontario Health (part of the Government) and to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. That report made recommendations on how critical care triage should be conducted, to replace the March 28, 2020 triage protocol. The Government has refused to make that report public.

The Bioethics Table itself and the Ontario Human Rights Commission have called on the Government to make public the Bioethics Table’s report and recommendations. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has expressed that the human rights concerns persist with the Bioethics Table’s recommendations.

On November 5, 2020, the Government stated in the Legislature that it “may” provide a new critical care triage framework to health professionals if conditions deteriorate significantly. To continue waiting creates great risk that any new critical care triage framework that discriminates against patients with disabilities cannot be fixed if it becomes too late, and triage is already taking place. It took the disability community over six months to get the discriminatory March 28, 2020 triage protocol withdrawn. Moreover, the COVID-19 situation is now deteriorating significantly, with modelling projecting that it risks quickly getting much worse.

Accordingly, the organizations and groups that are signatories to this open letter call on the Ontario Government to:

  1. Immediately make public the report and recommendations of the Government-appointed Bioethics Table submitted to the Government in mid-September, which are now secret, on how to choose which patients should be refused critical care if the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelms hospitals, requiring triage or rationing of critical care beds and services.
  2. Now hold an open, accessible and inclusive public consultation on how such critical care triage decisions should be made, and what protections for patients must be in place.
  3. Develop and make public any new directives or protocols regarding critical care triage, and ensure that they are primarily guided by, and respect, the constitutional and human rights of all patients, including patients with disabilities, ensure due process to patients that are exposed to the risk of being denied life-saving critical care due to triage or rationing of that care, and that such directives and protocols are founded on a properly mandated legislative foundation.

We urge the Government to act immediately in response to this call for action.

Sincerely,

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance (AODA Alliance)

Accessible Housing Network

Advocacy Centre for the Elderly (ACE)

Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians/l’Alliance pour l’Égalité des Personnes Aveugles du Canada

ARCH Disability Law Centre

Barrier-Free Canada/Canada Sans Barrieres (BFC/CSB)

B.C. Aboriginal Network on Disability Society

Bellwoods Centres for Community Living Inc

Breaking Down Barriers Independent Living Resource Centre

Brockville and District Association for Community Involvement

Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorder Alliance

Canadian Down Syndrome Society

Centre for Independent Living in Toronto (CILT)

Chatham-Kent Legal Clinic

Citizens With Disabilities – Ontario (CWDO)

CNIB Foundation

Communication Disabilities Access Canada

Community Living Chatham-Kent

Community Living Ontario

Community Living Prince Edward

Council of Canadians With Disabilities

DeafBlind Ontario Services

DEEN Support Services

Durham Association for Family Resources and Support

Empowered Kids Ontario

Family Network Thames Valley

Family Support Network-York region

Good Things In Life

Guelph Independent Living

Guide Dog Users of Canada

Hamilton Community Legal Clinic/Clinique juridique communautaire de Hamilton

HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario

HIV Legal Network

Hydrocephalus Canada

Inclusion Canada

Independent Living Canada

Injured Workers Community Legal Clinic

Joyce Scott Non Profit Homes Inc.

Lupus Canada

March of Dimes Canada

MPN Ontario Patient Support Group

Muscular Dystrophy Canada

National Coalition of People who use Guide and Service Dogs

National Network for Mental Health

Network of Women with Disabilities NOW

Ontario Association of the Deaf

Ontario Disability Coalition

Ontario Federation for Cerebral Palsy

Ontario Parents of Visually Impaired Children OPVIC (Also known as Views for the Visually Impaired)

OPTIONS NORTHWEST

Organization of Canadian Tamils with Disabilities

Parents of Adults with Developmental Disabilities

Peterborough Community Legal Centre

PHSS – Medical and Complex Care in Community

PooranLaw Professional Corporation

RISE: Resource Centre for Independent Living

Shannon law office

Spinal Cord Injury Ontario

Sudbury Community Legal Clinic

Susan Morris Consulting Inc

Tangled Art + Disability

The Older Women’s Network

The Ontario Autism Coalition

Working for Change

Tell Us What Successes or Barriers Students with Disabilities Are Experiencing This Fall at School or During Distance Education

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Tell Us What Successes or Barriers Students with Disabilities Are Experiencing This Fall at School or During Distance Education

December 1, 2020

Please take a minute to send us your feedback! We want to hear from parents and guardians of students with disabilities in Ontario Schools, from students with disabilities themselves, and from anyone working or volunteering in our schools. How has it been going for students with disabilities this fall, either during distance learning or when attending at school? Please email us your answers, even if you only have a minute or two. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

Here are the questions that are especially important. Feel free to answer all or just some of them:

  1. Is your child attending school in person or taking part in distance learning? Why did you choose one over the other?
  1. If your child is taking part in distance learning, how is it going? Are they learning as much as when they are at school?
  1. If your child is taking part in distance education, are they encountering any disability barriers or disability-related problems? If so, how effective has the school board been at overcoming those barriers or problems?
  1. If your child is attending school in person, have they encountered any additional disability barriers or problems due to the COVID-19 pandemic and measures taken to address it? If so, how effective has the school board been at removing or fixing those barriers or problems?

We appreciate any time you can take to send us your feedback. Please respond, if at all possible, by the end of Monday, December 7, 2020.

We will read every response we get. It will help us formulate our ongoing advocacy efforts. We will not reveal any names or specific identifying information you share with us.

As a volunteer coalition, we won’t be able to give advice on specific cases. However, if you want some practical tips on how to advocate for a child with disabilities in the school system, check out the AODA Alliance’s new online video on this topic.

For more background on these issues, visit

  1. The AODA Alliance’s COVID-19 web page and our education accessibility web page.
  1. The July 24, 2020 report on meeting the needs of students with disabilities during school re-opening by the COVID-19 subcommittee of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.
  1. The AODA Alliance‘s July 23, 2020 report on the need to rein in the power of school principals to refuse to admit a student to school.
  1. The AODA Alliance’s June 18, 2020 brief to the Ford Government on how to meet the needs of students with disabilities during school re-opening.
  1. The widely viewed online video of the May 4, 2020 virtual Town Hall on meeting the needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis, co-organized by the Ontario Autism Coalition and the AODA Alliance.

It’s Time for the Ford Government to Agree to Create a Built Environment Accessibility Standard under Ontario’s Disabilities Act

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

It’s Time for the Ford Government to Agree to Create a Built Environment Accessibility Standard under Ontario’s Disabilities Act

November 30, 2020

            SUMMARY

Today is the first day of our non-partisan grassroots disability accessibility movement’s 27th year in action!!

We call on the Ford Government to immediately take effective action to tackle the many barriers that Ontarians with disabilities continue to face in the built environment. More specifically, we call on the Ford Government to announce that it will develop and enact a comprehensive, strong and effective Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The Government should now post an announcement recruiting people to serve on a Built Environment Standards Development Committee under the AODA. That Committee is needed to consult the public and to make recommendations on what the Built Environment Accessibility Standard should include.

That AODA Standards Development Committee should be free to make whatever recommendations it deems helpful to address any aspect of the built environment. Part of its mandate should be to conduct the long-overdue mandatory review of Ontario’s weak and limited “Design of Public Spaces AODA Accessibility Standard”. The AODA required that review to begin three years ago. A review of the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard is only a small part of what is now needed.

The Ontario Government typically and wrongly treats the Ontario Building Code and existing AODA accessibility standards as the only legally required benchmark that it must meet in new or significantly renovated buildings. Yet those legal requirements fall far short of what people with disabilities need. A building that is built in full compliance with the Ontario Building Code and with existing AODA accessibility standards need not be fully accessible, and likely will not be fully accessible to people with disabilities. It will not meet the higher accessibility requirements guaranteed to people with disabilities by the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Below we give more background on this issue. To learn even more about the AODA Alliance’s multi-year campaign to get a strong and effective Built Environment Accessibility Standard enacted in Ontario under the AODA, check out the AODA Alliance website’s built environment page.

There have now been 669 days, or 22 months, since the Ford Government received the ground-breaking final report of the Independent Review of the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by former Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Government has still announced no comprehensive plan of new action to implement that blistering report, including its strong recommendations regarding disability barriers in the built environment. That makes even worse the serious problems facing Ontarians with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis, addressed in the new online video we unveiled last week.

            MORE DETAILS

 1. A Province Still Full of Disability Barriers in the Built Environment

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by January 1, 2025. This includes ensuring the accessibility of “buildings”, as well as employment, goods, services and facilities in Ontario. The AODA requires the Ontario Government to enact all the regulations (called accessibility standards) that are needed to ensure that Ontario becomes accessible by 2025.

Only a little over four years is left for Ontario to achieve this legally mandatory goal. Ontario remains far behind schedule for reaching it. One of the areas where Ontario remains far behind is in making the built environment accessible to people with disabilities. Although this AODA Alliance Update focuses on barriers in the built environment, we emphasize that Ontario remains full of many other kinds of disability barriers as well that need to be removed, beyond those in the built environment.

No one could credibly deny that the built environment in Ontario remains replete with too many accessibility barriers. Under the AODA, the Ontario Government must appoint an Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation every three years or so. The two most recent AODA Independent Reviews each found that barriers in the built environment remain a serious problem. This includes the 2014 report of Mayo Moran’s second AODA Independent Review and David Onley’s 2019 third Independent Review of the AODA.

Both Independent Reviews called for new Government action under the AODA to address the many persisting disability barriers in the built environment. The Onley Report described Ontario as full of “soul-crushing barriers”, with progress on accessibility taking place at a “glacial” pace.

 2. Ontario Has No Comprehensive Accessibility Standard Ensuring that the Built Environment Becomes Accessible

Many are shocked to learn that even though it is now over 15 years since the AODA was passed, there is still no Built Environment Accessibility Standard enacted under the AODA to ensure that the built environment in Ontario becomes accessible by 2025.

Over 14 years ago, the Liberal Ontario Government under Premier Dalton McGuinty commendably committed to enact a Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the AODA. Back then, the Government appointed a Built Environment Standards Development Committee under the AODA to make recommendations on what the promised Built Environment Accessibility Standard should include. That Standards Development Committee submitted its final recommendations to the Government by 2010.

In the 2011 Ontario election, Premier McGuinty promised to enact the Built Environment Accessibility Standard “promptly.” However, to this day, Ontario still does not have an AODA Built Environment Accessibility Standard.

In December 2012, the previous McGuinty Government passed a very weak and limited “Design of Public Spaces” Accessibility Standard under the AODA. That regulation only addresses a very limited range of disability barriers in the built environment, mainly some that are outside buildings. As for the vital area of disability barriers inside buildings, that Accessibility Standard only addresses some in public service areas, such as counter heights. Further limiting its effectiveness, the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard only deals with preventing the creation of some new barriers. It does not require removal of any existing barriers anywhere in the built environment inside or outside buildings.

As for the many other disability barriers inside buildings, in December 2013, the McGuinty Government passed very limited changes to the weak accessibility provisions in the Ontario Building Code. Even after those changes, the Ontario Building Code still fails to effectively ensure that a building, even a new building, will be barrier-free for people with disabilities. It requires no retrofits of existing buildings that are not undergoing a major renovation, even if accessibility would be readily achievable.

As a result, even if a new building fully complies with the Ontario Building Code and the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard, it can and usually does end up having accessibility barriers designed into it. The AODA Alliance has documented this cruel reality in three widely-viewed captioned online videos. Serious accessibility problems are revealed in the AODA Alliance‘s 2018 vid HYPERLINK “https://youtu.be/za1UptZq82o”eo about new and recently-renovated Toronto area transit stations, its 2017 video about the new Ryerson University Student Learning Centre and its 2016 video about Centennial College’s new Culinary Arts Centre. Each of those videos secured great media coverage.

Yet such barriers in the built environment can expose providers of goods, services, facilities or employment to human rights complaints, alleging disability discrimination. Those organizations that must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are also exposed to the possibility of claims that such barriers violate the guarantee of equality without discrimination because of disability in section 15 of the Charter of Rights.

 3. The Ontario Government is in Breach of Its AODA Obligations

Within five years after an AODA accessibility standard is enacted, section 9(9) of the AODA requires the Government to appoint a new Standards Development Committee to review that standard. This review is done to see if that accessibility standard is strong enough to ensure accessibility is achieved by 2025.

As explained earlier, the Government enacted the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard in December 2012. The Government was therefore required to appoint a Standards Development Committee to review it by December 2017. Yet no Standards Development Committee has ever been appointed to conduct that mandatory review.

That mandatory deadline was reached and missed three years ago. The previous Liberal Government of Premier Kathleen Wynne is responsible for the first six months of that 3-year violation of the AODA. The Conservative Government is responsible for the other two and a half years of that AODA violation.

We have diligently and repeatedly alerted each successive Government and each accessibility minister well in advance of this obligation. They should not need a volunteer community coalition like the AODA Alliance to tell them of such basic obligations under the AODA. This is especially so since each successive Ontario Government has claimed to be leading the rest of Ontario by its example on accessibility. Such an overt breach of the law is hardly the example by which Ontarians should be led.

 4. Meanwhile, The Ford Government Uses Public Money to Create New Disability Barriers

It is bad enough that the Government leaves existing disability barriers in place. It makes this problem worse when the Government allows public money to be used to build new buildings and infrastructure without ensuring that these will be barrier-free for people with disabilities. It will cost much more to later remove those barriers. To use public money to create new disability barriers is a serious misuse of public money.

The Ford Government has not committed to never use public money to create new disability barriers. For example, last summer, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ford Government announced that it is spending half a billion dollars to build new schools and do major renovations to existing schools. The Government has no measures in place to ensure that those publicly-funded building projects will be barrier-free.

As well, the Government is in the process of building a new major court building in downtown Toronto. The AODA Alliance has raised serious accessibility concerns about that building’s design. The Government has also announced plans to move ahead with a range of other public infrastructure projects, with no assurance that those projects will be fully accessible. The Ontario Government has a disturbing track-record in this context.

 5. Promises Made – Promises Not Kept

The Government’s failure to effectively address this issue flies in the face of Premier Doug Ford’s written commitments to the AODA Alliance during the 2018 Ontario general election. In his May 15, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance setting out his party’s election pledges on disability accessibility, Doug Ford wrote, among other things:

“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…

…This is why we’re disappointed the current government has not kept its promise with respect to accessibility standards. An Ontario PC government is committed to working with the AODA Alliance to address implementation and enforcement issues when it comes to these standards.

Ontario needs a clear strategy to address AODA standards and the Ontario Building Code’s accessibility provisions. We need Ontario’s design professionals, such as architects, to receive substantially improved professional training on disability and accessibility.”

We have written Premier Ford more than once to raise serious concerns about his Government’s failure to act effectively on accessibility issues such as this. He has never agreed to meet with us or to speak on the phone. He deflects all our issues and requests to the Government’s Accessibility Minister Raymond Cho. Minister Cho has never agreed to create a Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the AODA.

 6. Ford Government’s Only New Initiative on Accessibility of the Built Environment is a Wasteful Failure

Since taking office in June 2018, the only new initiative to which the Ford Government repeatedly points for disability barriers in the built environment was its controversial spring 2019 announcement that it is diverting 1.3 million dollars over two years to the Rick Hansen Foundation (RHF) to have its so called “private accessibility certification program” to look at some buildings in Ontario to decide if it would “certify” them as accessible. The AODA Alliance was never consulted on that decision.

We have strongly opposed this as a very poor use of public money. It will not help the accessibility cause.

The AODA Alliance has made public numerous concerns with the RHF “certification” process. Neither the Ford Government nor the RHF have publicly disputed the accuracy of our concerns.

For example, an RHF “certification” does not in fact certify anything. If the RHF gives a building a rating of “accessible”, it does not mean that that building is in fact accessible.

Those whom the RHF authorizes to conduct these inspections need not have the required expertise to assess a building’s accessibility. The RHF only requires an assessor to take an 8-day course. That course is far too short. Its training contents are quite deficient and problematic.

One and a half years after this Ford Government strategy was launched, there is no evidence that a single building has been thereby made accessible, or that a single barrier in the built environment was rectified. All that the Government may have accomplished is to give an inappropriate public subsidy to the RHF in its effort to break into the Ontario market, in competition with local Ontario-based accessibility consultants having far more expertise in this field.

For example, earlier this year, one could hear RHF advertisements on Toronto radio stations, promoting the RHF “certification” program. We asked the Ontario Government if these advertisements were directly or indirectly subsidized by the Ontario Government. The Government did not answer this inquiry.

It is not clear to us that the Government and RHF have found enough organizations to take up the offer of a Government-subsidized RHF appraisal. That would make sense, since the RHF assessment of their building’s accessibility is not reliable.

It would have been much more appropriate for the Government to have invested those public funds into the development and enactment of a Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the AODA, and on effectively enforcing the inadequate accessibility requirements that are already on the books.

 7. What Have the Opposition Parties Said On Point?

The Ontario NDP committed as follows on November 9, 2020 as part of its housing plan:

“We’ll mandate Universal Design building codes, which are standards that reflect the needs of people of all ages, sizes, abilities and disabilities.”

The Ontario Liberal Party has not announced a platform on this issue since the 2018 election. In her May 14, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance setting out the Liberal Party’s disability accessibility commitments in the 2018 election, Kathleen Wynne committed to the following:

  1. “exploring and determining next steps for preventing and removing accessibility barriers in the built environment”
  1. “New and Existing Accessibility Standards

The creation of new standards is a critical element of the Ontario Liberal commitment to an accessible Ontario by 2025. We intend to continue the reviews already underway and continue the work of developing standards in the areas of health care and education. We would welcome advice from these committees on built environment issues and look forward to making the process more open and transparent to ensure all voices are heard without compromising necessary privacy and accountability measures.

Beyond ongoing work, we know that there are barriers in the province that need to be addressed through standards. Earlier this year, former Minister Tracy Machala publicly stated that the standards governing the built environment need to be strengthened to achieve our goal. That’s why she convened a summit on the subject attended by many impacted stakeholders, including the AODA Alliance. We will use the feedback gleaned from this summit and further consultation with stakeholders to determine the best path forward as we track toward the mandated review of the standard. Given the complexity of housing construction, building modification, and renovation, we will also work with builders, developers, architects, and other experts before committing to a path forward on residential housing and retrofits.

Getting to an accessible Ontario requires that we also ensure that the professionals most connected to design and construction know about accessibility. To this end, we will work with regulatory bodies, colleges, universities, and professional organizations to ensure that accessibility is included throughout the process.

Standards for AFPs differ project to project, but all Project Companies are required to comply with all legislation on AFP projects, including the AODA and accessibility requirements in the Ontario Building Code. This is the de facto minimum standard. Issues related to accessibility in AFP projects are therefore related to the content of the standards. On built environment issues specifically, that’s why we have committed to working with stakeholders toward the next review of the standard.”

“Accessibility in Education”

In its May 4, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance setting out its election pledges on disability accessibility in the 2018 election, the Green Party of Ontario committed:

“e) Take Overdue Steps to Ensure the Accessibility of the Built Environment, Including Residential Housing

We support accessibility as an essential component of any new building project or retrofit. Training in accessible design should be a requirement across all licensing and educational institutions in Ontario, and all new building projects should meet standard accessibility requirements before approval. A strategy must be developed both to increase the supply of accessible housing within Ontario and to undertake the retrofitting of existing buildings in order for them to meet accessibility standards.”

New captioned Video is Unveiled Today on Hardships People with Disabilities Face During the COVID-19 Pandemic, To Mark This Sunday, the 26th Anniversary of the Birth of Ontario’s Grassroots Movement for Disability Accessibility

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

New captioned Video is Unveiled Today on Hardships People with Disabilities Face During the COVID-19 Pandemic, To Mark This Sunday, the 26th Anniversary of the Birth of Ontario’s Grassroots Movement for Disability Accessibility

November 27, 2020

            SUMMARY

Happy birthday to us! This Sunday, November 29, 2020, is the 26th anniversary of the birth of Ontario’s unstoppable grassroots non-partisan movement that successfully campaigned for a decade from 1994 to 2005 to get the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act passed, and that has tenaciously campaigned since then to get the AODA effectively implemented. To mark this anniversary, we today unveil another captioned video. It is the newest addition to our large and growing collection of captioned online videos on the important subject of accessibility for people with disabilities.

This newest captioned video is entitled: “Advocating to Address the Added Hardships that COVID-19 Imposes on People with Disabilities.” For the past 8 months, the AODA Alliance has focused our advocacy efforts on the many barriers that people with disabilities are facing during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in the areas of education for students with disabilities and health care for patients with disabilities. In this one-hour talk by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, you can learn all about the barriers we’ve faced, the corrective actions we’ve sought, the results we’ve achieved, and the lessons to be learned from the experience of people with disabilities during this pandemic.

This new video is available online at: https://youtu.be/yB5i7cCiw68

You can read all about the issues addressed in this newest video by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s COVID-19 page.

While we’re at it, why don’t we also remind you of the three other important new captioned videos that the AODA Alliance made public over the past few weeks:

  1. Tips for Parents of Students with Disabilities on How to Advocate for Your Child’s Needs in the School system, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtadvCvcGC0
  1. The Threat to Disability Rights If Critical Medical Care Must Be Rationed or Triaged During the COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://youtu.be/MxpHXUYNP4A
  1. The AODA Alliance’s August 31, 2020 Presentation to the Ford Government’s “Bioethics Table” on the Need to Protect Disability Rights If Critical Medical Care Must be Triaged or Rationed, available at https://youtu.be/MAigGhN5zB4
  1. AODA 101 – An Introduction to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, available at https://youtu.be/zrPLb3N1DBQ

We have already gotten great feedback on these videos so far. We’d welcome your feedback too! Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

Please share these videos with others and encourage them to watch them. Please post links to our videos on your social media.

If you are a school teacher or a professor in a college or university, please feel free to use all or part of any of our videos in your courses. They can be helpful in courses or programs on a diverse spectrum of topics, such as law, education, health, medicine, public policy, political science, human rights, disability studies, civics, bioethics, and history.

We also invite you to learn more about the historic events of November 29, 1994 that led to the birth of the grassroots AODA movement that is as tenacious and relentless as ever 26 years later. Read a description of those historic events, set out below.!

We still have so much more to do! There have now been 666 days, or almost 22 months, since the Ford Government received the ground-breaking final report of the Independent Review of the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by former Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Government has announced no comprehensive plan of new action to implement that report. That makes even worse the serious problems facing Ontarians with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis, addressed in the new video we unveil today.

            MORE DETAILS

EXCERPT FROM “THE LONG ARDUOUS ROAD TO A BARRIER-FREE ONTARIO FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES: THE HISTORY OF THE ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT – THE FIRST CHAPTER” BY DAVID LEPOFSKY, PUBLISHED IN THE NATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, VOLUME 15.

  1. a) The Birth of the Organized ODA Movement

The realization within Ontario’s disability community that a new law was needed to tear down the barriers facing persons with disabilities did not take place all at once as the result of a single catastrophic event. Rather, it resulted slowly from a simmering, gradual process. That process led to the birth of Ontario’s organized ODA movement.

How then did the organized ODA movement get started? Most would naturally think that it is the birth of a civil rights movement that later spawns the introduction into a legislature of a new piece of civil rights legislation. Ironically in the case of the organized ODA movement, the opposite was the case. The same ironic twist had occurred 15 years before when the Ontario Coalition for Human Rights for the Handicapped formed in reaction to the Government’s introduction of a stand-alone piece of disability rights legislation.

In the early 1990s, after the enactment in the U.S. of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, sporadic voices in Ontario began discussing the idea of seeking the enactment of something called an “Ontarians with Disabilities Act.” There was little if any focused attention on what this new law would contain. It was understood from the outset that an ODA would not be a carbon copy of the ADA. For example, some parts of the ADA were already incorporated in the Ontario Human Rights Code. There was no need to replicate them again.

In the 1990 Ontario provincial election campaign (which happened to take place just days after the U.S. had enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act) NDP leader Bob Rae responded to a disability rights legal clinic’s all-party election platform questionnaire in August 1990 with a letter which, among other things, supported appropriate legislation along the lines of an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Rae’s letter didn’t spell out what this law would include. This letter did not get serious airplay in that election campaign. It was not well-known when the NDP came from behind in the polls to win that provincial election. Because the NDP had not been expected to win, it was widely seen as campaigning on a range of election commitments that it never anticipated having the opportunity to implement.

Despite sporadic discussions among some in the early 1990s, there was no grassroots groundswell in Ontario supporting an ODA. There was also no major grassroots political force building to push for one. This was quite similar to the fact that there was no organized grassroots disability rights movement pushing for the inclusion of disability equality in the Ontario Human Rights Code in 1979, before the Ontario Government proposed its new disability discrimination legislation in that year. In the early 1990s, Ontario disability organizations involved in disability advocacy were primarily focused on other things, such as the NDP Ontario Government’s proposed Employment Equity Act, expected to be the first provincial legislation of its kind in Canada. That legislation, aimed at increasing the employment of persons with disabilities as well as women, racial minorities and Aboriginal persons, was on the agenda of the provincial New Democratic Party that was then in power in Ontario.

What ultimately led to the birth of a province-wide, organized grassroots ODA movement in Ontario was the decision of an NDP back-bench member of the Ontario Legislature, Gary Malkowski, to introduce into the Legislature a private member’s ODA bill in the Spring of 1994, over three years into the NDP Government’s term in office. By that time, the NDP Government had not brought forward a Government ODA bill. Malkowski decided to bring forward Bill 168, the first proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act, to focus public and political interest in this new issue. Malkowski was well-known as Ontario’s, and indeed North America’s, first elected parliamentarian who was deaf. Ontario’s New Democratic Party Government, then entering the final year of its term in office, allowed Malkowski’s bill to proceed to a Second Reading vote in the Ontario Legislature in June, 1994, and then to public hearings before a committee of the Ontario Legislature in November and December 1994.

In 1994, word got around various quarters in Ontario’s disability community that Malkowski had introduced this bill. Interest in it started to percolate. Malkowski met with groups in the disability community, urging them to come together to support his bill. He called for the disability community to unite in a new coalition to support an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. A significant number of persons with disabilities turned up at the Ontario Legislature when this bill came forward for Second Reading debate in the Spring of 1994.

Over the spring, summer and fall months of 1994, around the same time as Malkowski was coming forward with his ODA bill, some of the beginnings of the organized ODA movement were also simmering within an organization of Ontario Government employees with disabilities. Under the governing NDP, the Ontario Government had set up an “Advisory Group” of provincial public servants with disabilities to advise it on measures to achieve equality for persons with disabilities in the Ontario Public Service. In the Spring of 1994, this Advisory Group set as one of its priorities working within the machinery of the Ontario Government to promote the idea of an ODA.

This public service Advisory Group met with several provincial Cabinet Ministers and later with Ontario’s Premier, Bob Rae, to discuss the idea of an ODA. It successfully pressed the Government to hold public hearings on Malkowski’s ODA bill.

As 1994 progressed, Malkowski’s bill served its important purpose. It sparked the attention and interest of several players in Ontario’s disability community in the idea of an ODA. No one was then too preoccupied with the details of the contents of Malkowski’s ODA bill.

Malkowski’s bill had an even more decisive effect on November 29, 1994, when it first came before the Legislature’s Standing Committee for debate and public hearings. On that date, NDP Citizenship Minister Elaine Ziemba was asked to make a presentation to the Committee on the Government’s views on Malkowski’s bill. She was called upon to do this before community groups would be called on to start making presentations to the legislative committee. The hearing room was packed with persons with disabilities, eager to hear what the Minister would have to say.

Much to the audience’s dismay, the Minister’s lengthy speech said little if anything about the bill. She focused instead on the Government’s record on other disability issues. The temperature in the room elevated as the audience’s frustration mounted.

When the committee session ended for the day, word quickly spread among the audience that all were invited to go to another room in Ontario’s legislative building. An informal, impromptu gathering came together to talk about taking action in support of Malkowski’s bill. Malkowski passionately urged those present to come together and to get active on this cause.

I was one of the 20 or so people who made their way into that room. In an informal meeting that lasted about an hour, it was unanimously decided to form a new coalition to fight for a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. There was no debate over the content of such legislation at that meeting. However, there was a strong and united realization that new legislation was desperately needed, and that a new coalition needed to be formed to fight for it. This coalition did not spawn the first ODA bill. Rather, the first ODA bill had spawned this coalition.

Days later, in December 1994, the Legislature’s Standing Committee held two full days of hearings into Malkowski’s bill. A significant number of organizations, including disability community organizations, appeared before the Legislature’s Standing Committee to submit briefs and make presentations on the need for new legislation in this area. Among the groups that made presentations was the Ontario Public Service Disability Advisory Group which had pressed for these hearings to be held. Its brief later served as a core basis for briefs and positions that would be presented by the brand-new Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee.

Two New Captioned Online Videos Show Ongoing Risk of Disability Discrimination in Hospitals if the Skyrocketing COVID-19 Surge and Feared Overload of Hospitals Forces Rationing or “Triage” of Critical Care Beds, and Ford Government’s Protracted Secrecy on Its Plans if Triage is Needed

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Two New Captioned Online Videos Show Ongoing Risk of Disability Discrimination in Hospitals if the Skyrocketing COVID-19 Surge and Feared Overload of Hospitals Forces Rationing or “Triage” of Critical Care Beds, and Ford Government’s Protracted Secrecy on Its Plans if Triage is Needed

November 19, 2020 Toronto: The AODA Alliance today unveils two important new captioned online videos addressing a life-and-death issue that is ripe for media reporting as the COVID-19 pandemic surges. Canada’s media is now rightly giving extensive and top coverage to skyrocketing daily COVID-19 infections and the palpable fear that hospitals can’t handle much more. A closely-related equally vital story cries out for such coverage: What is the Ford Government’s plan now for how to decide which patients will be refused life-saving critical medical care they need if COVID-19 cases overload hospitals, requiring rationing or “triage” of limited critical care beds and services?

Last spring, the Ford Government quietly sent hospitals a controversial March 28, 2020 protocol directing who should be refused life-saving critical care if rationing becomes necessary. The Government did not make this public or consult the public on it. After that March 28 protocol was leaked, disability community organizations strongly objected to it as mandating discrimination against some patients because of their disabilities.

We invite the media to include in its COVID-19 coverage the fact that the Ford Government was successfully pressured by disability advocates to finally rescind that widely-condemned March 28 critical care triage protocol three weeks ago, and that the Government now has nothing in place to fill the vacuum. This risks some doctors making triage decisions based on dangerous, unfair stereotypical assumptions about people with disabilities.

Over two months ago, the Ford Government-appointed “Bioethics Table” gave the Government recommendations on what rules should govern critical care triage if it becomes necessary. The Ford Government may use these to fill the vacuum. We urge the media to report on the worrisome fact that the Ontario Human Rights Commission revealed that it has human rights concerns about the Bioethics Table’s recommendations to the Ford Government. Those recommendations are still secret. It is also highly newsworthy that that the Government has been urged to make the Bioethics Table’s recommendations public by the Bioethics Table itself.

In its COVID-19 coverage, we encourage the media to report on the disturbing fact that the Ford Government is only willing to consider sharing with health professionals a replacement triage protocol to fill the risky vacuum if the COVID-19 situation “deteriorates significantly.” The AODA Alliance contends that the Government’s skyrocketing projections for new COVID-19 infections is just such a significant deterioration.

We also encourage the media to let the public know the fact that the Ford Government has only said that if such a deterioration occurs, it “may” send a new triage protocol to health professionals. The Ford Government has not agreed to consult people with disabilities or the broader public before approving such a new protocol.

“It took disability advocates eight exhausting months of grassroots advocacy in the midst of this pandemic and an opposition question in the Legislature’s Question Period to flush out the fact that the Ford Government had finally and only recently withdrawn its widely-condemned March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, a non-partisan disability coalition that is part of a united disability community effort to protect patients with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. “With this terrifying, relentless and unchecked second wave of COVID-19 now underway, we can’t afford another eight months of advocacy to deal with whatever secret plans the Ford Government is considering to fill the dangerous vacuum it has now created in this life-and-death area.”

Together, these two new captioned online videos reveal the story, up-to-the minute:

  1. Disability Rights and Critical Medical Care Triage During COVID-19 Pandemic

https://youtu.be/MxpHXUYNP4A

Osgoode Hall Law School Visiting Professor and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s November 4, 2020 lecture on disability rights objections to the critical medical care triage protocol that the Ontario Government sent to hospitals in case the COVID-19 pandemic overloads hospitals, requiring rationing of critical care.

  1. AODA Alliance Presentation: Ontario Bioethics Table on Disability Rights & COVID-19 Triage Protocols

https://youtu.be/MAigGhN5zB4

Osgoode Hall Law School Visiting Professor and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s August 31, 2020 presentation to the Ontario Government-appointed Bioethics Table, addressing disability rights and human rights problems with the Ontario Government’s protocol for triage of critical care patients if the COVID-19pandemic overloads hospitals with more cases than critical care beds, with an introduction explaining this presentation’s background and context.

This video shows what the AODA Alliance told the Bioethics Table. The Ford Government’s continued secrecy in this area prevents the public from knowing whether and to what extent the Bioethics Table acted upon the input given in this video.

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

For more background on this issue, check out:

  1. The AODA Alliance’s unanswered September 25, 2020 letter and its November 2, 2020 letter to Health Minister Christine Elliott
  1. The August 30, 2020 AODA Alliance final written submission to the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table that is the basis of the presentation included in the second video, announced above
  1. The April 8, 2020 open letter to the Ford Government on the medical triage protocol spearheaded by the ARCH Disability Law Centre, of which the AODA Alliance is one of many co-signatories
  1. The April 14, 2020 AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on Ensuring that Medical Triage or Rationing of Health Care Services During the COVID-19 Crisis Does Not Discriminate Against Patients with Disabilities
  1. The July 16, 2020 AODA Alliance Update that lists additional concerns with the revised draft triage protocol. That Update also sets out the Ford Government Bioethics Table’s revised draft triage protocol itself.
  1. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, detailing our efforts to tear down barriers in the health care system facing patients with disabilities, and our COVID-19 page, detailing our efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

Ontario Human Rights Commission Corroborates that the Ford Government withdrew the Government’s Widely-Condemned Critical Medical Care Triage Protocol – but as COVID-19 Infections Sky-Rocket, the Government Continues to Conceal Its Plans for Critical Care Triage

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Ontario Human Rights Commission Corroborates that the Ford Government withdrew the Government’s Widely-Condemned Critical Medical Care Triage Protocol – but as COVID-19 Infections Sky-Rocket, the Government Continues to Conceal Its Plans for Critical Care Triage

November 13, 2020

         SUMMARY

In very encouraging news, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has corroborated that the Ford Government has in fact rescinded and withdrawn the Government’s widely-condemned March 28 2020 critical care triage protocol. That seriously-flawed document directed Ontario hospitals how to choose which patients, who need critical medical care, should be refused that care, if the COVID-19 surge overloads hospitals with more patients than they can serve. That protocol was infected with serious discrimination against some patients with disabilities.

On Thursday, November 5, 2020, the Ford Government said in the Legislature that it had withdrawn its March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol. It only publicly acknowledged this during Question Period, in response to the opposition NDP pressing the Government on this issue. We then had no corroboration whether the Government had in fact told Ontario hospitals that this protocol was rescinded and should not be followed. On November 9, 2020, the AODA Alliance wrote Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott, seeking corroboration of this. on that date, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky also filed a Freedom of Information application, seeking documentation to confirm that the March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol was withdrawn. The Government has not answered or even acknowledged either that letter or that Freedom of Information application.

Since then, the Ontario Human Rights Commission notified the AODA Alliance that on November 6, 2020, it wrote Health Minister Christine Elliott a new letter, set out below. In it, the Commission confirms that the Government wrote hospitals on October 29, 2020, notifying them of the withdrawal of the March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol. The Human Rights Commission wrote:

“We were very pleased to learn that on October 29, Ontario Health sent a communication to Critical Care Leads, Hospital CEOs and Ontario Health Regional Leads stating that the March 28 critical care triage protocol and later draft versions are rescinded and should not be used. The OHRC and human rights stakeholders, including ARCH Disability Law, the AODA Alliance and the Canadian Association for Retired Persons had raised serious concerns that these earlier versions had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and violated human rights.”

We are pleased and relieved to learn this information. This is yet more proof that concerted grassroots efforts by the disability community can yield important results. We acknowledge with deep gratitude all those who teamed up on this life-and-death issue. The ARCH Disability Law Centre played an important role, partnering with the AODA Alliance and several other disability organizations and dis ability rights experts in a joint effort over the summer and fall that is a model of effective collaboration.

This is only a partial victory, though a very important one. As the November 9, 2020 AODA Alliance Update makes clear, the Ford Government has now created a deeply-troubling vacuum. There are no provincial directions on how critical care triage is to be conducted if the COVID-19 surge continues, and overloads Ontario’s hospitals.

That the Ford Government is inexcusably persisting in excessive secrecy in this area is revealed by information in the Human Rights Commission’s letter. As noted above, that letter reveals that on October 29, 2020, the Ford Government wrote key players in the health care system to rescind the March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol. Yet, the Government did not make that fact public then, or for another week. as also noted above, the Government only made this public on November 5, 2020 because the NDP pressed it on this issue in Question Period. We and others have been asking about this for months. Why did the Government not lift the veil of secrecy without need to resort to an opposition question about this in the Legislature during Question Period? This is hardly consistent with premier Ford’s written commitment to Ontarians with disabilities in his May 15, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance during the 2018 Ontario election, that:

“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.”

We commend the Ontario Human Rights Commission for urging the Government to now make public the recommendations for filling this vacuum that the Government received two months ago from the Government-appointed Bioethics Table. We share the Commission’s concern that the Government should openly address this issue now, and not wait until the COVID-19 situation gets significantly worse. With the recent sky-rocketing increases to the daily COVID-19 infections in Ontario, and yesterday’s prediction that these increases could quadruple in the next month or so, the Ford Government cannot simply hope and wish this issue away.

Put simply, conditions are significantly deteriorating right now, according to the Government’s modelling, made public yesterday. We need to have our say now, and we need to know now what the Government is thinking of doing in this life-and-death area.

We always welcome your feedback. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

For more background on this issue, check out:

  1. The AODA Alliance’s November 9, 2020 news release on this issue, including its unanswered November 9, 2020 letter to Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott and the exchange in the Legislature on November 5, 2020 where the Ford Government first publicly admitted that it had rescinded the flawed March 28, 2020 clinical care triage protocol.
  1. The AODA Alliance’s unanswered September 25, 2020 letter and its November 2, 2020 letter to Health Minister Christine Elliott
  1. The August 30, 2020 AODA Alliance final written submission to the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table
  1. The April 8, 2020 open letter to the Ford Government on the medical triage protocol spearheaded by the ARCH Disability Law Centre, of which the AODA Alliance is one of many co-signatories
  1. The April 14, 2020 AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on Ensuring that Medical Triage or Rationing of Health Care Services During the COVID-19 Crisis Does Not Discriminate Against Patients with Disabilities
  1. The July 16, 2020 AODA Alliance Update that lists additional concerns with the revised draft triage protocol. That Update also sets out the Ford Government Bioethics Table’s revised draft triage protocol itself.
  1. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, detailing our efforts to tear down barriers in the health care system facing patients with disabilities, and our COVID-19 page, detailing our efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

         MORE DETAILS

November 6, 2020 Letter from the Ontario Human Rights Commission to Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott

Originally posted at: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/letter-minister-health-follow-bioethics-table-recommendations-and-proposed-framework-covid-19-triage

Letter to Minister of Health to follow up on Bioethics Table recommendations and proposed framework for a COVID-19 triage protocol

November 6, 2020

The Honourable Christine Elliott
Minister of Health
College Park 5th Floor, 777 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M7A 2J3

Dear Minister Elliott:

 

RE: Bioethics Table recommendations and proposed framework for a COVID-19 triage protocol

I am writing to follow up on my letter to you dated October 16, 2020, about the COVID-19 Bioethics Table’s recommendations and proposed framework for a triage protocol to allocate limited critical care services in a potential major surge in COVID-19 cases.

We were very pleased to learn that on October 29, Ontario Health sent a communication to Critical Care Leads, Hospital CEOs and Ontario Health Regional Leads stating that the March 28 critical care triage protocol and later draft versions are rescinded and should not be used. The OHRC and human rights stakeholders, including ARCH Disability Law, the AODA Alliance and the Canadian Association for Retired Persons had raised serious concerns that these earlier versions had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and violated human rights.

However, we are very concerned that the October 29 communication indicates a revised framework might be distributed to health care professionals should pandemic conditions deteriorate significantly. That is too late. Human rights stakeholders have not yet seen the Bioethics Table’s latest proposed framework and recommendations submitted to your Ministry in September. In my letter on October 16, I supported the Bioethics Table’s recommendation to circulate the proposed framework and recommended next steps for public feedback, and again call on your Ministry to authorize their release.

It is vital that the government share the current draft of the protocol and meaningfully engage with the vulnerable groups that data now shows are disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including Indigenous communities, Black and other racialized communities, persons with disabilities, older persons and others. Their perspectives and participation throughout the process to develop and implement any critical care triage protocol is a matter of human rights.

The OHRC will continue to be available to support this important work and again I extend my invitation to meet with you and discuss next steps at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Ena Chadha, LL.B., LL.M.
Chief Commissioner

cc:        Helen Angus, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Health
Matthew Anderson, President and CEO of Ontario Health
Jennifer Gibson, Co-Chair, COVID-19 Bioethics Table
Hon. Doug Downey, Attorney General
David Corbett, Deputy Attorney General, Ministry of the Attorney General
OHRC Commissioners

Ford Government Says it Rescinded its Widely-Condemned March 28, 2020 Protocol Directing Which Patients Will be Refused Life-Saving Critical Medical Care if the COVID-19 Surge Exceeds Hospital Capacity – But Won’t Now Reveal How It Will Fill that Vacuum

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ford Government Says it Rescinded its Widely-Condemned March 28, 2020 Protocol Directing Which Patients Will be Refused Life-Saving Critical Medical Care if the COVID-19 Surge Exceeds Hospital Capacity – But Won’t Now Reveal How It Will Fill that Vacuum

November 9, 2020 Toronto: The Ford Government announced in the Legislature last week that it cancelled its widely-condemned March 28, 2020 protocol, directing which patients would be refused life-saving critical medical care if a COVID surge overloads hospitals, requiring critical care rationing. Advocates for 2.6 million Ontarians with disabilities blasted that protocol for months, as discriminating against some patients with disabilities.

”It’s great that when pressed in Question Period, the Ford Government finally announced it had rescinded its deeply flawed March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol, but we’ve seen no proof that they’ve told all Ontario hospitals this,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the non-partisan AODA Alliance that allied with other disability advocates to protect patients with disabilities against such discrimination. “We’ve written Health Minister Christine Elliott and filed a Freedom of Information application to find out what directions have actually been sent to the health care system front lines.”

Despite this positive news, the Ford Government’s November 5, 2020 statement in Question Period (set out below) leaves a troubling vacuum in hospitals, with no directions on how to make critical care triage decisions if rationing becomes necessary. The unstopped acceleration of new daily COVID infections brings Ontario much closer to a time requiring such terrifying triage.

The Ford Government is still keeping secret the recommendations it received two months ago from the Government-appointed Bioethics Table, on the rules that should replace the March 28, 2020 triage protocol that the Government says it rescinded. The Government has been pressed to reveal the Bioethics Table’s recommendations by the Opposition, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, disability organizations including the AODA Alliance and the Bioethics Table itself.

On November 5, the Government said in the Legislature it “may” reveal a new framework for deciding which patients would be refused life-saving critical care “should pandemic conditions deteriorate significantly in the province.”

“Ontarians have the right to know now what triage rules the Ford Government is considering imposing if it becomes necessary to ration critical medical care,’ said Lepofsky. “We need a fair chance to give our input before that framework is finalized and adopted, but it will be too late if our hospitals are already overloaded and having to make triage decisions before Ford lifts its unjustified veil of secrecy.”

On November 5, the Ford Government told the Legislature it didn’t think Ontario would ever have to ration critical medical care. However its own Bioethics Table had emphasized the importance of being prepared well in advance for such an eventuality.

“Premier Ford should keep his promises to protect the most vulnerable in this pandemic, and to be open and transparent about what his Government is doing. His obsession with secrecy surrounding the life-and-death issue of medical triage is simply inexcusable,” said Lepofsky

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

Below please find:

  1. The November 5, 2020 exchange in Question Period on the critical care triage issue.
  2. The AODA Alliance’s November 9, 2020 letter to Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott

For more background on this issue, check out:

  1. The AODA Alliance’s unanswered September 25, 2020 letter and its November 2, 2020 letter to Health Minister Christine Elliott
  1. The August 30, 2020 AODA Alliance final written submission to the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table
  1. The April 8, 2020 open letter to the Ford Government on the medical triage protocol spearheaded by the ARCH Disability Law Centre, of which the AODA Alliance is one of many co-signatories
  1. The April 14, 2020 AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on Ensuring that Medical Triage or Rationing of Health Care Services During the COVID-19 Crisis Does Not Discriminate Against Patients with Disabilities
  1. The July 16, 2020 AODA Alliance Update that lists additional concerns with the revised draft triage protocol. That Update also sets out the Ford Government Bioethics Table’s revised draft triage protocol itself.
  1. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, detailing our efforts to tear down barriers in the health care system facing patients with disabilities, and our COVID-19 page, detailing our efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

Ontario Hansard November 5, 2020

Question Period

COVID-19 RESPONSE

Mme France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé. With COVID-19 numbers on the rise Ontario must have a plan in case there are more critically ill patients than our hospitals can serve. On March 28 the government sent a widely condemned critical care triage protocol to Ontario hospitals. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, many disability organizations and even the government’s own bioethics table have called on the government to cancel that protocol.

The critical care triage protocol has been criticized for allowing discrimination against people with disabilities who would find themselves in need of life-saving medical care. With a dozen major intensive care units now operating at capacity, this can become a life-or-death issue for people with disabilities in a not-too-distant future. In line with the unanimous advice of her own bioethics table, the human rights commission and the AODA Alliance, will the minister cancel her discriminatory March 28 critical care triage protocol?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you very much for raising that, because that really deserves clarification. I can tell you that I had nothing to do with any kind of triage protocols such as this. It would have been done by health experts, not by me. I’m aware of something that did exist in draft form. It never saw the light of day in terms of coming to reality. Quite frankly, I find the whole approach extremely offensive. Ageism is illegal. If anyone in our long-term-care homes needs medical care they will receive it, and that’s exactly what is happening. I reject any premise that anyone is acting on any draft of any nature such as this.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Mme France Gélinas: Two months ago the government’s bioethics table gave recommendations to the Minister of Health on the rules that should govern critical care triage to replace the March 28 critical care triage protocol that has been sent to every Ontario hospital already. Despite the Premier’s promise of full transparency in the handling of this pandemic, the government has kept the critical care triage protocol kind of a secret—the minister doesn’t know about it. Ontarians, people with disabilities: We all deserve to know what directive the government is considering in this life-and-death decision-making process. The minister’s own bioethics table, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and major respected disability organizations are urging the Minister of Health to immediately release the bioethics table’s recommendations presently being considered.

Will the minister immediately make public the recommendations of the government’s bioethics table on critical care triage, and will she consult with people with disabilities on the rules that should govern critical care triage?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Response? The parliamentary assistant.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Obviously, the health and well-being of all Ontarians is our top priority. The March 28 draft critical triage protocol for a major surge in the COVID-19 pandemic was developed by a bioethics table, but has been rescinded and should not be implemented or relied on. This early draft and any subsequent draft documents developed for engagement and consultation should not be used. A revised framework may be shared in the future and distributed, should pandemic conditions deteriorate significantly in the province.

Our government has also introduced our comprehensive $2.8-billion Keeping Ontarians Safe plan, which will ensure that the province is ready to respond to several situations for COVID-19. Implementation of our plan is well underway. We don’t anticipate getting anywhere near having to use such a protocol—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Next question.

November 9, 2020 Letter from the AODA Alliance to Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott

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 Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

November 9, 2020

To: The Hon. Christine Elliott, Minister of Health

Via email: Christine.elliott@ontario.ca

Ministry of Health

5th Floor

777 Bay St.

Toronto, ON M7A 2J3

Dear Minister,

Re: Ontario Government’s Protocol for Medical Triage of Critical Care Cases in the Event Hospitals Cannot Handle All COVID-19 Cases

We again write on a life and death issue during the COVID-19 pandemic. We and other disability advocates have been trying to protect patients with disabilities from suffering disability discrimination in access to critical medical care, if the COVID-19 pandemic surge overloads our hospitals and requires rationing or “triage” of critical medical care in Ontario hospitals.

1. Cancelling or “Rescinding” the Seriously Flawed march 28, 2020 Critical Medical Care Triage Protocol that the Government Earlier Sent to All Ontario Hospitals

We were relieved to hear your parliamentary assistant, Robin Martin, state in the Legislature on November 5, 2020 that the Government had rescinded the widely-criticized March 28, 2020 critical medical care triage protocol, a protocol that the Government had sent to all Ontario hospitals last spring. We gather she spoke in Question Period on your behalf and in your absence. She stated:

“The March 28 draft critical triage protocol for a major surge in the COVID-19 pandemic was developed by a bioethics table, but has been rescinded and should not be implemented or relied on. This early draft and any subsequent draft documents developed for engagement and consultation should not be used.”

For the Government to rescind that March 28, 2020 critical medical care triage protocol is very important. That protocol enshrines discrimination against some patients with disabilities. The Government has never made it public and did not consult the public, including people with disabilities, before sending it last spring to all Ontario hospitals. Many, including the AODA Alliance, have called for months for the Government to rescind it.

2. Need for Effective Government Action to Ensure that the March 28, 2020 Critical Care Protocol is Fully Withdrawn and Cancelled

However, MPP Robin Martin’s helpful November 5 statement in the Legislature does not itself ensure that the March 28, 2020 protocol is in fact rooted out of our health care system. That harmful protocol has been thoroughly embedded in Ontario hospitals for up to eight months. If the Government wishes it rescinded, the Government must make that loud and clear. It must publicly communicate that direction to all hospital senior management, and to all intensive care and emergency room staff. So far, we have seen no indication that it has been communicated to anyone, beyond MPP Robin Martin’s answer to an opposition question in the Legislature on November 5, 2020.

We only learned about this important news because the Opposition NDP helpfully happened to ask about it in the Legislature last week. Had that Opposition question not been asked, we have no indication that this information would have been made public.

The Government has consistently remained silent on this important issue, despite several important opportunities to advise that the March 28, 2020 triage protocol had been rescinded. For example, the Government did not state that it had rescinded or was rescinding the March 28, 2020 critical medical care triage protocol when the Ontario Human Rights Commission called for its rescission last spring, or more recently, in the Commission’s October 16, 2020 letter to you. Similarly, your Government did not announce that the triage protocol was rescinded in response to the ARCH Disability Law Centre’s April 8, 2020 news release or our news releases on April 14, April 21, August 31, or November 2, 2020, news releases or in response to our as-yet unanswered September 25 or November 2, 2020 letters to you, seeking its rescission. The Government similarly did not publicly announce the March 28, 2020 triage protocol’s rescission in response to the advice of the Government-appointed Bioethics Table, which delivered its report to the Government two months ago, including advice calling for that protocol to be withdrawn.

As well, your Government did not announce that the March 28, 2020 triage protocol was rescinded in response to the opposition NDP’s written questions on this topic filed with the Legislature back on September 30, 2020. Your Government has 24 legislative sitting days to answer those questions.

Likewise, in the Government’s responses to media inquiries about the triage issue by the Toronto Star and Radio Canada last month, there is no indication that the Government told the media that the controversial March 28, 2020 triage protocol had been or was being rescinded. That would have been very newsworthy information.

It is important that all senior hospital administrators and front-line health care providers in hospitals and other key positions know now with utter certainty and clarity that the March 28, 2020 triage protocol is never to be used under any circumstances. We are eager to do what we can to help ensure that everyone knows it is not to be followed.

Your Parliamentary Assistant Robin Martin spoke in such clear and categorical terms in the Legislature, when she said that the March 28, 2020 protocol has been rescinded. We hope and trust that this means that the Government has issued a clear and strong written direction to all Ontario hospitals. Could you please let us know what steps your Government has taken or is taking now to ensure that the widely-condemned March 28, 2020 critical medical care triage protocol is cancelled and is never to be used? Could you please send us and make public a copy of the direction that the Government sent to all hospitals to this effect and let us know what communication plan is in effect to ensure that this message reaches all who need to receive it within the health care system?

3. What Will Fill the Vacuum?

If the Government has rescinded the March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol, what will the Government have in place in our hospitals to fill the vacuum and to replace it? The Government commendably realized last winter, as the COVID-19 pandemic was just spreading to Canada, that it was essential to get ahead of the game, and to have in place a critical care triage protocol in case a future surge of COVID-19 cases makes it necessary for critical care beds and services to be rationed or triaged. The pressing need for such a protocol has been demonstrated by other jurisdictions such as Italy, which experienced such a surge without being prepared.

Last summer, members of the Government’s Bioethics Table confirmed such a pressing need during their extensive discussions with a group of disability advocates and experts, in which I was included. They were rushing to get their recommendations to you before schools re-opened, knowing that a COVID-19 surge was anticipated this fall.

Moreover, during our discussions with them last fall, members of the Bioethics Table explained to us the need for a revised triage protocol to be issued well in advance, so that hospital officials and front-line health care providers could be fully trained on what it requires and how to abide by it. This is not a simple topic. Moreover, should it become necessary to use it, hospitals will be in the midst of a health care crisis, juggling more critical care patients in a life-or-death situation than the exhausted, highly-stressed hospital staff has time or space to serve.

All of this points to the pressing need for your Government to immediately take these steps:

  1. Now make public the recommendations the Government received two months ago from the Bioethics Table on what a new critical care triage protocol should include;
  1. Quickly conduct a full and inclusive consultation with the public (including with people with disabilities) on those recommendations;
  1. Enact needed legislation needed if a critical care triage protocol is to be lawfully and constitutionally implemented.
  1. Issue a new critical care triage protocol that is fully lawful and that fulfils constitutional and human rights requirements, and that has been screened for such by Government lawyers;
  1. Effectively communicate that new protocol to senior hospital administrators, front-line health care providers and others that need to implement it, and effectively train them on how to use it, and
  1. Put in place the new due process legal requirements for patients such as appeal procedures and Legal Aid supports that patients desperately deserve and need in such triage situations.

All six steps must be completed well before a COVID-19 surge takes place that necessitates critical care triage. By the time triage becomes necessary, or gets close, it will be too late to take all six steps to ensure that the triage protocol is appropriate, legal and constitutional. As we write you, the predicted second wave of COVID-19 cases is well underway. It has not plateaued. Accelerating daily new infection numbers are much higher than they were earlier this year when your Government saw the need to develop a clinical care triage protocol. Colder winter weather has not yet arrived. Experts predict that COVID-19 spread will worsen in colder weather.

From the answers your Parliamentary Assistant gave in Question Period in the Legislature on November 5, 2020, it appears that there is now a vacuum with nothing in place. We are deeply concerned that your government has not now publicly committed to taking all the steps needed to fill that vacuum in a timely way. In the absence of a new critical care triage protocol, Ontarians are left with the real risk that life-and-death decisions could be made in emergency rooms based on each doctor’s idiosyncratic preferences or personal choices on who should get critical care and who should not, should the COVID-19 surge require rationing of critical care. That exposes patients with disabilities once again to the risk of discrimination because of their disabilities.

Your Government has still not agreed to make public the bioethics Table’s recommendations for a new critical care triage protocol. Your Government has only said that it “may” make public a new framework for critical care triage, clearly implying that it may not do so. We should note that your Government has never made public its seriously-flawed March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol. That protocol only came to light when it was leaked to some in the disability community last spring.

Making this worse, your Government is only planning to possibly make a new critical care triage framework public if the COVID-19 situation gets much worse. By then, as noted above, it will be too late to take all the essential and important steps we listed above.

It is also worrisome that your Government appears to be in denial, claiming that it is not likely that we will reach the stage of needing to undertake critical care triage. We all hope that critical care triage never becomes necessary. However, planning now for critical care triage is extremely important, even if it is thought that critical care triage will not likely ever occur. We need to be ready “just in case”. That is the essence of good emergency planning, especially on a life-and-death issue.

Let us show you how Ms. Martin’s answers in the Legislature paint this disturbing picture. The opposition commendably asked the Government to make public the recommendations it received two months ago from the Government-appointed Bioethics Table. MPP Robin Martin, answering on your behalf, did not agree to do so. She did not even specifically respond to that clear request. As noted above, at most, Ms. Martin said the Government “may” make public a revised framework (i.e. protocol or direction to hospitals), if Ontario’s pandemic conditions “deteriorate significantly”. She said the following in material part:

“A revised framework may be shared in the future and distributed, should pandemic conditions deteriorate significantly in the province.”

MPP Robin Martin also said that the Government does not expect getting near a situation where a triage protocol would be needed:

“We don’t anticipate getting anywhere near having to use such a protocol…”

It therefore appears that the Government will not tell us what the rules will be until we are at the very time when they are needed. This makes it seem that the Government does not plan to consult us, the disability community, and the broader public on this important issue now, before the crisis is upon Ontario requiring rationing of critical care. If the Government is only going to make public its directions to hospital when the crisis arises, we won’t have any real chance to have our say.

Minister, Ms. Martin’s answer in the Legislature reads to us as if it were read right out of a minister’s briefing book, carefully crafted to anticipate opposition questions in Question Period. Your Ministry staff understandably anticipated such questions, since the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Government’s own Bioethics Table, the media, we and others have been raising these concerns with your Ministry and your Government. So carefully-worded a Government answer is especially a cause for deep concern when it is so demonstrably wrong-headed on the issue of planning to fill the vacuum.

4. Please Keep Your Government’s Commitments

Please keep Premier Ford’s commitment to protect the most vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. Please keep his pledge that the Government will be open and transparent in how it responds to the pandemic. Please end the harmful Government secrecy that has pervaded this life-and-death issue.

Please honour your commendable goal, set out in your April 21, 2020 open letter on critical care triage to “make certain that any medical protocols that may be required during this outbreak do not disproportionately affect vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities, older persons, Indigenous communities and racialized people.”

Please act on your recognition in your April 21, 2020 open letter that the views of “human rights and key community experts” should be engaged. It is good that the Bioethics Table spoke to us. However, your Government has prevented us from knowing to what extent they listened to us and acted on our advice, since you are keeping their recommendations secret. We similarly don’t know what you plan to do with the Bioethics Table’s advice.

Please also live up to your Government’s pledge in your April 21, 2020 open letter on critical care triage to be ready for “a wide range of new outbreak scenarios.”

Your Government has now had over eight months to plan for this important issue. It is essential that we speak with you as soon as possible to discuss how to ensure this.

Please stay safe.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

CC: Premier Doug Ford premier@ontario.ca

Helen Angus, Deputy Minister of Health helen.angus@ontario.ca

Raymond Cho, Minister of Seniors and Accessibility Raymond.cho@ontario.ca

Denise Cole, Deputy Minister for Seniors and Accessibility Denise.Cole@ontario.ca

Mary Bartolomucci, Assistant Deputy Minister for the Accessibility Directorate, Mary.Bartolomucci@ontario.ca

Todd Smith, Minister of Children, Community and Social Services todd.smithco@pc.ola.org

Janet Menard, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services Janet.Menard@ontario.ca

Ena Chadha, Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission cco@ohrc.on.ca

AODA Alliance Asks Toronto Mayor John Tory to Stand up for People with Disabilities and to Stand up to Corporate Lobbyists for Electric Scooter Rental Companies who are Inundating City Hall

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

AODA Alliance Asks Toronto Mayor John Tory to Stand up for People with Disabilities and to Stand up to Corporate Lobbyists for Electric Scooter Rental Companies who are Inundating City Hall

November 4, 2020

          SUMMARY

The AODA Alliance today wrote an important letter to Toronto Mayor John Tory (See below). We asked him not to allow electric scooters (e-scooters) in Toronto. They endanger the safety of the public and especially people with disabilities and seniors. We’ve been told over and over that he will make the ultimate decision.

If he won’t just stop this now, we urge Mayor Tory to himself hold an open, accessible series of virtual town halls with people with disabilities in Toronto to hear our concerns about e-scooters. Our October 30, 2020 news release revealed how City Hall has been the target of a well-funded feeding frenzy by corporate lobbyists for e-scooter rental companies. In today’s letter, we ask Mayor Tory to stand up for Torontonians with disabilities and to stand up to the e-scooter corporate lobbyists.

You can help us with this important issue. Please email Mayor Tory. Tell him not to allow e-scooters in Toronto. Tell him to listen to people with disabilities, and not to the e-scooter corporate lobbyists. You can write him at:

Mayor_Tory@toronto.ca

For more tips on how you can help people with disabilities, seniors and others, press the City of Toronto not to unleash the dangers of e-scooters upon us, check out the AODA Alliance’s Toronto e-scooters Action Kit.

We’ve gotten word that some of the e-scooter rental companies are trying to hold some sort of meeting or consultation to hear from people with disabilities about their concerns with e-scooters. We take a dim view of this. Those companies are well aware of our well-documented concerns. They showed no such interest until it became clear that our concerns were impeding their allied members of City Council from railroading this issue through the City in a hurry. We anticipate that those corporate lobbyists are trying to position themselves on the disability issue so they look like they are genuinely concerned.

It is the City of Toronto, and particularly Mayor Tory, that should be holding a major, open and accessible public consultation with people with disabilities on their concerns regarding the dangers that e-scooters create. The e-scooter companies have an unalterable financial goal, which is to spread e-scooter rentals as far as they can.

We always welcome your feedback. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

For more background:

  1. The AODA Alliance’s July 8, 2020 brief to the City of Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee, already endorsed by Spinal Cord Injury Ontario and the March of Dimes of Canada
  1. The open letter to all Ontario municipal councils from 11 major disability organizations, opposing e-scooters in Ontario, and
  1. A sampling of news reports on the serious injuries that e-scooters have caused in communities that permit them.
  1. The AODA Alliance e-scooters web page.

          MORE DETAILS

November 4, 2020 Letter to Toronto Mayor John Tory from the AODA Alliance

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 Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

November 4, 2020

To: Mayor John Tory

Via Email: mayor_tory@toronto.ca

Office of the Mayor

City Hall, 2nd Floor

100 Queen St. W.

Toronto, ON M5H 2N2

Twitter: @JohnTory

Dear Mayor Tory,

Re: Protecting Torontonians from the Dangers of Electric Scooters

We seek your leadership to protect all Torontonians, and especially people with disabilities and seniors, whose safety is endangered if Toronto permits electric scooters (e-scooters). By all accounts, the practical decision will be yours, as our mayor, on whether to allow e-scooters. If you say no, enough members of City Council will follow your lead to stop this danger.

We seek your leadership in standing up to e-scooter corporate lobbyists and to stand up for the many Torontonians who don’t want to be injured by e-scooters. To that end, we ask that you:

  1. Please stop the City’s consideration of e-scooters before it goes any further.
  1. If not, then at the very least, put any consideration of e-scooters on hold until the COVID-19 pandemic is well behind us. No doubt, City Council and staff now have much higher priorities.
  1. If not, then if any steps at all are to happen on this issue over the next months, you, as mayor, should personally lead an open, accessible and extensive City consultation with people with disabilities and seniors on the dangers that e-scooters pose. That would be the best way to act upon the City Council’s July 28, 2020 motion, addressed below. As Toronto’s mayor, we ask that you hold public virtual face-to-face town hall meetings with these Torontonians so you hear directly from them.

The Issue

An e-scooter is a silent motor vehicle. If allowed, a joy-rider with no license or training could rocket around on an e-scooter at 20 kph or faster. E-scooter riders and innocent pedestrians would get seriously injured or killed. See a recent CBC report on e-scooter injuries suffered in Calgary.

The silent menace of e-scooters especially endangers seniors and people with disabilities, such as people who are blind or have low vision or balance issues, or whose disability makes them slower to scramble out of the way. A blind pedestrian can’t know when a silent e-scooter races toward them at over 20 kph, driven by a fun-seeking unlicensed, untrained, uninsured, unhelmetted rider.

The Dangers to People with Disabilities, Seniors and Others

In cities where e-scooters are allowed, rental e-scooters, left strewn around public places, create new mobility barriers to accessibility for people using a wheelchair, walker or other mobility device. For people who are blind, deafblind or have low vision, they are a serious unexpected tripping hazard.

When you spoke with me back on December 9, 2019, you were awaiting a City Staff report on e-scooters. Since then, a detailed June 24, 2020 City of Toronto Staff Report showed that to allow e-scooters in Toronto will endanger public safety, send e-scooter riders and innocent pedestrians to hospital emergency rooms, require significant new law enforcement efforts and impose new financial burdens on the taxpayer to cover added costs that e-scooters trigger. The Staff Report also shows that e-scooters do not bring the great benefits for reduced car traffic and pollution that corporate lobbyists for e-scooter rental companies claim.

E-scooters would especially endanger public safety and accessibility for people with disabilities and others on sidewalks. The City Staff Report shows that in cities where e-scooters are allowed but banned on sidewalks, they are nevertheless ridden on sidewalks. At the July 9, 2020 Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee meeting, law enforcement officials told Councilors that overburdened officers have no capacity to handle added burdens of enforcing new e-scooter regulations, if enacted. One Councilor remarked that City law enforcement officials don’t now even enforce restrictions on riding bikes on sidewalks.

This shows that Toronto should reject e-scooters. Why then is the City and City Council still considering this at all, much less during the current devastating COVID-19 pandemic?

Feeding Frenzy at City Hall by E-scooter Rental Companies’ Corporate Lobbyists

A recent AODA Alliance report provides insight. It documents that City Hall has been flooded by a well-funded feeding frenzy by corporate lobbyists for the e-scooter rental companies. Entries in Toronto’s Lobbyist Registry, filling fully 73 pages, reveal that from June 2018 to the present, eight e-scooter rental companies and three lobbying firms had 1,384 contacts with City Hall in person, by phone, by virtual meeting, or by email. Among these are at least 112 meetings and 1,153 emails with City officials.

Among many other City officials, this includes contacts with the Mayor’s Office, including 10 with you; 58 with your Senior Advisor, Legislative Affairs; 15 with your Director of Legislative Affairs; 10 with your Chief of Staff; and 1 with your Deputy Chief of Staff.

It is a long-standing, time-tested requirement that motor vehicles are only permitted when the motor vehicle and the driver are properly licensed, when the driver has had to undergo mandatory training, where the vehicle is subjected to safety technical standards, and where both the driver and vehicle are insured. These important safeguards are needed to protect public safety.

The e-scooter corporate lobbyists are trying to get you to let them duck all these safeguards. Those corporate lobbyists want to make money on e-scooter rentals, laughing all the way to the bank as seriously injured pedestrians sob all the way to hospital emergency rooms. They falsely claim that the City can approve e-scooters at no cost to the City or the public.

The June 24, 2020 City Staff report overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the City of Toronto should not lift the ban on e-scooters. Why then did the Staff Report reach an irrational and unexplained suggestion that Toronto should run a pilot with e-scooters? The report does not say. It makes no sense, given the report’s conclusions about e-scooters’ known dangers and unrealized benefits.

Moreover, to run a pilot would be to expose Torontonians to serious injuries if not deaths, just to see if e-scooters are a good idea. Experimenting on the public, when the risks are so serious, would be demonstrably immoral. The corporate lobbyists seek a “pilot” as a pretext to establish a market in Toronto for their product, as a fait accompli.

The only explanation is the e-scooter corporate lobbyists’ feeding frenzy at City Hall. Our report reveals that they have not only been vigourously lobbying your office and your colleagues on City Council, but a stunning spectrum of City employees as well, such as the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team, Transportation Services (62 contacts), the Manager, Street Furniture Management, Transportation Services (41 contacts), the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects, Transportation Services (37 contacts), the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation Transportation Services (36 contacts), the Manager, Data & Analytics Transportation Services (26 contacts), the Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation, Transportation Services (25 contacts), the Director, Policy & Innovation, Transportation Services (22 contacts), the Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education, Transportation Services (18 contacts), the General Manager, Transportation Services (18 contacts), the Manager Transportation Services (18 contacts), the Project Lead Environment, Policy & Research, Environment and Energy (13 contacts), the Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management, Transportation Services (12 contacts), the Manager, Policy and Research Environment & Energy (10 contacts), the Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation, Transportation Services (7 contacts) and the Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs Transportation Services (7 contacts).

Earlier this year, on February 3, 2020, the municipally appointed Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee unanimously recommended to City Council that Toronto should not allow e-scooters because they endanger people with disabilities. On July 28, 2020, City Council voted to direct City Staff to report back on the disability accessibility concerns regarding e-scooters. We thank you for voting in support of that motion.

It was deeply disturbing that fully 11 City Council members voted on July 28, 2020 to oppose getting more information on the dangers that e-scooters create for people with disabilities. That appears explicable by the e-scooter corporate lobbyists’ relentless pressure.

That the e-scooter corporate lobbyists argue that the COVID-19 pandemic would be a great time to start allowing e-scooters in Toronto would only pile hardship upon hardship for society’s most vulnerable People with disabilities are now suffering disproportionate hardships due to the COVID-19 crisis.

Let’s Talk

Can I speak with you by phone about these issues? It has been almost a year since we had our earlier discussion. Please make your legacy one which made this city safer and more accessible for people with disabilities. Do not leave a legacy of a Toronto where it becomes harder and more dangerous for us to get around.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Ford Government’s October 29, 2020 Virtual Media Event, Heralded to Unveil an Announcement on Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities, Announces Nothing New

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Ford Government’s October 29, 2020 Virtual Media Event, Heralded to Unveil an Announcement on Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities, Announces Nothing New

November 3, 2020

          SUMMARY

On Thursday October 29, 2020, the Ford Government’s Accessibility Minister held a virtual conference which the Minister heralded as an event to unveil an announcement on advancing accessibility for 2.6 million Ontarians with disabilities. We cannot find anything new in the Minister’s announcement. Below, we offer some reflections on this announcement, and then set out the Minister’s news release and backgrounder.

This was the event for which the Ford Government last week sent out an inaccessible invitation. After we made that painfully symbolic irony public, the Government apologized and re-issued its invitation, this time in an accessible email.

There have now been 642 days, or 21 months, since the Ford Government received the blistering final report of the Independent Review of the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by former Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Government has announced no comprehensive plan of new action to implement that report. That makes worse the serious problems still facing Ontarians with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Send us your feedback by writing us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

          MORE DETAILS

 Reflections on the Ford Government’s October 29, 2020 Accessibility Announcement

On October 29, 2020, the Ford Government’s Accessibility Minister Raymond Cho held a virtual news conference, which AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky was invited to virtually watch. At this event, the Minister simply announced that the Government was launching a public education campaign on the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and the importance of accessibility for people with disabilities.

We scoured the announcement, set out below, and the speeches during the news event, but could find nothing new in this announcement. The Government has earlier announced that it is conducting public education on that very topic. Earlier Government news releases have pointed to such activities. Moreover, the Government’s official Twitter feed has been tweeting on this subject for quite some time.

Indeed, this is just more of what the previous Liberal Government was doing in the realm of educating the public on this topic. On October 29, 2020, the Government announced no new plan of action for this 15-year-old campaign, nor any new budget allocation for this campaign. We have written the Government to ask if any new budget is being allocated to this campaign. The Government has not answered.

Let’s look at this in context. Over 15 years after the AODA was passed, and just over four years before Ontario must become accessible to 2.6 million Ontarians with disabilities, the Ford Government’s announcement is to “raise awareness” about accessibility? And this when the final report of David Onley’s most recent Independent Review of the AODA told the Government over 21 months ago that Ontario remains full of “soul-crushing barriers” facing people with disabilities, with progress on accessibility proceeding at a “glacial pace”?

Ontarians with disabilities deserve much better. “Raising awareness” about the AODA at this point is about the least effective tool in the Government’s toolkit. On the more important issue of effectively enforcing the AODA, the Ford Government said nothing at this media event.

Moreover, it has been over a month since the AODA Alliance wrote the Ford Government’s Accessibility Minister in our September 21, 2020 letter to ask for important information on what the Government is doing to enforce the AODA. While we understand that an answer will eventually be forthcoming, we have not received one to date. You can learn more about our multi-year campaign to get the AODA effectively enforced by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s enforcement page.

A closer look at the Government’s October 29, 2020 announcement triggers even more cause for concern. The Ford Government’s announcement tries to substantially dilute and lower the bar it and Ontario must meet to obey the AODA. In wording carefully crafted for its news release, set out below, the Government’s lead minister stated:

“Our government is committed to working together with our partners inside and outside of government to make Ontario more accessible and inclusive by 2025…”

It is helpful for the Ford Government to acknowledge the AODA’s 2025 deadline. However, the AODA does not merely require Ontario to become “more accessible” by that year. It requires Ontario to become “accessible” by that year, pure and simple.

The difference is enormous. Ontario would meet the Ford Government’s paltry stated goal of “more accessible” if only one ramp were installed somewhere in Ontario between now and 2025, or if only one inaccessible website were retrofitted to make it accessible.

For the Government to so profoundly misunderstand or water down the AODA hurts all Ontarians with disabilities. For the Government to publicly signal this wrongful dilution of the legislation sends the wrong signal to obligated organizations at a time when we need efforts on accessibility ramped up, not diluted.

Beyond this, the Government’s announcement includes re-announcements of initiatives that are already underway. This includes re-announcing, believe it or not, a program started by the Bob Rae NDP Ontario Government dating back to the first half of the 1990s.

Among the initiatives that the Government re-announced was its diverting 1.3 million public dollars to the problematic Rick Hansen Foundation private accessibility certification program. We have publicly shown that no public money should be spent on that program. The Government has not disputed the serious problems with that program which the AODA Alliance publicly documented over a year ago.

The Ford Government’s October 29, 2020 media event is the first major accessibility announcement that its Accessibility Minister has made since its February 28, 2020 media event. At that event, the Government proclaimed that it would “lead by example” on accessibility. In response, the March 2, 2020 AODA Alliance Update documented that there too, the Government announced nothing new. The Ford Government has not disputed this. That AODA Alliance Update also documented that the Government was leading by a poor example on accessibility.

Since then, as the AODA Alliance website’s COVID-19 page demonstrates, the Ford Government seriously bungled its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in so far as the urgent needs of 2.6 million Ontarians with disabilities are concerned. It thereby continued to lead by a poor example, contrary to its February 28, 2020 commitment.

Finally, it is a further cruel irony that this most recent empty event (which appears to have attracted no reporters and garnered no media coverage) was held on October 29, an important anniversary in our decades-long non-partisan campaign for accessibility for people with disabilities. It is frankly difficult to see what the Government was trying to achieve by holding an event which so obviously announced nothing new.

Despite all this, we continue to offer the Government our constructive recommendations on how to kick-start stalled progress on accessibility. Had the Government wished to announce something meaningful for accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities, any or all of the following, which we have urged, would be welcomed:

  1. Committing to develop a long-overdue Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the AODA, and appointing a Standards Development Committee to develop recommendations for it, as the Onley Report urged;
  1. Appointing an Associate Deputy Minister of Education for Students with Disabilities, to develop an action plan to ensure that one third of a million students with disabilities are fully and safely included in in-class and distance learning;
  1. Committing that all the new schools and school renovations will be fully disability-accessible, for which the Government announced a half a billion dollars this summer, and announcing an effective plan to achieve this;
  1. Immediately making public the report and recommendations of the Government’s Bioethics Table on how critical medical care triage should be done, if the COVID-19 surge overloads Ontario hospitals, and withdrawing the controversial and seriously flawed March 28, 2020 triage protocol that the Government sent to all hospitals last spring.
  1. Announcing a new plan to effectively and meaningfully enforce the AODA.

Ford Government’s October 29, 2020 News Release on Accessibility

Advancing Accessibility in Ontario: Improving Understanding and Awareness about Accessibility

BACKGROUNDER October 29, 2020

Advancing Accessibility in Ontario is a framework designed to help focus the government’s work in four key areas:

  • breaking down barriers in the built environment
  • government leading by example in its role as a policy maker, service provider and employer
  • increasing participation in the economy for people with disabilities and
  • improving understanding and awareness about accessibility

To make progress on the area of improving understanding and awareness about accessibility, the government is working with its stakeholders, including partner ministries, broader public sector organizations, businesses and non-profit organizations to help raise awareness and change attitudes. Many organizations are not fully aware of their accessibility responsibilities or do not realize the benefits of being more receptive to the accessibility needs of Ontarians with disabilities.

We are working with key industry stakeholders through the government’s EnAbling Change Program that provides resources and training materials to educate associations and employers in multiple sectors about accessibility by:

  • Developing ReadAble Fest, a specialized reading program with disability themes for elementary students that engaged more than 1,300 students in 17 Simcoe County District School Board schools with OneWorld Schoolhouse Foundation.
  • Developing an enhanced curriculum and training materials on accessibility for building officials through the Ontario Building Officials Association. This ensures that new and existing buildings can be planned and built to be more accessible.
  • Supporting the ReelAbilities Toronto Film Festival, increasing awareness about Deaf and disability cultures highlighted in films and documentaries by filmmakers and actors with disabilities and/or who are Deaf. We also support the Miles Nadal Jewish Community Centre, which runs the ReelEducation program on equity and inclusion for educators.

We are taking action to make accessibility enhancements so that everyone can fully participate in everyday life by:

  • Collaborating with Destination Ontario to improve the user experience for travellers with accessibility needs by providing practical information about accessible options at Ontario’s tourism businesses. These accessibility options are available through the desktop and mobile versions of Ontario’s official travel website.
  • Enabling Ontarians to engage with and learn about attractions, tourism operators and artists across the province, while keeping themselves safe during COVID-19, through Ontario Live, a virtual hub for the arts, attractions and film and television.
  • Using a collaborative review of Ontario’s supportive housing programs to find ways to streamline and improve coordination so people can get the services they need. The government is gathering feedback through multiple virtual public engagement activities, including an online survey, regional engagement sessions with stakeholders and partners, and population-specific discussions that include seniors and people with disabilities.
  • Improving the government’s digital platforms to put more services online, making them easier and faster to use. The Ontario Public Service (OPS) digital plan is starting by enhancing ServiceOntario transactions, including renewals of health cards and driver’s licences. The Digital Strategy endeavours to develop a robust online channel that provides convenience and ease of access for all Ontarians, including customers and OPS employees with disabilities, and will create a consistent experience across multiple platforms.
  • Embedding accessibility into national and international sport events by providing funding to non-profit organizations that deliver such events. Applicants to the Sport Hosting Program must submit an accessibility plan to show how barriers for people with disabilities will be removed so that everyone can take part in the event. Program materials include a link to the Guide to Accessible Festivals & Outdoor Events and volunteers are asked to complete an online accessibility training resource.
  • Investing $1.07 million in 2019-20 to support the Abilities Centre in Whitby to advance accessibility and inclusion by expanding its services and training.
  • Partnering with SPARK Ontario to help seniors and the most vulnerable stay connected and healthy as they self isolate during COVID-19. This volunteer hub connects volunteers to community organizations supporting people with disabilities and older adults during COVID-19 by delivering food or medicines, running errands or checking up on Ontarians as they self-isolate.
  • Launching the Ontario Community Support Program, which provides home deliveries of food and essentials into 2021 for people with disabilities as well as other vulnerable communities who need to self-isolate due to COVID-19. This meaningful support was launched in partnership with the Ontario Community Support Association in April with an $11 million investment from the government. More than 230,000 meals and essential supply deliveries have been made across Ontario between the program’s launch and September.

We are also providing enhanced support for implementing the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and its accessibility standards by:

  • Ensuring the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks continues to incorporate up-to-date accessibility specifications in Ontario Parks capital and renovation projects by receiving training on and incorporating Building Code accessibility changes and Design of Public Spaces Standards.
  • Creating a web page that provides free accessibility resources and guides to make it easier for businesses and communities to get the information they need to help them be more accessible and inclusive. The “Accessibility in Ontario: Information for Businesses” resource is a one-stop-shop web page that includes valuable information on topics such as inclusive hiring, how to make workplaces more accessible and the economic benefits of hiring people with disabilities.

The government is strengthening its cross-government leadership in implementing the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by:

  • Increasing awareness about accessibility within the Ontario Public Service (OPS). An annual Inclusion Week has featured discussions on topics such as accessibility, mental health and inclusive leadership. Dedicated internal committees also provide resources to help advance awareness about inclusion and diversity. A multi-ministry speaker series has also built accessibility awareness to support the design and implementation of inclusive policies, programs and public services for Ontarians.
  • Harmonizing Ontario’s accessibility efforts with those of the federal government for the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP). The program requires that the province ensures all federally funded, public-facing infrastructure meets the highest published, applicable accessibility standard in a respective jurisdiction. The Ontario government applied an accessibility lens while developing the provincial criteria for ICIP. Nearly 400 ICIP projects across Ontario have been approved by the provincial and federal governments to date. They will bring critical infrastructure improvements to their communities, including accessibility components that will enhance the safety and comfort of transit users. For example, roughly 249 bus stops in Oakville will be upgraded with landing pads, walkways, ramps and curbs. In Barrie, 30 new low-floor, accessible buses will replace a retiring bus fleet and 21 new accessible paratransit city buses will replace the existing fleet over the next seven years.
  • Ensuring that ministries work to design and provide accessible internal and public communications, websites and digital services that work for everyone. Our government offers best practice guidance and expertise to support these efforts, which are especially important during COVID-19 to help distribute information to Ontarians with disabilities.

The government is supporting the safety, needs and accessibility awareness of students and educators by:

  • Providing support for research and assessment services for postsecondary students with learning disabilities by funding Assessment and Resource Centres. The support is provided through three centres across the province: the Northern Ontario Assessment and Resource Centre at Cambrian College, the Regional Assessment and Resource Centre at Queen’s University, and the Centre francophone d’évaluation et des ressources de L’Ontario at Collège Boréal.
  • Making ongoing efforts during COVID to review and improve digital learning tools being considered for the Ministry of Education’s Learn at Home website to support students and families when learning from home.
  • Investing in the Rick Hansen Foundation Accessibility Certification (RHFAC) program to help make buildings in Ontario more accessible. The program provides organizations with a snapshot of their building’s accessibility to help businesses and communities understand how to be more accessible and inclusive. As part of its own efforts to further its commitment to accessibility on campus, Carleton University became the first postsecondary institution to incorporate RHFAC into policy.
   
MEDIA CONTACTS

Elric Pereira

Minister’s Office

Elric.Pereira@ontario.ca

Media Desk

Communications Branch

MSAA.Media@ontario.ca

Disponible en français

 Ford Government’s October 29, 2020 Backgrounder

Advancing Accessibility in Ontario: Improving Understanding and Awareness about Accessibility

BACKGROUNDER October 29, 2020

Advancing Accessibility in Ontario is a framework designed to help focus the government’s work in four key areas:

  • breaking down barriers in the built environment
  • government leading by example in its role as a policy maker, service provider and employer
  • increasing participation in the economy for people with disabilities and
  • improving understanding and awareness about accessibility

To make progress on the area of improving understanding and awareness about accessibility, the government is working with its stakeholders, including partner ministries, broader public sector organizations, businesses and non-profit organizations to help raise awareness and change attitudes. Many organizations are not fully aware of their accessibility responsibilities or do not realize the benefits of being more receptive to the accessibility needs of Ontarians with disabilities.

We are working with key industry stakeholders through the government’s EnAbling Change Program that provides resources and training materials to educate associations and employers in multiple sectors about accessibility by:

  • Developing ReadAble Fest, a specialized reading program with disability themes for elementary students that engaged more than 1,300 students in 17 Simcoe County District School Board schools with OneWorld Schoolhouse Foundation.
  • Developing an enhanced curriculum and training materials on accessibility for building officials through the Ontario Building Officials Association. This ensures that new and existing buildings can be planned and built to be more accessible.
  • Supporting the ReelAbilities Toronto Film Festival, increasing awareness about Deaf and disability cultures highlighted in films and documentaries by filmmakers and actors with disabilities and/or who are Deaf. We also support the Miles Nadal Jewish Community Centre, which runs the ReelEducation program on equity and inclusion for educators.

We are taking action to make accessibility enhancements so that everyone can fully participate in everyday life by:

  • Collaborating with Destination Ontario to improve the user experience for travellers with accessibility needs by providing practical information about accessible options at Ontario’s tourism businesses. These accessibility options are available through the desktop and mobile versions of Ontario’s official travel website.
  • Enabling Ontarians to engage with and learn about attractions, tourism operators and artists across the province, while keeping themselves safe during COVID-19, through Ontario Live, a virtual hub for the arts, attractions and film and television.
  • Using a collaborative review of Ontario’s supportive housing programs to find ways to streamline and improve coordination so people can get the services they need. The government is gathering feedback through multiple virtual public engagement activities, including an online survey, regional engagement sessions with stakeholders and partners, and population-specific discussions that include seniors and people with disabilities.
  • Improving the government’s digital platforms to put more services online, making them easier and faster to use. The Ontario Public Service (OPS) digital plan is starting by enhancing ServiceOntario transactions, including renewals of health cards and driver’s licences. The Digital Strategy endeavours to develop a robust online channel that provides convenience and ease of access for all Ontarians, including customers and OPS employees with disabilities, and will create a consistent experience across multiple platforms.
  • Embedding accessibility into national and international sport events by providing funding to non-profit organizations that deliver such events. Applicants to the Sport Hosting Program must submit an accessibility plan to show how barriers for people with disabilities will be removed so that everyone can take part in the event. Program materials include a link to the Guide to Accessible Festivals & Outdoor Events and volunteers are asked to complete an online accessibility training resource.
  • Investing $1.07 million in 2019-20 to support the Abilities Centre in Whitby to advance accessibility and inclusion by expanding its services and training.
  • Partnering with SPARK Ontario to help seniors and the most vulnerable stay connected and healthy as they self isolate during COVID-19. This volunteer hub connects volunteers to community organizations supporting people with disabilities and older adults during COVID-19 by delivering food or medicines, running errands or checking up on Ontarians as they self-isolate.
  • Launching the Ontario Community Support Program, which provides home deliveries of food and essentials into 2021 for people with disabilities as well as other vulnerable communities who need to self-isolate due to COVID-19. This meaningful support was launched in partnership with the Ontario Community Support Association in April with an $11 million investment from the government. More than 230,000 meals and essential supply deliveries have been made across Ontario between the program’s launch and September.

We are also providing enhanced support for implementing the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and its accessibility standards by:

  • Ensuring the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks continues to incorporate up-to-date accessibility specifications in Ontario Parks capital and renovation projects by receiving training on and incorporating Building Code accessibility changes and Design of Public Spaces Standards.
  • Creating a web page that provides free accessibility resources and guides to make it easier for businesses and communities to get the information they need to help them be more accessible and inclusive. The “Accessibility in Ontario: Information for Businesses” resource is a one-stop-shop web page that includes valuable information on topics such as inclusive hiring, how to make workplaces more accessible and the economic benefits of hiring people with disabilities.

The government is strengthening its cross-government leadership in implementing the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by:

  • Increasing awareness about accessibility within the Ontario Public Service (OPS). An annual Inclusion Week has featured discussions on topics such as accessibility, mental health and inclusive leadership. Dedicated internal committees also provide resources to help advance awareness about inclusion and diversity. A multi-ministry speaker series has also built accessibility awareness to support the design and implementation of inclusive policies, programs and public services for Ontarians.
  • Harmonizing Ontario’s accessibility efforts with those of the federal government for the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP). The program requires that the province ensures all federally funded, public-facing infrastructure meets the highest published, applicable accessibility standard in a respective jurisdiction. The Ontario government applied an accessibility lens while developing the provincial criteria for ICIP. Nearly 400 ICIP projects across Ontario have been approved by the provincial and federal governments to date. They will bring critical infrastructure improvements to their communities, including accessibility components that will enhance the safety and comfort of transit users. For example, roughly 249 bus stops in Oakville will be upgraded with landing pads, walkways, ramps and curbs. In Barrie, 30 new low-floor, accessible buses will replace a retiring bus fleet and 21 new accessible paratransit city buses will replace the existing fleet over the next seven years.
  • Ensuring that ministries work to design and provide accessible internal and public communications, websites and digital services that work for everyone. Our government offers best practice guidance and expertise to support these efforts, which are especially important during COVID-19 to help distribute information to Ontarians with disabilities.

The government is supporting the safety, needs and accessibility awareness of students and educators by:

  • Providing support for research and assessment services for postsecondary students with learning disabilities by funding Assessment and Resource Centres. The support is provided through three centres across the province: the Northern Ontario Assessment and Resource Centre at Cambrian College, the Regional Assessment and Resource Centre at Queen’s University, and the Centre francophone d’évaluation et des ressources de L’Ontario at Collège Boréal.
  • Making ongoing efforts during COVID to review and improve digital learning tools being considered for the Ministry of Education’s Learn at Home website to support students and families when learning from home.
  • Investing in the Rick Hansen Foundation Accessibility Certification (RHFAC) program to help make buildings in Ontario more accessible. The program provides organizations with a snapshot of their building’s accessibility to help businesses and communities understand how to be more accessible and inclusive. As part of its own efforts to further its commitment to accessibility on campus, Carleton University became the first postsecondary institution to incorporate RHFAC into policy.
   
MEDIA CONTACTS

Elric Pereira

Minister’s Office

Elric.Pereira@ontario.ca

Media Desk

Communications Branch

MSAA.Media@ontario.ca

Disponible en français

Ford Government’s Own Bioethics Table Urges It to Cancel Its controversial March 28 Directions to Hospitals on Which Patients to Refuse Critical Medical Care if the COVID-19 Pandemic Overloads Hospitals, and to Make Public the Bioethics Table’s Recommended Replacement for Those Directions – But Will Doug Ford Listen?

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Ford Government’s Own Bioethics Table Urges It to Cancel Its controversial March 28 Directions to Hospitals on Which Patients to Refuse Critical Medical Care if the COVID-19  Pandemic Overloads Hospitals, and to Make Public the Bioethics Table’s Recommended Replacement for Those Directions – But Will Doug Ford Listen?

November 2, 2020

          SUMMARY

Serious concern and controversy continue to swirl around the Ford Government’s plans for handling the situation if the growing surge of COVID-19 cases floods Ontario hospitals with more patients than they can handle. Here is the latest news on this deeply distressing issue.

We have just learned that the Ford Government has been told by its own Bioethics Advisory Table that it should withdraw its controversial March 28, 2020 directions to Ontario hospitals on how to decide which patients should be refused needed critical care if the COVID-19 surge overloads hospitals and requires medical care rationing or “triage”. For months, the Ford Government has been told the same thing by the AODA Alliance, other disability advocates and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Now the Government’s own expert advisors in this specialized area have joined in this call. Last spring, disability advocates united to raise serious concerns that the March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol includes serious disability discrimination.

We have also just learned that Ford’s Bioethics Table also recommended that its advice to the Government on how to decide such critical care triage cases should be made public. The Ford Government has refused to date to lift its veil of secrecy over this life-and-death issue.

We learned all this late Friday afternoon when the Ontario Human Rights Commission commendably made public its strong October 16, 2020 letter to Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott. The Ford Government and the Human Rights Commission have seen the Bioethics Table’s secret report and recommendations.

As a result, the AODA Alliance today wrote Health Minister Elliott to again ask her to lift the Government’s unjustified veil of secrecy over the Bioethics Table’s report, and to immediately withdraw its March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol that it sent to Ontario hospitals last spring. Over one month ago, on September 25, 2020, we wrote Minister Elliott to this effect. She and her Government have not answered that letter. Last month, the Government told the Toronto Star and Radio Canada that it was not prepared to release the Bioethics Table’s report and recommendations.

Below we set out the AODA Alliance’s November 2, 2020 letter to the Health Minister, as well as the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s October 16, 2020 letter to the Health Minister.

For more background on this issue, check out:

  1. The AODA Alliance’s unanswered September 25, 2020 letter to Health Minister Christine Elliott
  1. The August 30, 2020 AODA Alliance final written submission to the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table
  1. The April 8, 2020 open letter to the Ford Government on the medical triage protocol spearheaded by the ARCH Disability Law Centre, of which the AODA Alliance is one of many co-signatories
  1. The April 14, 2020 AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on Ensuring that Medical Triage or Rationing of Health Care Services During the COVID-19 Crisis Does Not Discriminate Against Patients with Disabilities
  1. The May 13, 2020 ARCH Disability Law Centre’s Analysis of the March 28, 2020 Triage Protocol, which the AODA Alliance endorses.
  1. The July 16, 2020 AODA Alliance Update that lists additional concerns with the revised draft triage protocol. That Update also sets out the Ford Government Bioethics Table’s revised draft triage protocol itself.
  1. The ARCH Disability law Centre’s July 20, 2020 brief to the Bioethics Table on the revised draft triage protocol, which the AODA Alliance endorsed.
  1. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, detailing our efforts to tear down barriers in the health care system facing patients with disabilities, and our COVID-19 page, detailing our efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

          MORE DETAILS

November 2, 2020 Letter from the AODA Alliance to Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott

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 Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

November 2, 2020

To: The Hon. Christine Elliott, Minister of Health

Via email: Christine.elliott@ontario.ca

Ministry of Health

5th Floor

777 Bay St.

Toronto, ON M7A 2J3

Dear Minister,

Re: Ontario Government’s Protocol for Medical Triage of Critical Care Cases in the Event Hospitals Cannot Handle All COVID-19 Cases

It is fundamentally wrong and harmful for the Ontario Government to continue to keep shrouded in secrecy its policy, plans and expert advice on how to decide which patients will be refused needed critical medical care if the COVID-19 surge overloads Ontario hospitals, requiring rationing of critical care beds and services. We wrote you on September 25, 2020, over one month ago, asking for prompt answers to four urgent questions, which in substance are these:

  1. Will the Government immediately make public the report and recommendations of the Government-appointed Bioethics Table on the critical care triage protocol, and send it to us and other interested stakeholders, so the public can know what is being considered or recommended on this life-and-death issue?
  1. Will your Government immediately hold an open and accessible public consultation before adopting any clinical care triage protocol, that includes consulting people with disabilities?
  1. Will your Government commit that any directive to hospitals or the health care system on how to undertake critical care triage shall be established in a properly-enacted provincial statute or, if authorized, regulation, and not in a mere “protocol” that some bureaucrat sends to Ontario hospitals?
  1. Will your Government immediately and publicly direct all hospitals that the March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol is rescinded and is not to be used or followed? Our September 25, 2020 letter to you explained that that protocol suffers from serious problems. It discriminates against patients with disabilities.

You and your Government have not answered our September 25, 2020 letter. The Government has not committed to take any of our requested actions.

Over the month since we wrote you, daily COVID-19 infection rates have steadily increased and set new records in the predicted second wave of infections. This brings Ontario closer and closer to the feared point where critical care triage may become necessary, as has been the case in some other parts of the world.

This shows why Ontario cannot afford any further Government delays or secrecy on this important issue. The need for your swift action is further buttressed by the October 16, 2020 letter to you from the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In September, the Government’s Bioethics Table had sent a confidential copy of its report and recommendations on critical care triage to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, a report which we and the public have still not seen. The Commission’s October 16, 2020 letter to you reveals some of what the Bioethics Table recommended, stating:

“We also agree with the Bioethics Table’s recommendations that call on the Ministry of Health and Ontario Health to:

  • Issue clear communications that health care providers must disregard and destroy the March 28 version of the protocol
  • Circulate the proposed framework, including the clinical assessment factors and tools, for public feedback and independent legal review
  • Convene a multidisciplinary panel, including experts in human rights and law to further develop, or refute, the clinical factors and tools identified in the proposed framework
  • Engage health care partners to develop guidance for implementing the protocol including clinical operations, communications, training, patient and clinician supports, data collection and monitoring
  • Provide for governance and accountability mechanisms including responsibility for initiating the protocol, data collection and independent monitoring for adverse consequences
  • Sustain equitable COVID-19 prevention efforts to avoid the need to initiate the protocol, and mitigate disproportionate impacts on vulnerable groups
  • Meaningfully engage vulnerable groups, including Indigenous communities, Black and racialized communities, persons with disabilities, older persons and others for their perspectives and participation throughout the process to finalize and implement the protocol.”

Your Government has now been urged to lift its veil of secrecy in this area, and to rescind its problematic March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol, by The Government’s own Bioethics Table, by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (The Government’s flagship public human rights agency) and by leading voices in the disability and seniors communities.

This is even more urgent since the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s October 16, 2020 letter to you reveals that the Commission (which has seen the Bioethics Table’s recommendations) still has concerns with the Bioethics Table’s recommendations from a human rights perspective. As noted above, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has seen those recommendations. We have not.

The Human Rights Commission’s October 16, 2020 letter to you commendably gives general support to the human rights concerns that disability advocates and experts have raised with the Bioethics Table last summer. Referring to concerns raised last summer with the Bioethics Table, the Commission’s October 16, 2020 letter states:

“During these discussions, human rights stakeholders, including ARCH, the AODA Alliance and the Canadian Association for Retired Persons raised serious concerns that the versions of the protocol circulated in March and July disproportionately impacted vulnerable groups and violated human rights. The OHRC generally supports the concerns and recommendations that these, and other stakeholders made in their presentations and submissions to government and the Bioethics Table.”

It is essential for you and senior officials at your Ministry and at Ontario Health review the AODA Alliance’s August 30, 2020 written submission to the Bioethics Table, as well as the September 1, 2020 submission by the ARCH Disability Law Centre.

We especially commend the Ontario Human Rights Commission for echoing a serious concern we have raised with you in our September 25, 2020 letter, and earlier with the Bioethics Table, where the Commission wrote:

“Ensure there is a legislative basis for the protocol that will also provide for governance and accountability mechanisms including how to initiate the use of the protocol during a pandemic surge”

Put simply, we do not believe that life and death decisions over whether a patient will be refused critical medical care they need, and which is assured to them by our universal health care program, can be governed by a simple memo from some unnamed public servant to Ontario hospitals, labelled as a “protocol”, without a proper legislative mandate.

Minister, we need you and your Cabinet colleagues to now personally intervene in this issue and show the needed leadership. We fear that this issue is now mired in unaccountable layers of bureaucracy within the Ministry of Health and Ontario Health. We have seen no effort by the Ministry or Ontario Health to reach out to us or others who have publicly raised concerns about this important issue, to even learn from us what might be in issue.

May we get a response as soon as possible?

Please stay safe.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

CC: Premier Doug Ford premier@ontario.ca

Helen Angus, Deputy Minister of Health helen.angus@ontario.ca

Raymond Cho, Minister of Seniors and Accessibility Raymond.cho@ontario.ca

Denise Cole, Deputy Minister for Seniors and Accessibility Denise.Cole@ontario.ca

Mary Bartolomucci, Assistant Deputy Minister for the Accessibility Directorate, Mary.Bartolomucci@ontario.ca

Todd Smith, Minister of Children, Community and Social Services todd.smithco@pc.ola.org

Janet Menard, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services Janet.Menard@ontario.ca

October 30, 2020 Posting on the Ontario Human Rights Commission Website Setting Out the Commission’s October 16, 2020 Letter to Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott

Originally posted at: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/letter-minister-health-bioethics-table-recommendations-and-proposed-framework-covid-19-triage

Letter to the Minister of Health on Bioethics Table recommendations and proposed framework for a COVID-19 triage protocol

On October 16, 2020, the OHRC wrote to the Minister of Health raising concerns about the proposed framework for a COVID-19 triage protocol to allocate limited critical care services in a potential major surge in COVID-19 cases. Read the letter.

The Honourable Christine Elliott

Minister of Health

College Park 5th Floor, 777 Bay Street

Toronto, ON M7A 2J3

Dear Minister Elliott:

RE: Bioethics Table recommendations and proposed framework for a COVID-19 triage protocol

I am writing to you today about the government’s COVID-19 Bioethics Table’s recommendations and proposed framework for a COVID-19 triage protocol to allocate limited critical care services in a potential major surge in COVID-19 cases.

First, allow me to introduce myself as the recently appointed Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). Since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the OHRC has called for human rights values and principles to guide responses and recovery planning and affirmed the importance of consultation with impacted communities. You may recall my predecessor, Chief Commissioner Renu Mandhane, wrote to you on April 9, 2020, calling for a human rights-based approach to developing a triage protocol.

The OHRC was pleased when the Bioethics Table reached out for our input to ensure a consultative and principled methodology to address the human rights dimension of the pandemic. We welcomed the opportunity to help facilitate and participate in discussions with stakeholders, Ontario Health and the Bioethics Table on the triage protocol.

During these discussions, human rights stakeholders, including ARCH, the AODA Alliance and the Canadian Association for Retired Persons raised serious concerns that the versions of the protocol circulated in March and July disproportionately impacted vulnerable groups and violated human rights. The OHRC generally supports the concerns and recommendations that these, and other stakeholders made in their presentations and submissions to government and the Bioethics Table.

In September, the Bioethics Table informed stakeholders that it submitted recommendations and a proposed framework to your Ministry and Ontario Health. The Bioethics Table also shared the recommendations and proposed framework confidentially with the OHRC. The OHRC and stakeholders have significant concerns that the Ministry has not released the recommendations and proposed framework for public feedback, and in our view, this is particularly urgent and necessary in light of the emerging “second wave” of COVID19 cases.

Further, while the OHRC commends the Bioethics Table for holding productive consultations and incorporating into the proposed framework many of the human rights principles and recommendations identified by stakeholders, the OHRC still has concerns which we have shared with the Bioethics Table and Ontario Health.

Since we understand that the recommendations and proposed framework are now with the Ministry of Health awaiting further direction, the OHRC is calling on the Ministry of Health to:

  • Ensure the protocol recognizes that human rights is the primary guiding principle and law in accordance with the primacy clause under section 47 of Ontario’s Human Rights Code
  • Ensure there is a legislative basis for the protocol that will also provide for governance and accountability mechanisms including how to initiate the use of the protocol during a pandemic surge
  • Exclude the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and any other clinical assessment factors and tools that are not validated for critical care resource allocation. The Bioethics Table recognizes the CFS was designed and validated to help identify treatment plans and accommodation supports for frail patients, and not for critical care triage. Used as a triage tool, the CFS would likely disproportionately impact Code-protected groups and may not be in keeping with the Code including the duty to accommodate
  • Define short-term predicted mortality as the predicted risk of death in the initial weeks, and not twelve months after the onset of critical illness. The Bioethics Table recognizes that relatively little mortality occurs between six and twelve months.

We also agree with the Bioethics Table’s recommendations that call on the Ministry of Health and Ontario Health to:

  • Issue clear communications that health care providers must disregard and destroy the March 28 version of the protocol
  • Circulate the proposed framework, including the clinical assessment factors and tools, for public feedback and independent legal review
  • Convene a multidisciplinary panel, including experts in human rights and law to further develop, or refute, the clinical factors and tools identified in the proposed framework
  • Engage health care partners to develop guidance for implementing the protocol including clinical operations, communications, training, patient and clinician supports, data collection and monitoring
  • Provide for governance and accountability mechanisms including responsibility for initiating the protocol, data collection and independent monitoring for adverse consequences
  • Sustain equitable COVID-19 prevention efforts to avoid the need to initiate the protocol, and mitigate disproportionate impacts on vulnerable groups
  • Meaningfully engage vulnerable groups, including Indigenous communities, Black and racialized communities, persons with disabilities, older persons and others for their perspectives and participation throughout the process to finalize and implement the protocol.

It is vitally important that the COVID-19 triage protocol accounts for the needs, capacities and circumstances of all vulnerable groups. Indeed, it is a matter of life and death. The OHRC will continue to make itself available to work with and support the Ministry of Health and Ontario Health on this important endeavour and I would welcome the opportunity to meet you and discuss next steps at your earliest convenience.

Please be advised that the OHRC may make this letter public in keeping with its statutory mandate under section 29 of Ontario’s Human Rights Code.

Sincerely,

Ena Chadha, LL.B., LL.M.

Chief Commissioner

cc:       Helen Angus, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Health

Matthew Anderson, President and CEO of Ontario Health

Jennifer Gibson, Co-Chair, COVID-19 Bioethics Table

Hon. Doug Downey, Attorney General

David Corbett, Deputy Attorney General, Ministry of the Attorney General

OHRC Commissioners

New Report Reveals Corporate Lobbyists Feeding Frenzy At City Hall to Pressure Toronto City Council to Lift Ban on Electric Scooters That Endanger People with Disabilities

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New Report Reveals Corporate Lobbyists Feeding Frenzy At City Hall to Pressure Toronto City Council to Lift Ban on Electric Scooters That Endanger People with Disabilities

October 30, 2020 Toronto: Today, a new report by the non-partisan grassroots AODA Alliance pulls back the curtain to reveal the stunning behind-the-scenes high-price feeding frenzy of back-room pressure that corporate lobbyists for electric scooter (e-scooter) rental companies have flooded City Hall with for months. They are relentlessly pressuring City Hall to pass a by-law to lift the much-needed ban on e-scooters. The corporate lobbyists want to make money on e-scooter rentals, laughing all the way to the bank as seriously injured pedestrians sob all the way to hospital emergency rooms.

This new report gives insight into why in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic when other pressing issues should be a priority, Toronto’s municipal politicians are so seriously considering unleashing e-scooters in Toronto, despite their amply-documented dangers to people with disabilities, seniors and others. Key disability organizations vigourously oppose e-scooters, because of these proven dangers.

“All eyes are on Mayor John Tory. Corporate lobbyists are clearly spending piles of money to inundate City Hall and the Mayor’s office,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the non-partisan AODA Alliance that spearheads efforts to protect 2.6 million Ontarians with disabilities from the dangers that e-scooters cause. “We keep hearing that it will be Mayor John Tory that will ultimately decide if e-scooters will be inflicted on Torontonians. We need Mayor Tory to listen to us, the people who will be exposed to the dangers e-scooters create. He needs to stand up to the corporate lobbyists.”

This report shows that entries in Toronto’s official Lobbyist Registry, extracted below, filling fully 73 pages, reveal that in just the two years from June 2018 to the present, eight e-scooter rental companies and three lobbying firms have documented fully 1,384 contacts with City Hall in person, by phone, by virtual meeting or by email. Among these are at least 112 meetings with City officials and 1,153 emails. These figures only include contacts which corporate lobbyists opted to record in the Toronto Lobbyist Registry.

Amidst this onslaught of corporate lobbyists’ approaches are a dizzying 94 contacts with the Mayor’s Office, including 10 with Mayor Tory himself, 58 with the Mayor’s Senior Advisor, Legislative Affairs Daniela Magisano, 15 with Mayor Tory’s Director of Legislative Affairs Edward Birnbaum, 10 with his Chief of Staff Luke Robertson, and 1 with Mayor Tory’s Deputy Chief of Staff Courtney Glen.

As well, among these documented contacts are 368 contacts with members of City Council, 479 contacts with staff of members of council, as well as 352 contacts with the following City staff, among others (We surmise that the corporate lobbyists may not have reached a few entry-level file clerks):

  • Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team, Transportation Services: 62
  • Manager, Street Furniture Management, Transportation Services: 41
  • Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects, Transportation Services: 37
  • Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation Transportation Services: 36
  • Manager, Data & Analytics Transportation Services: 26
  • Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation, Transportation Services: 25
  • Director, Policy & Innovation, Transportation Services: 22
  • Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education, Transportation Services: 18
  • General Manager, Transportation Services: 18
  • Manager Transportation Services: 18
  • Project Lead Environment, Policy & Research, Environment and Energy: 13
  • Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management, Transportation Services: 12
  • Manager, Policy and Research Environment & Energy: 10
  • Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation, Transportation Services: 7
  • Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs Transportation Services: 7

An e-scooter is a silent motor vehicle. A joy-rider with no license or training would be allowed to race around on an e-scooter at 20 kilometers an hour or faster. A Toronto City Staff report shows that e-scooters create real dangers to public safety in places that allow them. E-scooter riders and innocent pedestrians get seriously injured or killed. Check out a recent CBC report on e-scooter injuries suffered in Calgary.

The silent menace of e-scooters especially endanger seniors and people with disabilities, such as people who are blind or have low vision or balance issues, or whose disability makes them slower to scramble out of the way. A blind pedestrian can’t know when a silent e-scooter rockets toward them at over 20 KPH, driven by a fun-seeking unlicensed, untrained, uninsured, unhelmetted rider.

In cities where e-scooters are allowed, rental e-scooters, left strewn around public places, become mobility barriers to accessibility for people with physical disabilities. For people who are blind, deafblind or have low vision, those e-scooters become a serious, unexpected tripping hazard. E-scooters left on sidewalks create serious new accessibility barriers for people using a wheelchair, walker or other mobility device. An e-scooter can block them from continuing along an otherwise-accessible sidewalk.

On February 3, 2020, Toronto’s Accessibility Advisory Committee (appointed by the City) unanimously recommended to City Council not to allow e-scooters in Toronto because they create dangers for people with disabilities. On July 28, 2020, City Council voted on a motion to ask City staff to further research the concerns for people with disabilities arising from e-scooters. The motion passed, but only on a vote of 12 for, and 11 opposed.

“The City of Toronto should hold a major, extensive, open and accessible consultation to hear from Torontonians with disabilities, and Mayor Tory should himself lead these real-time consultations,” said Lepofsky. “So far, the City and the Mayor have not done so, despite City Council’s call for more information on the implications of e-scooters for people with disabilities, a motion that Mayor Tory himself supported.”

On July 28, why did fully 11 City Council members vote to oppose City Staff looking any further into the dangers that e-scooters create for people with disabilities? The Toronto Lobbyist Registry gives some insight. Of those 11 members of City Council, the e-scooter rental companies had 43 contacts with Councilor Layton, 25 with Councilor McKelvie and 21 with Councilor Colle. All three were among the 11 who voted against the needs of people with disabilities, and hence, in favour of the e-scooter rental companies and their corporate lobbyists.

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

Twitter: @aodaalliance

On July 28, 2020, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky was interviewed on News Radio 1310 in Ottawa, on the problems with e-scooters that have already emerged shortly after Ottawa began its ill-considered pilot with e-scooters. We will have more to say on the e-scooters issue over the coming weeks. Below is set out an excerpt from an article on this in the July 29, 2020 Toronto Star. The history of this item at Toronto City Council is set out on its website at http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.IE14.10.

For more background:

  1. The AODA Alliance’s July 8, 2020 brief to the City of Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee, already endorsed by Spinal Cord Injury Ontario and the March of Dimes of Canada
  1. The open letter to all Ontario municipal councils from 11 major disability organizations, opposing e-scooters in Ontario, and
  1. A sampling of news reports on the serious injuries that e-scooters have caused in communities that permit them.
  1. The AODA Alliance e-scooters web page.

A Report of the Recorded Contacts by E-Scooter Rental Companies’ Corporate Lobbyists and Toronto City Hall Between June 2018 and October 2020

October 30, 2020

Prepared by the AODA Alliance

All information is taken from the official Toronto Lobbyists Registry.

Bird Canada

  1. January 21, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  2. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  3. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  4. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  5. May 07, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  6. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  7. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  8. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  9. July 06, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  10. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  11. July 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  12. March 26, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  13. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  14. January 28, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  15. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  16. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  17. May 06, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  18. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  19. May 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  20. June 04, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  21. December 11, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  22. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  23. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  24. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  25. September 25, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  26. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  27. February 11, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  28. April 14, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  29. April 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  30. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  31. May 06, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  32. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  33. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  34. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  35. November 01, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  36. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  37. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  38. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  39. May 07, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  40. October 22, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  41. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  42. April 07, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Anthony Tersigni of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  43. May 06, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Anthony Tersigni of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  44. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternack’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  45. February 11, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternack, a Staff of Member of Council.
  46. April 07, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  47. April 14, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  48. April 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  49. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  50. May 06, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  51. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  52. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  53. June 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  54. June 17, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  55. July 06, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  56. July 08, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  57. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  58. September 05, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  59. December 10, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  60. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  61. December 16, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  62. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  63. February 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  64. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  65. May 07, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  66. May 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  67. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  68. May 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  69. July 06, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  70. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  71. July 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  72. September 14, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  73. September 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  74. October 08, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  75. November 12, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with David Bellmore of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  76. July 08, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  77. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  78. July 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  79. July 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  80. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Michael Thompson’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  81. May 07, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Michael Thompson’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  82. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Monk of Denzil Minnan-Wong’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  83. December 11, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  84. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair Jennifer McKelvie’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  85. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair Jennifer McKelvie’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  86. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lisa Hoffman of Kristyn Wong-Tam’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  87. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Mike Colle’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  88. July 06, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Mike Colle’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  89. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Mike Colle’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  90. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  91. May 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of the Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  92. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias deDovitiis of Anthony Perruzza’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  93. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias deDovitiis of Anthony Perruzza’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  94. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Giles of Ana Bailao’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  95. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Giles of Ana Bailao’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  96. March 26, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Nick Dominelli of Cynthia Lai’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  97. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nick Dominelli of Cynthia Lai’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  98. November 01, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Rachel Scott of Office of Councillor Peruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  99. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  100. May 07, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  101. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  102. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  103. June 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  104. January 28, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  105. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  106. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  107. May 06, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  108. May 08, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  109. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  110. October 22, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Tristan Downe-Dewdney of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  111. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Vice-President, Stakeholder Relations of CreateTO, an Employee of a Local Board.
  112. June 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Vice-President, Stakeholder Relations of CreateTO, an Employee of a Local Board.
  113. June 17, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Vice-President, Stakeholder Relations of CreateTO, an Employee of a Local Board.
  114. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Director of Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  115. June 17, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Director, Transaction Services of Corporate Real Estate Management, an Employee of the City.
  116. December 10, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  117. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  118. December 16, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  119. March 27, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  120. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  121. September 18, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  122. October 22, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  123. October 25, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  124. November 26, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  125. November 27, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  126. November 28, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call and sent an e-mail to the Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  127. December 10, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  128. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  129. December 16, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  130. January 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  131. January 20, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  132. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  133. March 27, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  134. April 07, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to the Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  135. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  136. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  137. September 18, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Senior Policy and Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  138. September 18, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  139. October 22, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  140. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  141. December 16, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  142. February 05, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  143. March 27, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  144. September 18, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Toronto Urban Fellow Research Associate of People, Equity & Human Rights, an Employee of the City.
  145. September 30, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  146. September 18, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  147. October 22, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  148. October 25, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  149. January 10, 2020, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  150. September 18, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, met with Senior Policy and Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  151. September 18, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  152. October 22, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  153. September 18, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, met with Toronto Urban Fellow Research Associate of People, Equity & Human Rights, an Employee of the City.
  154. January 28, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  155. February 03, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  156. April 07, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  157. February 11, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, met with James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  158. February 11, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, met with Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  159. February 05, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Mike Layton’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  160. January 28, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, met with Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  161. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  162. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  163. October 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  164. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  165. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  166. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  167. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  168. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  169. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  170. July 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  171. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  172. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  173. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  174. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  175. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  176. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  177. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  178. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  179. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  180. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  181. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  182. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  183. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  184. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  185. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  186. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  187. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  188. October 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  189. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  190. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  191. July 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  192. July 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  193. July 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  194. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  195. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  196. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  197. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  198. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  199. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  200. July 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  201. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  202. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  203. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  204. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  205. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  206. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  207. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  208. July 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  209. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  210. October 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  211. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  212. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  213. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  214. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  215. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  216. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  217. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mayor John Tory, a Member of Council.
  218. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mayor John Tory, a Member of Council.
  219. August 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  220. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aaron Prance of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  221. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aaron Prance of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  222. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Adrian Martins of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  223. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Adrian Martins of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  224. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Alex Amelin of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  225. July 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Alex Amelin of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  226. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Alex Amelin of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  227. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  228. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  229. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Andrew Athanasiu of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  230. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Antonette Dinovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  231. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Antonette Dinovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  232. July 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  233. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  234. July 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  235. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  236. October 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  237. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  238. October 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  239. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  240. July 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brett McCandless of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  241. July 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  242. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  243. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  244. July 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call and sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  245. July 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  246. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  247. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  248. September 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  249. October 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call and sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  250. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  251. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  252. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daryl Finlayson of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  253. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daryl Finlayson of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  254. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daryl Finlayson of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  255. July 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Diana Gonzalez of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  256. July 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call and sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  257. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  258. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  259. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  260. September 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  261. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  262. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  263. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  264. July 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  265. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  266. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call and sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  267. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  268. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  269. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Murphy of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  270. July 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Luke-Smith of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  271. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Monk of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  272. July 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  273. July 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  274. July 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  275. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  276. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  277. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  278. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  279. July 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  280. July 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  281. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call and sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  282. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  283. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  284. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  285. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  286. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lesley Burlie of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  287. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  288. August 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  289. September 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  290. October 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  291. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  292. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  293. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Maham Aqil of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  294. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Maham Aqil of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  295. July 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  296. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  297. July 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  298. July 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  299. July 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  300. July 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  301. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  302. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  303. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  304. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Miran Markovic of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  305. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Miran Markovic of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  306. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Miran Markovic of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  307. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Monique Lisi of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  308. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mustapha Khamissa of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  309. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nicholas Dominelli of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  310. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Nicholas Dominelli of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  311. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nicholas Gallant of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  312. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nicholas Gallant of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  313. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nicholas Gallant of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  314. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Olivia Klasios of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  315. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  316. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  317. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  318. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  319. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  320. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  321. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rebecca Guida of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  322. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rebecca Guida of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  323. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  324. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  325. August 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  326. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  327. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  328. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  329. July 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  330. July 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  331. July 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  332. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  333. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  334. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  335. July 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  336. July 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  337. July 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  338. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  339. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  340. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  341. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  342. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  343. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  344. July 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  345. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  346. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Shima Bhana of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  347. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  348. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  349. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  350. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  351. July 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  352. July 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  353. July 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call and sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  354. July 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  355. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  356. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  357. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  358. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  359. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  360. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  361. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Tom Gleason of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  362. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Trent Jennett of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  363. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Trent Jennett of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  364. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  365. September 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  366. October 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  367. September 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Coordinator of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  368. September 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, an Employee of the City.
  369. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  370. August 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  371. September 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  372. September 09, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  373. October 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  374. September 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  375. October 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  376. October 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, an Employee of the City.
  377. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  378. August 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  379. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  380. September 09, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  381. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  382. October 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  383. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  384. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  385. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  386. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  387. July 30, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  388. August 12, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  389. August 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  390. August 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  391. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  392. September 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  393. September 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  394. September 09, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  395. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  396. September 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  397. September 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  398. October 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  399. October 02, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  400. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  401. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  402. September 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  403. October 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  404. October 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  405. July 30, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  406. July 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to the Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  407. August 12, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  408. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  409. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  410. July 30, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call and sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  411. July 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  412. August 12, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  413. August 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  414. August 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  415. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  416. September 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  417. September 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  418. September 09, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  419. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  420. September 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  421. September 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  422. October 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  423. October 02, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  424. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  425. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  426. October 20, 2020, John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  427. October 21, 2020, John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  428. October 26, 2020, John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  429. October 27, 2020, John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an E-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  430. October 27, 2020, John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an E-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  431. October 27, 2020, John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an E-mail to Andrew Athanasiu of Josh Matlow’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.

Neutron Holdings Inc. (Publicly known as “Lime”)

  1. June 18, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jon Burnside of Ward 26 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  2. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Christin Carmichael Greb of Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  3. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Mike Layton of Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina, a Member of Council.
  4. April 15, 2020, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  5. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Gord Perks of Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  6. June 18, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Michael Thompson of Ward 37 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  7. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Cycling Infras & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  8. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  9. July 26, 2018, Nico Probst of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Rachel Van Fraassen of Office of Councillor Jaye Robinson, Ward 25, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  10. July 26, 2018, Nico Probst of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Siri Agrell of The Mayor’s Office, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  11. July 07, 2020, Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., had a teleconference with Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  12. October 22, 2019, Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  13. January 10, 2020, Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  14. October 22, 2019, Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Designer (Toronto Urban Fellow) of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  15. January 10, 2020, Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Designer (Toronto Urban Fellow) of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  16. October 22, 2019, Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Policy and Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  17. October 22, 2019, Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  18. January 10, 2020, Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  19. April 21, 2020, Calvin Thigpen of Neutron Holdings Inc., webinar James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  20. April 21, 2020, Calvin Thigpen of Neutron Holdings Inc., webinar Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  21. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  22. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  23. October 07, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  24. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  25. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  26. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  27. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  28. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  29. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  30. April 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  31. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  32. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  33. April 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  34. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  35. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  36. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  37. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  38. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  39. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  40. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  41. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  42. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  43. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  44. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  45. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  46. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  47. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  48. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  49. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  50. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  51. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  52. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  53. March 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  54. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  55. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  56. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  57. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  58. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  59. April 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  60. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  61. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  62. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  63. March 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  64. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  65. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  66. April 11, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  67. April 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  68. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  69. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  70. April 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  71. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  72. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  73. October 01, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  74. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  75. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  76. March 04, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  77. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  78. April 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  79. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  80. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  81. March 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  82. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  83. March 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  84. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  85. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  86. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  87. March 04, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  88. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  89. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  90. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  91. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  92. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  93. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  94. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  95. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  96. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  97. March 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  98. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  99. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  100. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  101. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  102. August 23, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  103. August 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  104. September 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  105. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  106. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  107. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  108. March 02, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  109. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  110. April 02, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  111. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  112. April 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  113. April 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  114. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Gord Perks of Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  115. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Gord Perks of Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  116. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  117. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  118. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  119. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  120. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  121. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  122. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  123. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  124. January 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  125. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  126. March 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., connected via social media with Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  127. April 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  128. April 11, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Abdullah Sherif of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  129. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  130. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  131. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  132. February 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  133. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  134. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ani Dergalstanian of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  135. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Anthony Ferrari of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  136. March 09, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Anthony Tersigni of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  137. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Antonette DiNovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  138. February 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Antonette DiNovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  139. October 07, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Antonette DiNovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  140. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  141. March 09, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  142. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  143. April 02, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  144. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  145. April 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  146. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  147. March 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  148. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  149. March 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  150. April 02, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  151. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  152. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Brett.McCandless of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  153. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  154. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  155. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  156. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  157. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Courtney Glen of The Mayor’s Office, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  158. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  159. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  160. July 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  161. July 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  162. August 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  163. September 09, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  164. September 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  165. September 17, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  166. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  167. October 11, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call and sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  168. October 17, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  169. October 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call and sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  170. October 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  171. November 07, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  172. November 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  173. January 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  174. January 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  175. February 05, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  176. February 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  177. February 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  178. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  179. February 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  180. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  181. April 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  182. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  183. March 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Diana Carella of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  184. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Diana Carella of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  185. March 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to Dino Alic of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  186. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Dino Alic of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  187. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Fertaa Yieleh-Chireh of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  188. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  189. April 02, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  190. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  191. April 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  192. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  193. September 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Hilary Burke of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  194. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Hilary Burke of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  195. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  196. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jacob Katz of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  197. March 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jacob Katz of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  198. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jacob Katz of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  199. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jacob Katz of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  200. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jessica Luke-Smith of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  201. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jessica Luke-Smith of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  202. March 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  203. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  204. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  205. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  206. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  207. March 04, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with John Sinclair of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  208. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  209. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  210. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  211. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Karen Duffy of Office of Councillor Perks, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  212. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Kim Edgar of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  213. March 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Kim Edgar of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  214. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Lesley Burlie of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  215. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Lia Brewer of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  216. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Lisa Rainford of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  217. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Lola Dandybaeva of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  218. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Lorraine Hewitt of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  219. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Lorraine Hewitt of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  220. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  221. February 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  222. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  223. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  224. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Maham Aqil of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  225. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Maham Aqil of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  226. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  227. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  228. March 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  229. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  230. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  231. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Megan Poole of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  232. September 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Michelle Zaslavsky of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  233. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Michelle Zaslavsky of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  234. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Michelle Zaslavsky of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  235. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Michelle Zaslavsky of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  236. March 02, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call and sent an email to Michelle Zaslavsky of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  237. April 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Nicholas Dominelli of Councillor Cynthia Lai, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  238. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Nikolaos Mantas of Office of Councillor Karygiannis, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  239. March 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Nikolaos Mantas of Office of Councillor Karygiannis, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  240. March 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Nikolaos Mantas of Office of Councillor Karygiannis, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  241. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  242. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  243. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  244. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  245. April 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paul Bieksa of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  246. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paul Bieksa of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  247. April 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paula Goncalves of Councillor Cynthia Lai, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  248. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Rachel Thompson of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  249. April 03, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Rishab Mehan of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  250. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Rishab Mehan of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  251. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Robert Cerjanec of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  252. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Robert Cerjanec of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  253. March 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Robyn Bidgood of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  254. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Robyn Bidgood of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  255. February 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  256. February 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  257. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  258. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  259. November 09, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Rohan Balram of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  260. November 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Rohan Balram of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  261. April 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  262. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ryan Pyne of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  263. March 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to Ryan Pyne of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  264. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ryan Pyne of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  265. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ryan Pyne of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  266. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ryan Pyne of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  267. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ryan Pyne of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  268. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ryan Pyne of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  269. February 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Samantha Vite of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  270. February 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Samantha Vite of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  271. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  272. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  273. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  274. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  275. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Shima Bhana of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  276. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  277. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  278. March 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  279. April 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call and sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  280. April 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call and sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  281. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  282. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  283. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call and sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  284. October 01, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  285. February 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  286. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  287. March 04, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  288. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  289. April 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  290. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  291. March 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Susan Baker of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  292. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Susan Baker of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  293. November 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Susan Baker of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  294. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  295. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  296. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  297. November 09, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  298. November 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  299. May 02, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mostafa Omran of Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), a Member of a Local Board.
  300. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Acting Director, Transport. Infrastructure Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  301. February 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Acting Director, Transport. Infrastructure Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  302. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Acting Director, Transport. Infrastructure Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  303. May 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Acting Director, Transport. Infrastructure Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  304. November 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Administrative Assistant 2 of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  305. November 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Administrative Assistant 2 of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  306. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  307. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  308. May 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  309. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  310. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  311. June 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  312. June 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  313. July 09, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  314. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  315. October 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  316. November 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  317. December 02, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  318. January 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  319. February 04, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  320. March 05, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  321. April 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  322. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  323. April 08, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Economic Support and Recovery of Economic Development & Culture, an Employee of the City.
  324. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Economic Support and Recovery of Economic Development & Culture, an Employee of the City.
  325. March 05, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  326. April 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  327. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  328. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  329. February 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  330. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  331. May 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  332. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  333. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  334. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  335. July 09, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  336. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  337. October 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  338. November 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  339. December 02, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  340. December 03, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  341. January 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  342. February 04, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  343. February 05, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  344. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  345. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  346. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  347. July 09, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  348. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  349. October 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  350. November 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  351. December 02, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  352. January 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  353. February 04, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  354. March 05, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  355. April 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  356. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  357. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to General Manager of Fleet Services, an Employee of the City.
  358. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to General Manager of Parks, Forestry & Recreation, an Employee of the City.
  359. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  360. December 03, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  361. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  362. January 03, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  363. January 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  364. February 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  365. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  366. February 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  367. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  368. January 03, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  369. January 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  370. February 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  371. May 01, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to the Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  372. May 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  373. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  374. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  375. July 09, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  376. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  377. October 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  378. February 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  379. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  380. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  381. February 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  382. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  383. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  384. May 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  385. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  386. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  387. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  388. June 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  389. June 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  390. July 09, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  391. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  392. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  393. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  394. October 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  395. March 05, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  396. April 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  397. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  398. April 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  399. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  400. October 23, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  401. October 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  402. October 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  403. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  404. November 01, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  405. November 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  406. December 02, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  407. December 03, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  408. December 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  409. December 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  410. December 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  411. January 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  412. January 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  413. January 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  414. February 04, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  415. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  416. February 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  417. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  418. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Designer (Toronto Urban Fellow) of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  419. January 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Designer (Toronto Urban Fellow) of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  420. March 05, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead Environment, Policy & Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  421. April 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead Environment, Policy & Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  422. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead Environment, Policy & Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  423. May 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  424. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  425. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  426. July 09, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  427. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  428. October 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  429. November 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  430. December 02, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  431. January 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  432. February 04, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  433. January 03, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Beautiful Streets of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  434. January 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Beautiful Streets of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  435. February 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Beautiful Streets of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  436. May 01, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to the Project Lead, Beautiful Streets of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  437. June 11, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  438. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  439. June 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  440. June 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  441. July 09, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  442. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  443. October 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  444. August 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  445. August 20, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  446. August 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  447. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  448. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  449. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  450. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  451. October 02, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  452. October 08, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  453. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  454. October 23, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  455. October 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  456. October 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  457. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  458. November 01, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  459. November 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  460. December 02, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  461. January 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  462. February 04, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  463. March 05, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  464. April 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  465. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  466. October 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  467. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  468. October 23, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  469. October 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  470. October 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  471. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  472. November 01, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  473. November 05, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  474. November 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  475. November 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  476. December 02, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  477. December 03, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  478. December 04, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  479. December 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  480. December 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  481. January 06, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call and sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  482. January 07, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  483. January 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with and sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  484. January 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  485. February 04, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  486. February 05, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call and sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  487. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  488. February 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  489. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  490. March 02, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  491. March 05, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  492. March 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call and sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  493. March 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  494. April 01, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  495. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  496. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  497. April 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  498. April 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  499. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Toronto Urban Fellow Research Associate of People & Equity, an Employee of the City.
  500. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Toronto Urban Fellow Research Associate of People & Equity, an Employee of the City.
  501. April 29, 2020, Katie Stevens of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  502. April 29, 2020, Katie Stevens of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  503. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  504. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  505. February 06, 2020, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ryan Pyne of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  506. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Stephanie Nakitas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  507. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  508. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  509. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  510. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  511. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  512. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  513. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  514. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  515. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  516. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  517. July 02, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  518. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  519. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  520. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  521. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  522. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  523. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  524. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  525. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  526. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  527. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  528. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  529. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  530. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  531. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  532. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  533. July 23, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  534. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  535. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  536. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  537. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  538. July 02, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  539. July 09, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  540. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  541. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  542. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  543. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  544. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  545. July 02, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  546. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  547. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  548. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  549. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  550. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  551. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  552. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  553. July 02, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  554. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  555. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  556. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Gord Perks of Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  557. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Gord Perks of Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  558. July 02, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  559. July 03, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  560. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  561. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  562. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  563. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  564. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  565. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  566. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  567. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  568. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  569. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  570. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Abdullah Sherif of Councillor Cynthia Lai, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  571. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  572. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Anthony Ferrari of Councillor Frances Nunziata, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  573. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Antonette DiNovo of Councillor Paul Ainslie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  574. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ashley Mcdonald of Councillor Jaye Robinson, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  575. July 02, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  576. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  577. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Carolina Vecchiarelli of Councillor Josh Matlow, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  578. July 02, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  579. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  580. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  581. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  582. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  583. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  584. July 02, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Hector Alonso of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  585. July 02, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jessica Pointon of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  586. July 03, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Jessica Pointon of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  587. July 02, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  588. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Karen Duffy of Councillor Gord Perks, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  589. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Kim Edgar of Councillor Mark Grimes, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  590. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Lesley Burlie of Councillor Jaye Robinson, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  591. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Lia Brewer of Councillor Joe Cressy, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  592. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  593. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Maham Aqil of Councillor Gary Crawford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  594. July 02, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  595. July 07, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., had a teleconference with Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  596. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  597. October 07, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to and had a teleconference with Michael Giles of Councillor Ana Bailão, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  598. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Nikolaos Mantas of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  599. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paul Bieksa of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  600. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Paula Goncalves of Councillor Cynthia Lai, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  601. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  602. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Ryan Lo of Councillor Shelley Carroll, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  603. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Sarah Barber of Councillor John Filion, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  604. July 08, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  605. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  606. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  607. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Sheila Henderson of Councillor Stephen Holyday, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  608. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Slavisa Mijatovic of Councillor Josh Matlow, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  609. July 02, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  610. July 09, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  611. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  612. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  613. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to Susan Serran of Ouncillor Paula Fletcher’s Office, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  614. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  615. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  616. October 15, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  617. July 30, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., had a teleconference with Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  618. August 21, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  619. September 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  620. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  621. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  622. September 30, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  623. July 30, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., had a teleconference with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  624. August 21, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  625. September 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  626. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  627. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  628. September 30, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.

 Roundtrip Systems

  1. March 12, 2020, Boris Chan, Senior Officer of Roundtrip Systems, met with Director of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  2. May 20, 2020, Boris Chan, Senior Officer of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to the Project Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  3. June 02, 2020, Boris Chan, Senior Officer of Roundtrip Systems, had a video chat with Project Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  4. June 08, 2020, Boris Chan, Senior Officer of Roundtrip Systems, made a telephone call to the Senior Policy Advisor, Strategic Alliances of Economic Development, an Employee of the City.
  5. January 20, 2020, Boris Chan, Senior Officer of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  6. March 11, 2020, Boris Chan, Senior Officer of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  7. July 22, 2020, Boris Chan, Senior Officer of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  8. May 25, 2020, Boris Chan, Senior Officer of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Support Asst B, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  9. March 12, 2020, Sevaan Franks of Roundtrip Systems, met with Director of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  10. December 06, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  11. January 14, 2020, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  12. December 05, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  13. January 14, 2020, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  14. December 06, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  15. January 14, 2020, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  16. December 06, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  17. January 14, 2020, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  18. December 06, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  19. January 14, 2020, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  20. December 06, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  21. January 14, 2020, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  22. December 06, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  23. January 14, 2020, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  24. January 13, 2020, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, met with and sent an e-mail to Director of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  25. February 19, 2020, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Director of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  26. March 12, 2020, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, met with Director of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  27. December 06, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  28. December 09, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  29. January 10, 2020, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  30. January 13, 2020, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  31. December 10, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to the Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  32. December 19, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, met with Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  33. January 13, 2020, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, met with and sent an e-mail to the Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  34. December 06, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to the Senior Transportation Solutions Integrator of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  35. December 10, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, sent an e-mail to the Senior Transportation Solutions Integrator of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  36. December 19, 2019, Andrew Scherkus of Roundtrip Systems, met with Senior Transportation Solutions Integrator of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.

 Roll Technologies

  1. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  2. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  3. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  4. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  5. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  6. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  7. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Mayor John Tory, a Member of Council.
  8. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  9. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  10. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  11. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano from the Office of the Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  12. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum from the Office of the Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  13. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  14. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  15. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  16. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  17. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to the Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  18. September 14, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  19. September 18, 2020, Arda Erturk, Senior Officer of Roll Technologies, sent an e-mail to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.

 Crestview Strategy

  1. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an email to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  2. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an email to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  3. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an email to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  4. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an email to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  5. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an email to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  6. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an email to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  7. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an email to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  8. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  9. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  10. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  11. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an email to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  12. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an email to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  13. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an email to John Tory of the Mayor’s Office, a Member of Council.
  14. October 16, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, met with Daryl Finlayson of Ouncillor Paula Fletcher’s Office, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  15. October 16, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, met with Nicolas Valverde of Ouncillor Paula Fletcher’s Office, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  16. October 15, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, met with General Manager of Economic Development and Culture, an Employee of the City.

 Mobility Consulting

  1. July 06, 2020, David Cooper, Principal of Leading Mobility Consulting, sent an email to Daniela Magisano of The Mayor’s Office, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  2. July 07, 2020, David Cooper, Principal of Leading Mobility Consulting, met with Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  3. July 06, 2020, David Cooper, Principal of Leading Mobility Consulting, sent an email to Scott Morphet of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  4. July 08, 2020, David Cooper, Principal of Leading Mobility Consulting, met with Scott Morphet of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  5. July 30, 2020, David Cooper, Principal of Leading Mobility Consulting, met with Manager Trans Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  6. July 30, 2020, David Cooper, Principal of Leading Mobility Consulting, met with Senior Project Manager, Strategic Policy&Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.

 Lyft Canada Inc.

  1. September 23, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an email to Deputy CEO of TTC, an Employee of a Local Board.
  2. September 23, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  3. September 23, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an email to Director, Project, Design & Management of Transportation, an Employee of the City.
  4. September 23, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an email to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  5. September 18, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  6. September 23, 2020,
  7. Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an email to Deputy CEO of TTC, an Employee of a Local Board.
  8. September 23, 2020,
  9. Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an email to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  10. September 23, 2020,
  11. Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an email to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation, an Employee of the City.
  12. September 23, 2020,
  13. Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an email to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.

Populus Technologies, Inc.

  1. October 01, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  2. October 09, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call and/or had a web-based call with Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  3. October 18, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  4. March 05, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  5. June 17, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  6. June 22, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  7. June 23, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., met and/or had an online meeting with Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  8. January 23, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  9. June 01, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  10. June 16, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  11. June 18, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  12. June 23, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., met and/or had an online meeting with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  13. July 02, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  14. July 16, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  15. June 05, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., met and/or had an online meeting with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  16. June 10, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  17. March 05, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  18. September 27, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  19. October 01, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  20. October 09, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call and/or had a web-based call with Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  21. October 18, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  22. January 23, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  23. February 14, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  24. February 28, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  25. March 05, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  26. March 09, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  27. March 24, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  28. April 15, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  29. April 16, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  30. May 08, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  31. May 19, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  32. May 27, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., met and/or had an online meeting with Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  33. June 10, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  34. June 16, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  35. June 17, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  36. June 22, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  37. October 01, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  38. October 09, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call and/or had a web-based call with Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  39. October 18, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  40. February 14, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  41. February 28, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  42. March 05, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  43. June 17, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  44. June 22, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  45. September 18, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  46. September 13, 2019, Malia Schiling of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  47. September 25, 2019, Malia Schiling of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  48. October 01, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  49. October 09, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call and/or had a web-based call with Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  50. October 18, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  51. December 09, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  52. January 22, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  53. January 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  54. March 05, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  55. June 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., met and/or had an online meeting with Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  56. September 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  57. September 15, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  58. September 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  59. October 13, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  60. January 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  61. June 01, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  62. June 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  63. June 18, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  64. June 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., met and/or had an online meeting with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  65. July 02, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  66. July 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  67. September 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  68. September 15, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  69. September 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  70. October 13, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  71. June 05, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., met and/or had an online meeting with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  72. June 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  73. September 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  74. March 05, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  75. September 27, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  76. October 01, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  77. October 09, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call and/or had a web-based call with Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  78. October 18, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  79. December 09, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  80. January 22, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  81. January 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  82. February 14, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  83. February 26, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  84. February 28, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  85. March 05, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  86. March 09, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  87. March 24, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  88. April 15, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  89. April 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  90. May 08, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  91. May 19, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  92. May 27, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., met and/or had an online meeting with Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  93. June 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  94. June 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  95. September 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  96. September 15, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  97. September 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  98. October 13, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  99. September 05, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  100. September 09, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  101. September 10, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  102. September 13, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  103. September 25, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  104. October 01, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  105. October 18, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  106. December 09, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  107. December 23, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  108. January 22, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  109. January 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  110. February 14, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  111. February 28, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  112. March 05, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  113. July 22, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  114. September 18, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  115. February 05, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  116. October 09, 2019, Eliot Mueting of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call and/or had a web-based call with Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  117. October 09, 2019, Eliot Mueting of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call and/or had a web-based call with Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  118. October 09, 2019, Eliot Mueting of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call and/or had a web-based call with Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  119. March 05, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  120. June 23, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., met and/or had an online meeting with Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  121. September 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  122. September 15, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  123. September 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  124. October 13, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  125. January 23, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  126. June 01, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  127. June 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  128. June 18, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  129. June 23, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., met and/or had an online meeting with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  130. July 02, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  131. July 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  132. September 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  133. September 15, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  134. September 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  135. October 13, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  136. June 05, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., met and/or had an online meeting with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  137. June 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  138. March 05, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  139. January 23, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  140. February 14, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  141. February 26, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  142. February 28, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  143. March 05, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  144. March 09, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  145. March 24, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  146. April 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  147. May 08, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  148. May 19, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  149. May 27, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., met and/or had an online meeting with Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  150. June 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  151. June 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  152. September 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  153. September 15, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  154. September 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  155. October 13, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  156. February 14, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  157. February 28, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  158. March 05, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an email to the Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.

 Scooty Mobility Inc.

  1. July 07, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  2. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  3. March 02, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., met with and sent an email to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  4. July 07, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  5. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  6. September 28, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  7. June 02, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  8. July 07, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  9. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  10. July 07, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  11. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  12. July 07, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  13. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  14. July 07, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  15. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  16. July 07, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  17. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  18. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Amelia Stefanopoulos of Denzil Minnan-Wong, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  19. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  20. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Caroline Duffy of Mike Colle, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  21. May 26, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Mayor, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  22. July 07, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Mayor, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  23. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Daniela Magisano of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  24. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor Tory, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  25. July 23, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., made a telephone call and sent an email to Jonathan Kent of Michael Ford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  26. February 12, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., made a telephone call and sent an email to Luke Robertson of Mayor, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  27. July 07, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Luke Robertson of Mayor, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  28. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Mathias de Dovitiis of Anthony Peruzza, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  29. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Scott Morphet of Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  30. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  31. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to General Manager of Transportation, an Employee of the City.
  32. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to the Manager of Transportation, an Employee of the City.
  33. September 14, 2020, Shoaib Ahmed, Senior Officer of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to the Senior Project Manager of Transportation, an Employee of the City.
  34. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  35. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  36. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  37. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  38. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  39. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  40. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  41. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  42. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  43. March 02, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., met with Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  44. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  45. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  46. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  47. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  48. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  49. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  50. July 31, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  51. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  52. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  53. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  54. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  55. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Gord Perks of Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  56. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  57. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  58. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  59. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  60. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  61. July 23, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., made a telephone call to Jonathan Kent of Michael Ford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  62. July 31, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Jonathan Kent of Michael Ford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  63. August 01, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Jonathan Kent of Michael Ford, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  64. February 12, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., made a telephone call to Luke Robertson of Mayor, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  65. July 28, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Meri Newton of Ward 4, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  66. July 28, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Mustapha Khamissa of Ward 17, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  67. July 27, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Nikolaos Mantas of Ward 22, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  68. July 28, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Paula Goncalves of Ward 23, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  69. July 28, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Sheila Henderson of Ward 2, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  70. July 31, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to Slaviša Mijatovic of Ward 12, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  71. December 11, 2019, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Development of CreateTO, an Employee of a Local Board.
  72. July 29, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to the Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation, an Employee of the City.
  73. July 29, 2020, Moaz Ahmad Shoaib of Scooty Mobility Inc., sent an email to the Project Manager, Automated Vehicles of Transportation, an Employee of the City.
  74. March 02, 2020, Shahid Pasha of Scooty Mobility Inc., met with Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  75. February 12, 2020, Shahid Pasha of Scooty Mobility Inc., made a telephone call to Luke Robertson of Mayor, a Staff of a Member of Council.
  76. July 23, 2020, Edmund Sofo of Scooty Mobility Inc., made a telephone call to Jonathan Kent of Michael Ford, a Staff of a Member of Council.

Radical Wheelz Inc.

  1. June 07, 2020, Ken Gregory, Senior Officer of Radical Wheelz Inc., sent an email to the Senior public manager public realm of Transportation services, an Employee of the City.

Taking a Few Moments to Reflect Back Today on Some Important Milestones in the Campaign for Accessibility for People with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Taking a Few Moments to Reflect Back Today on Some Important Milestones in the Campaign for Accessibility for People with Disabilities

October 29, 2020

          SUMMARY

While the COVID-19 pandemic is still swirling around us, it would be nice to take a moment to reflect back on important events in the decades-long campaign for accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities in our society.

 1. Today is the 22nd Anniversary of the Ontario Legislature’s Unanimous Resolution, Calling for Strong Disability Accessibility Legislation

Twenty-two years ago today, our relentless grass roots disability advocacy paid off, with long term consequences for 2.6 million Ontarians with disabilities!

On October 29, 1998, when the Conservative Government of Premier Mike Harris was in power, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee (the predecessor to the AODA Alliance) got the Ontario Legislature to unanimously pass an historic resolution. We set it out below. It called for the enactment of a provincial disability accessibility law that puts into effect the 11 principles that grass roots disability advocates had formulated.

The events of that dramatic day are summarized in a three-page excerpt, set out below, from AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s detailed article that summarizes the Disabilities Act movement’s history from 1994 to 2003. To read the debates in the Ontario Legislature on October 29, 1998, leading to the passage of this resolution, visit http://www.odacommittee.net/hansard18.html

Over two decades later, we still measure the legislation we’ve won, the McGuinty Government’s Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005, against the 11 principles the Ontario Legislature adopted on October 29, 1998. We also continue to measure any accessibility standards and other actions taken under the AODA 2005 against the 11 bedrock principles which the Ontario Legislature adopted on that historic day.

Learn more about the ODA Committee’s campaign that led to the enactment of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act in 2005.

Learn more about the AODA Alliance’s campaign since 2005 to get the AODA effectively implemented and enforced.

 2. 40 years Ago, A Fight to Get Equality for People with Disabilities Included in the Forthcoming Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Forty years ago this month, during the fall of 1980, Canada’s Parliament was debating whether to add the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Canada’s Constitution, and to bring our Constitution home from the UK. The proposed Charter of Rights that was before Parliament included a guarantee of equality rights in its section 15. However that provision did not include equality for people with disabilities.

Over the 1980 fall and early 1981 winter, advocacy from the disability community led Parliament to amend the Charter of Rights before it was adopted, to include equality for people with disabilities. That was the only right that was added to the Charter of Rights during that debate in Parliament.

We will have more to say about those historic events later this fall. In the meantime, if you would like to learn more about the battle to get disability equality included in the Charter of Rights, check out a captioned online talk by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, telling the story. That video is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrYzAAKXOrc

There have now been 637 days, or 21 months, since the Ford Government received the ground-breaking final report of the Independent Review of the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by former Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Government has announced no comprehensive plan of new action to implement that report. That makes even worse the serious problems facing Ontarians with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

          MORE DETAILS

RESOLUTION UNANIMOUSLY PASSED BY THE ONTARIO LEGISLATURE OCTOBER 29, 1998

In the opinion of this House, since persons with disabilities in Ontario face systemic barriers in access to employment, services, goods, facilities and accommodation;

and since all Ontarians will benefit from the removal of these barriers, thereby enabling these persons to enjoy equal opportunity and full participation in the life of the province;

And since Premier Harris promised in writing during the last election in the letter from Michael D. Harris to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee dated May 24, 1995 to:

  1. a) enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act within its current term of office; and
  1. b) work together with members of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, amongst others, in the development of such legislation.

and since this House unanimously passed a resolution on May 16, 1996 calling on the Ontario Government to keep this promise,

Therefore this House resolves that the Ontarians with Disabilities Act should embody the following principles:

  1. The purpose of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act should be to effectively ensure to persons with disabilities in Ontario the equal opportunity to fully and meaningfully participate in all aspects of life in Ontario based on their individual merit, by removing existing barriers confronting them and by preventing the creation of new barriers. It should seek to achieve a barrier- free Ontario for persons with disabilities within as short a time as is reasonably possible, with implementation to begin immediately upon proclamation.
  1. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act’s requirements should supersede all other legislation, regulations or policies which either conflict with it, or which provide lesser protections and entitlements to persons with disabilities;
  1. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require government entities, public premises, companies and organizations to be made fully accessible to all persons with disabilities through the removal of existing barriers and the prevention of the creation of new barriers, within strict time frames to be prescribed in the legislation or regulations;
  1. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require the providers of goods, services and facilities to the public to ensure that their goods, services and facilities are fully usable by persons with disabilities, and that they are designed to reasonably accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. Included among services, goods and facilities, among other things, are all aspects of education including primary, secondary and post-secondary education, as well as providers of transportation and communication facilities (to the extent that Ontario can regulate these) and public sector providers of information to the public e.g. governments. Providers of these goods, services and facilities should be required to devise and implement detailed plans to remove existing barriers within legislated timetables;
  1. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require public and private sector employers to take proactive steps to achieve barrier-free workplaces within prescribed time limits. Among other things, employers should be required to identify existing barriers which impede persons with disabilities, and then to devise and implement plans for the removal of these barriers, and for the prevention of new barriers in the workplace;
  1. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should provide for a prompt and effective process for enforcement. It should not simply incorporate the existing procedures for filing discrimination complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as these are too slow and cumbersome, and yield inadequate remedies;
  1. As part of its enforcement process, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act should provide for a process of regulation- making to define with clarity the steps required for compliance with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It should be open for such regulations to be made on an industry-by-industry basis, or sector-by-sector basis. This should include a requirement that input be obtained from affected groups such as persons with disabilities before such regulations are enacted. It should also provide persons with disabilities with the opportunity to apply to have regulations made in specific sectors of the economy;
  1. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should also mandate the Government of Ontario to provide education and other information resources to companies, individuals and groups who seek to comply with the requirements of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act;
  1. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should also require the Government of Ontario to take affirmative steps to promote the development and distribution in Ontario of new adaptive technologies and services for persons with disabilities;
  1. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require the provincial and municipal governments to make it a strict condition of funding any program, or of purchasing any services, goods or facilities, that they be designed to be fully accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. Any grant or contract which does not so provide is void and unenforceable by the grant- recipient or contractor with the government in question;
  1. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act must be more than mere window dressing. It should contribute meaningfully to the improvement of the position of persons with disabilities in Ontario. It must have real force and effect.

 Excerpt from The Long, Arduous Road To A Barrier-Free Ontario For People With Disabilities: The History Of The Ontarians with Disabilities Act — The First Chapter

(2004, 15 National Journal of Constitutional Law)

By David Lepofsky

8)         FALL 1998: THE ONTARIO LEGISLATURE DECLARES WHAT THE ODA MUST INCLUDE AND THE GOVERNMENT BRINGS FORWARD ITS FIRST ODA BILL

  1. a) Enshrining The ODA Yardstick – The Legislature’s Second ODA Resolution Adopts Our Eleven Principles

Perhaps the most significant milestone in the first chapter of our campaign came in October 1998. In the Fall of 1998, after the Government’s 1998 ODA closed consultations ended, we turned our attention to a next big challenge. A Government ODA bill could come at any time. We had no reason to expect that the Government would forewarn us of the date when it would introduce an ODA bill into the Legislature. The Government hadn’t forewarned us of the July 1998 release of its ODA discussion paper.

We wanted to publicly set a clear benchmark or yardstick against which any Government’s ODA bill could be measured. We had no reason to expect that a Government ODA bill would be any better than its weak policy framework in its ODA discussion paper.

Early in the Fall of 1998, we were approached by Liberal Windsor MPP Dwight Duncan. Until then, Hamilton Liberal MPP Dominic Agostino had been the lead Liberal MPP championing the ODA in the Legislature. Agostino had announced at one of our news conferences that his father had been an injured worker. From this, he well understood the barriers persons with disabilities faced. He had brought a personal passion to the ODA issue.

Mr. Duncan told us he wanted to introduce a private member’s ODA bill in the Legislature for us. We welcomed his support. However, we were still very reluctant to put massive work into researching and drafting a private member’s bill, for the reasons discussed earlier. We also feared that the Government could skilfully focus a barrage of criticism on some minor, distracting target in a bill that we would crank out, such as some obscure inconsequential wording problem. It could thereby transform a red herring into the central public issue. This could drag us off our message.

Accordingly we asked Duncan to instead introduce another private member’s ODA resolution into the Legislature. This tactic had worked so well for us in May 1996, when NDP MPP Marion Boyd had successfully brought forward the first ODA resolution to the Legislature. If Duncan were to bring forward another ODA resolution, this could help increase the Liberal Party’s support for the ODA. It was very important for our coalition to be, and to be seen as non-partisan. Rotating our activities among both opposition parties helped us achieve this.

Duncan was open to our idea. We then had to decide what this second ODA resolution should say. It needn’t replicate the first ODA resolution. That had called on the Ontario Government to keep its 1995 ODA election promise. We again didn’t want the resolution to be a partisan attack on the Conservative Government. As in 1996, we didn’t want to give the Government an easy excuse to use its majority in the Legislature to defeat this resolution.

We came up with an idea which would move the ODA cause forward, and which would put all of the political parties to the test. We proposed to Duncan that his resolution call on the Ontario Legislature to pass an ODA which complies with our 11 principles. A legislative debate over those principles took the ODA discussion far beyond the realm of just discussing in the abstract whether a law called the ODA should be passed. Such a resolution would make the parties either vote for or against our core principles on what that legislation should contain.

Dwight Duncan agreed to introduce the resolution we proposed. He also secured the Liberal Party’s support for the resolution. The NDP also notified us that it would support the resolution. We did not know whether the Conservatives, who commanded a majority of votes in the Legislature, would support it. We had no reason in advance for any optimism.

The resolution was scheduled for a debate and vote in the Legislature on October 29, 1998. This was one week after our meeting with Citizenship Minister Bassett, where we had been treated to the overhead slide show. The date for the resolution’s debate and vote also came a mere two days before Hallowe’en. Carole Riback, an inspired and inspiring ODA activist, dreamt up a clever Hallowe’en slogan around which we rallied. This resolution vote raised the question: “Would the ODA be a trick or treat?”

In Fall 1998, the ODA movement made its main focus getting this resolution passed. We urged ODA supporters to lobby MPPs from all three parties to vote for it. We also urged them to go to their local media to publicize this issue. We were learning more and more that the ODA movement was increasingly effective when it channelled its energies over a period of weeks on one concrete short-term goal.

The ODA Committee again quickly pulled together a major event at the legislative building at Queen’s Park for the morning of the resolution’s debate and vote. ODA supporters came to the legislative building and met in committee rooms. We planned to break into small teams to each go to MPPs’ offices, door to door, to “trick or treat,” canvassing them for their support on the resolution.

All hurried planning for this event went well, until we were contacted the night before by the office of the Speaker of the Legislature. It confronted us with a huge problem. The Speaker would not let us go to any MPP’s office unless we had a prior appointment. We were told that there is a blanket rule that provides that no one can get near the MPPs’ offices without an invitation. We were threatened with all being refused admittance to the legislative building. Since the Conservatives had taken power in 1995, Queen’s Park building security had increased extraordinarily.

This threatened to eviscerate our plans. We explained to the Speaker’s office that we planned an informal door-to-door canvass. It was impossible for us at that late hour to call then, the very night before our event, to try to book meetings with each MPP. We feared that if asked, Conservative MPPs would not agree to meet with us. They had refused to come to most of our prior events, and had so often resisted meeting our supporters in their local communities. If we could even get through to their offices at that late hour (which was unlikely), we would likely be told that appointments cannot be booked on such short notice.

We hurriedly negotiated a solution with the Speaker’s office. Small groups of our supporters could go to MPPs’ offices without a prior appointment, if each group was escorted by one Queen’s Park security officer, one MPP staffer, and one ODA committee representative. We had to agree to immediately recall all groups if any complaints about their conduct were received.

Having removed this last-minute roadblock, October 29, 1998 was a dramatic day. We had no idea in advance whether the resolution would pass. The Conservative majority held the power to decide this. Our teams carried out their door-to-door trick or treat canvass without any complaint.

One group was larger than authorized. We persuaded the Queen’s Park security staff not to complain. That group was composed entirely of deaf people. They made no noise, and needed our sign language interpreters. Queen’s Park security officials who travelled with our teams seemed to be enjoying the process.

An ODA supporter on one of our “trick or treat” teams reported that a Conservative MPP happened to be quickly leaving his office as the ODA team approached. The MPP called out that he had no time to meet, but he would vote for us, whatever it was we wanted him to vote for. While behind a glass door, another Conservative MPP turned to a staff member and mouthed that he did not know what the Ontarians with Disabilities Act was all about. That MPP hadn’t foreseen that among those on the other side of the glass door was a hard-of-hearing ODA supporter who can read lips.

The trick or treat teams finished their tours of MPPs’ offices. They then converged in Queen’s Park legislative committee rooms to watch the MPPs debate Dwight Duncan’s resolution in the Legislature, again on video monitors. We again brought our own sign language interpretation. As in the past, the Legislature’s public galleries remained almost totally inaccessible to persons with mobility disabilities.

During the debate in the Legislature, Liberal and NDP MPPs predictably spoke in favour of the resolution. The governing Conservative MPPs boasted of their Government’s record, and sounded as if they would vote against the resolution. However, when the vote came, our second ODA resolution in the Ontario Legislature passed unanimously.

Immediately afterward, we held a triumphant news conference at the Queen’s Park media studio. Both opposition parties had MPPs in attendance. The Government again declined our invitation to participate.

As another important step forward for us, the new Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty attended our news conference. He announced on the record that if his party were elected, they would commit to passing an ODA which complies with Dwight Duncan’s resolution.44

Later that day Citizenship Minister Bassett was asked in Question Period whether her Government would honour the resolution that the Legislature had unanimously passed that morning. Minister Bassett had not attended the debate in the Legislature that morning when the resolution was under consideration, even though it directly related to legislation for which she had lead responsibility for the Government. In her evasive answer to the opposition’s question put to her in Question Period that afternoon, Minister Bassett condemned the resolution as calling for job hiring quotas.

It was self-evident from the resolution’s text that it did not call for job hiring quotas or even hint at them. When we realized that the Government was going to use the hot-button “job quotas” accusation to try to whip up public opposition against us, we immediately launched a province-wide letter-writing campaign addressed directly to Minister Bassett and Premier Harris. We proclaimed that we sought no job hiring quotas. We called on the Government to desist in their inaccurate claims. Within a short time, Minister Bassett candidly conceded on a CBC radio interview that we were not seeking quotas. The Government thereafter dropped that tactic.

The Legislature’s passage of Dwight Duncan’s October 29, 1998 resolution was likely the most critical victory for the ODA movement in its history to that date. From then on, we no longer referred to the 11 principles as simply “the ODA Committee’s 11 principles for the ODA.” From then on we could, and did point to them as “the 11 principles for the ODA which the Ontario Legislature unanimously approved by a resolution on October 29, 1998.” We were indebted to Duncan for spearheading this resolution in a non-partisan way. His resolution served to become the yardstick by which any future legislation would be tested. It was also the catalyst that brought the Liberal and New Democratic Parties officially on the record in support of our 11 principles for the ODA. Both parties would go on to campaign for these 11 principles in the 1999 and 2003 provincial elections, and would actively press the Conservative Government to live up to them.

In the end, October 29, 1998 was a decisive, indeed towering milestone on the road to a barrier-free Ontario. Ironically, we got no media coverage that day, despite our best efforts. This cannot be explained on the basis that this story wasn’t newsworthy. The story had all the hallmarks of newsworthiness. We have learned that this is an unfortunate fact of community advocacy life. It did not deter our tenacity.

44 This was Mr. McGuinty’s first public commitment to this effect. Of great importance to the as-yet unwritten second chapter of the ODA saga, five years later, Mr. McGuinty would be elected Premier of Ontario in the October 2, 2003 provincial election. His 2003 election platform included a pledge to fulfil the commitment he first gave at our news conference on October 29, 1998.

Ford Government Admits It Sent Out An Inaccessible Broadcast Email Yesterday to Announce Its Upcoming Announcement on Accessibility, Claiming a “Clerical Error”– Even Though Ministers’ Announcements Are Carefully Screened In Advance

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Ford Government Admits It Sent Out An Inaccessible Broadcast Email Yesterday to Announce Its Upcoming Announcement on Accessibility, Claiming a “Clerical Error”– Even Though Ministers’ Announcements Are Carefully Screened In Advance

October 27, 2020

          SUMMARY

Yesterday, the AODA Alliance made public the jaw-dropping fact that the Ford Government’s Minister for Accessibility sent out a broadcast email that was inaccessible, to invite people to attend an minister’s announcement on Thursday, October 29, 2020 on the very subject of accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities. After our news release made this public, the Ford Government acknowledged that the announcement email was inaccessible, and apologized to the AODA Alliance. Below we set out the minister’s subsequent October 26, 2020 broadcast email, and an October 29, 2020 email to AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky from the Ford Government’s Deputy Minister of Accessibility.

The minister’s email, set out below, claims that it was a “clerical error” that led the minister to broadcast his inaccessible email invitation. Of Course, mistakes can happen. However, the Ontario Government does not simply sent out such emails, without them going through all sorts of scrutiny and checking, e.g. to make sure they are consistent with Government messaging and strategy.

There can be layers and layers of such vetting. This would especially be the case when it is a minister’s announcement of an upcoming Government-staged news event being announced. The fact that this broadcast email included its text within a text box, well-known to create accessibility barriers for screen-readers, should have been caught by someone, if that internal scrutiny took accessibility seriously.

There have now been 635 days since the Ford Government received the Onley Report, the report of the Government-appointed Independent Review of the implementation and enforcement of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. That report found substantial problems with the Ontario Government’s implementation and enforcement of the AODA. This incident is sadly typical of those problems. The Government has announced no comprehensive plan to implement the Onley Report’s recommendations.

          MORE DETAILS

Text of Ford Government Broadcast Email Received by the AODA Alliance

Earlier today an invitation was sent from this account that was not accessible. We regret the clerical error and would like to reiterate that accessibility is of the utmost importance to the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility. Please find an accessible invitation below and attached.

You’re invited

The Honourable Raymond Cho, Minister for Seniors and Accessibility invites you to a virtual announcement about Advancing Accessibility in Ontario.

Thursday, October 29, 2020

12:00 p.m. – 12:30 p.m.

The announcement will be held on Zoom

Meeting link will be provided upon RSVP

Please log on to the meeting 10 minutes prior to start time

Please R.S.V.P. to Dylan Franks at (416) 828-5726 or

Dylan.Franks@ontario.ca.

This invitation is intended for the recipient and is non-transferable without permission.

Please advise if you need this communication in another format.

Text of October 27, 2020 Email to AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky from Ontario Government Deputy Minister for Seniors and Accessibility Denise Cole

Good afternoon David,

Thank you for sending me your news release. I have looked into the matter and hasten to reply. On behalf of the ministry, my sincere apologies for this unintentional error having occurred. It was a ministry mistake, and as the Deputy Minister, I accept full responsibility. An accessible version will be sent to you shortly.

With apologies,

DAC

Denise Allyson Cole

Deputy Minister

Ministry for Seniors & Accessibility

777 Bay Street, 6th Floor

Toronto ON M5G 2C8

In A Cruel Irony, the Ford Government Sends an Inaccessible Invitation to an Upcoming Announcement on Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

In A Cruel Irony, the Ford Government Sends an Inaccessible Invitation to an Upcoming Announcement on Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities

October 26, 2020 Toronto: Hard as it may be to believe, the Ford Government today sent out an inaccessible email invitation to an upcoming Government announcement on Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities, to be made on October 29, 2020 by the Minister of Accessibility. Ontario’s Accessibility Minister, Raymond Cho sent this invitation to AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, well-known to be totally blind. He could not read the invitation using his computer’s screen-reading software.

“You cannot make something like this up,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the non-partisan grassroots coalition that leads the campaign in Ontario for accessibility for 2.6 million Ontarians with disabilities. “The Ford Government repeatedly claims to be leading Ontario by its example on achieving accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities, but this is just another example of the poor example by which they’ve been leading on this important issue.”

“The fact that this invitation is inaccessible would be immediately obvious to anyone who knows anything about document accessibility,” said Karen McCall, an expert in document accessibility who has taught about this subject internationally and who is on the faculty of a document accessibility course at Mohawk College. “It just takes seconds and costs nothing to ensure that documents like this are formatted to be accessible.”

This should not be happening over 15 years after the Ontario Legislature unanimously passed the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The Government is required to ensure the accessibility of documents like this by the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The Minister of Accessibility, who issued this inaccessible invitation to a Government announcement on accessibility, is himself responsible for the effective enforcement of the AODA.

On January 31, 2019,, the Ford Government received a blistering report from a Government-appointed Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation conducted by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Onley Report found that Ontario has suffered from years of ineffective provincial leadership on accessibility. Onley’s searing report concluded that for people with disabilities, Ontario is not a place of opportunity, but is instead full of “countless, dispiriting, soul-crushing Barriers”, with progress on accessibility being “barely detectable” and coming at a “glacial” pace.

In the 634 days since the Ford Government received the Onley Report, the Government has announced no comprehensive plan to implement its recommendations, even though Accessibility Minister Raymond Cho said last year that Onley did a “marvelous job.”

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

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Check Out Two New Captioned Online Videos – A Guide to Parents Advocating for A Child with Disabilities in the School system — and – AODA 101 – An Introduction to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Check Out Two New Captioned Online Videos – A Guide to Parents Advocating for A Child with Disabilities in the School system — and – AODA 101 – An Introduction to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

October 21, 2020

Here are two new captioned videos, available online to you, hot off the presses, that we encourage you to watch and share with others:

1. Tips for Parents of Students with Disabilities on How to Advocate For Your Child’s Needs at School

Are you the parent or guardian of a student with disabilities? Would you like very practical tips on how to advocate for your child’s disability-related needs at school? This captioned talk offers just that. It is aimed at parents or guardians whether they have no experience at all with this, or if they have some experience, but are looking for more ideas.

This talk is given by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. In addition to his efforts advocating for students with disabilities as the AODA Alliance chair, he is also a member and past chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Toronto District School Board, Canada’s largest school board. He also serves as a member of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.

This new talk will be helpful to parents, grandparents, guardians and siblings of students with disabilities in the school system, or about to enter the school system. It will also be helpful to those working in the school system like teachers, principals, special education specialists, and school board administrative staff, as well as for those working at Ontario’s Ministry of Education. As well, any professionals outside the school system that work with students with disabilities and their families can benefit from this talk, such as physicians, psychologists, occupational therapists, autism ABA therapists, speech and language pathologists, and others. Faculties of Education could use this talk when training future teachers.

You can watch “Tips for Parents of Students with Disabilities on How to Advocate For Your Child’s Needs at School” by visiting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtadvCvcGC0

This talk does not go into the details of Ontario’s laws on special education. There is an excellent series of short videos on that topic from the ARCH Disability Law Centre and its partner in that project that you can find at https://inclusiveeducation.ca/advocacy-for-inclusion/

2. AODA 101 – An Introduction to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and How It Works

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) has been on the books in Ontario since 2005. Yet many do not know what it is, what is says, why it was passed, and how it works. This video, entitled “AODA 101” gives a one-hour introduction to the AODA for those who know nothing about it, and for those who know some but would like to know more. It is also delivered by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, who led the decade-long campaign to get this law passed, from 1994 to 2005. You can find out more about that campaign on the legacy website of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, the AODA Alliance’s predecessor.

This talk will be helpful to people with disabilities, anyone who has people with disabilities among their family or friends, disability organizations big and small, government officials, elected politicians, candidates running for public office, and people working in businesses, school boards, hospitals, public transit authorities, or other organizations that must comply with the AODA. This lecture will also be helpful for people in other parts of Canada or the world, who want to see how Ontario’s AODA addresses the goal of making Ontario accessible to people with disabilities. It will be helpful for lawyers, but you certainly don’t need any training in law to enjoy this talk.

You can watch “AODA 101 An Introduction to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act” by visiting https://youtu.be/zrPLb3N1DBQ

We encourage you to:

* Encourage others to watch these videos.

* Post these videos on your organization’s website, and share them through newsletters.

* Let others know about these videos through social media like Twitter and Facebook.

* Encourage your school and school board to let parents and families know about these issues.

These two new videos now form part of the growing series of AODA Alliance online captioned videos on a wide range of important topics relating to accessibility for people with disabilities. You can check out our video lecture series online. We are delighted that various of our videos have gotten an encouraging number of views. Several have been used in university courses and other educational programming. Everyone is free to make use of our videos.

We welcome your feedback on these videos and on any other related issue. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

Ford Government Refuses to Make Public Its Bioethics Table Report Recommending Which Seriously-Ill COVID-19 Patients Should Be Refused Critical Medical Care They Need if the Surge in COVID-19 Cases Exceeds Hospital Capacity

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ford Government Refuses to Make Public Its Bioethics Table Report Recommending Which Seriously-Ill COVID-19 Patients Should Be Refused Critical Medical Care They Need if the Surge in COVID-19 Cases Exceeds Hospital Capacity

October 5, 2020 Toronto: The Doug Ford Government must now end its unjustified secrecy around its plans for Ontario’s most vulnerable patients, if the current surge in COVID-19 cases overloads Ontario hospitals, says a recognized disability advocacy coalition. Deeply disturbing Toronto Star and Radio Canada reports over the last two days, set out below, reveal that the Ford Government refused to make public the report it received last month that recommends how cases should be triaged in such life-and-death situations. The Government-appointed “Bioethics Table” was assigned to recommend how Ontario hospitals should decide which COVID-19 patients should be refused life-saving critical care that they need, and gave the Ford Government their advice in a written report which has been kept secret for three weeks since the Government received it.

“This is part of a much larger pattern of totally inappropriate Ford Government secrecy on this life-and-death issue for Ontario’s most vulnerable. Last spring the Government had issued a secret protocol direction to Ontario hospitals on this subject that was replete with disability discrimination,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the AODA Alliance which has advocated for months on this issue along with other disability leaders and experts. “We’ve told the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table that their earlier proposals for how hospitals should handle this issue are full of human rights violations, but we can’t find out if they acted on our concerns because the Government is keeping their report secret.”

The AODA Alliance has raised with both the Bioethics Table and the Minister of Health the added serious concern that provincial directions to hospitals on this issue should be publicly debated and enacted in a law, and not simply issued in a secret memo to hospitals from some unaccountable level within the Ontario bureaucracy. The Government has not answered these concerns.

It is good that Ontario hospitals have not yet had to engage in triage of critical care patients. However, the troubling spike in COVID-19 infections brings Ontario nearer to a point when that triage must happen, especially if the Ford Government did not use the past six months to ensure that Ontario hospitals have the needed expanded critical care capacity.

“We need Doug Ford to keep his commitments on protecting Ontario’s most vulnerable, and on ensuring complete transparency of his Government’s work on the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Lepofsky. “The Government’s bureaucratic preoccupation with secrecy violates those commitments.”

The Ford Government should now:

  1. Immediately lift its veil of secrecy and make public the report on critical care triage that it received from its Bioethics Table, and the earlier March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol that the Government sent to Ontario hospitals and never rescinded.
  1. Immediately consult the public, including the disability community, on what Ontario’s policy should be in this area.
  1. Commit that any directions on this issue will be set out in a law, and not simply in a secret memo to Ontario hospitals from some unelected public servant.

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

Twitter: @aodaalliance

For more background on this issue, check out:

  1. The AODA Alliance’s September 25, 2020 letter to Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott, as yet unanswered, that calls for the steps listed above.
  1. The formal written questions to the Ford Government to the same effect, tabled in the Legislature by NDP disabilities critic Joel Harden on September 30,2020 (and which the Government must answer within 24 legislative sitting days after the questions were tabled)
  2. The August 30, 2020 AODA Alliance final written submission to the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table.
  1. The April 8, 2020 open letter to the Ford Government on the medical triage protocol spearheaded by the ARCH Disability Law Centre, of which the AODA Alliances one of many co-signatories
  1. The April 14, 2020 AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on Ensuring that Medical Triage or Rationing of Health Care Services During the COVID-19 Crisis Does Not Discriminate Against Patients with Disabilities
  1. The May 13, 2020 ARCH Disability Law Centre’s Analysis of the March 28, 2020 Triage Protocol, which the AODA Alliance endorses.
  1. The July 16, 2020 AODA Alliance Update that lists additional concerns with the revised draft triage protocol. That Update also sets out the Ford Government Bioethics Table’s revised draft triage protocol itself.
  1. The ARCH Disability Law Centre’s July 20, 2020 brief to the Bioethics Table on the revised draft triage protocol and ARCH’s September 1, 2020 final submission to the Bioethics Table, both of which are endorsed by the AODA Alliance.
  1. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, detailing our efforts to tear down barriers in the health care system facing patients with disabilities, and our COVID-19 page, detailing our efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

Toronto Star Online October 4, 2020

(Note: Also included in the October 5, 2020 print edition of the Toronto Star)

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/10/04/its-life-and-death-as-ontario-hospitals-face-new-wave-of-covid-19-disability-advocates-want-triage-protocol-released.html

‘It’s life and death’: As Ontario hospitals face new wave of COVID-19, disability advocates want triage protocol released

By Brendan Kennedy Social Justice Reporter

Opposition critics and disability advocates are calling on Ontario’s government to publicly release its COVID-19 triage protocol, which would guide doctors on how to determine who should get life-saving treatment if hospitals are overwhelmed by coronavirus patients.

The purpose of the protocol, which would only be invoked as a last resort if critical care resources needed to be rationed, is to minimize overall mortality by prioritizing patients with the best chance of survival.

The Ministry of Health says the protocol is still being reviewed and will not be made public at this time.

A draft version of the protocol, which was first leaked in March, was criticized for discriminating against people with disabilities. A revised draft was circulated this summer as the province solicited feedback from certain groups, including some disability advocates, who said the revised draft was still discriminatory.

Among their main concerns was the inclusion in the protocol of the Clinical Frailty Scale, a nine-point grading tool originally designed to assess the relative frailty of elderly patients.

Patients who are “very fit” score a one on the scale, while terminally ill patients with fewer than six months to live score a nine. A patient scores higher on the scale the more dependent they are on others for basic activities based on their condition two to four weeks before admission to hospital.

Disability advocates said the scale would not take into account whether someone could achieve certain tasks with accommodations.

“That’s extremely problematic,” said Mariam Shanouda, a lawyer for the ARCH Disability Law Centre. “We are in effect saying that a prerequisite for critical care is not having a disability at all.”

Although it is just one of 13 ineligibility criteria included in the draft protocol, scoring higher on the Clinical Frailty Scale could lead to a patient being excluded from treatment in the event that the number of critical care patients exceeds a hospital’s capacity.

The protocol states that the tool would only be used to estimate chances of survival for patients with “progressive illness and generalized deterioration in health status” and not for nonprogressive conditions. But Shanouda and other advocates say the scale is inherently discriminatory against people with disabilities, no matter how it is used.

Shanouda also pointed to the fact that the scale was not designed for this purpose. Guidelines for using the Clinical Frailty Scale — published by its inventor, Dr. Kenneth Rockwood — state that it has not been validated for people under 65 years old or for people with “stable” disabilities. The government’s draft protocol anticipates using it for all adults.

On Friday afternoon, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Health said via email that the ministry is currently reviewing the latest proposal from its Bioethics Table, the government-appointed group of physicians and bioethicists enlisted to develop the triage protocol. Since the proposal is under review, the ministry is “unable” to share it publicly, she said.

The spokesperson said the ministry heard the concerns from disability rights experts regarding the Clinical Frailty Scale, but could not say whether or not it is included in the latest proposal. The new proposal includes “significant revisions, including revisions related to human rights and equity,” she said, adding that it is the result of “extensive consultation over the summer including with the Ontario Human Rights Commission as well Indigenous health leaders, disability rights experts and stakeholders representing marginalized populations and others who may be disproportionately affected by critical care triage.”

David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, said the government’s lack of transparency is a major concern.

“This is an issue for which there should be a lot of sunshine, not secrecy,” he said. “It’s life and death.”

Lepofsky, who obtained a copy of the draft protocol during this summer’s consultations, published it on his group’s website. The province itself has not released any of the drafts or the Bioethics Table’s recommendations.

With the province now engulfed in COVID-19’s second wave and hospitals raising concerns about their capacity to handle a surge in patients, there is increasing pressure to make the triage protocol public.

On Wednesday, Ottawa MPP Joel Harden, the NDP’s critic for people with disabilities, submitted written questions in the legislature asking Health Minister Christine Elliott to make public the triage protocol.

“We needed this information months ago, but at this point it’s unacceptable that people with disabilities don’t know the answer to these questions,” Harden said in an interview. “In the event that people who are similarly affected by this virus are waiting for life-saving equipment, we certainly don’t want any assumptions made about someone’s quality of life as a person with a disability and therefore whether or not they should access a ventilator any sooner than anybody else.”

Critics of the draft protocol also say it lacks due process by not including an appeal mechanism for patients and their families.

“There is nothing in their protocol, including the revised protocol, to ensure fairness and due process,” Lepofsky said. “I’m not saying (an appeal) could go on for weeks and weeks, but we put forward in our submissions a proposal for a rapid, informal — but necessary — set of due process protections.”

Roxanne Mykitiuk, a professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School and an expert in disability law and bioethics, said the triage protocol should limit its scope to assessing a patient’s ability to survive COVID-19 and not try to estimate their lifespan beyond that.

“You can’t really make that determination accurately, so let’s not try,” she said. “Let’s just make the assessment on a short-term basis.”

Mykitiuk, who was invited by the Bioethics Table to give feedback on the draft protocol and worked with the ARCH Disability Law Centre on their submissions, said the protocol should explicitly state that any triage decision must avoid discrimination and must adhere to human rights standards. “They need to expressly say that the presence of disability is not a permissible basis for giving lower priority for intensive care.”

 

CLINICAL FRAILTY SCALE

  1. Very fit — Robust, active, energetic and motivated. Regular exercise.
  2. Well — No active disease symptoms, but less fit than first category.
  3. Managing well — Medical problems are controlled, but not regularly active beyond walking.
  4. Vulnerable — Not dependent on others for daily help, but symptoms limit activities.
  5. Mildly frail — Need help in “high order” instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), such as finances, transportation and heavy housework.
  6. Moderately frail — Need help with all outside activities and keeping house, often need help with stairs, bathing.
  7. Severely frail — Completely dependent for personal care, but stable and not at high risk of dying.
  8. Very severely frail — Completely dependent, approaching the end of life. Typically would not recover from even a minor illness.
  9. Terminally ill — Approaching end of life, with a life expectancy of less than six months.

SOURCE: Geriatric Medicine Research, Dalhousie University

 

Brendan Kennedy is a Toronto-based social justice reporter for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @BKennedyStar

 

 

Radio Canada October 3, 2020

(Automated translation)

Originally posted at https://twitter.com/philippedemo/status/1312757314722635776?s=21

CORONAVIRUS: THE SITUATION IN ONTARIO

Ontario’s triage protocol leaves a stir for people with disabilities

A patient stays in an intensive care unit.

The triage protocol is a guide that would allow Ontario hospitals to decide which patients would be eligible for a ventilator in the event of a shortage.

By Philippe de Montigny

Doug Ford’s government has been stealthily developing an intensive care bed management plan as Ontario prepares to face a second wave of COVID-19 that could be more fierce than the first.

The triage protocol, developed in recent months would allow Ontario hospitals to choose patients who would be eligible for a ventilator in the event of a shortage.

This protocol includes a frailty index ( clinical frailty scale in English) which is based, among other things, the life expectancy of patients, their level of independence and if they suffer from degenerative diseases.

Patients with an estimated life expectancy of less than six months would be excluded. The rest are classified according to a variety of activities they can undertake without assistance – such as eating, dressing, walking, and bathing.

It would be serious human rights violations.

David Lepofsky, Chair of the AODA Alliance

Basically, we decide who lives and who dies based on their disabilities. And we put those with the most severe disabilities at the bottom of the list says lawyer and activist David Lepofsky.

The province is already considering up to 1,000 new cases of COVID-19 every day during the first half of October, which could exacerbate the problem of hospital congestion.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Health explained that the protocol would only be applied in the event of a sharp increase in demand for intensive care, exceeding supply and after any reasonable effort to mobilize resources in a hospital or region.

A discriminatory practice, according to experts

According to the triage protocol, the frailty index is used to predict the likelihood that a patient will die in intensive care even if a ventilator and treatment are provided.

Roxanne Mykitiuk, a law professor specializing in bioethics, maintains that a very poorly autonomous patient, who would therefore have a low score according to the index of the province, could very well survive the coronavirus.

The protocol is prima facie discriminatory against people with disabilities, she said. It has nothing to do with their state of health, nor their ability to recover from COVID.

Professor Roxanne Mykitiuk.

Roxanne Mykitiuk, professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, believes that putting this protocol into practice would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

She points out that the fragility index was designed 15 years ago to better plan the provision of health care to people with more pressing needs. This indicator is very problematic when used to sort human lives she says.

I don’t think doctors want to make those kinds of heartbreaking choices. They want to help people survive, not decide who should die.

During consultations in March and August, Ms. Mykitiuk voiced her concerns to the province’s bioethics table, the multidisciplinary expert committee responsible for drafting the intensive care triage protocol.

She fears that the first draft of this plan may still be the watchword in the health system. The government has never clarified whether this highly problematic old draft has been revoked she said.

Doris Grinspun, director of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, says the Ford government had several months to plan its workforce and avoid hospital congestion, which appears to materialize this month.

This protocol is squarely determining who lives and who dies, she says. It is an unthinkable choice that is imposed on us.

The director also believes that the new measures announced on Friday do not go far enough to curb the spread of the virus. It’s too little, too late she said.

Opposition calls for debate at Queen’s Park

New Democrat accessibility critic Joel Harden is urging the Ford government to unveil its ICU triage protocol, in its current form. He submitted a written question to this effect to the Minister of Health on Wednesday.

The deputy also asked him to make public and accessible any recommendation and any report issued on this subject by the bioethics table.

We have concerns. We need answers.

In other countries, where there have been overloads, there have been absolutely shameful decisions in relation to the elderly, to people with disabilities he says.

Considering its implications, such a protocol should be passed through a bill and debated in the Legislature, said Harden.

We have fallen into a second wave of COVID. Hospitals are not overloaded at the moment, but it is quite possible, says the MP. We must now ensure that the human rights of people with disabilities are guaranteed.

The Ministry of Health says a revised version of the protocol that includes significant changes is under consideration, but refuses to release it for now.

After its consultations with experts in the rights of people with disabilities, the bioethics table recognizes that using the frailty index in the context of triage in intensive care raises important concerns replied a spokesperson for the ministry.

Ontario NDP Presses the Ford Government to Lift the Veil of Secrecy on Key Documents Addressing How Life-and-Death Medical Triage Decisions Will be Made if the Second Wave of COVID-19 Exceeds Ontario Hospital Capacity

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Ontario NDP Presses the Ford Government to Lift the Veil of Secrecy on Key Documents Addressing How Life-and-Death Medical Triage Decisions Will be Made if the Second Wave of COVID-19 Exceeds Ontario Hospital Capacity

September 30, 2020

The Ford Government is enshrouding far too much secrecy around its approach to what will happen if the second wave of COVID-19 infections overloads Ontario hospitals, i.e. if there are not enough critical care beds to accommodate all the patients in critical condition. This could become a truly life and death issue.

The Ford Government’s March 28, 2020 critical care medical triage protocol is still in place. It has still not been made public by The Government. The Government has not rescinded it. It sets the rules on how hospitals will decide who will be refused critical care, if critical care beds need to be rationed. That protocol is itself infected with very troubling disability discrimination.

For over two weeks, The Government has had in hand the recommendations of The Government-appointed Bioethics Table on how The Government should change that medical triage protocol. That report is also now being kept secret. The AODA Alliance and other disability advocates tried to convince the Bioethics Table to remove from the triage protocol the serious disability discrimination in it. We don’t know what the bioethics table ended up recommending, or if they took the corrective actions we urged.

Last Friday, September 25, 2020, the AODA Alliance wrote Health Minister Christine Elliott to ask that the veil of secrecy over these documents be lifted. The Government has not answered that letter.

The pressure on The Government to release these important documents is increasing. The Ontario New Democratic Party’s critic for disability issues Joel Harden submitted two formal written questions to the Ford Government’s Minister of Health Christine Elliott in the Ontario Legislature. Those questions are posted on the Legislature’s website. These important questions are:

“Question 247:

Mr. Harden (Ottawa Centre) on September 30, 2020

Enquiry of the Ministry — Would the Minister of Health make public, and in an accessible format, any critical care triage protocol that is issued by The Government, or Ontario Health, or any other provincially-mandated authority in the health care system, regarding medical triage decisions regarding critical care.

Question 246:

Mr. Harden (Ottawa Centre) on September 30, 2020

Enquiry of the Ministry — Would the Minister of Health immediately make public, and in an accessible format, any report and recommendations by the Bioethics Table regarding the protocol to be used on clinical care triage so that Ontarians may know what is being planned and recommended in the case of a COVID-19 surge, particularly regarding access to critical medical care for people with disabilities.”

It may not answer our letter, but The Government must answer these questions. Here is what the Legislature’s website says about the duty of The Government to answer such questions:

“The Government must file a response within 24 sessional days of the tabling of the question. The response is delivered to the Clerk of the House and to the MPP who tabled the question.”

Please contact your member of the Ontario Legislature. Urge them to demand that The Government make public the current critical care triage protocol, and the report and recommendations on this topic by The Government-appointed Bioethics Table.

For more background on this issue, check out:

  1. The August 30, 2020 AODA Alliance final written submission to the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table.
  1. The April 8, 2020 open letter to the Ford Government on the medical triage protocol spearheaded by the ARCH Disability Law Centre, of which the AODA Alliances one of many co-signatories
  1. The April 14, 2020 AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on Ensuring that Medical Triage or Rationing of Health Care Services During the COVID-19 Crisis Does Not Discriminate Against Patients with Disabilities
  1. The May 13, 2020 ARCH Disability Law Centre’s Analysis of the March 28, 2020 Triage Protocol, which the AODA Alliance endorses.
  1. The July 16, 2020 AODA Alliance Update that lists additional concerns with the revised draft triage protocol. That Update also sets out the Ford Government Bioethics Table’s revised draft triage protocol itself.
  1. The ARCH Disability Law Centre’s July 20, 2020 brief to the Bioethics Table on the revised draft triage protocol and ARCH’s September 1, 2020 final submission to the Bioethics Table, both of which are endorsed by the AODA Alliance.
  1. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, detailing our efforts to tear down barriers in the health care system facing patients with disabilities, and our COVID-19 page, detailing our efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

AODA Alliance submits A Brief to Accessibility Standards Canada Listing the Federal Accessibility Standards We Need the Federal Government to Now Develop and Enact

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

AODA Alliance submits A Brief to Accessibility Standards Canada Listing the Federal Accessibility Standards We Need the Federal Government to Now Develop and Enact

September 29, 2020

          SUMMARY

Last year, Canada’s Parliament passed the Accessible Canada Act ACA. It requires Canada to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2040. It lets the Federal Government enact a series of enforceable federal accessibility standards. Those regulations would spell out what organizations within reach of the Federal Government must do to remove and prevent disability barriers.

Under the ACA, a new federal organization was created to make recommendations on what federal accessibility standards should be enacted, and what they should contain. The ACA calls this organization the Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization (CASDO). Peculiarly, CASDO quickly changed its name under which it would operate to Accessibility Standards Canada. This name change may confuse some.

Accessibility Standards Canada has been holding an online consultation on which federal accessibility standards should be developed over the next two years. Today, the AODA Alliance submitted a seven-page brief in response to this survey. We set that brief out below.

We invite you as an individual and any community organization to which you belong to send Accessibility Standards Canada an email to endorse the AODA Alliance’s brief. You can send your email to them at: Info.Accessibility.Standards-Normes.Accessibilite.Info@canada.gc.ca

If you wish, you might say something like this:

I endorse the September 29, 2020 brief to Accessibility Standards Canada submitted by the AODA Alliance.

It is good that Accessibility Standards Canada is engaging in consultation. However, we are very concerned that 15 months after the ACA was passed, such preliminary questions are still being consulted upon, when action is needed now. When the ACA was being debated before Parliament in 2018-2019, many from the disability community were concerned that progress under that bill would be too slow because it did not set needed time lines for the Federal Government to take important actions to implement it. The Federal Government opposed such amendments to the bill. We are already seeing signs that we and others were correct to be concerned about this foreseeable problem.

At the same time, other news for people with disabilities on the federal front includes important signs of potential progress. In the Federal Government’s September 23, 2020 Throne Speech, the following commitments were made pertaining to people with disabilities:

“COVID-19 has disproportionately affected Canadians with disabilities, and highlighted long-standing challenges. The Government will bring forward a Disability Inclusion Plan, which will have:

  • A new Canadian Disability Benefit modelled after the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors;
  • A robust employment strategy for Canadians with disabilities;
  • And a better process to determine eligibility for Government disability programs and benefits.”

We look forward to learning more specifics to see what these commitments will deliver in practice to people with disabilities.

For more background on the AODA Alliances advocacy efforts on the federal front, check out the AODA Alliance website’s Canada page.

Do let us know what you think. Send your feedback to us at: aodafeedback@gmail.com

          MORE DETAILS

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 Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

Brief To: Accessibility Standards Canada Listing the Federal Accessibility Standards That Should Now Be Developed and Enacted Under the Accessible Canada Act

Via email: Info.Accessibility.Standards-Normes.Accessibilite.Info@canada.gc.ca

September 29, 2020

1. Introduction

This brief is the AODA Alliance’s response to the consultation survey that Accessibility Standards Canada announced on its web site, to be concluded by September 30, 2020. Accessibility Standards Canada is the new federally-appointed organization mandated under the Accessible Canada Act (ACA) to make recommendations to the Federal Government on which ACA federal accessibility standards should be enacted and what they should include. Enacted in June 2019, The ACA created a new federal organization for this purpose, called the Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization (CASDO). In its first year of operation, CASDO decided to instead call itself “Accessibility Standards Canada’.

In its current online survey, Accessibility Standards Canada seeks public input on which federal accessibility standards and related activity it should focus upon from 2020 to 2022. In this brief, the AODA Alliance solely addresses which federal accessibility standards should now be developed.

2. Who Are We?

The AODA Alliance has extensive experience with the design, implementation and enforcement of accessibility legislation in Canada. Founded in 2005, we are 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 our website.

Our coalition is the successor to the non-partisan grassroots Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. The ODA Committee advocated for more than ten 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 membership from the ODA Committee’s broad, grassroots base. To learn about the ODA Committee’s history, visit its legacy website.

We continue to play a leadership role in advocating in Ontario on which accessibility standards should be enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and on what those accessibility standards should include. Beyond our work at the provincial level in Ontario, over the past five years, the AODA Alliance has also been active, advocating for strong and effective national accessibility legislation for Canada. We have been formally and informally consulted by the Federal Government and some federal opposition parties on this issue. In 2016, AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky made public a Discussion Paper on what the ACA should include. That widely-read Discussion Paper is now published in the National Journal of Constitutional Law at (2018) NJCL 169-207.

In 2018-2019, the AODA Alliance appeared before both the House of Commons and the Senate as Bill C-81 was being debated. Our advocacy efforts, combined with other disability advocates with whom we collaborated, contributed to important ingredients being included in the bill, and important amendments being made in the House of Commons and Senate. Our efforts regarding the development and implementation of the ACA are set out on our website’s Canada page.

The AODA Alliance has spoken to or been consulted by disability organizations, individuals, and governments from various parts of Canada on the topic of designing and implementing provincial accessibility legislation. For example, we have been consulted by the Government of Manitoba and by Barrier-Free Manitoba (a leading grassroots accessibility advocacy coalition in Manitoba) in the design and implementation of the Accessibility for Manitobans Act 2013. We twice made deputations to a Committee of the Manitoba Legislature on the design of that legislation. We have been consulted by the BC Government on whether to create a BC Disabilities Act and on what it should include, and by Barrier-Free BC in its grassroots advocacy for that legislation.

We have also been consulted outside Canada on this topic, most particularly, in Israel and New Zealand. In addition, in June 2016, we presented on this topic at the UN annual international conference of state parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

3. Which Federal Accessibility Standards Should Now Be Developed under the Accessible Canada Act?

We propose that the first accessibility standards should be developed in each of these areas (not listed in order of priority):

  1. Accessible information and communication
  1. Accessible built environment, including any built environment to which any federal public money is contributed (including infrastructure and residential housing to which any federal public money is contributed)
  1. The provision of accessible goods, services and facilities (sometimes called accessible customer service)
  1. Accessible employment
  1. Accessible transportation
  1. Ensuring that the needs of people with disabilities are fully and effectively included in emergency planning and responses to emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.
  1. Ensuring procurement of goods, services and facilities by any organization using public money that are accessible to and fully usable by people with disabilities.
  1. Accessible health care, including any health care services to which federal public money is contributed
  1. Accessible education, including any education services or facilities to which federal public money is contributed
  1. Accessibility for people with disabilities in the administration of justice, including any legal proceedings to which federal legislation can apply, or any courts or tribunals over which the Federal Government has regulatory authority.

4. Additional Reflections and Recommendations

a) Do Not Create a Hierarchy Among Disabilities

The survey questions from accessibility Standards Canada appear to ask the public to rate or rank priorities among the possible areas of federal accessibility standards or to rank priorities within them about which it is asking. It is wrong to engage in that kind of priority ranking, for these reasons:

First, it is essential for the Federal Government to now get right to work developing federal accessibility standards in each of the areas listed above. It will be essential for comprehensive federal accessibility standards to be enacted and implemented in each of those areas, if the Federal Government is to fulfil its statutory duty under the ACA to lead Canada to become accessible to people with disabilities by the ACA’s mandatory deadline of 2040.

The implementation and enforcement of federal accessibility standards lies at the ACA’s very core. Those standards are the fundamental means by which the ACA must lead Canada to become accessible to people with disabilities.

Obligated organizations need those federal accessibility standards to be enacted as soon as possible. Those standards are required to direct them what to do to comply with the ACA. Until they are enacted, real changes in action towards Canada becoming accessible will not be required of obligated organizations on the front lines, given the way that the ACA was written.

During debates in Parliament over the ACA in 2018-2019, we alerted the House of Commons and Senate to this deficiency with the bill. We wanted the ACA to require that accessibility standards must be enacted within five years of the bill’s enactment in all the areas that the legislation covers. While we did not secure an amendment to the bill to that effect, that time line remains critically important to meeting the needs of people with disabilities in Canada.

From extensive, frustrating experience in Ontario and elsewhere, we know only too well that it takes years to get an accessibility standards developed and enacted. Then, timelines for implementation of that standard can stretch on and on after that. There is thus no time now to waste, or to start with developing just some of the needed standards, while deferring any start on the other needed standards to the unspecified future.

The ACA has been in force for over one year. Accessibility standards in the areas we identify should already be well under development, if Canada is to meet the 2040 deadline for full accessibility.

Second, it is inherently inappropriate to undertake the specific kind of priority-setting to which the Accessibility Standards Canada survey appears to point. There must be no hierarchy among different disabilities, especially when implementing the ACA, with some getting high priority and others being left behind as lower priorities. For example, to set priorities between the built environment on the one hand and information and communication on the other inevitably becomes an exercise in choosing priorities between different disabilities. Those who will press for the built environment to be a top priority are likely to be most concerned about persons with physical disabilities. Those concerned with accessible information and communication will be focusing more on the needs of people with sensory disabilities, certain learning disabilities, or intellectual disabilities.

b) Important for Accessibility Standards Canada to Get Out Front on Achieving an Accessible Built Environment Because of Worrisome Federal-Provincial Effort to Now “Harmonize” Federal and Provincial Building codes

We are deeply concerned about an effort apparently underway to “harmonize” the federal and provincial building codes. Building codes in Canada have chronically and systemically been deficient when it comes to achieving an accessible built environment for people with disabilities. They have led to the creation of many new barriers in the built environment against people with disabilities.

People with disabilities have good reason to be very troubled about this effort. We have not been effectively included in the process. Building Code bureaucracies too often lack expertise in and demonstrated commitment to disability accessibility. Any effort at “harmonizing” building codes across Canada runs the serious risk of pressure to sink to a lower common denominator. That would weaken the accessibility protections (albeit inadequate ones) that now exist in different Building Codes.

Instead, a strong and effective national Built Environment Accessibility Standard should be swiftly developed and enacted under the ACA that takes precedence. This needs to be done as quickly as practicable, in order to head off the danger that the worrisome Building Code “harmonization” now threatens for people with disabilities.

c) Where Accessibility Standards Canada Should Start Looking for Ideas?

Of course, Accessibility Standards Canada will want to look at existing accessibility standards as it gets to work developing recommendations on what to include in new federal accessibility standards. However, at least in so far as Ontario’s accessibility standards are concerned, Accessibility Standards Canada should not simply cut and paste from them, or seek to simply fill in gaps in them.

While helpful at times, there are very significant deficiencies and problems with Ontario’s existing accessibility standards. The Federal Government should not replicate those deficiencies, or have them serve as a drag on the process. A good source of detailed information on this can be found in the 2014 final report of the second Independent Review of the AODA conducted by Mayo Moran, and the 2019 final report of the third AODA Independent Review conducted by David Onley. Similarly helpful for Accessibility Standards Canada will be the numerous detailed briefs which the AODA Alliance has submitted to the Ontario Government over the past dozen years on the accessibility standards then under development. These are all available on the AODA Alliance website’s briefs page.

d) Opportunities the Federal Government Already Missed During the COVID-19 Crisis

The importance of Accessibility Standards Canada acting as soon as possible on all these fronts has been highlighted during the COVID-19 crisis. For example, it is commendable that the Federal Government recently allocated an amount in the billions to the provinces to assist with school re-opening during the pandemic. However, as far as we have seen, the Federal Government did not attach strings to this funding to ensure that the recipient provinces developed effective plans to ensure that students with disabilities are fully and safely included in school re-opening. Ontario has not developed such a plan, despite repeated advice that such a plan is absolutely needed. For details, see the AODA Alliance website’s COVID-19 page.

Had a federal Education Accessibility Standard and/or a federal Emergencies Accessibility Standard already been in place setting such requirements, these strings could have been attached to the federal transfer to the provinces.

5. Conclusion

The AODA Alliance would welcome the opportunity to share with Accessibility Standards Canada our ideas and expertise in what accessibility standards should include and in the process for developing them.

Sign Up To Attend October 1, 2020 virtual town Hall on How to Advocate Against Allowing Electric Scooters in Toronto which Endanger People with Disabilities, Seniors and Others

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Sign Up To Attend October 1, 2020 virtual town Hall on How to Advocate Against Allowing Electric Scooters in Toronto which Endanger People with Disabilities, Seniors and Others

September 28, 2020

          SUMMARY

Here is a great way for you to help the important campaign to get Toronto Mayor John Tory and the Toronto City Council not to allow electric scooters (e-scooters) in Toronto. E-scooters would pose a serious danger to people with disabilities, seniors and others. This will be especially helpful if you know little or nothing about this issue, and want to know what you can do to help.

We encourage you to sign up to attend an excellent virtual Town Hall Meeting on Thursday, October 1, 2020 from 1 to 2 pm local time, organized by the Centre for Independent Living in Toronto (CILT) and Citizens with Disabilities Ontario (CWDO). It will give you easy-to-use tips and helpful training to take action on this issue. This forum will help you learn to take action on issue whether you live in Toronto (where e-scooters are not yet allowed), in Ottawa (where a pilot with e-scooters is already presenting problems for the public including people with disabilities) or elsewhere.

The AODA Alliance congratulates and thanks CILT and CWDO for organizing this event. Below we set out the announcement for this event. We are informed that it will be captioned. Please sign up to take part.

The AODA Alliance has been very active over this past year, raising serious disability concerns about e-scooters.

For helpful tips on how you can help this cause and why it matters to us all, check out the AODA Alliance’s new E-scooters Action Kit.

For lots of background on this issue, visit the AODA Alliance website’s E-scooters web page.

          MORE DETAILS

Announcement of the October 1, 2020 CILT/CWDO Online Virtual Town Hall Meeting on How to Help Keep E-scooters Out of Toronto

CILT and CWDO Invite You Zoom Meeting to Take Action Against the Dangers of Electric Scooters in Toronto

Topic: Take Action Against the Dangers of Electric Scooters in Toronto

Description: CILT and CWDO Invite You to Join a 1-hour Live Email Writing Campaign to Toronto’s Mayor and Your City Councillor. Help stop the City of Toronto from allowing electric scooters (e-scooters), a serious new danger to the safety and accessibility of people with disabilities, seniors, and the public.

When: Thurs. Oct 1, 2020, 1:00-2:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Register in advance for this meeting:

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZApduGpqDsoE9KlJm1Tr8uHn8YjFGoakd1_

This workshop will have following objectives:

1) Background and Purpose of this Campaign

2) Real Time Email Writing and Sending Campaign

3) Question and Answers

4) Resources

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.

As well, Workshop Participants who register will receive an AODA Alliance Action Kit to help you prepare an email and send it at the end of the workshop.

Workshop facilitators:

John Mossa, Independent Living Skills Coordinator, Centre for Independent Living in Toronto (CILT) and

Tracy Odell, President, Citizens With Disabilities – Ontario (CWDO)

What Is the Ford Government Doing to Ensure Patients with Disabilities Don’t Face Discrimination in Access to Life-Saving Critical care If the Surge in COVID-19 Cases Overloads Ontario’s Hospitals?

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

What Is the Ford Government Doing to Ensure Patients with Disabilities Don’t Face Discrimination in Access to Life-Saving Critical care If the Surge in COVID-19 Cases Overloads Ontario’s Hospitals?

September 25, 2020

          SUMMARY

If the Government does not get the recent worrisome rise in the number of new COVID-19 cases in Ontario under control, there is a risk that our hospitals eventually may not be able to handle all the new cases. Since early in the COVID-19 pandemic last spring, the AODA Alliance together with other disability advocates, has been pressing the Ford Government to ensure that patients with disabilities are not discriminated against because of their disability in getting access to needed critical medical care, in the event that a surge in COVID-19 cases exceeds the capacity of Ontario hospitals.

Today, as our latest effort on this issue, the AODA Alliance wrote Ontario’s Health Minister Christine Elliott. We want to find out what is going on. Our letter, set out below, summarizes key events since the COVID-19 pandemic began. It then asks the Minister of Health four important questions. In short, we are trying to learn what The Government will do to ensure that patients with disabilities don’t face discrimination in any medical triage that may have to take place, if the pandemic gets worse.

Last spring, a March 28, 2020 protocol was sent to Ontario hospitals directing how to handle such critical care triage. It’s approach to medical triage included disability discrimination. A revised draft of that protocol on which we were consulted this summer, and which the AODA Alliance made public on July 16, 2020, was similarly discriminatory.

This issue has now landed squarely on the desk of the Minister of Health. Her Government has received recommendations on how to handle this issue from a Government-appointed committee of doctors and bioethicists. That is the same group that wrote the earlier protocol that gave rise to these disability discrimination concerns. We don’t know what they have recommended to the Government.

Our letter calls on the Minister of Health to now make those important recommendations public and to let us know what the Government plans to do with them. We need the Health Minister to ensure that her Government prevents disability discrimination if there must be medical triage during the COVID-19pandemic.

For more background on this issue, check out:

  1. The August 30, 2020 AODA Alliance final written submission to the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table.
  1. The April 8, 2020 open letter to the Ford Government on the medical triage protocol spearheaded by the ARCH Disability Law Centre, of which the AODA Alliances one of many co-signatories
  1. The April 14, 2020 AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on Ensuring that Medical Triage or Rationing of Health Care Services During the COVID-19 Crisis Does Not Discriminate Against Patients with Disabilities
  1. The May 13, 2020 ARCH Disability Law Centre’s Analysis of the March 28, 2020 Triage Protocol, which the AODA Alliance endorses.
  1. The July 16, 2020 AODA Alliance Update that lists additional concerns with the revised draft triage protocol. That Update also sets out the Ford Government Bioethics Table’s revised draft triage protocol itself.
  1. The ARCH Disability Law Centre’s July 20, 2020 brief to the Bioethics Table on the revised draft triage protocol and ARCH’s September 1, 2020 final submission to the Bioethics Table, both of which are endorsed by the AODA Alliance.
  1. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, detailing our efforts to tear down barriers in the health care system facing patients with disabilities, and our COVID-19 page, detailing our efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

This is a very busy time for the AODA Alliance. We continue to wage our non-partisan campaign for accessibility for people with disabilities on so many fronts at the same time. Today’s letter to Health Minister Christine Elliott addresses the danger of discrimination against patients with disabilities in access to life-saving health care during the COVID-19pandemic. Earlier this week, we wrote the Minister of Education Stephen Lecce to call for new action to ensure that students with disabilities are fully and safely included in school re-opening. Before that, at the start of the week, we wrote Ontario’s Accessibility Minister Raymond Cho to find out what the Ford Government is doing to effectively enforce the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Let us know what you think. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

^        MORE DETAILS

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 Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

September 25, 2020

To: The Hon. Christine Elliott, Minister of Health

Via email: Christine.elliott@ontario.ca

Ministry of Health

5th Floor

777 Bay St.

Toronto, ON M7A 2J3

Dear Minister,

Re: Ontario Government’s Protocol for Medical Triage of Critical Care Cases in the Event Hospitals Cannot Handle All COVID-19 Cases

It is no exaggeration to state that we write about an urgent matter of life and death. We seek your immediate help.

In Ontario, a second wave of COVID-19 is underway. It was foreseen and feared.

What are the Government’s plans if there is a surge in COVID-19 cases this fall or winter that floods Ontario hospitals with more patients needing critical care than there are critical care beds, health care staff, and equipment for them? At present, this situation is shrouded in uncertainty. There is a serious risk that there will be discrimination against patients with disabilities in getting access to needed critical care services. In this letter we ask you to take immediate action on this issue to protect vulnerable patients. We summarize how we got here, and then set out four specific questions needing your Government’s response. The events described here are amply documented on the AODA Alliance’s COVID-19 page.

This past March, Ontario Health sent Ontario hospitals a March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol. Among those patients who need critical care, it directs which of these patients will be granted critical care and which patients will be refused, if a surge in cases exceeds hospital capacity. Thankfully, that protocol has not had to be invoked, because the number of COVID-19 cases did not spiral out of control.

That March 28, 2020 triage protocol was not made public last spring. The Government did not consult the public, such as people with disabilities, before it was approved and sent to Ontario hospitals.

When word of the March 28, 2020 triage protocol was leaked to some in the disability community, it was widely condemned as embodying disability discrimination. In the face of that criticism last April, your Government claimed that the triage protocol was only a draft. Yet it was evidently not marked as a draft.

Strong voices from the disability community and from the Ontario Human Rights Commission have called on your Government to rescind the March 28, 2020 triage protocol and to direct health care providers that it is not to be used. In the five months since then, the Government has not rescinded it.

The March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol was written by a Government-appointed committee of doctors and bioethicists, which is called “The Bioethics Table.” When this issue was revealed last spring, your Government committed to consult human rights and community experts on this protocol. Over the summer, the Bioethics Table invited a group of disability advocates and experts to give input through a series of virtual meetings. The Bioethics Table gave us and our colleagues a revised draft of the critical care triage protocol and asked for our input. We posted that revised draft on the AODA Alliance website on July 16, 2020.

Over the summer, the AODA Alliance was an active participant in the disability meetings with the Bioethics Table. Our review of the revised draft triage protocol revealed that it continued to embody serious disability-based discrimination. The Bioethics Table’s meetings with the disability community advocates and experts revealed even more serious cause for concern. These concerns were thoroughly explained and documented in two written submissions to the Bioethics Table, one by the AODA Alliance and one by the ARCH Disability Law Centre.

At our final virtual meeting with the Bioethics Table on August 31, 2020, the disability advocates and experts made their final presentations to the Bioethics Table. The Bioethics Table submitted its final report to Ontario Health on September 11, 2020, and to the Ministry of Health on September 14, 2020. It has also been sent to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It has not been provided to us.

With the recent rapid increase in daily COVID-19 infections in Ontario, this issue remains a live and increasingly urgent one. We hope and trust that as the Minister of Health, you share our strong view that no critical care triage protocol should be in place that would discriminate based on disability in access to life-saving critical care. We hope and trust as well that you share our view that if any critical care triage were to be implemented, there should be in place due process protections for critically-ill patients who are at risk of being denied life-saving medical care that they need. The revised draft protocol that the Bioethics Table wrote seriously lacks that due process for patients. The members of the Bioethics Table commendably sought our input on the due process protections that should be provided. The AODA Alliance’s written submissions address this issue.

As well, we hope and trust that you and your Government agree that life and death decisions that could deny a critically-ill patient a needed medical treatment must be governed by a validly-enacted law, and not simply by a protocol that some government agency decides to send to hospitals. We raised with the Bioethics Table our serious concern that the March 28, 2020 triage protocol, which has not been rescinded, falls well short of a validly-enacted law. Especially in something as vital as the right to life-saving medical care, the Government must strictly adhere to the rule of law.

With the new troubling surge in COVID-19 infections in Ontario, time is of the essence in dealing with this issue. We therefore ask the following:

  1. Will the Government immediately make public the Bioethics Table’s report on the critical care triage protocol, and send it to us and other interested stakeholders, so the public can know what is being considered or recommended? There has been far too much secrecy surrounding this issue of great public importance.
  1. Will your Government immediately hold an open and accessible public consultation before adopting any clinical care triage protocol, that includes consulting people with disabilities?
  1. Will your Government commit that any directive to hospitals or the health care system on how to undertake critical care triage shall be established in a properly-enacted provincial statute or, if authorized, regulation, and not in a protocol sent to Ontario hospitals?
  1. As noted earlier, the March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol has not been rescinded. The Government has not directed that it is not to be followed.

This leaves a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the health care system. It unfairly leaves people with disabilities in a state of fear. The longer the March 28, 2020 triage protocol is left unrescinded, it continues to fester, embedding itself deeper and deeper within the health care system.

Will your Government immediately and publicly direct all hospitals that the March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol is rescinded and is not to be used or followed?

May we get responses to these important questions as soon as possible?

Please stay safe.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

CC: Premier Doug Ford premier@ontario.ca

Helen Angus, Deputy Minister of Health helen.angus@ontario.ca

Raymond Cho, Minister of Seniors and Accessibility Raymond.cho@ontario.ca

Denise Cole, Deputy Minister for Seniors and Accessibility Denise.Cole@ontario.ca

Mary Bartolomucci, Assistant Deputy Minister for the Accessibility Directorate, Mary.Bartolomucci@ontario.ca

Todd Smith, Minister of Children, Community and Social Services todd.smithco@pc.ola.org

Janet Menard, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services Janet.Menard@ontario.ca

AODA Alliance calls on the Ontario Government to Appoint an Associate Deputy Minister of Education, to Create and Implement a Provincial Plan to ensure that A Third of a Million Students with Disabilities Are Fully and Safely Included in School Re-Opening

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

AODA Alliance calls on the Ontario Government to Appoint an Associate Deputy Minister of Education, to Create and Implement a Provincial Plan to ensure that A Third of a Million Students with Disabilities Are Fully and Safely Included in School Re-Opening

September 23, 2020

            SUMMARY

Today the AODA Alliance wrote Ontario’s Minister of Education Stephen Lecce. We called on the Ford Government to immediately appoint an Associate Deputy Minister of Education with specialized expertise in educating students with disabilities. That official should be immediately assigned to oversee the development and implementation of a desperately-needed and currently missing provincial plan to ensure that students with disabilities in Ontario, numbering at least 340,000, are fully and safely included in school re-opening. The AODA Alliance and others have been pressing for this much-needed plan for months. The letter to the Minister of Education is set out below.

For more background on these issues, visit

  1. The AODA Alliance’s COVID-19 web page and our education accessibility web page.
  1. The July 24, 2020 report on meeting the needs of students with disabilities during school re-opening by the COVID-19 subcommittee of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.
  1. The AODA Alliance‘s July 23, 2020 report on the need to rein in the power of school principals to refuse to admit a student to school.
  1. The AODA Alliance’s June 18, 2020 brief to the Ford Government on how to meet the needs of students with disabilities during school re-opening.
  1. The widely viewed online video of the May 4, 2020 virtual Town Hall on meeting the needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis, co-organized by the Ontario Autism Coalition and the AODA Alliance.

          MORE DETAILS

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

aodafeedback@gmail.com www.aodalliance.org Twitter: @aodaalliance

September 23, 2020

Via Email

To: The Hon Stephen Lecce, Minister of Education

minister.edu@ontario.ca

Dear Minister,

Re: Meeting the Needs of One Third of a Million Ontario Students with Disabilities During the Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic

We write to voice very serious concerns about your Government’s failure to effectively meet the urgent needs of a third of a million Ontario K-12 students with disabilities since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. I urgently request a chance to virtually meet with you as soon as possible to speak about this. On July 8, 2020, you spoke positively in the Legislature about our previous discussions on this topic. Since then, we have not spoken in over two months.

We are deeply concerned that your Government has not put in place a comprehensive plan to ensure that students with disabilities are fully and safely included in Ontario schools as they now re-open. Your Government is largely leaving it to each of 72 school boards to figure out what to do to include them. School boards are each having to re-invent the same wheel. Even worse, they must do so when scrambling in the midst of their unprecedented challenge to get schools re-opened for in-person and virtual attendance.

Students with disabilities and their families need and deserve better from their provincial government. In report after report in the media over the past weeks, the stresses and hardships facing students with disabilities and their parents in Ontario have been brought to public attention, as well as the pressing need for a strong and comprehensive provincial plan of action for them.

This is a troubling repetition of The Government’s failure to come forward with an effective plan last spring to ensure that students with disabilities were fully included in and could fully benefit from distance learning during the months of school closures. Last winter, your Government was understandably taken by surprise by the COVID-19 pandemic. We recognized throughout that it would take time to get distance learning up and running in the spring.

However, despite repeated requests from us and others, over the ensuing three and a half months of school closure last spring, your Government did not adopt a comprehensive plan to ensure that students with disabilities could fully participate in and fully benefit from distance learning. Instead, your Government largely left it to each school board to try to figure out how to do this. That unfairly inflicted very troubling consequences on students with disabilities as well as on their families and teachers.

Your Government was not caught by surprise by the need to plan for the full and safe inclusion of students with disabilities in this fall’s school re-opening. Last spring’s experience amply showed that there would be a pressing need to ensure that you had a comprehensive plan in place for this. This plan needed to address both the needs of students with disabilities who attend school in person, and those who opt to take part in distance learning.

Over the spring and summer, you and your Government were repeatedly alerted to the need to design and implement a comprehensive plan to ensure that students with disabilities were safely and fully included in school re-openings. We told you this in our June 18, 2020 brief on school re-openings, a brief that was endorsed by other reputable organizations. You were given the same advice in the comprehensive recommendations to your Government that you received some two months ago from the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s Emergencies and COVID-19 subcommittee.

Your Government’s repeated public response to these concerns has been to point to the fact that your Government had allocated $10 million for students with disabilities this summer, later supplemented by an additional $12 million from federal funds (the latter to be used for students with special education needs as well as for student mental health that could apply to all two million Ontario students). This repeated Government response doubly illustrates the painful plight that students with disabilities in Ontario now face.

First, The Government’s response does not dispute that it has no comprehensive provincial plan for students with disabilities. Second, those sums, even if fully spent only on students with disabilities, would amount to at most a meager $70 per student. With no provincial plan on how to spend this money, the Ontario Government does not ensure that it is wisely spent. Rather, each school board is unfairly left to shoulder the cost of duplicating the efforts of all other school boards, each wastefully trying to figure out what to do to meet the same disability-related needs across the province.

The current stressful predicament facing students with disabilities and their families is made worse by your Ministry’s long term, systemic deficiencies in addressing the needs of students with disabilities. Here are but a few examples:

  1. On July 23, 2020, we made public a detailed report, showing that across Ontario, students with disabilities face an unfair situation where a school principal can refuse to admit them or others to school, claiming their presence could be detrimental to other students. This is a practice for which local school board policies arbitrarily vary wildly across Ontario.

This report showed a pressing need for your Government to immediately issue detailed policy directions to school boards to reign in this unfairness, and to ensure that students with disabilities are not the victims of a rash of exclusions from school this fall. Yet in the ensuing two months, your Government has still not taken this much-needed, long-overdue action.

We sent your office an advance copy of that report on July 9, 2020, two weeks before it was made public. We then sent it to senior officials at your Ministry on July 23, 2020. In the period of over two months since then, no public servant in the Ministry has reached out to us to discuss our report, or to seek from us any further information (such as the 33 different policies on point from boards around Ontario) that underlies its detailed findings.

  1. Your Ministry announced this summer that it will spend at least half a billion dollars on new schools and major school renovations. Yet it has announced no effective action to ensure that those schools will be designed to be accessible to students, parents and staff with disabilities. Your Ministry’s capital grants officials do not now ensure that the billions that they give to school boards are never used to create or perpetuate barriers against people with disabilities. They leave it to each school board to deal with this. They require no accessibility features in schools beyond the palpably inadequate built environment accessibility requirements in the Ontario Building Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act’s standards enacted to date.
  1. Your Ministry collects a great deal of data and statistics from school boards. Yet its data collection is substantially deficient when it comes to students with disabilities and to the specialized school board staff that each school employs to meet their needs. As such, your Ministry chronically lacks key information that could be readily available to you, and that is essential for effective planning and oversight for students with disabilities. As but one example, your Ministry does not collect data from each school board on how many students it refuses to admit to school, or why, or for how long, or how many have disabilities.
  1. This past spring, we alerted you and your Government to the fact that your Ministry’s online resources to assist school boards and families with distance learning had accessibility problems that create barriers for students, parents and staff with a range of different disabilities. As well, we alerted you to the fact that TV Ontario’s online distance learning resources have disability accessibility problems. Your Government has repeatedly identified TV Ontario as its major partner for delivering distance learning. TV Ontario is owned and operated by the Ontario Government.

When we raised this, it appears that both The Government and TV Ontario were oblivious to those barriers. Since we raised this, your Government and TV Ontario have to our knowledge announced no plan of action to address these accessibility barriers. Yet months after we raised this with your Ministry, distance learning continues for many students and may have to resume for all students if a second COVID-19 wave requires schools to close again.

Your Ministry’s response to us has been nothing more than a strategy to manage a stakeholder, rather than a strategy to solve the problem that we identified. Last spring, your Ministry arranged a demonstration of the online learning platform, BrightSpace, which the Ministry makes available to school boards to use if they wish, along with its Bongo virtual classroom platform. In this demonstration, we identified some accessibility issues. We also learned that the Government has no idea how many school boards even use BrightSpace or Bongo.

  1. Your Ministry commendably has a public commitment to Equity and an Education Equity Secretariat. However, its efforts on equity have not fully included equity and inclusion for students with disabilities. Indeed, as we understand it, within the Ministry, “equity” has been treated as referring principally to equity for such equality-seeking groups as racialized communities and Indigenous Peoples. Of course, equity for those communities is essential and requires strong action. However, equity for students with disabilities, numbering as many as one out of every six students in Ontario-funded schools, merits full and equal attention, focus and effort.

We ask your Government to now take these concrete actions:

  1. Please now appoint a new position of Associate Deputy Minister of Education for Inclusion of Students with Disabilities. This official should have substantial experience with education of K-12 students with disabilities in the school system. They should be assigned a team of staff with that kind of experience.
  1. The new Associate Deputy Minister and their team should be assigned responsibility for immediately developing, implementing and overseeing a comprehensive plan to ensure that students with disabilities are fully and safely included in school re-opening and in distance learning. The July 24, 2020 package of recommendations from the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s Emergencies subcommittee is an excellent starting point for that plan of action.

We are eager to assist your Government. Students with disabilities and their families need action now.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

CC: Premier Doug Ford premier@ontario.ca

Raymond Cho, Minister of Seniors and Accessibility Raymond.cho@ontario.ca

Nancy Naylor, Deputy Minister of Education nancy.naylor@ontario.ca

Jeff Butler, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of the Student Support and Field Services Division Jeff.Butler@ontario.ca

Yael Ginsler, Assistant Deputy Minister of Education (Acting) for the Student Achievement Division yael.ginsler@ontario.ca

Denise Cole, Deputy Minister for Seniors and Accessibility Denise.Cole@ontario.ca

Mary Bartolomucci, Assistant Deputy Minister for the Accessibility Directorate, Mary.Bartolomucci@ontario.ca

What is the Ford Government Doing to Effectively Enforce the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

What is the Ford Government Doing to Effectively Enforce the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

September 21, 2020

            SUMMARY

The Ford Government has the responsibility to effectively enforce the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Today, the AODA Alliance wrote the responsible Minister, Accessibility Minister Raymond Cho. We asked him for important and specific details on what The Government is doing to effectively enforce the AODA. We also asked for information on how many obligated organizations  are complying with the AODA. We set out our letter below.

Over the past decade, the AODA Alliance has been in the lead in trying to get the Ontario Government to effectively enforce the AODA. In past years, our efforts have revealed that there have been rampant violations of the AODA, known to The Government, and yet The Government was doing far too little to enforce this important law. Two successive Government-appointed Independent Reviews of the AODA found that there has been a troubling lack of effective AODA enforcement despite The Government knowing of rampant AODA violations. See the 2014 final report of the Mayo Moran AODA Independent Review and the 2019 final report of the David Onley AODA Independent Review.

The prior Governments of Premier Dalton McGuinty and Premier Kathleen Wynne were responsible for the earlier legacy of poor compliance and AODA enforcement up to the middle of 2018. Today’s letter seeks to find out what has been happening with AODA compliance and enforcement from 2018 to the present.

To learn more about our efforts on this issue, take a peak at the  AODA Alliance website’s Enforcement page. You can also learn a great deal by looking over the  AODA Alliance’s April 18, 2018 5-year report on AODA compliance and enforcement.

There have been 599 days since the Ford Government received the ground-breaking final report of the Independent Review of the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by former Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Government has announced no comprehensive plan of new action to implement that report. That makes even worse the serious problems facing Ontarians with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

There have been fully 180 days, or almost six months, since we wrote Ontario Premier Doug Ford on March 25, 2020 to urge specific action to address the urgent needs of Ontarians with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis. He has not answered. The Premier’s office has not contacted us. The ordeal facing Ontarians with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis is worsened by that delay.

We invite your feedback. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

            MORE DETAILS

September 21, 2020 Letter from the AODA Alliance to Ontario Accessibility Minister Raymond Cho

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 Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

September 21, 2020

To: The Hon Raymond Cho, Minister for Seniors and Accessibility

Via email: raymond.cho@ontario.ca

College Park 5th Floor

777 Bay St

Toronto, ON M7A 1S5

Dear Minister,

Re: The Ontario Government’s Enforcement of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

Your Ministry is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). We write to request specific data in the Government’s possession or control on levels of compliance with and enforcement of the AODA to supplement information your Ministry provided in the past.

This information is readily available to the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario with minimal effort. The information we seek will be helpful for you in your work overseeing the AODA’s implementation and enforcement.

We would welcome as prompt a response from you as possible. As you know, the January 1, 2025 deadline for the Government to lead Ontario to become accessible to Ontarians with disabilities is fast-approaching. The January 31, 2019 final report of the Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation and enforcement conducted by former Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley found that Ontario remains full of barriers impeding people with disabilities, and that progress on accessibility has been occurring at a “glacial” pace. You have commended Mr. Onley’s report, stating that he did a “marvelous job”.

We request the following information:

  1. In each of several past years, your Ministry has made public an annual plan and report regarding enforcement of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). Has the Government prepared an AODA Accessibility compliance and enforcement report for 2018, 2019, 2020 and/or 2021? Have any or all of these been made public? If so, please provide them to us in an accessible MS Word format. If not, when will they be made public?
  1. By December 31, 2017, private sector organizations in Ontario with at least 20 employees had to file a third AODA Accessibility Report with the Government under s. 14 of the AODA.
  1. a) As of the time you answer this letter, how many private sector organizations that were required to file an AODA Accessibility Report by December 31, 2017, had still not filed the required 2017 AODA Accessibility Report?
  1. b) What percentage of the total number of private sector organizations which had been required to file an AODA Accessibility Report by December 31, 2017 had not filed one as of the date of your response to this letter?
  1. c) As of the date of your response to this letter, how many private sector organizations that were required to file an AODA accessibility report by December 31, 2017, had failed to do so, and had also failed to file a required AODA accessibility report either by December 31, 2012 or by December 31, 2014 (i.e. two-time violators)? Please state this as a number of organizations, and as a percentage of the organizations which were required to so file.
  1. d) As of the date of your response to this letter, how many private sector organizations that were required to file a first AODA Accessibility Report by December 31, 2012, a second AODA Accessibility Report by December 31, 2014, and a third AODA accessibility report by December 31, 2017, had not filed any of these three required reports (i.e. three-time violators)? Please state this as a number of organizations, and as a percentage of the organizations which were required to so file.
  1. Designated public sector organizations were all required to file an AODA Accessibility Report by December 31, 2017.
  1. a) What number and percentage of all designated public sector organizations had filed their most recent AODA compliance report by December 31, 2017?
  1. b) As of the date of your response to this letter, if all had still not filed them, how many have not filed them? And what percent of designated public sector organizations that were required to file then?
  1. When after 2017 were public or private sector organizations next required to file an accessibility report? If that date has passed, we repeat the same inquiries as are set out in Questions 1 and 2 above, for reports due by that more recent deadline.
  1. In 2018, 2019 or 2020 (broken down by year), how many private sector organizations had their place of business subject to an on-site inspection under the AODA by or on behalf of the Ontario Government? Of those:
  1. a) How many had under 20 employees?
  1. b) How many had 20-49 employees?
  1. c) How many had 50 or more employees?
  1. In 2018, 2019 or 2020 (broken down by year), how many private sector organizations were subject to an audit under the AODA by or on behalf of the Ontario Government, but with no on-site inspection of their place of business? Of those organizations:
  1. a) How many had under 20 employees?
  1. b) How many had 20-49 employees?
  1. c) How many had 50 or more employees?
  1. In 2018, 2019 or 2020 (broken down by year), how many public sector organizations were subject to an audit under the AODA by or on behalf of the Ontario Government, but with no on-site inspection of their place of business?
  1. In 2018, 2019 or 2020 (broken down by year), how many public sector organizations had their place of business subject to an on-site inspection under the AODA by or on behalf of the Ontario Government?
  1. In 2018, 2019 or 2020 (broken down by year), for how many obligated organizations has all or part of their website been audited or inspected by or on behalf of the Ontario Government for compliance with AODA accessibility standards?
  1. a) for private sector organizations with under 50 employees
  1. b) for private sector organizations with 50 or more employees, and
  1. c) for public sector organizations
  1. In 2021, at the place of business of how many obligated organizations does the Ontario Government plan to conduct an on-site AODA inspection?
  1. In 2021, how many obligated organizations does the Ontario Government plan to audit for AODA compliance, without conducting an on-site inspection of the organization’s place of business?
  1. In 2018, 2019 and 2020 (broken down by year), how many compliance orders were issued under the AODA? For what specific kinds of AODA violations?
  1. In 2018, 2019 and 2020 (broken down by year), how many monetary penalties were imposed under the AODA? What were their amounts? How many were against private sector organizations? How many were against public sector organizations? For which AODA violations?
  1. In 2018, 2019 or 2020 (broken down by year), how many times were AODA compliance orders or monetary penalties appealed to the License Appeal Tribunal?
  1. In 2018, 2019 or 2020 (broken down by year), how many AODA compliance orders, monetary penalties or other enforcement efforts were appealed to court? Please provide specifics of any such case or links to accessible postings of any decisions. How many such appeals or court proceedings are pending?
  1. In 2018, 2019 or 2020 (broken down by year), how many times has an AODA compliance order or an administrative penalty order been filed with a local Registrar of the Superior Court of Justice under s. 23 of the AODA?
  1. As of now, what are the numbers of:
  1. a) Directors appointed under s. 30 of the AODA working within the Ontario Government or under its authority?
  1. b) Inspectors appointed under s. 18 of the AODA employed in or on behalf of the Ontario Government?
  1. c) Inspectors the Government plans in the next six months to appoint under s. 18 of the AODA?
  1. d) Directors that the Government plans to appoint in the next six months under s. 30 of the AODA?
  1. What is the budget that was appropriated for the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario for the fiscal year 2017-2018? 2018-2019? 2019-2020? 2020-2021? Broken down by year, how much of that appropriated budget amount did the Directorate spend in the relevant year? In the case of 2020-2021, please let us know the actual expenditure up to the date of your response to this letter.

We remain happy to do whatever we can to make it as easy as possible for you to promptly provide answers. If some questions can quickly be answered, and others will take more time, we would welcome receiving the requested information in stages, rather than having to wait until it is all assembled before we see any answers.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

CC: The Hon. Premier Doug Ford premier@ontario.ca

Denise Cole, Deputy Minister of Accessibility, Denise.Cole@ontario.ca

Mary Bartolomucci, Assistant Deputy Minister for the Accessibility Directorate, Mary.Bartolomucci@ontario.ca

Landmark Toronto Star Guest Column by the Authors of the Three Successive Government-Appointed Independent Reviews of Ontario’s Disabilities Act Demands Immediate Strong New Government Action on Serious Hardships Facing People with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Landmark Toronto Star Guest Column by the Authors of the Three Successive Government-Appointed Independent Reviews of Ontario’s Disabilities Act Demands Immediate Strong New Government Action on Serious Hardships Facing People with Disabilities

September 16, 2020

          SUMMARY

The Ontario Government has failed to effectively implement the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and must now show the much-needed missing leadership that Ontarians with disabilities need. That was the message of a powerful guest column appearing in today’s online Toronto Star, set out below. This column is an amazing and unprecedented combined effort by the three people who have conducted ground-breaking Government-appointed Independent Reviews over the past decade into the AODA’s implementation and enforcement:

  1. In 2009-10, Charles Beer, a former provincial Cabinet minister, conducted the first AODA Independent Review. The Beer report was made public on May 31, 2010.
  1. In 2013-2014, Mayo Moran, then the dean of the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law, conducted the second AODA Independent Review. The Moran report was made public on February 13, 2015.
  1. In 2018-2019, David Onley, former Ontario Lieutenant Governor, conducted the third AODA Independent Review. The Government made the Onley Report public on March 7, 2019.

In 2005, the Ontario Legislature unanimously passed the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). It requires the Ontario Government to lead Ontario to become disability-accessible by 2025 by enacting and enforcing regulations (called accessibility standards) that spell out what employers and the providers of goods and services must do to tear down and prevent disability barriers. Among other things, the AODA requires the Ontario Government to appoint a mandatory Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation and enforcement approximately every three years, and to recommend any reforms needed to ensure that Ontario becomes accessible by 2025, based on a public consultation that the Independent Review must undertake.

Over the past decade, all three AODA Independent Reviews concluded that Ontarians with disabilities have needed the Ontario Government to take prompt strong new action to tear down the many disability barriers they still face when trying to get a job or education, or use public transit or shop for goods or services. In today’s Toronto Star guest column, the authors of all three Government-appointed AODA Independent Reviews together reached these powerful conclusions:

“Key recommendations from the three legislated reviews carried out over the past decade have either been ignored or only partially implemented by both Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments. We asked the Ontario government to show stronger leadership on accessibility, to strengthen existing accessibility standards, to substantially increase enforcement of the AODA, and to create strong new accessibility standards in priority areas like the built environment, education and health.

A clear updated plan is now required to get Ontario back on track to ensure the province is accessible for people with disabilities by 2025.”

The conclusions in this new guest column echo key earlier findings in the three AODA Independent Reviews. As the most recent example, the 2019 Onley Report, which the Ford Government received fully 594 days ago, found that the pace of change since 2005 for people with disabilities has been “glacial.” Back then it also found that by January 2019 “…the promised accessible Ontario is nowhere in sight.” Progress on accessibility under this law has been “highly selective and barely detectable.”

The earlier Onley Report also concluded that: “…this province is mostly inaccessible.” It found:

“For most disabled persons, Ontario is not a place of opportunity but one of countless, dispiriting, soul-crushing barriers.”

Today’s guest column shows how this protracted Government failure has hurt people with disabilities even more during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Onley, Moran and Beer unite to conclude such things as:

  1. “COVID-19 is having a disproportionate and devastating impact on Canadians with disabilities.”
  1. “They have disproportionately borne the brunt of this disease. Yet there is no overarching or comprehensive plan to address the needs of people with disabilities as a result of COVID-19. There is no targeted plan to ensure the thousands of students with disabilities are fully and safely included when schools reopen.”

These are major concerns which the AODA Alliance has been raising time and again with the Government. In the 594 days since the Government received the Onley Report, it has still not announced a comprehensive plan to implement it, even though it has inaccurately claimed to be “leading by example” on accessibility and inclusion for Ontarians with disabilities.

Please email Premier Doug Ford today. Write him at premier@ontario.ca Urge him to immediately act on the recommendations in this guest column. Tell him that Ontario desperately needs his Government to announce and implement an effective plan to meet the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Use social media and contact your local conventional media to let the public know how the Government’s failures in this area have affected you, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. To learn more about our advocacy efforts for people with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, visit the AODA Alliance’s COVID-19 web page.

We commend David Onley, Mayo Moran and Charles Beer for their extraordinary public statement, and for offering both the Ontario and Federal Government concrete recommendations. We welcome your feedback. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com be

          MORE DETAILS

Toronto Star Online September 15, 2020

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2020/09/15/strengthening-canadas-disability-community-in-a-post-pandemic-world.html

Strengthening Canada’s disability community in a post-pandemic world

By David Onley Contributors Mayo Moran, Charles Beer

The past six months have been among the most challenging in our history. All Canadians have seen their lives altered on a daily basis. Fortunately, our governments at every level have worked together and have responded positively and effectively to mitigate many of the worst impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. But we face some fundamental challenges if we are to emerge as a stronger and more compassionate society.

Over the past decade each of us was asked to carry out the first legislated reviews of Ontario’s ground-breaking Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). During the course of our work, we had the opportunity to meet with a number of extraordinary people, all living with disability. Their insights, personal stories, and ideas for a more inclusive future remained with us long after our work was done.

The pandemic has brought us back together with a new sense of purpose. COVID-19 is having a disproportionate and devastating impact on Canadians with disabilities. This crisis deserves the attention of all Canadians and urgent action is required.

The disability community is often invisible or ignored. But in fact almost 25 per cent of Canadians live with some kind of disability. According to Statistics Canada, that population is more likely to be single, female, un-or-underemployed, and living in poverty with more than one type of disability. As our population ages, that percentage will continue to go up.

Since COVID-19 hit our shores, meaningful support has been extended to various parts of our society, including the unemployed, small and medium sized business, students, renters, and the health and social services sectors. These steps have been critical and necessary. But one key population has not received the focused support it needs: our fellow citizens who live with physical, mental and developmental disabilities.

They have disproportionately borne the brunt of this disease. Yet there is no overarching or comprehensive plan to address the needs of people with disabilities as a result of COVID-19. There is no targeted plan to ensure the thousands of students with disabilities are fully and safely included when schools reopen. Many with disabilities who qualify for disability benefits did not qualify for the more generous COVID-19 benefits such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). Throughout the disability community, credit card debt is up; savings, if any exist, have been depleted.

Statistics Canada released a new report in late August that surveyed some 13,000 Canadians with disabilities. The fallout from the pandemic has negatively impacted their employment, income, housing payments, basic utilities and prescription medication. Simply put, the disabled face grave economic hardship.

Even a passing glance at social media reveals the deep despair and anger of many in the disability community.

Stories of near starvation on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) are matched by increased militancy to the point of one group planning a mass, simultaneous wheelchair blockade of key downtown intersections in Toronto. On Twitter alone there are myriad examples of people going to bed hungry or forced to choose between paying the rent or buying food.

Others have flat given up on life, discussing how they are now seeking medical assistance in dying. Postings on the precise steps to get MAID are easily accessible.

This is simply unacceptable in 2020. We can and must do better. We need to fully implement the AODA by 2025 as originally promised; we need the broader public and private sectors to commit to hire more people with disabilities; and we need to bring in a national basic annual income for those with disabilities.

Over the past number of years, some key advances have been made in Canada to enhance the lives of those with disabilities but it is critical to accelerate the pace of change. Ontario’s Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) was passed unanimously in 2005 to support social inclusion. To date, Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia as well as the federal government are implementing accessibility standards for the broader public sector (e.g., provincial and municipal governments, educational and health facilities), the private sector and the non-profit sector.

When the AODA was passed there was great hope among the disability community that significant steps forward would be made within a short period of time. But the pace of change has been far too slow.

Key recommendations from the three legislated reviews carried out over the past decade have either been ignored or only partially implemented by both Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments. We asked the Ontario government to show stronger leadership on accessibility, to strengthen existing accessibility standards, to substantially increase enforcement of the AODA, and to create strong new accessibility standards in priority areas like the built environment, education and health.

A clear updated plan is now required to get Ontario back on track to ensure the province is accessible for people with disabilities by 2025.

Second, while there have been some advances by the broader public and private sectors over the past decade to hire more Canadians with disabilities, much more can and needs to be done. Numerous reports underline the positive economic impact that employing persons with disabilities can have not only for the individuals themselves but also for the companies and institutions that hire them. We need all governments (federal, provincial and local) to set out meaningful and measurable hiring objectives.

The national and provincial Chambers of Commerce should equally call upon all their members to set out clear plans to increase the number of disabled persons in their organizations. We need initiatives from the private sector to promote and increase the hiring of disabled Canadians, similar to what Bell Canada has done to raise awareness around mental health issues.

Third, while the AODA has been critical to help level the playing field in Ontario for those with disabilities, it was not intended to resolve the persistent financial disadvantages faced by this community. The glaring hole in Canada’s treatment of its disabled population is the paucity of meaningful and appropriate financial support. Across all sectors, we need to raise our game by improving financial supports, focusing on hiring persons with disabilities, and ensuring timely and effective service provision.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has informed the country that our federal government will present a Throne Speech on Sept. 23. He underlined that the COVID-19 pandemic now required the government to set out new directions for the country to restore the economy and deal with the broad impacts that the virus has left in its wake.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has said we need to “build back better.” Better must include strong financial supports for the most disadvantaged in our society through a national basic income program for Canadians with disabilities.

Our suggested approach is that the federal government implement, after consultation with representatives from the disability community, a national basic income program for those with disabilities that would provide an income floor under which no one could fall. As a starting point, the eligibility criteria could follow that currently used for the federal disability tax credit.

Income supports as we know them today are meagre at best and Dickensian at worse. Single adults receiving support through ODSP can receive up to $1,169 per month. In Toronto, the average market rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $1,374. A single person receiving ODSP starts the month $205 behind.

In the 1960s, Canada introduced the Canada Pension Plan and medicare. These initiatives lifted thousands out of poverty and ensured that all Canadians regardless of socio-economic standing could access quality health care. In the 1970s, Ontario introduced the Guaranteed Annual Income Supplement in response to a 35 per cent poverty rate for seniors. The more recent Canada Child Benefit has protected thousands of children from poverty.

Indeed, the CERB is only the most recent example of governments of all political stripes acting to provide income support when people need it. We believe the implementation of a national basic income regime for those with disabilities will have a similar and immediate impact on the lives of the disabled.

COVID-19 has had a seismic impact on our society, comparable to that of the Second World War and the population explosion of the 1960s. Following those historic events, Canada responded with ambitious and innovative social legislation designed to meet the needs of a changing world. Those innovations gave birth to the broad social, health and education supports that Canadians enjoy today. The current crisis demands similarly bold solutions.

Let us fully implement the AODA. Let us set out clear goals to hire more people with disabilities. Let us implement a national basic income regime for those with disabilities. These steps will rival CPP, Medicare, the CERB, and other innovations with immediate impact on the lives of millions of people. Just as previous generations built these important programs, let us dedicate ourselves to “building back better” by improving the lives of one of our most vulnerable populations. The time to act is now.

David Onley is the former Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, Mayo Moran is the provost and vice chancellor of Trinity College and University of Toronto and Charles Beer, former Minister of Community and Social Services.

Action Kit: Protect Torontonians with Disabilities from the Dangers of Electric Scooters

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Action Kit: Protect Torontonians with Disabilities from the Dangers of Electric Scooters

September 10, 2020

How to Help – In a Nutshell

Please take five minutes to help us stop Toronto from allowing electric scooters (e-scooters), a serious new danger to the safety and accessibility of people with disabilities, seniors and the public. If you live in or visit Toronto, please email Toronto Mayor John Tory at mayor_tory@toronto.ca You can also call Mayor Tory’s office at 416-397-2489 and talk to whoever answers the phone.

All eyes are on Mayor John Tory. If he comes out against e-scooters, then Toronto likely won’t unleash them on us.

We invite you to use this key message in your email or phone message to Mayor Tory. You can cut and paste it, or use your own words.

Mayor Tory, Don’t allow electric scooters in Toronto! Please don’t expose Canada’s largest city to the serious Dangers, Personal Injuries and New Disability Barriers that e-scooters would cause. Don’t do an experiment or “pilot” with e-scooters in Toronto, because that would threaten our safety and would create barriers to accessibility in our community. Toronto already has too many accessibility barriers. Please make Toronto easier and not harder for seniors and people with disabilities to get around.

What You Need to Know About the E-Scooters Issue?

The City of Toronto is considering allowing people to ride e-scooters in public places). They would be made available near curbsides to rent. Right now they are banned, unless City Council votes to allow them.

An e-scooter is a silent motor vehicle. A person with no license can race around on an e-scooter at speeds of 20 kilometers an hour or faster.

A report by Toronto City Staff shows that e-scooters pose a real danger to public safety in places that allow them. E-scooter riders and innocent pedestrians can and do get seriously injured or killed. Check out a recent CBC report on e-scooter injuries suffered in Calgary.

E-scooters especially endanger seniors and people with disabilities, such as people who are blind or have low vision or balance issues, or whose disability makes them slower to scramble out of the way. A blind pedestrian can’t know when a silent e-scooter rockets toward them at over 20 KPH, driven by a fun-seeking unlicensed, untrained, uninsured, unhelmetted rider. Sighted pedestrians cannot hear silent e-scooters racing towards them from behind.

In cities where e-scooters are allowed, rental e-scooters, left strewn around public places, become mobility barriers to accessibility for people with disabilities. For people who are blind, deafblind or have low vision, those e-scooters become a serious, unexpected tripping hazard. E-scooters left on sidewalks create serious new accessibility barriers for people using a wheelchair, walker or other mobility device. An e-scooter can block them from continuing along an otherwise-accessible sidewalk. People with disabilities using a mobility device may not be able to safely go up on the grass or down onto the road, to get around an e-scooter.

It won’t solve these dangers for Toronto to allow e-scooters on roads but ban them from sidewalks. Cities that allow e-scooters on roads but ban them from sidewalks find that e-scooters are nevertheless ridden on sidewalks. We’d need police on every street corner to effectively police e-scooters. On July 9, Toronto law enforcement told the City’s Infrastructure Committee that they have no capacity to take on enforcement of new e-scooter rules. City Staff said that there’s no city anywhere that allows e-scooters and that gets enforcement right.

For Mayor Tory to allow e-scooters will cost taxpayers money. There’s new law enforcement costs. There’s OHIP costs for treating those injured in our already-overcrowded hospital emergency rooms. The City could also be sued by people injured by e-scooters. We have more pressing priorities for spending public money.

If Toronto allows e-scooters, the e-scooter rental companies will be laughing all the way to the bank. their corporate lobbyists have been relentlessly turning up the heat on Mayor Tory and City Councilors to allow e-scooters.

Mayor Tory should not allow a pilot with e-scooters in Toronto. A pilot to study what? How many of us will be injured by this silent menace? We already know they do, from cities that allowed them. Don’t subject us to an unnecessary human experiment where we can get hurt.

If we allow bikes, why not e-scooters? A person who has never before ridden an e-scooter (or bike) can hop on an e-scooter and instantly throttle up to over 20 KPH, silently endangering us. In contrast, you can’t instantly pedal a bike that fast, and especially if you’ve never before ridden a bike. In any event, we’ve already got bikes. We don’t need the dangers of e-scooters.

The Toronto’s City-appointed Disability Accessibility Advisory Committee and several leading disability organizations unanimously called on Toronto not to allow e-scooters. Tell Mayor Tory that the safety and accessibility of the public, including seniors and people with disabilities, should prevail over the e-scooter rental corporate lobbyists.

With COVID-19, Torontonians are in crisis, facing unprecedented threats to our health and economy. City Council has more important things to do than debating e-scooters. Montreal tried an e-scooter pilot and called it off. So should Toronto.

Five Ways to Help

On July 28, 2020, Toronto City Council directed City staff to investigate the concerns of people with disabilities regarding e-scooters. Here are five ways to have your say. Email us at  aodafeedback@gmail.com to tell us what you tried and what you heard back.

  1. Please call and email Mayor Tory’s office. Tell him not to allow e-scooters in Toronto.

mayor_tory@toronto.ca 416-397-2489

  1. Email or call Toronto’s General Manager of Transportation Services Barbara Gray. Give her the same message. You can reach her at:

Phone 416-392-8670

Email: Barbara.Gray@toronto.ca

  1. Get your friends and family members to call or email Mayor Tory’s office to tell him not to allow e-scooters in Toronto.
  1. If you are a member of a church, synagogue, mosque, or other religious or community organization, get your organization or its leaders to email and phone Mayor Tory to oppose allowing e-scooters in Toronto.
  1. Widely circulate and post this Action Kit. Use social media like Twitter to tell MayorTory not to allow e-scooters. Mayor Tory’s Twitter handle is: @JohnTory

Here is a sample of a tweet you might send on Twitter:

@JohnTory Don’t allow electric scooters in Toronto! Please don’t expose Canada’s largest city to the Dangers, serious Injuries and New Disability Barriers that e-scooters inflict https://acorta.me/2fe #accessibility #ToPoli

For more background:

Read the AODA Alliance’s July 8, 2020 brief to the City of Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee, already endorsed by Spinal Cord Injury Ontario and the March of Dimes of Canada

Read the February 6, 2020 letter from the AODA Alliance to Toronto Mayor John Tory which he has not answered.

Read the open letter to all Ontario municipal councils from 11 major disability organizations, opposing e-scooters in Ontario, and

Read the AODA Alliance’s July 10, 2020 news release explaining what happened at the July 9, 2020 meeting of Toronto’s Infrastructure and Environment Committee where the AODA Alliance and others presented on this issue.

Visit the AODA Alliance e-scooters web page.

More Media Coverage of the Stress and Uncertainty facing Parents of Students with Disabilities on the Eve of the Labour Day Weekend

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

More Media Coverage of the Stress and Uncertainty facing Parents of Students with Disabilities on the Eve of the Labour Day Weekend

September 4, 2020

          SUMMARY

On the eve of the Labour Day weekend, parents of a third of a million students with disabilities in Ontario remain very anxious about what their children will face as schools re-open in Ontario over the next days. The Ford Government has still announced no comprehensive plans to ensure that students with disabilities are fully and safely included in school re-openings, even though it has been repeatedly advised that such a plan is needed. School boards, teachers and principals are all scrambling in the absence of that plan. This scrambling is made all the more hectic as the Ford Government made more announcements on school re-opening late in the summer which should have been made weeks ago.

Even days before schools re-open, some parents of students with disabilities still do not even know who their child’s teacher will be. How can a teacher properly plan to meet the needs of students with disabilities during school re-opening, including safe social distancing, if they don’t even know who their students will be and what their needs will be?

We and other disability rights advocates have succeeded in securing media coverage of these concerns. For example, yesterday, we were included in good reports on this issue on CBC national radio news, and in the flagship CBC national news program “The National

”. Below we set out a sample of some other recent reports on CTV national news, on CBC and in the Toronto Star and St. Catharines Standard, which either include the AODA Alliance or other disability advocates with whom we collaborate.

Here are a few reflections. First, from what we have seen, the Ford Government has not denied to the media or to us that it has no comprehensive plan to ensure that students with disabilities are fully and safely included in school re-opening. It has not denied that it has left it to each of 72 school boards to themselves figure out what to do, as they scramble to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic.

For yet more proof that the Ford Government is largely leaving it to school boards to figure this out, we set out below an excerpt from the Government’s August 27, 2020 “Operational guidance: COVID-19 management in schools.“

Second, when the media asked the Ford Government over the past days about the fact that it has no plan to ensure the full and safe inclusion of students with disabilities in schools, the Government repeatedly answered that it has allocated 10 million dollars to special education as new funding. This, in reality, is a tacit admission that it has no plan. If it had a plan, it would have answered reporters by saying it has a plan.

Moreover, as we have earlier emphasized, that 10 million dollars boils down to a paltry $34 for each student with disabilities. What can that tiny sum procure for students with disabilities?

The absence of a comprehensive provincial plan for fully and safely including students with disabilities in school re-opening means that 72 school boards will have to waste time and money duplicating efforts as they try to figure out how to solve the same problems.

Third, in the absence of a much-needed provincial plan of action, the Ford Government has a plan in place to advertise about its efforts on school re-opening. Below we set out an article from the August 26, 2020 Toronto Star covering this, and the criticisms of this use of public money.

Fourth, we must correct the $4 per student allocation that we earlier calculated, in light of a new Government funding announcement on August 26, 2020. The Federal Government gave the provinces a total of some 2 billion dollars to help with school re-openings. In the Ford Government’s August 26, 2020 announcement on how it would spend its portion of those funds (set out below), it announced an additional 12.5 million dollars for special education and mental health supports. If we assume that all that money is to be spent on students with disabilities, then the addition of that money to the 10 million dollars that the Ford Government earlier announced would bring the total to $22.5 million. If that is divided among a third of a million students with disabilities, that is $67.3 dollars per student for this fall.

$67.3 per student with disabilities, while larger than $34, is still paltry. There will likely be less than $67.3 per student with disabilities. It is reasonable to expect that a large proportion of Ontario’s 2 million students, and not just students with disabilities, will need mental health supports in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, a portion of the new 12.5 million dollars that the Ford Government allocated from the new funds it received from the Trudeau Government will go to students without disabilities.

So what are parents with disabilities to do in the face of all this stress and uncertainty. We remind you all that you can get helpful tips by watching the archived online video of the 3rd virtual Town Hall on COVID-19 and Disability which the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition hosted on August 21, 2020. It has American Sign Language interpretation. It is also now captioned.

We welcome your feedback. We cannot give parents legal advice on how to handle events as they unfold. However, we want to know what you are experiencing, so we can draw on it to focus our advocacy efforts over the next days and weeks. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

For more background on these issues, visit

* The AODA Alliance’s COVID-19 web page and our education accessibility web page.

* The July 24, 2020 report on meeting the needs of students with disabilities during school re-opening by the COVID-19 subcommittee of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.

* The AODA Alliance‘s July 23, 2020 report on the need to rein in the power of school principals to refuse to admit a student to school.

* The AODA Alliance’s June 18, 2020 brief to the Ford Government on how to meet the needs of students with disabilities during school re-opening.

* The widely viewed online video of the May 4, 2020 virtual Town Hall on meeting the needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis, co-organized by the Ontario Autism Coalition and the AODA Alliance.

          MORE DETAILS

 Toronto Star August 26, 2020

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/08/26/parents-fear-pandemic-will-lead-to-more-exclusion-of-special-needs-students.html

Is Ontario’s plan ‘a formula for failure?’

Parents of children with disabilities fear their kids are being treated as an afterthought

Brendan Kennedy Toronto Star

After nearly six months of not being able to see her friends in person, Sumayyah Ahmed is even more excited about this school year than usual. She figures it might be “pretty weird” with all her classmates wearing masks and social distancing, but she’s going into Grade 8 so she and her friends will finally be the oldest kids in the school. “I’ve heard it’s the most fun year.”

Sumayyah’s mother, Lindsay Ahmed, is a little more anxious about what lies ahead.

“I’m feeling probably similar to everyone else,” she says. “I have no idea what the right decision is.”

Sumayyah, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy and is also visually and hearing impaired, is among the estimated one-in-six Ontario students with special needs. Ahmed loves her daughter’s school – Robert Munsch Public School in Whitby – and she’s confident they will “do the best they can with what they’re given.”

But like many other parents, she still has so many questions and she’s frustrated with the lack of information. How will physical distancing requirements affect her daughter’s support person? What happens if there’s another shutdown and Sumayyah is forced to return to online learning, which, if it’s run as it was in the spring, will be mostly inaccessible to her?

Ahmed says it feels like students with disabilities are being treated as an afterthought, “which is usually the case.”

Ahmed isn’t alone. Parents and advocates of students with special needs say Ontario’s back-to-school plan doesn’t address their concerns ahead of this unprecedented school year.

“There was no systematic effort to figure out how to meet the needs of people with disabilities during COVID,” says David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

Lepofsky says he sympathized with the province back in March when they had to scramble to move classes online. He doesn’t fault them for their missteps then, but he says it’s unacceptable there is still no comprehensive strategy for supporting students with disabilities.

“We said to them in the spring: ‘You need a plan. You need to come up with ways to ensure that your distance learning meets the needs of those one-out-of-six students,’ and they didn’t. I’m not saying they did absolutely nothing, but there was no systematic strategy to deal with it. They basically left it to 72 school boards to each figure it out themselves. That is a formula for failure.”

Last month, the province announced $10 million of its school reopening budget would be used specifically to support special needs students in the classroom. The Ministry of Education has also encouraged boards to support whatever attendance option works best for special needs students.

In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for Education Minister Stephen Lecce said the province is spending “more money than any other province on special education.”

The ministry also pointed out that they have increased funding for special education grants available to every school board, while creating the Supports for Students Fund, which can be used for “additional critical staffing needs,” including hiring more educational assistants.

Even with the additional funding, Lepofsky and other advocates fear the extra health-and-safety burdens on schools, coupled with the lack of a comprehensive plan for special needs students will lead to more students being excluded.

“What we’re worried about right now is with the return to school and principals scrambling there’s a real risk that some of them are going to decide, ‘I don’t know what to do with this kid. I don’t know if we can manage their social distancing. Mom, keep your kid home,'” he says.

“This is a festering problem that predated COVID and we are really worried that this fall it’s going to get worse as a way of coping with the failure of the provincial government to properly plan and resource the return to school.”

A provision of Ontario’s Education Act allows individual principals to prohibit a student from attending school if they believe their presence is “detrimental to the physical and mental well-being” of the other students.

Disability advocates have argued the provision is disproportionately used to exclude students with special needs, particularly those with autism. Last year, the Ontario government said it would look into the issue, but there is currently no provincewide policy and individual principals have broad discretion.

“There’s wild variations from board to board,” Lepofsky says. “Depending on where you live your kid gets a lot of due process, or none.”

Laura Kirby-McIntosh, president of the Ontario Autism Coalition, says she has already heard from parents of autistic children whose schools have asked them to attend for less than a full day or only a few days per week.

“The message there is, ‘Gee, your kid is an awful lot of extra work, so let us get all the normal kids settled and then we’ll worry about you.’ That’s problematic,” she says.

The social impact of being excluded can be “devastating” for a student with special needs, Kirby-McIntosh says. “Especially in that first week.”

Kirby-McIntosh says she’s worried the pandemic will be used as a pretext for more exclusions.

“I’m very nervous about how this is going to unfold,” she says. “I think there’s going to be a lot of lawyers and education advocates who are going to be very busy this fall, and a lot of exhausted and exacerbated parents – and a lot of sad kids.”

The ministry did not respond to questions about the potential for more exclusions this year.

Angela Nardi-Addesa, superintendent of special education and inclusion for the Toronto District School Board, says the board has instructed its schools that pandemic protocols cannot be used as a reason to exclude a student.

“I want to make sure that all our staff know that nothing of what we do should act as a barrier for students with disabilities.” If a student is unable to wear a mask or to distance themselves from other students, she says, accommodations will be made.

“It is up to us as a staff, as a board, to figure out how to best support that student to keep them safe, as well as the staff.”

On top of her uncertainty and anxiety around her daughter’s return to school, Ahmed is also worried about what will happen if schools are forced to close again at some point this fall. Sumayyah, whose disabilities made learning by video nearly impossible, really struggled to keep up during the spring shutdown.

The video connection didn’t always work, and she had trouble seeing and hearing things properly.

“It was annoying and frustrating,” Sumayyah says.

“There was no plan for anyone, so of course the students with special needs were the ones who suffered the most,” Ahmed says. She hasn’t heard what, if anything, has been done to improve virtual learning for students with disabilities. “I’m going to assume there’s probably not a better plan.”

St. Catharines Standard August 23, 2020

Originally posted at https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/news/niagara-region/2020/08/23/transition-back-to-school-is-going-to-be-awful-for-special-needs-kids-advocacy-group-warns.html

Transition back to school is ‘going to be awful’ for special needs kids, advocacy group warns

By Allan Benner

Sun., Aug. 23, 2020

Christine Levesque won’t be sending her son back to school in September.

Considering the challenges her 10-year-old boy with autism faced when he was in class prior to the COVID-19 pandemic being declared, Levesque does not feel comfortable sending him back immediately when schools reopen.

She isn’t alone.

The Niagara Falls resident, who leads a group called Autism Advocacy Ontario, said the organization has been in contact with families daily, listening to their concerns about sending their children back to school.

Levesque said she was forced to pull her son, Larz, out of school last October after he slipped away from his teachers three times in one day when the school could not provide the support he needed.

She said school administration informed her in February a new support person had been brought in for Larz, but 10 days after he returned to class labour actions began to disrupt classes, followed by the COVID-19 shutdown.

Like most kids, Larz has been home ever since.

“If his needs weren’t being met before, how are they going to be met now with teachers who are under so much more stress?” Levesque wonders.

She also worries about worse-case scenarios that could arise, possibly leading to bullying related to the virus if children show symptoms.

Although parents of autistic children are typically advised to allow their kids to socialize as much as possible, Levesque said she is no longer concerned that her son may be too isolated at home.

She said Larz been thriving in the months he’s been home, and she’s heard similar stories from other parents through the advocacy group.

“As soon as these kids got out of schools and started spending time with their families, things started happening. Some kids started to communicate better,” she said. “In the last six months, I think the calm-down of everything has helped these kids tremendously.”

But she is concerned about autistic children returning to classrooms too quickly and finding a routine that’s different than before with “all these new expectations and hand washing.”

Levesque said she has been advising parents who contact the advocacy group: “Do not panic, and take your time.”

She said she reminds them that if they have a special needs child, they are in control of their child’s individual education plan, or IEP.

“It’s been this long, the transition is going to be awful. Let’s do it slowly,” she said.

She suggested sending children with autism back to the classroom for a half-day to start, and a full day a few weeks later, “and then we’ll see how it goes in October.”

Levesque said Autism Advocacy Ontario is developing a survey to ask families to discuss concerns they have that are yet to be addressed by school boards or any other advocacy group.

The Ontario Autism Coalition, too, has been working to advise families of special needs children concerned about a lack of guidance.

“The provincial government has announced no comprehensive plan to ensure students with disabilities are fully and safely included in their return to school, or to ensure that any distance learning that occurs this fall will be barrier-free,” said Ontario Autism Coalition president Laura Kirby-McIntosh, who works as a teacher at a Peel high school.

“As always, we have to take things into our own hands,” she said.

The organization teamed up with retired lawyer and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance chair David Lepofsky and ARCH Disability Law Centre executive director Robert Lattanzio.

Lepofsky advised parents to remain in contact with schools to ensure the needs of students are met — whether it’s assistance with wearing personal protective equipment or identifying any needs that may have changed as a result of the pandemic.

 CBC News August 27, 2020

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/parents-special-needs-back-to-school-1.5702709?ref=mobilerss&cmp=newsletter_CBC%20Toronto_1642_106268

Why some parents of kids with disabilities are making the ‘heart-breaking’ choice of at-home learning

Students with disabilities an afterthought in province’s plan, parent Lisa Thornbury says

Julia Knope

CBC News, Aug. 27, 2020

For months, Avery Thornbury, 14, has been looking forward to starting Grade 9 at a new school. In fact, she’s been so excited that she’s had her backpack ready by her front door since June.

“I just want the virus to be done,” she said.

“I just want to go to my school.”

But now — at least for the foreseeable future — that’s not going to happen.

Avery has epilepsy, so she has to be monitored for seizures. And with her cognitive delays, her mom Lisa Thornbury, says she’s working at a Grade 2 level.

Because her daughter has to be constantly monitored, Thornbury has decided to opt for Ontario’s online learning option come fall. She says there are holes in the province’s back-to-school plan for students with disabilities.

It’s a choice she calls “heart-breaking,” but ultimately necessary.

“We just thought that the risks outweighed the benefits,” Thornbury said.

Survey studies impact of COVID-19 on kids with disabilities

Thornbury says she’s spoken to other parents in the same situation who say “they’re really nervous, they’re afraid and they just don’t see that they have any other option.”

Parents of children with disabilities have cited issues such as the wearing of masks, questions about transportation for kids who require aid on school buses and the availability of educational assistants to help their kids when their in the classroom.

On Thursday, Statistics Canada released the results of a survey done in June looking at parents’ concerns since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Those who have kids with disabilities expressed higher levels of concern in all areas, particularly when it came to the school year and academic success for their children.

And what has made that even worse, Thornbury says, is what she calls “confusion” and “frustration” around the province’s back-to-school plans for children like Avery.

The plan, which was released on July 31, includes a combination of in-class and at-home learning for high school students, but the province has left room for each school board to tweak its own rules.

The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) is still finalizing plans for children with disabilities, both for online and in class learning, according to

Angela Nardi-Addesa, a system superintendent for special education.

Nardi-Addesa says the TDSB is collaborating with other boards to ensure students with disabilities “will not be discriminated against,” while remaining aware that some may have trouble with wearing masks and physical distancing.

Thornbury says transportation is one of the questions that remains for parents of children with disabilities, given that they often require extra aid on a bus. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)

Thornbury says the Halton District School Board, which oversees Avery’s Oakville school, is also still finalizing its plans, leaving “many questions” around

transportation, educational assistants, and wearing masks for students with disabilities.

“My daughter can’t wear a mask for longer than 15 minutes without being completely frustrated,” she said.

But the alternative — sending her to a school where some students aren’t required to wear masks — felt too risky, leading her to choose online learning,

despite the fact that her daughter thrives at school.

“It’s kind of like a lose-lose situation.”

The province has promised more than $22 million for special needs and mental health, some of which is coming from the federal government.

But despite that funding, Laura Kirby-McIntosh, a mother, teacher and autism advocate, says the Ford government should have released its back-to-school

plans earlier.

“Students like my daughter here, who has an exceptionality, they’re one in six,” Kirby-McIntosh told CBC Toronto Thursday.

“So you have to be planning with these kids in mind from day one — you can’t leave it to the last minute.”

Her daughter will also be learning online, as her husband is immuno-compromised and is therefore particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.

Kirby-McIntosh is now pushing for more clarity.

“I specifically called the minister of education today to discuss children with special needs,” she said.

“We’re going to make sure they’re able to get in the classroom safely, [and that] they have the same rights as any other child.”

Meanwhile, Thornbury is now preparing to have Avery at home for longer than originally anticipated, which means “basically home-schooling” and sitting

side-by-side with her during her virtual lessons.

In an effort to recreate the classroom setting, the pair also stick to a rigorous schedule, which includes singing O Canada every day, as well as morning announcements, field trips and recess.

“She thrives in a classroom,” Thornbury said.

And with the added challenge of also fitting her own work into her schedule, Thornbury said it’s going to be hard.

“It’s going to be challenging for sure.”

 CTV National News August 22, 2020

Originally posted at https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/parents-advocates-for-children-with-disabilities-share-concerns-over-school-reopening-plans-1.5075783

Parents, advocates for children with disabilities share concerns over school reopening plans

Molly Thomas

Ottawa Bureau Correspondent, CTV National News

TORONTO — As Canada prepares to reopen most of its schools, some parents and advocates across the country are voicing safety concerns for children with disabilities returning to the classroom.

Dartmouth, N.S. resident Meredith Tasiopoulos says her five-year-old son Eli, who has special needs, is excited to return to school. However, she still isn’t sure what returning to school will look like for him.

Eli has cerebral palsy and is unable to speak or walk on his own. Before the pandemic, school was the only place he received therapy and when he stopped attending school, Tasiopoulos noticed that the progress he made started to decline.

“We certainly see Eli’s progression slow down as school stopped and he stopped receiving these supports,” Tasiopoulos told CTV News.

Since Eli is more vulnerable to COVID-19, Tasiopoulos said she is still waiting on detailed instructions for what her son’s school year will entail post-pandemic lockdown.

“We don’t want him to be excluded and we’ve worked so hard for our kids to be included and that would be a major step back,” she said. “He loves school, Eli loves school so much.”

In Ontario, a town hall meeting was held on Friday to demand a province-wide plan that will focus on the one in six students who live with a disability.

David Lepofsky, a chair member of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance said during the meeting that students should be given assurances that they will not only be safe at school but also fully included with the curriculum and activities.

“They have the right to be fully and safely included in the return to school this fall, that won’t happen by accident,” Lepofsky said.

Some parents across Canada are also raising concerns, protesting their provincial governments to implement more staffing and rigorous safety measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in schools.

Teachers and parents in Calgary and Edmonton are urging the Alberta government to hire more staff to make class sizes smaller.

“Last year, my younger daughter’s class had 36 to 38 kids in it over the course of a year. There’s no room in the classroom to spread out,” Kyla Stack, a concerned mother protesting in Calgary, told CTV News.

Some child psychologists say if parents are anxious about the return to school, so will their kids. Experts suggest parents practice physical distancing and wear masks around the house now so it won’t seem strange in schools.

Some health professionals are encouraging the return to classes all while the correct precautions are taken into account.

While parents may feel anxious about sending their children back to school, infectious disease specialist Sumon Chakrabtri said it is time for kids to return to the classroom.

“The time has come that we need to move forward with this step and it’s going to be a bit nerve racking but, in the end, it’ll be successful,” he said.

Toronto Star August 26, 2020

Bus drivers left guessing over safety protocols

Salmaan Farooqui The Canadian Press

School bus drivers in Ontario say they need guidance from the province and school boards on COVID-19 safety protocols including social distancing, use of face masks and sanitizing routines.

With just a few weeks until the start of the new school year, the drivers, many of whom are retirees, say they still have many questions about what they’re supposed to do when a child on the bus is sick.

“We know how important it is to get kids to school, but we don’t want to be that weak link, don’t want to be responsible for an outbreak or something in our broader based community,” said Debbie Montgomery, president of Unifor Local 4268, which represents the bus drivers.

“We want to get this right and we want to mitigate as many risks as possible.”

Montgomery said provincial regulations don’t allow for Plexiglas to protect drivers, who are being asked to take on more responsibilities such as taking attendance or ensuring that kids keep their masks on.

She said some drivers have already received manifests with more than 70 students for September.

“How do I ensure, in rush-hour traffic all by myself with 72 kids on that bus, that Johnny is keeping his mask on, Sally isn’t hitting the kid next to her,” said Montgomery, who said in an earlier news release that the drivers “feel like sitting ducks.”

In some locations, Unifor said that bus drivers have been told they don’t have the right to refuse a ride to a child, even if the student is visibly ill.

With the added risk and responsibility, Montgomery said compensation will be a sticking point moving forward.

She pinned the blame on the Ministry of Education and school boards for not responding to demands that the union put out earlier in the summer.

Education Minister Stephen Lecce’s office did not immediately provide comment.

 Toronto Star August 26, 2020

Premier touts back-to-school ad campaign

Ford government mum on cost as critics say spending could have gone toward reopening

Kristin Rushowy Queen’s Park Bureau

Premier Doug Ford says a new ad campaign about the reopening of schools this fall amid the COVID-19 pandemic is needed to keep parents informed – but he won’t yet say how much the government is spending.

Critics slammed the government for the expense, saying the province should be using those funds to hire more teachers to reduce class sizes or to purchase personal protective equipment for staff.

“Everything is going to be transparent, the accountability office is going to have all these numbers,” Ford said at an event Tuesday afternoon at a Catholic school in Etobicoke. “It’s critical that the parents know, you know, it’s not about playing politics like the other ones are doing, I believe in communicating to the parents, the teachers and as well, to the students.”

The public awareness ads, about the safe reopening of public schools, include radio spots that say, in part: “that’s why the Ontario government asked doctors, health officials, school boards and educators to help build a comprehensive plan to keep our kids safe. Working together, our plan includes physical distancing, putting more nurses in schools, masking, enhanced cleaning and hand sanitization and other measures to ensure the well-being of students and school staff.”

Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said “instead of spending taxpayer money telling the public that kids will be physically distanced in schools, the premier should be spending taxpayer money providing funding to school boards so that they will actually be able to implement physical distancing.”

He said “this government is notorious for wasting money on ad blitzes that promote their own agenda … The bottom line is, if the premier is serious about providing comfort to parents, he should immediately redirect spending taxpayer money on vague ads and instead give it directly to school boards who need it.”

But Caitlin Clark, a spokesperson for Education Minister Stephen Lecce, said “since the beginning of COVID-19, our government’s public awareness campaign has been a critical tool in helping change public behaviour and stopping the spread of COVID-19. We will continue to inform the public about the health protocols that are in place” such as improved hand hygiene and mandatory masks starting in Grade 4.

The government says the ads were approved by the auditor general, and meet provincial treasury board guidelines.

“We inform the people, we inform the parents,” Ford said. “I think it’s a no-brainer … Running ads is the right thing to do, we’re going to continue running ads.”

In London, NDP Leader Andrea Horwath called it “appalling that Doug Ford refuses to invest in smaller, safer classes but is doling out a secret amount of public money on wasteful propaganda to promote his crowded classrooms scheme … Every dime spent on these partisan defensive ads should be spent on a safe September, instead.”

Ontario Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca said “Ford needs to come clean and tell Ontarians how much his vanity ads cost. This is money that could be funding teachers, special education professionals and caretakers.”

He said “for every $1 million Doug Ford spends on ads he could be funding 11 teachers, or 13 special education professionals, or 20 caretakers,” or technology, or masks for students.

Meanwhile, Ontario’s four big teacher unions said they met with Labour Minister Monte McNaughton on Monday and left with “no clear commitment from the minister to address the specific serious health and safety concerns raised there surrounding the reopening of the province’s schools next month,” including class size and physical distancing, as well as busing.

“The unions raised the urgent concern that there are no clear health and safety standards being set out or ordered by the ministry so that its inspectorate and workers can apply known and commonly accepted precautions as schools reopen. The ministry confirmed that no such standards have yet been set.”

They said “in light of the shortcomings” in the back-to-school plan, they’ve asked the labour ministry to limit class sizes to 15 to 20 students and only allowing cohorts of a maximum of 50 people for staff and students.

The province has made about $900 million in funding available to school boards to hire teachers and custodians and purchase personal protective gear for staff. About $500 million of that money is from boards’ own reserves.

 Excerpt from the August 26, 2020 Ontario Government School Re-Opening Guideline

Originally posted at https://www.ontario.ca/page/operational-guidance-covid-19-management-schools

Operational guidance: COVID-19 management in schools

Find out what will happen if there is a coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak at a school.

… Special education

In order to ensure that students with special education needs are supported as schools reopen, school boards will need to consider additional planning and transition time for students with special education needs to support a smooth transition.

School boards should support attendance options including offering daily attendance to students with special education needs for whom adapted timetables or remote learning may be challenging based on the student’s special education needs.

School boards should work with partners to develop local protocols for school access by regulated health professionals, regulated social service professionals and paraprofessionals for the purpose of delivering school-based supports and services. Protocols should include support for remote delivery where in-school delivery is not possible.

Scenario: Student with special education needs in a special education class (congregated or integrated class) has needs that conflict with COVID-19 safety protocols

Recommended action by teacher

The teacher should:

Meet pro-actively (face to face or virtually) with parent/guardian and special education staff to anticipate and discuss possible changes to accommodations in the Individual Education Plan (IEP)

Consider additional transition time to support smooth transitions

Recommended action by principal, the principal should:

Ensure coordination of staff and supports for student needs as necessary, for example, support staff and PPE

Ensure and coordinate environmental cleaning and/or disinfection of the space and items used by the individual(s)

Support planning for possible online learning

Inform transportation of accommodations as needed

Inform special education superintendent or designate of accommodations as requested

Engage and support in updating the IEP as necessary

Recommended action by school board, the school board should:

With partners, ensure consistent practices across the system regarding students with special education needs (that is, access by regulated health professionals and service providers and paraprofessionals)

Ensure continued access to assistive technology

Recommended action by parent and student, the parent and student should:

Work pro-actively with the school to anticipate and discuss possible accommodations to support the needs of the student

Continue to adhere to current infection prevention and control practices

Communicate regularly with the school to inform daily routines

 August 26, 2020 Ontario Government News Release

Ontario Newsroom

Ontario Newsroom

News Release

Additional Funds Enhance Ontario’s Robust Back-to-School Plan

August 26, 2020

Funding will be used to complement provincial health and safety measures already in place

TORONTO — The Ontario government’s back-to-school plan, developed in consultation with the Chief Medical Officer of Health and public health officials, is being further enhanced by additional federal investments and resources to support the return to class in the fall. Today’s federal announcement provides $381 million to Ontario, on top of the nearly $900 million provided by the province to support provincial back-to-school plans.

“Ontario’s investments lead the nation in supporting priorities like more cleaning, physical distancing, testing, and hiring of staff to ensure a safe reopening of our schools this September,” said Stephen Lecce, Minister of Education. “Today’s investment by the Federal government complements the already landmark investments made by our government in support of safe and healthy schools in Ontario.”

The federal funding will support several priority provincial initiatives:

Reopening Plan Implementation – $200 million

  • $100 million to complement the health and safety components of school reopening plans, in consultation with local public health units, including the

hiring of custodians, HVAC, improvements, internet connectivity for students and other local needs.

  • $30 million to support additional PPE for schools.
  • $70 million for the temporary hiring of educators as required.

Student Transportation – $70 million

  • $44.5 million in support of the Driver Retention Program (DRP).
  • $25.5 million for route protection and to help reduce the number of students on buses.

Special Education and Mental Health Supports Enhancement – $12.5 million

  • Will allow boards to hire and train additional staff and provide more mental health supports for students.

Additional Public Health Nurses – $12.5 million

  • Supports up to 125 additional nursing positions in public health units across the province to help schools manage potential COVID-19 cases.

Remote Learning – $36 million

  • Ensures that every school board offering virtual learning has a dedicated principal and administrative support for both its secondary and elementary virtual schools.

The province is also setting aside $50 million for any future pandemic learning needs, to ensure that Ontario is prepared for every scenario this Fall. Pending federal approvals in December, the Ministry of Education will announce the second half of the payment later this year for the remainder of the school year.

QUICK FACTS

  • Ontario’s COVID-19 website includes resources to help stop the spread, sector specific resources, including helpful posters, mental health resources, and other information.
  • On July 30, 2020 the government released the Guide to Reopening Ontario’s Schools,

which was developed in consultation with leading medical experts and approved by the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health. This plan committed over $300 million in funding to support the safe reopening of Ontario’s schools, which is part of the evolving layers of protection the government is providing to students, parents, staff, and the communities they live and work in.

  • The provincial guidelines provide a baseline and school boards are encouraged to adapt them to meet local needs and support students and families. They include:
  • In-person classes for elementary school students five days per week for the 2020-2021 school year.
  • Masking for students in Grades 4-12.
  • Focus on cohorting and limiting student contacts.
  • Adapted secondary school delivery for designated boards.
  • On August 13, the government announced more than half a billion dollars in supports to school boards to ensure schools across the province will reopen safely in September and to protect students and staff.

August 26, 2020 Memo from Ontario Education Minister to School Boards on New Funding for School Re-Openings

Memorandum To: Chairs of District School Boards

Directors of Education

Secretary-Treasurers of School Authorities

 

From: Stephen Lecce

Minister

Nancy Naylor

Deputy Minister     

Earlier today, the Federal Government announced the Safe Return to Class Fund providing the Province of Ontario with first phase funding supports equal to $381 million.

This investment complements the already landmark resources of more than $900 million provided by the province to support provincial back-to-school plans.

The purpose of this memo is to provide information on this first phase of federal funding.

Additional Teaching Staff

Funding of $70 million will be allocated to school boards reflecting a base funding amount of $125,000 per panel as well as projected total 2020-21 Average Daily Enrolment (ADE). This one-time funding is for non-permanent teachers and supply teachers. The funding should be used for time-limited positions. See Appendix A for board-by-board allocations.

School Reopening Emerging Issues

In recognition of the meetings we have had with each school board to discuss the safe reopening of schools, funding of $100 million will be allocated to school boards to augment the health and safety of school reopening plans. This funding is designed to be responsive to varying local issues and may be used to support a broad range of activities such as additional hiring of staff (such as custodians and other school-based staff), leasing of community-based spaces, improving air quality and additional technology and broadband supports. This funding will be allocated to school boards reflecting a base funding amount of $125,000 per panel as well as projected total 2020-21 ADE. See Appendix A for board-by-board allocations.

Additional Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

As the safety of students and staff continues to be a key priority in the reopening of Ontario schools, the ministry is investing a further $30 million in funding for masks and PPE. This funding will continue to be supported through the centralized supply chain to secure these critical supplies.

Transportation

The ministry recognizes that school boards are facing unique student transportation challenges for the upcoming school year as a result of COVID-19. To support school boards in ensuring enhanced health and safety measures, $25.5 million will be provided to assist in reducing the number of students on school buses to support physical distancing, as well as addressing other pressures school boards may face in transporting students as a result of COVID-19.

This $25.5 million in funding will be allocated to school boards proportional to school boards’ 2020-21 Transportation Grant allocation. See Appendix A for board-by-board allocations.

The ministry recognizes that the student transportation sector may be facing a greater driver shortage this year. As such, $44.5 million will be set aside to support ongoing efforts in school bus driver recruitment and retention for the 2020-21 school year. Further details on the driver recruitment and retention funding will be shared shortly.

A total amount of $70 million will be provided for student transportation to enhance health and safety measures for school buses and to ensure service stability for students and families as schools reopen.

Remote Learning

As parent surveys are indicating more families may be choosing remote learning for part of or all of the upcoming school year, the ministry will be supplementing the $18 million investment announced on August 13, 2020 by a further $36 million. This additional funding will ensure that where school boards choose to provide remote learning, dedicated funding supports will be provided to hire more principals and school administration supports.

In addition, where it is projected that a school board will have more than 1,500 pupils attending virtual schools in 2020-21, by panel, they will now also generate vice-principal funding to ensure appropriate school leadership is available. Furthermore, the five per cent virtual school attendance funding assumption used to calculate the original $18 million investment has been updated to ten per cent to reflect higher than expected enrolment in the remote program.

Where school boards have a need greater than what is provided through the total remote learning funding amount of $54 million, they may access funding provided under School Reopening Emerging Issues. See Appendix A for board-by-board allocations.

 

Additional Special Education and Mental Health Supports

To further support students with special education needs and support the mental health needs of students, the ministry is providing school boards with an additional $12.5 million in funding investments. This is flexible funding to address local needs including the purposes as outlined in memorandum 2020: B11. Each district school board’s projected allocation for this funding is set out in Appendix A. The allocation reflects base funding of $100,000 per board and a top up based on ADE. This formula provides both smaller and larger boards with the ability to implement meaningful special education and mental health supports.

 

Additional Public Health Nurses

As announced on July 30, the ministry continues to work with colleagues in the Ministry of Health to ensure public health capacity is expanded to support school reopening, including 500 new public health nurses through an initial investment of $50 million. Additional funding of $12.5 million is also being provided to support up to 125 additional nursing full-time equivalents (FTEs) in public health units across the province, including a combination of Registered Practical Nurses (RPN), Registered Nurses (RN), and Nurse Practitioners (NP).

The additional FTEs in public health units focus on supporting the school and child care restart plans, with a focus on meeting the demand of schools, school boards, child care centres, and parents/teachers for information, guidance, case and contact management, infection prevention and control, and outbreak management and response.

 

Future Pandemic Response Fund

Given the continued uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 virus and wanting to ensure there is prudence in our plan, the ministry will be holding back $50 million to address future pandemic education needs. Details on this will be provided at a later date.

In the coming weeks, school boards will receive a Transfer Payment Agreement (TPA) for the new Priorities and Partnerships Fund (PPF) investments reflecting the allocations noted within.

Pending federal approvals in December, the Ministry of Education will announce the second phase of the federal funding in the coming months for the remainder of the school year.

We appreciate all that school boards are doing to reopen schools, and we will continue to work together to support the health and safety of students and staff.

Thank you for your ongoing partnership.

Sincerely,

Stephen Lecce                    Nancy Naylor

Minister                         Deputy Minister

Attachment

c:    President, Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l’ontario (ACÉPO)

Executive Director, Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l’ontario (ACÉPO)

President, Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques (AFOCSC)

Executive Director, Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques (AFOCSC)

President, Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association (OCSTA)

Executive Director, Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association (OCSTA)

President, Ontario Public School Boards’ Association (OPSBA)

Executive Director, Ontario Public School Boards’ Association (OPSBA)

Executive Director, Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE)

President, Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO)

Executive Director and Secretary-Treasurer, Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO)

President, Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA)

General Secretary, Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA)

President, Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO)

General Secretary, Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO)

President, Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF)

General Secretary, Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF)

Chair, Ontario Council of Educational Workers (OCEW)

Chair, Education Workers’ Alliance of Ontario (EWAO)

President of OSBCU, Canadian Union of Public Employees – Ontario (CUPE-ON)

Co-ordinator, Canadian Union of Public Employees – Ontario (CUPE-ON)

ARCH Disability Law Centre Identifies Even More Problems with the Revised Draft Protocol for Deciding which COVID-19 Patients, Needing Critical Medical Care, Would Not Get That Care If there Is a Future Shortage of Critical Care Beds

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

ARCH Disability Law Centre Identifies Even More Problems with the Revised Draft Protocol for Deciding which COVID-19 Patients, Needing Critical Medical Care, Would Not Get That Care If there Is a Future Shortage of Critical Care Beds

September 1, 2020

Summary

If this fall or winter sees a surge of COVID-19 that is so severe that hospitals don’t have enough critical care beds and services for all patients who need that medical care, will patients with disabilities face discrimination because of their disability in the “medical triage” decisions over who will be refused critical medical care that they need? Here is another important salvo in the ongoing important campaign to protect people with disabilities from such discrimination.

Today, the ARCH Disability Law Centre made public a very compelling, well-written submission to the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table. The Ford Government appointed the Bioethics Table, physicians and bioethicists, to advise it on how critical care should be rationed among patients if there is a shortage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We set out the ARCH submission below. The AODA Alliance heartily endorses ARCH’s submission.

For our part, yesterday, the AODA Alliance made public its August 30, 2020 written submission to the Bioethics Table on the same topic. We have closely coordinated our efforts with ARCH and with a team of other disability advocates and experts who are working together on this issue.

We now wait for the Bioethics Table to write its report and submit it to the Ford Government. We strongly urge that that report be made public immediately upon its being submitted to the Ford Government.

Thankfully there is no shortage now of critical care beds for COVID-19 patients who need one. If there were a shortage, how would a decision be made over which patients get those scarce medical services and who would be denied them. At present, the direction to hospitals from Ontario Health, part of the Ford Government, is set out in the March 28, 2020 medical triage protocol    that the Bioethics Table wrote last winter and that The Government did not make public. The Ford Government claims it is only a draft, but has never rescinded it. the AODA Alliance, ARCH, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and others have told the Government to rescind it.

The Bioethics Table sought input on a revised draft to replace that protocol. Both the original March 28, 2020 triage protocol and the revised draft protocol that could replace it each direct doctors to use the “Clinical Frailty Scale” (CFS) to assess patients. The Bioethics Table prepared a simplified description of the CFS for the disability advocates and experts whom it was consulting. We set that simplified description out below.

Put simply, a patient would be assessed using the CFS if:

  1. a) they need critical care.
  1. b) They are not expected to die within six months.
  1. c) they have a progressive disease and
  1. d) they are at least 18 years old.

According to the CFS, a patient is assessed to see how many of the following activities of daily living they can do without assistance: dressing, bathing, eating, walking, getting in and out of bed, using the telephone, going shopping, preparing meals, doing housework, taking medication, or handling their own finances. This is done to rate how frail the patient is, in order to predict their likely mortality as a critical care patient.

All the disability advocates and experts whom the Bioethics Table consulted voiced the serious concern that as a medical triage assessment tool, the CFS discriminates based on a patient’s disability in access to life-saving critical medical care. The ARCH submission set out below and the earlier August 30, 2020 AODA Alliance submission each explains why this is so.

We will let you know when we get any further news on this issue. You can always send us your feedback by emailing us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

For more background on this issue, check out:

  1. The August 30, 2020 AODA Alliance final written submission to the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table.
  1. The April 8, 2020 open letter to the Ford Government on the medical triage protocol spearheaded by the ARCH Disability Law Centre, of which the AODA Alliances one of many co-signatories
  1. The April 14, 2020 AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on Ensuring that Medical Triage or Rationing of Health Care Services During the COVID-19 Crisis Does Not Discriminate Against Patients with Disabilities
  1. The May 13, 2020 ARCH Disability Law Centre’s Analysis of the March 28, 2020 Triage Protocol, which the AODA Alliance endorses.
  1. The July 16, 2020 AODA Alliance Update that lists additional concerns with the revised draft triage protocol. That Update also sets out the Ford Government Bioethics Table’s revised draft triage protocol itself.
  1. the ARCH Disability law Centre’s July 20, 2020 brief to the Bioethics Table on the revised draft triage protocol, which the AODA Alliance endorsed.
  1. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, detailing our efforts to tear down barriers in the health care system facing patients with disabilities, and our COVID-19 page, detailing our efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

MORE DETAILS

Simplified Decision Tree for the Clinical Frailty Scale Provided by the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table

Simplified CFS Decision Tree (DRAFT- ADAPTED):

  1. Does this person have a terminal illness with an expected mortality in <6 months?
  1. How many Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADLs) can this person perform without assistance?
  • Dress
  • Bathe
  • Eat
  • Walk
  • Get in/out of bed
  1. How many Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs) can this person perform without assistance?
  • Use telephone
  • Go shopping
  • Prepare meals
  • Do housework
  • Take medication
  • Handle own finances

September 1, 2020 ARCH Disability  Law Centre Submission on Medical Triage Protocol to the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table

Sent via email to COVIDUpdates@ontariohealth.ca

September 1, 2020

Joint Centre for Bioethics
University of Toronto
155 College Street, Suite 754
Toronto, ON M5T 1P8
Canada

Dear Members of the Bioethics Table:

Re:             ARCH Disability Law Centre’s Submissions Regarding Ontario’s Triage Protocol Draft dated July 7, 2020 Following Meetings with Bioethics Table

The within document is the written submission of ARCH Disability Law Centre (ARCH)[1]   flowing from several meetings[2] between the Bioethics Table and a select number of persons and organizations representing persons with disabilities (the Bioethics Table Meetings).[3] We provide these submissions in addition to our previous submissions dated

May 13, 2020[4] and July 20, 2020[5] and not in substitute of them.

Much of the discussion at these meetings has focused on the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and other discriminatory exclusionary criteria in the first draft of the Triage Protocol[6] and the continued reliance on the CFS and other discriminatory exclusionary criteria in the second draft of the Triage Protocol, [7] in the face of opposition from disability communities and human rights experts.[8] Accordingly, these submissions will solely focus on the concerns arising from the Triage Protocol’s use of the CFS and discriminatory exclusionary criteria. To be clear, this does not imply that the outstanding concerns raised by ARCH in the May and July submissions and that remain unaddressed are no longer in issue. Rather, we trust that the Bioethics Table will consider the culmination of all of ARCH’s submissions and give each concern and corresponding recommendation due weight.

Purpose of ARCH’s Involvement

Prior to turning to our submissions, it is important to clarify ARCH’s involvement and role at the Bioethics Table Meetings: ARCH advances the interests of persons with disabilities across Ontario. Accordingly, our role in these meetings has been to defend the rights of persons with disabilities, given the resources and time permitted. Our role in these meetings was to provide the perspective of persons with disabilities for the authors of the Triage Protocol to consider. We provide the following submissions in furtherance of this role.

  1. The Clinical Frailty Scale is Prima Facie Discriminatory

Any triage protocol that the Government chooses to implement in response to the pandemic, must comply with the Charter[9] and the Ontario Human Rights Code.[10] The development of the Triage Protocol, and the tools and metrics on which it proposes to rely to determine a patient’s prioritization or access in receiving critical care, must be considered through this lens.[11]

One metric employed in this assessment is the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). It is our position that the CFS cannot be employed in the manner in which it is proposed, or in any manner, for the purposes of triage as it discriminates against persons with disabilities.

ARCH has previously demonstrated how the CFS will have a disproportionate adverse impact on persons with disabilities if it is applied to them during triage. For example, persons with disabilities are more likely to score higher on the CFS score, because of their general disability-related care needs and reduced activity.[12] If they score higher, then they are more likely to be deprioritized from receiving critical care.[13] The CFS also deems some persons with disabilities as “severely frail” on the basis of their use of a mobility device and having a support person assisting them with activities of daily living.[14]

Unfortunately, these concerns have not been assuaged following meetings with the Bioethics Table. Rather, they have been amplified. Case in point: the simplified CFS decision tree.[15] The stated purpose of which was to assist doctors in applying the CFS during triage. As such, it provides valuable insight into how the CFS will operate in practice.

The simplified CFS asks two especially problematic questions.[16] Namely, question 2 asks if the patient being assessed can perform Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADLs) without assistance; question 3 similarly asks whether the patient can perform Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs) without assistance.

These questions are prima facie discriminatory and exemplify the very shortcomings of the CFS from a disability rights lens. Many persons with disabilities require assistance with BADLs and IADLs. This assistance is referred to as a disability-related accommodation.

Elementarily, the purpose of accommodation is to ensure that all persons have access to equal opportunities, access and benefits.[17] As the Ontario Human Rights Commission explains:

The duty to accommodate stems, in part, from recognition that the “normal ways of doing things” in organizations and society are often not “neutral” but rather may inadvertently disadvantage, privilege or better meet the needs of some groups relative to others. Instead of giving special privileges or advantages, accommodations help to “level the playing field” by ensuring that all Ontarians are equally included and accommodated.[18]

The questions posed by the simplified CFS reflect an ableist perspective of disability, specifically that disability is an “anomaly to normalcy.”[19] This perspective has historically been used to rationalize the marginalization and exclusion of persons with disabilities from their ability to access services on an equal basis.[20] The CFS, as demonstrated by the simplified CFS, asks questions based on a normative way of doings things, neglecting the fact that some persons can complete the tasks in question with accommodations in place.

Accommodations in place for BADLs and IADLs further the right of persons with disabilities’ to live independently in the community.[21] To note, living independently is not to be interpreted solely as the ability to carry out daily activities by oneself.[22] Rather, it contemplates assistance as a tool for independent living.[23] Persons with disabilities using accommodations to complete tasks to facilitate their ability to live independently are treated as less-than by the simplified CFS. The fact that they can complete these tasks with accommodations in place is of no significance to the CFS – it will score them higher on the scale as they cannot complete these tasks unaided.[24]

The discrimination flowing from the application of the CFS is well exemplified when considering a case scenario provided by the Bioethics Table. The case scenario contemplated a 74 year old woman, who among other characteristics, received assistance with her finances. This need, however, was contextualized during the discussion as follows: she may not require assistance to do her finances because of a disability-related need, but rather because of her socio-economic status whereby she never learned how to do her finances. As such, the conversation continued, she chose to have someone assist her, rather than required for someone to assist her.

Based on this distinction, the Bioethics Table explained, the 74-year-old patient would be marked lower on the CFS in the first instance (choice) and less likely to be deprioritized for critical care, but higher on the second instance (need) and more likely to be deprioritized for critical care. This is exceptionally problematic because both patients require assistance, but only one is deprioritized for receiving critical care. This, of course, is discriminatory.

Notably, the Triage Protocol cites the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund’s (DREDF) guiding principles for Avoiding Disability Discrimination in Treatment Rationing[25] to demonstrate that “there is published guidance on how triage systems can minimize risk of discrimination based on factors unrelated to a patient’s clinical needs and mitigate discriminatory application of such frameworks in practice.”[26] We direct the Bioethics Table’s attention to the third guiding principle which advises: “The fact that an individual with a disability requires support (minimal or extensive) to perform certain activities of daily living is not relevant to a medical analysis of whether that individual can respond to treatment.”[27]

  1. Discriminatory Exclusionary Criteria

It was suggested by some members of the Bioethics Table that perhaps the adoption of the wording employed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in its COVID-19 rapid guideline: critical care in adults[28] may address the issue of discrimination. In particular, NICE explicitly states that the CFS should not be applied to persons with stable long-term disabilities.[29]

Unfortunately, adopting NICE’s wording does not cure the Triage Protocol of all of its discriminatory effects. The assurance that the CFS will not apply to persons with long-term, stable disabilities still leaves a group of persons with disabilities vulnerable to the discriminatory impacts of the CFS – namely, persons with progressive disabilities.

Drawing a distinction between “stable” disabilities and “progressive” disabilities still constitutes discrimination.[30] It is unsatisfactory, from a legal perspective, to defend the discriminatory application of the CFS to one group of persons with disabilities by pointing to another group of persons with disabilities not being discriminated against.[31] The Triage Protocol cannot exclude a particular group of persons with disabilities from access to critical care if those disabilities may not prevent them from benefitting from treatment of the very condition (COVID-19) that the Protocol seeks to treat.[32]

The foregoing is of especial significance when the exclusion of persons with progressive disabilities is not justified and overbroad. In effect, persons with disabilities, and in this specific context persons with progressive disabilities, have a higher threshold to meet in order to be able to access critical care. They will always find themselves deprioritized to those patients who do not have disabilities – which is in direct contravention of human rights law.[33]

In effect, the Triage Protocol adopts the absence of a pre-existing disability as a qualification for prioritization in accessing critical care.[34] The way in which the Triage Protocol currently operates, a person with a disability is much less likely, if ever, to be prioritized above a person without a disability. This concern is further exacerbated by the fact that a broad categorization of disabilities – progressive disabilities – is a criteria upon which a patient will be denied access to critical care.

Accordingly, it is our position that even if NICE’s wording is adopted and the CFS is not applied to persons with long-term stable disabilities, this change does not render the Triage Protocol non-discriminatory. The CFS is a discriminatory standard when applied to persons with disabilities – progressive or otherwise.

  1. Questioning the Available Data on CFS

Some members of the Bioethics Table provided a number of studies[35] in support of the position that the CFS is an accurate predictor of mortality and, as such, is the most appropriate tool for the purposes of the Triage Protocol. We have reviewed these studies and, with respect, question the conclusions of the Bioethics Table.

What is clear, overall from the studies, is that formal assessment of frailty is a newly developing area in critical care[36] with studies as recent as 2019 questioning the reliability of frailty assessments in the ICU.[37] It is clear from the literature that the studies in this

area have neither been broad nor inclusive; with studies raising more questions than providing answers. While it is understood and appreciated that the purpose of medical studies is to raise further issues to investigate, it is our submission that the current and available data on the application and use of the CFS is too unresolved to deem it the most appropriate or reliable tool for the purposes of the Triage Protocol.

  1. The CFS has not been Tested in a Pandemic

We question the broad proposition that the CFS is an appropriate tool for triage decisions. None of the studies provided[38] contemplate the use of the CFS within a pandemic setting, for the purposes of a Triage Protocol, or as a tool by which to exclude a wide range of patients from accessing critical care.[39] Rather, a number of studies, either explicitly or implicitly, state that should the CFS be applied it would be for the purposes of providing better, more tailored care. [40]

For example, one study suggested the diagnosis of frailty could improve prognostication and identify a population that might benefit from follow-up and intervention,[41] while another study advised of the importance of clinicians’ awareness of frailty in order to inform prognosis, aid with counselling, attend to special needs, and plan for appropriate discharge planning.[42] One of the larger studies speculated that by using the CFS, doctors can improve upon their dialogue with the patient on the expected course of recovery and/or survivorship expectations that would lead to a clear person-centered high-value treatment plan.[43]

Of note, there is currently very little data focused on how clinicians should use information gathered from applying the CFS to guide their decision-making prior to getting critical care.[44] This absence of evidence is  concerning as the very purpose of including the CFS in the Triage Protocol is as a determining factor in whether a patient is provided or denied critical care.[45]

  1. The Application of the CFS in Patient Groups Under 65

The proposition that the CFS should or could accurately apply to all patients over the age of 18 is also not supported by the data. Notably, guidance by the Dalhousie Geriatric Medicine Research department on the CFS explicitly states that “The CFS is not validated in people under 65 years of age.”[46] The cohorts comprising the studies provided support this position, with at least 12 of the studies having a mean or median age of 65 or over.[47] Further, one of the larger studies advised that while the CFS may be appropriate for the use of persons aged 80 and above, different tools should be used in the triaging of younger patients.[48]

In light of the evidence, it is clear that the CFS has only been tested on a very small subset of the population – namely, the very demographic for which it was designed. While some studies have explored the potential for applying the CFS for populations younger than 65, this exploration hardly justifies generalizing its application to all adults. One of the studies with a younger population of a mean age of 58.5 called for “further rigorous research in larger cohorts” to confirm its findings.[49]  It is clear studies on the CFS are limited in scope; to use these studies as a basis for widespread application across all ages is a far leap and completely inappropriate. Indeed, members of the Bioethics Table shared that the CFS would not apply to pediatric patients. They later conceded that it was open to narrowing the CFS’ application to an older cohort.[50]

Lastly, in a document that holds as much weight as the Triage Protocol and from which will flow serious, dire and devastating consequences, arbitrariness should be avoided at all costs. The suggestion that the CFS should apply to all patients over 18 is arbitrary. The suggestion that the CFS should apply to all patients over 50 is also arbitrary. Excluding persons over 65 from being able to access critical care during a pandemic is equally arbitrary.[51] However, the metric chosen by the authors of the Triage Protocol stipulates an age cut-off of 65 and over. The authors cannot choose a metric that has been designed for a specific (age) demographic and transpose it into a Triage Protocol to be applied to a completely arbitrary, different and varied demographic.

To be clear, we are not suggesting that triage decisions should be based on age. However, the metric chosen by the authors of the Triage Protocol stipulates an age cut-off of 65 and over. The emphasis on age in discussions surrounding the Triage Protocol arises from the fact that the very metric embedded in the Protocol is only validated for a specific age group. ARCH is allied with advocates for the elderly and believes in the equal protection of elderly patients and patients with disabilities. Anything less amounts to discrimination.

  • The Inherent Subjectivity and the Reliability of the CFS

Several of the studies available acknowledge the subjective nature of the CFS,[52] with one study noting that the CFS may have a higher inter-rater variability than more objective measures of frailty,[53] while another study explicitly describes it as a “nine-point scale based on subjective assessment of functional status”[54] and yet another describes it as a “subjective judgment-based screening tool for frailty.”[55]

In their search for an objective clinical tool, the authors of the Triage Protocol have instead chosen one that is inherently subjective. From a human rights perspective this is extremely problematic.

Bias against persons with disabilities exists within the medical profession.[56] Implementing a metric that is inherently subjective invites these biases to inform the decisions of medical professionals when assessing patients with disabilities. The devaluing of the lives of persons with disabilities directly contributes to health care inequities experienced by the disability communities.[57] The medical community cannot seek to rely upon a subjective tool, especially when stigma and inaccurate assumptions about the quality of life of persons with disabilities[58] continue unaddressed within the profession.

Even arguably objective criteria are prone to an assessors’ subjective notions of the quality of life of persons with disabilities.[59] Scoring systems that aim to be objective have been described as not necessarily ethically-neutral nor free of bias.[60] If objective clinical criteria are susceptible to subjective judgments concerning the quality of life of persons with disabilities, then the risk of persons with disabilities being inappropriately and incorrectly excluded from care on the basis of a subjective tool is increased markedly.

Notably, and with regards to the reliability of the CFS, up until 2017 research pertaining to the reliability of the CFS was virtually absent from critical care literature.[61] Another study in 2018 acknowledged that there had never been a formal evaluation of the reliability of the CFS in an ICU setting for clinical or research purposes.[62] The CFS’ reliability remains unproven,[63] with a review in 2018 finding little evidence of reliability of frailty assessments of critically ill patients.[64] It is evident that more research is needed regarding the reliability of frailty assessment tools – including the CFS – before frailty assessments are used to inform clinical decision-making,[65] and before any recommendations are made concerning its widespread application.[66]

Of interest are the studies focused on inter-rater reliability between health care workers and a family (or surrogates) of a patient.[67] In Hope et al, surrogates tended to rate their family member (the patient) significantly lower on the CFS scale than the researchers. One inference drawn by the Bioethics table from this finding is that the family’s rating is less accurate in predicting mortality which, it is posited, is the more concern pressing concern for the purposes of the Triage Protocol.[68] With respect, this inference is an oversimplification of a much larger problem with the medical community and how it may assess patients with disabilities.

A person with a disability or their close family member may deem themselves less frail than a subjective tool applied to them in a hospital setting by a healthcare worker. The issue then is not whether or not a medical professional is accurate in their assessment of frailty – especially if that assessment is coloured by ableism. Rather, the issue is whether the medical professional is undermining a person with a disability’s own self-assessment that is directly based on their lived experience.

It is well-documented that healthcare workers consistently underestimate the self-reported quality of life of persons with disabilities.[69] This misperception, it has been found, “has negatively influenced physicians’ medical futility decisions and resulted in the withdrawal of necessary medical care from people with disabilities.”[70] This may also be in part to the paternalism present within the medical community; where there is an absence of understanding and respect for the fact that persons with disabilities are better judges of the quality of their own life than those (including doctors) without disabilities.[71]

If, as the Triage Protocol suggests, the CFS is to be applied to a much broader demographic than for whom it was designed, then these issues must be, at the very least, explored further. This is especially considering the fact that none of the studies provided contemplate how, and if, persons with disabilities are assessed differently than patients without disabilities to ensure that they are assessed with their accommodations.

  1. Learning from Past Mistakes

The questionable reliability of the CFS echoes Ontario’s past pandemic errors. In 2006, Ontario released a Triage Protocol in anticipation of the Influenza Pandemic.[72] The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) was the metric identified by the working group as the most appropriate for the purposes of triage in OHPIP at that time.[73] Since then, however, the accuracy of SOFA, especially for the purposes of triage, has been questioned.[74] And yet, at the time, the scientific data available to deem SOFA valid for the purposes of triage in 2006 was arguably more comprehensive and tested than what is currently available for the CFS.

For example, the SOFA was widely tested on a range of patients.[75] The same cannot be said about the CFS. The SOFA was also lauded as an accurate predictor of mortality and, as such, appropriate for the purposes of pandemic triage.[76] Further, even though SOFA had not been previously employed for the purposes of allocating scarce resources, it was designed for that very purpose.[77] The CFS, of course, was not designed for this purpose.

And yet, subsequent studies demonstrate that the predictive value ascribed to the SOFA outside of a pandemic, may not be directly transferrable to a pandemic/triage context.[78] For example, a study out of the UK implemented the triage criteria set out in the OHPIP and found that it failed to adequately prioritize patients who would have benefitted from intensive care.[79] In fact, alarmingly, the study found that of the 46% of patients who would have been withdrawn from critical care, or denied critical care at all based on SOFA scores, 61% actually survived hospital discharge.[80] It was further found that despite some studies claiming an association between a SOFA score of greater than 11 with a mortality predictability at 90%, Guest’s study only reported a mortality predictability of 29%.[81] Another study focused on the admission of H1N1 patients to the ICU.[82] That study concluded that the inclusion of the SOFA score in triage could lead to withdrawal from life support in critically ill patients who could have otherwise survived.[83]

Reflecting on the questionable applicability of SOFA begs the question whether future studies will draw similar conclusions on the application of the CFS. In light of the limited data on the CFS, the Bioethics Table should proceed more cautiously by keeping in mind that whatever harm flows from the application of the CFS will disproportionately impact persons with disabilities. The issues Guest’s study identified in the Ontario’s 2006 protocol as problematic equally apply to the current Triage Protocol. This includes Guest’s finding that using SOFA as a tool creates a method by which “patients are assessed not by individual clinical examination and judgment, but according to a rigid binary method (i.e. certain signs or criteria are present or absent.).”[84]

It is important to note that some have argued against the use of SOFA in COVID-19 protocols because it has not been validated within that context.[85] With respect, the same rationale must apply to the CFS which has also not been validated for the purposes of triaging during COVID-19. Another criticism equally applicable to the CFS is that while such scoring systems can be alluring, their seemingly objective criteria creates the risk of “false precision,” meaning that doctors will look to this criteria to claim that two patients have a different risk of mortality where the reality is that they are clinically indistinguishable.[86]

As at least one critic has warned, it may be time to consider “profound conceptual changes to the triage guidelines.”[87] This is especially pertinent considering the current protocol commits serious human rights violations, to which we have explored in sections # above and to which we now return.

  1. The Standard Is Not Justified

In effect, and in its application, the CFS creates a barrier for persons with disabilities from accessing healthcare services, and specifically accessing critical care, largely based on the fact that they have a disability.[88] This barrier is not justified.[89]

We have raised questions about the strength of the data supporting the use of the CFS in the preceding section. To be clear, our position is that the evidence on which the authors of the Triage Protocol rely fails to demonstrate how the inclusion of the CFS is an appropriate tool for triage decisions.

However, and in the alternative, it is well-established in law that even if a standard, scientific or otherwise, is deemed valid it does not automatically render the discriminatory impact as justifiable.[90] Rather, once prima facie discrimination is established, which has been done with regards to the CFS, then the party proposing the use of the discriminatory standard must demonstrate a bona fide reasonable justification for its use – namely that it is minimally impairing and proportional.[91]  One need only look to the multitude of studies recommending further study on the CFS coupled with the disparate impact on persons with disabilities to find that no justification exists for the inclusion of the CFS as an triage tool.

  1. A Brief Note on Utilitarianism

ARCH has made extensive submissions on the issues arising from the utilitarian framework within which Triage Protocol is developed and applied.[92] We do not aim to repeat these submissions here, but rather provide a brief note specifically regarding the operation of exclusion criteria and the Clinical Frailty Scale within this very framework.

Protocols that emphasize the derivation of maximum benefit from scarce critical care resources have attracted criticism for their employment of simple categorical exclusions to promote the maximization[93] of the “good.”[94] This is because the implementation of categorical exclusions can often disadvantage persons from specific communities, including persons with disabilities,[95] and can lead to the definitive exclusion of persons with specific disabilities despite the absence of evidence going to same.[96]

A utilitarian framework also neglects to consider socio-economic and other inequities that may make some groups more susceptible to contracting the virus, and therefore more likely to require medical attention, than others. The Triage Protocol expressly recognizes that “critical care triage may have a differential impact on some patient populations who may be disadvantaged due to pre-existing health and social inequities or conscious or unconscious bias in clinical settings.”[97] While this acknowledgment is important, it is not appropriately addressed by the inclusion of exclusion criteria and a metric that will have an adverse discriminatory impact on marginalized communities. In short, the Triage Protocol embeds[98] and perpetuates the discrimination, rather than addresses it.

Accordingly, and as others have similarly suggested,[99] we urge the Bioethics Table to turn its mind to conceptualizing a new framework for triage protocols that rejects tools that disproportionately impact persons with disabilities – as well as persons from other marginalized communities.

 

Conclusion

We acknowledge and appreciate that there is a pressing objective central to the Triage Protocol. However, the authors of the protocol are urged to rethink the inclusion of the proposed metric of the CFS for a multitude of reasons, not least that it prima facie discriminates against persons with disabilities by drawing distinctions based on disability. The CFS invites ableist and normative assessments of a person’s abilities, a concern that is exacerbated by the fact that the CFS is inherently subjective. The questions raised about the CFS data coupled with the clear and inevitable disproportionate impact on persons with disabilities that will flow from its application support the position that this is not an appropriate or reasonable tool whose inclusion or application can be justified within a human rights framework.

Sincerely,

 

ARCH DISABILITY LAW CENTRE

_____________________                                                                                                               ______________________

Mariam Shanouda                                                                                                                             Jessica De Marinis

Staff Lawyer                                                                                                                                        Staff Lawyer

Tel: 416 482 8255 ext. 2224                                                                                                             Tel: 416 482 8255 ext. 2232

Email: shanoum@lao.on.ca                                                                                            Email: demarij@lao.on.ca

[1] ARCH would like to especially and sincerely thank members of its Advisory Committee for engaging in extensive discussion and providing thoughtful guidance and expertise on the important issues raised by the Triage Protocol. ARCH’s Advisory Committee, in alphabetical order, includes:  Chris Beesley, Executive Director at Community Living Ontario, Laura LaChance, Interim Executive Director at Canadian Down Syndrome Society, Trudo Lemmens Professor, Scholl Chair in Health Law and Policy at University of Toronto Law School, David Lepofsky, Chair of the AODA Alliance, Leanne Mielczarek, Executive Director of Lupus Canada, Elizabeth Mohler, Board Member at Citizens With Disabilities – Ontario, Roxanne Mykitiuk, Disability Law, Health Law, Bioethics and Family Law Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, Tracy Odell, Executive Director of Citizens with Disabilities – Ontario, Dr. Homira Osman, Director of Knowledge Translation & External Engagement at Muscular Dystrophy Canada, and Wendy Porch, Executive Director at the Centre for Independent Living Toronto.

[2] Specifically, these meetings have taken place on the four following occasions: July 27, 2020, July 29, 2020, August 17, 2020 and August 24, 2020.

[3] As ARCH has made it clear in its submissions dated April 2020, May 2020 and July 2020, these meetings have been narrow and under-inclusive. We continue to call upon the Bioethics Table to meet and consult with a broad base of communities that are being disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 and will be disproportionately impacted by the Triage Protocol. This includes holding broader consultations with members from the disability community, the Black community, Indigenous community, and persons from other racialized communities.

[4] ARCH submissions, dated May 13, 2020 [ARCH May Submissions].

[5] ARCH Submissions, dated July 20, 2020 [“ARCH July Submissions”]

[6] Critical Care Triage for Major Surge in the COVID-19 Pandemic, dated March 28, 2020 [“Triage Protocol 1”].

[7] Critical Care Triage for Major Surge in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Updated Recommendations, delivered and dated July 7, 2020 [“Triage Protocol 2”].

[8] See ARCH May Submissions, supra note 4 and ARCH July Submissions, supra note 5 addressing other problematic aspects of the Triage Protocol.

[9] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter]; Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 651 para 506; see also generally, Eldridge v British Columbia (Attorney General), 1997 CanLII 327 (SCC) [Eldridge].

[10] RSO 1990, c H19.

[11] ARCH May Submission, supra note 4.

[12] ARCH May submissions, supra note 4.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Simplified CFS Decisions Tree provided by the Bioethics Table on July 29, 2020. [“Simplified CFS”].

[16] It was made clear at a Bioethics Table meeting that the assessor would ask both questions of the patient regardless of whether the first question – does this person have a terminal illness with an expected mortality in <6 months – was answered in the negative or in the affirmative.

[17] This comment is in relation to preventing discrimination based on creed, but applies equally to discrimination based on disability. Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed, (2015) at 54, online: http://www3.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Policy%20on%20preventing%20discrimination%20based%20on%20creed_accessible_0.pdf

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy on ableism and discrimination based on disability (2016) at 10, citing Marcia H Rioux & Fraser Valentine, “Does Theory Matter? Exploring the Nexus Between Disability, Human Rights, and Public Policy,” in Critical Disability Theory: Essays in Philosophy, Politics, Policy, and Law, (Vancouver: UBC Press), 2006, 47 at 51-52. The authors write that the “human rights approach to disability…identifies wide variations in cognitive, sensory, and motor ability as inherent to the human condition and, consequently, recognizes the variations as expected events and not as rationales for limiting the potential of persons with disabilities to contribute to society.” This approach recognizes “the condition of disability as inherent to society, not some kind of anomaly to normalcy.”

[20] Eldridge, supra note 9 at para 56.

[21] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art 19, GA Res 51/106, 76th plen Mtg, UN Doc A/Res/61/106 [adopted by consensus at the UN on Dec 13 2006] [Convention].

[22] Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General comment No. 5 (2017) on living independently and being included in the community, 27 October 2017, online: http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhsnbHatvuFkZ%2bt93Y3D%2baa2q6qfzOy0vc9Qie3KjjeH3GA0srJgyP8IRbCjW%2fiSqmYQHwGkfikC7stLHM9Yx54L8veT5tSkEU6ZD3ZYxFwEgh.

[23] Ibid, at para 16(d).

[24] The application of the CFS further violates the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability, Convention, supra note 21, art 25, and the right to life, Convention, supra note 21, art 10.

[25] Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Applying HHS’s Guidance for States and Health Care Providers on Avoiding Disability-Based Discrimination in Treatment Rationing, April 3, 2020, online: https://dredf.org/avoiding-disability-based-discrimination-in-treatment-rationing/ [DREDF]; See also: Evaluation Framework for Crisis Standard of Care Plans, April 8, 2020, online:  http://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/4-9-20-Evaluation-framework-for-crisis-standards-of-care-plans_final.pdf.

[26] Triage Protocol 2, supra note 7 at 2.

[27] DREDF, supra note 25.

[28] NICE, Covid-19 rapid guideline: critical care in adults, 20 March 2020, online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng159/resources/covid19-rapid-guideline-critical-care-in-adults-pdf-66141848681413 [NICE Guidelines].

[29] NICE Guidelines, ibid.

[30] Charter, supra note 9, s 15.

[31] Samuel R Bagenstos, “May Hospitals Withhold Ventilators from COVID-19 Patients with Pre-Existing Disabilities? Notes on the Law and Ethics of Disability-Based Medical Rationing” (2020) 130 Yale Law Journal Forum forthcoming, online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3559926#.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Eighteen studies were provided to ARCH including, Abraham et al, “Validation of the clinical frailty score (CFS) in French language,” (2019) 19 BMC Geriatrics 322; Sean M Bagshaw et al, “Association between frailty and short- and long-term outcomes among critically ill patients: a multicenter prospective, cohort study.” (2014) 186:2 CMAJ E95 [Bagshaw et al, “Association”]; Nathan E Brummel et al, “Frailty and Subsequent Disability and Mortality among Patients with Critical Illness” (2017) 196 American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 64; Shannon M Fernando et al, “Frailty and associated outcomes and resource utilization following in-hospital cardiac arrest” (2019) 146 Resuscitation 138 [Fernando, “Frailty and Cardiac Arrest”]); Shannon M Fernando et al, “Frailty and Associated Outcomes and Resource Utilization Among Older ICU Patients with Suspected Infection” (2019) 47 Critical Care Medicine E669 [Fernando, “Frailty and ICU Patients”]; Hans Flaatten et al, “The impact of frailty on ICU and 30-day mortality level of care in very elderly patients (> 80 years)” (2017) 43 Intensive Care Med 1820; Bertrand Guidet et al, “The contribution of frailty, cognition, activity of daily life and comorbidities on outcome in acutely admitted patients over 80 years in European ICUs: the VIP2 study” (2020) 46 Intensive Care Med 57; David Hewitt & Malcom G Booth, “The FRAIL-FIT study: Frailty’s relationship with adverse-event incidence in the longer-term, at one year following intensive care unit treatment – A retrospective observational cohort study” (2020) 21 Journal of Intensive Care Society 124; Aluko A Hope et al, “Surrogates’ and Researchers’ Assessments of Prehospital Frailty in Critically Ill Older Adults” (2019) 28:2 American Journal of Critical Care 117; Carmel L Montgomery et al, “Implementation of population-level screening for frailty among patients admitted to adult intensive care in Alberta, Canada” (2019) 66 Canadian Journal of Anesthisia; John Muscedere et al, “The impact of frailty on intensive care unit outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis” (2017) 43 Intensive Care Med 1105; Richard J Pugh, Chris M Thorpe & Christian P Subbe, “A critical age: can we reliably measure frailty in critical care?” (2017) 21 Critical Care 121; Richard J Pugh et al, “Reliability of frailty assessment in the critically ill: a multicenter prospective observational study” (2019) 74:6 Anesthsia 758 [Pugh et al, “Frailty observational study”]; Melissa Shears et al, “Assessing frailty in the intensive care unit: a reliability and validity study” (2018) 45 Journal of Critical Care 197; Ralph KL So et al, “The association of clinical frailty with outcomes of patients reviewed by rapid response teams: an international prospective observational cohort study” (2018) 22 Critical Care 227; Gary Tse et al, “Frailty and mortality outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis” (2017) 18:12 The Journal of Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine 1097; and, Chris Wharton, Elizabeth King & Andrew MacDuff, “Frailty is associated with adverse outcome from in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation” (2019) 143 Resuscitation 208.

[36] Pugh et al, “Frailty observational study”, supra note 35 at 759.

[37] Ibid.

[38] We note that Dr. James Downar, who kindly provided the set of 18 studies, indicated that there are currently more than 1000 published studies involving CFS. However, for the purposes and scope of this document, we focus on these 18 studies (with a few more that we introduce into these submissions ourselves) as Dr. Downar has indicated their findings are likely to reflect current standards of care.

[39] One study does contemplate how frailty should factor into deciding whether “very old intensive care patients” (VIPs) should be admitted into the ICU based on their chances of survival. This study, however, was limited to 5021 patients with a median age of 84. See: Flaatten et al, supra note 35 at 1821. Another study found that the CFS was “feasible” in circumstances of rapid processing of the decision making to admit or refuse a patient in ICU. However, again, this study was limited to patients with a median age of 84 years old with a cohort of 3920 patients. See: Guidet et al, supra note 35 at 67.

[40] Sean M Bagshaw et al, “A prospective multicenter cohort study of frailty in younger critically ill patients” (2016) 20:175 Critical Care at 8 [Bagshaw et al, “Prospective multicenter”]; Shears et al, supra note 35; So et al, supra note 35.

[41] Bagshaw et al, ibid.

[42] Shears et al, supra note 35 at 198.

[43] So et al, supra note 35 at 8.

[44] Montgomery et al, supra note 35 at 1318.

[45] Triage Protocol 1 supra note 6 and Triage Protocol 2 supra note 7.

[46] Geriatric Medicine Research, Dalhousie University, CFS Guidance & Training, online: University of Dalhousie <https://www.dal.ca/sites/gmr/our-tools/clinical-frailty-scale/cfs-guidance.html>. See also, the NICE Guidelines, supra note 28 at 6 which, after revisions, explicitly states that the CFS should not be used in younger people, people with stable long-term disabilities, learning disabilities or autism.

[47] See Bagshaw et al, “Association”, supra note 35 (mean age of 67); Fernando, “Frailty and Cardiac Arrest”, supra note 35 (median age of 65.7); Fernando, “Frailty and ICU Patients”, supra note 35 (1, 510 cohorts aged 65 and over);  Flaatten et al, supra note 35 (median age of 84); Guidet et al, supra note 35 (median age of 84); Hope et al, supra note 35 (median age of 67.2); Pugh, Thorpe & Subbe, supra note 35 (median age of 70.5); Pugh et al, “Frailty observational study”, supra note 35 (median age of 69); Smith study (median age of 72); So et al, supra note 35 (age of 67); Tse et al, supra note 35 (mean age of 69); and Wharton, King & MacDuff, supra note 35 (median age of 74). We understand and appreciate that median/mean age represented in these studies indicates that persons younger than 65 were a part of these studies. However, none of these studies were solely focused on the validation of the CFS in persons younger than 65. And most, if not all, of the studies call for further studies. Moreover, at least 5 of the studies had cohorts with a mean or median age ranging between 58.5 to 63.8. See Bagshaw et al, “Prospective multicenter”, supra note 40 (mean age of 58.5); Brummel, supra note 35 (mean age of 62); Hewitt & Booth, supra note 35 (median age of patients diagnosed as frail was 62); Montgomery et al, supra note 35 (mean age of 63); and, Shears et al, supra note 35 (mean age of 63.8).

[48] Flaatten et al, supra note 35 at 1826.

[49] Bagshaw et al, “Prospective multicenter”, supra note 40.

[50] See discussion above at page 6.

[51] It should be noted here that the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that arbitrariness is not a stand-alone test that must be demonstrated by the applicant to established prima facie discrimination (See Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp, 2017 SCC 30 at para 45). However, the existence of arbitrariness is an indicia supporting a finding that a policy violates substantive equality. See: Al-Turki v Ontario (Transportation), 2020 HRTO 392 at para 85 citing Hay v Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal)2014 ONSC 2858 at paras 88 – 90.

[52] Flaatten et al, supra note 35 at 1826.

[53] Ibid. Muscedere et al, supra note 35 at 1112.

[54] Muscedere et al, ibid.

[55] Bagshaw et al, “Prospective multicenter”, supra note 40 at 2.

[56] Ryan H Nelson, Bharath Ram & Mary Anderlik Majumder, “Disability and Contingency Care” (2020) 20:7 The American Journal of Bioethics 190.

[57] Catherine L Auriemma et al, “Eliminating Categorical Exclusion Criteria in Crisis Standards of Care Frameworks” (2020) 20:7 The American Journal of Bioethics 28, online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15265161.2020.1764141?needAccess=true.

[58] National Council on Disability, Medical Futility and Disability Bias: Part of the Bioethics and Disability Series, November 20, 2019, online: https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Medical_Futility_Report_508.pdf

[59] Bagenstos, supra note 31.

[60] Amy L McGuire et al, “Ethical Challenges Arising in the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Overview from the Association of Bioethics Program Directors (ABPD) Task Force” (2020) 20:7 The American Journal of Bioethics 15.

[61] Pugh, Thorpe & Subbe, supra note 35.

[62] Shears et al, supra note 35 at 198.

[63] Richard J Pugh et al, “Feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment in the critically ill: a systematic review” (2018) 22 Critical Care 49 [“Pugh et al, “Frailty systematic review”].

[64] Ibid.

[65] Ibid.

[66] With regards to recommendations concerning widespread application in routine critical care practice. We would submit, however, that this cautious approach applies equally, if not more, to the widespread use of the CFS in a pandemic setting. See ibid.

[67] Hope et al, supra note 35.

[68] Email from Dr. James Downar, Member of the Bioethics Committee, to the ARCH among others, dated July 31, 2020.

[69] Nelson, Ram & Anderlik Majumder, supra note 56.

[70] Ibid.

[71] Bagenstos, supra note 31.

[72] Critical Care During a Pandemic: Final Report of the Ontario Health Plan for an Influenza Pandemic (OHPIP) Working Group on Adult Critical Care Admission, Discharge and Triage Criteria. April 2006. [OHPIP] online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273203603_Critical_Care_During_a_Pandemic_Final_report_of_the_Ontario_Health_Plan_for_an_Influenza_Pandemic_OHPIP_Working_Group_on_Adult_Critical_Care_Admission_Discharge_and_Triage_Criteria. To note, OHPIP was never triggered by a surge in Ontario and, as such, was not implemented during the Influenza Pandemic.

[73] Ibid at 8.

[74] Sheri Fink, “Ethical Dilemmas in COVID-19 Medical Care: Is a Problematic Triage Protocol Better or Worse than No Protocol at All? (2020) 20:7 The American Journal of Bioethics 1 [Fink, “Ethical Dilemmas”]; T Guest et al, “An observational cohort study of triage for critical care provision during pandemic influenza: ‘clipboard physicians’ or ‘evidenced based medicine’?” (2009) 64 Anaesthesia 1199; Khan Z, J Hulme & N Sherwood, “An assessment of the validity of SOFA score based triage in H1N1 critically ill patients during an influenza pandemic” (2009) 64:12 Anaesthesia 1283; McGuire et al, supra note 60.

[75] OHPIP, supra note 72 at 8.

[76] Ibid at 9; the Triage Protocol reported that patients with a SOFA score of greater than 11 had a mortality rate of 90% even with full critical care during a normal period.

[77] Ibid at 8, citing FL Ferreira et al, “Serial evaluation of the SOFA score to predict outcome in critically ill patients.” (2001) 286:14 JAMA 1754. Despite the assertion by the authors of OHPIP and Ferreira et al. that SOFA was designed for this purpose, others have argued the opposite, i.e. that it was designed for purposes unrelated to triage, see: Matthew K Wynia & Peter D Sottile, “Ethical Triage Demands a Better Triage Survivability Score” (2020) 20:7 The American Journal of Bioethics 75.

[78] Fink, “Ethical Dilemmas”, supra note 74 at 5. See also: Sheri L Fink, Worst case: rethinking tertiary triage protocols in pandemics and other health emergencies” (2010) 14:1 Critical Care 103.

[79] Guest et al, supra note 74.

[80] Ibid at 1204.

[81] Ibid at 1205.

[82] Khan, Hulme & Sherwood, supra note 74.

[83] Fink, “Ethical Dilemmas”, supra note 74 citing Khan, Hulme & Sherwood, ibid.

[84] Guest et al, supra note 74 at 1205.

[85] McGuire et al, supra note 60.

[86] Ibid.

[87] Fink, “Ethical Dilemmas”, supra note 74 at 5.

[88] This is in violation of section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which prohibits discrimination based on protected grounds, including disability, Charter, supra note 9, s 15.

[89] British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 SCR 3 (“Meiorin”).

[90] British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 SCR 868.

[91] Meiorin, supra note 89.

[92] See ARCH May Submissions, supra note 4 and ARCH July Submissions, supra note 5.

[93] See, for example Auriemma et al, supra note 57.

[94] Medical Utility in the second draft of the Triage Protocol is defined as creating the maximum good for the maximum number of people.

[95] Auriemma et al, supra note 5793.

[96] Ibid.

[97] Triage Protocol 1, supra note 6 at 2.

[98] Teneille R Brown, Leslie P Francis & James Tabery, “Embedding the Problems Doesn’t Make Them Go Away” (2020) 20:7 The American Journal of Bioethics 109, online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15265161.2020.1779864?needAccess=true.

[99] See for example, Fink, “Ethical Dilemmas”, supra note 7478.

Ensuring that Patients with Disabilities Don’t Face Discrimination in Access to Critical Medical Care If There is a Second Wave of COVID-19 that Overwhelms Ontario Hospitals – A new Brief by the AODA Alliance Is Made Public Today

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Ensuring that Patients with Disabilities Don’t Face Discrimination in Access to Critical Medical Care If There is a Second Wave of COVID-19 that Overwhelms Ontario Hospitals – A new Brief by the AODA Alliance Is Made Public Today

August 31, 2020

        SUMMARY

If there is a second wave of COVID-19 that is so severe that hospitals don’t have enough critical care beds and services for all patients who need that medical care, who will decide which patients get critical care and which ones will get refused? How will they decide? What fair process will be in place for patients who are told that they won’t get the life-saving critical care they need? It is no exaggeration to call this a life and death issue.

The AODA Alliance today makes public a detailed written submission, set out below, on this important issue that we presented earlier today. We hope that there will never be a new surge of COVID-19 that overloads the capacities of our hospitals. However, from experience with COVID-19 elsewhere in the world, we know Ontario must be ready. The AODA Alliance is doing our part, in close collaboration with other disability advocates, in an effort to try to ensure that people with disabilities do not face discrimination in any critical care triage.

This issue is especially vital for Ontarians with disabilities. Earlier this year, with the COVID-19 pandemic raging, it was revealed that the Ford Government had in place a deeply troubling protocol for making these critical care triage decisions, a protocol that was dated March 28, 2020. That protocol would discriminate against some patients with disabilities.

That protocol had been written by or under a “Bioethics Table”, a Government-appointed group of physicians and bioethicists. To our knowledge, the disability community was never consulted in the development of that deeply flawed triage protocol. The Ford Government later called that March 28, 2020 triage protocol a “draft”, even if it was never marked as a draft before it was publicly exposed.

Many within the disability community vehemently and publicly objected to that critical care triage protocol. This past spring, in response to public criticism of its critical care triage protocol, the Ford Government committed to consult with human rights and community experts on its reform.

Early this summer, the Government’s Bioethics Table, together with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, commendably reached out to a group of disability organizations and experts to get input into the critical care triage protocol from the disability perspective. The AODA Alliance and the ARCH Disability Law Centre are among the group that was invited to take part.

The Bioethics Table gave the disability advocates and experts a revised draft critical care triage protocol that the Bioethics Table had written, and on which it sought input. The AODA Alliance made this revised draft critical triage protocol public in the July 16, 2020 AODA Alliance Update. It was helpful for this to be available for the public. In contrast, the earlier March 28, 2020 critical triage protocol had not been made public.

The disability advocates and experts to whom the Bioethics Table reached out spent many hours this summer very constructively working together. Over the past weeks, this group held several extensive virtual meetings with a delegation from the Bioethics Table. This culminated in a one hour virtual meeting on Monday, August 31, 2020. At that meeting, key concerns from the disability sector were summed up. These had been explored in earlier meetings with the Bioethics Table. Below we set out the AODA Alliance‘s written submission. A written submission from the ARCH Disability Law Centre is expected to be forthcoming shortly.

Our written submission summarizes our position as follows:

“The revised draft critical care triage protocol which was shared by The Ontario Government’s “Bioethics Table” for input is substantially deficient. It is substantially lacking in essential due process protections for patients with disabilities and their families/support people. As well, the standard or assessment tool that it proposes to guide or govern such medical triage decisions is seriously flawed and should not be used for triage purposes. In the case of a critical care patient with a progressive disease but who has more than six months to live, their likely mortality should not be assessed by the number of activities of daily living that they can perform without assistance, having regard to each of these specific activities: dressing, bathing, eating, walking, getting in and out of bed, using the telephone, going shopping, preparing meals, doing housework, taking medication, or handling their own finances. We share the concerns with the triage protocol that we anticipate to be set out in a forthcoming written submission by the ARCH Disability Law Centre.”

We appreciate the time that the Bioethics Table took to meet with the disability advocates and experts that were invited to be part of this process. We now await the Bioethics Table’s final report and recommendations to the Ford Government. We hope it will be immediately made public. We also urge the Ford Government to be very open and consultative in responding to the Bioethics Table’s final report and recommendations.

The AODA Alliance thanks all the disability advocates and experts that worked together on this issue. A special thank-you is extended to the ARCH Disability Law Centre for its excellent work in this area. We also thank the excellent team of Osgoode Hall Law School and University of Ottawa law students who volunteered to help the AODA Alliance in the preparation of our submissions to the Bioethics Table.

Because of the rushed time lines for preparing the AODA Alliance’s written submissions set out below, we were not able to post a draft of this document for your input, before we finalized this submission. Nevertheless, we always welcome your feedback. It can help with our future efforts on this important issue. You can always write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

For more background on this issue, check out:s

  1. The April 8, 2020 open letter to the Ford Government on the medical triage protocol spearheaded by the ARCH Disability Law Centre, of which the AODA Alliances one of many co-signatories
  1. The April 14, 2020 AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on Ensuring that Medical Triage or Rationing of Health Care Services During the COVID-19 Crisis Does Not Discriminate Against Patients with Disabilities
  1. The May 13, 2020 ARCH Disability Law Centre’s Analysis of the March 28, 2020 Triage Protocol
  1. The July 16, 2020 AODA Alliance Update that lists additional concerns with the revised draft triage protocol. That Update also sets out the Ford Government Bioethics Table’s revised draft triage protocol itself.
  1. the ARCH Disability law Centre’s July 20, 2020 brief to the Bioethics Table on the revised draft triage protocol, which the AODA Alliance endorsed.
  1. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, detailing our efforts to tear down barriers in the health care system facing patients with disabilities, and our COVID-19 page, detailing our efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

        MORE DETAILS

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 Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

The Ford Government’s Bioethics Table Must Fix the Serious Problems with Its Revised Draft Critical Care Medical Triage Protocol

 

A Submission by the AODA Alliance to the Ford Government’s Bioethics Table

August 30, 2020

 A. Introduction

1. What Is the Critical Care Triage Issue that This Submission Addresses?

A large future surge in COVID-19 cases may require triage of critical medical care. There could end up being more patients needing critical care than there is critical care available. In that situation, which patients needing critical care will get that critical care and which patients who need that care will be denied it?

Last winter with the arrival of COVID-19 to Canada, the Ontario Government decided to create a written protocol to tell doctors and hospitals who would decide and how to decide which patients would be denied critical care in a pandemic triage situation (the triage protocol). The Ontario Government appointed a “Bioethics Table” to make recommendations on what the triage protocol should say. This was not then made public, nor was the public’s input then sought.

As a result, a triage protocol dated March 28, 2020 was sent to Ontario hospitals but was not made public. Within days, its existence and contents became known to some within Ontario’s disability community. As a result, the March 28, 2020 triage protocol was strongly and publicly criticized as discriminating against some patients because of their disability, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the face of that public criticism, the Government stated that the March 28, 2020 triage protocol was only a draft. However, it had not been marked “draft”. Last spring, also in the face of public criticism of that triage protocol, the Government announced that there would be consultations on it with human rights and community experts.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and several organizations from the disability community have called on the Ontario Government to rescind the March 28, 2020 triage protocol. However, to date, The Government has not rescinded the March 28, 2020 triage protocol.

At some point after March 28, 2020, the Bioethics Table wrote a revised draft critical care triage protocol. The Bioethics Table is now consulting on that revised draft before recommending to the Ontario Government any possible changes to that triage protocol. The Bioethics Table invited certain disability organizations for input, including the AODA Alliance. We were all given a copy of the revised draft triage protocol, and were free to make it public. On July 16, 2020, the AODA Alliance posted the revised draft triage protocol on our website.

In this submission, the AODA Alliance gives the Bioethics Table its culminating input on its revised draft triage protocol. This submission is supplementary to and builds upon the input earlier provided from the disability perspective by the ARCH Disability Law Centre and the AODA Alliance. Our prior public statements on this issue are posted on our website’s COVID-19 page. We especially emphasize the following prior AODA Alliance and ARCH public statements:

  1. The April 14, 2020 AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on Ensuring that Medical Triage or Rationing of Health Care Services During the COVID-19 Crisis Does Not Discriminate Against Patients with Disabilities
  1. The July 16, 2020 AODA Alliance Update that lists additional concerns with the revised draft triage protocol.
  1. The April 8, 2020 open letter to the Ford Government on the medical triage protocol spearheaded by the ARCH Disability Law Centre, of which the AODA Alliances one of many co-signatories
  1. The May 13, 2020 ARCH Disability Law Centre’s Analysis of the March 28, 2020 Triage Protocol
  1. the ARCH Disability law Centre’s July 20, 2020 brief to the Bioethics Table on the revised draft triage protocol, which the AODA Alliance endorsed.

The rush to give our input to the Bioethics Table did not allow us time to first post a draft of these written submissions in order to get input and feedback on them from our supporters. We recognize that the Bioethics Table is operating under significant time pressures because of the possibility of a second surge of COVID-19 infections this fall. After presenting these submissions to the Bioethics Table, we will welcome feedback from our supporters in case we later need to elaborate on these issues.

 2. Who is the AODA Alliance?

The AODA Alliance is a voluntary non-partisan grassroots coalition of individuals and 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: https://www.aodaalliance.org.

Our coalition is the successor to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. The ODA Committee successfully advocated from 1994 to 2005 for the enactment of strong, effective disability accessibility legislation, including the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Our coalition builds on the ODA Committee’s work. We draw our membership from the ODA Committee’s broad, grassroots base. To learn about the ODA Committee’s history, visit: http://www.odacommittee.net.

We have been widely recognized by the Ontario Government, by all political parties in the Legislature, within the disability community and by the media, as a key voice leading the non-partisan campaign for accessibility in Ontario. In every provincial election since 2005, parties that made election commitments on accessibility did so in letters to the AODA Alliance.

Among our many activities, we led a multi-year campaign to get the Ontario Government to agree to develop a Health Care Accessibility Standard under the AODA, to tear down the many barriers that impede patients with disabilities in Ontario’s health care system. That promised regulation is still under development. Our years of efforts to advocate for accessibility for patients with disabilities are documented on our website’s health care page.

Our efforts and expertise on accessibility for people with disabilities have been recognized in the media, in MPPs’ speeches in the Ontario Legislature, and beyond. Our website and Twitter feed are widely consulted as helpful sources of information on accessibility efforts in Ontario and elsewhere. We have achieved this as an unfunded volunteer community coalition.

3. Summary of This Submission

The revised draft critical care triage protocol which was shared by The Ontario Government’s “Bioethics Table” for input is substantially deficient. It is substantially lacking in essential due process protections for patients with disabilities and their families/support people. As well, the standard or assessment tool that it proposes to guide or govern such medical triage decisions is seriously flawed and should not be used for triage purposes. In the case of a critical care patient with a progressive disease but who has more than six months to live, their likely mortality should not be assessed by the number of activities of daily living that they can perform without assistance, having regard to each of these specific activities: dressing, bathing, eating, walking, getting in and out of bed, using the telephone, going shopping, preparing meals, doing housework, taking medication, or handling their own finances. We share the concerns with the triage protocol that we anticipate to be set out in a forthcoming written submission by the ARCH Disability Law Centre.

We hope that the entire Bioethics Table agrees with our concerns and recommendations, and that it incorporates them into the recommendations that it makes to the Ontario Government. If a majority of the Bioethics Table does not agree to do so, we urge any members of the Bioethics Table who agree with any or all of our concerns and recommendations to prepare and submit a minority report to the Government.

It is important for the Government to receive the most informative feedback from the Bioethics Table that the Table can provide. The Bioethics Table has been asked to advise the Government on very challenging issues. Where there are differing views at that Table, the Government and the public are best served if the spectrum of competing views are expressed in majority and minority reports to the Government. That would let the Government and the public review both a majority report and a minority report as they consider the full range of options when making decisions on how critical care triage should be conducted, if a need for it arises.

B. The First Issue: The Revised Draft Triage Protocol is Seriously Lacking in Due Process for All Patients

 1. The Bottom Line

The critical medical triage protocol needs to be revised to provide strong, mandatory, reliable due process protections that ensure fair and accurate decisions in triage cases. This is especially important since the decision of whether a patient will be given critical care is a life and death decision. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees in section 7 the right to life, and the right not to be deprived of one’s life except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Due process must be the most rigourous when the right to life is at stake.

 2. The Rule of Law and the Need for Any Triage Protocol to Be Enacted in Law

As a vital starting point, any critical care triage protocol, including the due process safeguards in it, should be enacted in a law. Such a protocol is specifically aimed at a situation where a patient could be denied critical medical care that they need, despite the fact that they need it. It is a basic aspect of the rule of law that a person’s fundamental rights, such as the right to life, cannot be taken away without the clear authority of law.

Given this issue’s importance, any critical care triage protocol and any legislation that would enact or mandate it should be carefully screened in advance of its enactment by Government’s lawyers to ensure that it is fully lawful and constitutional. The Government has known of the COVID-19 pandemic for over five months. It has had ample time to take these steps. Moreover, The Government has shown that it is prepared to act very swiftly to enact other significant emergency measures to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government should be capable of doing so in this medical critical care triage context as well.

Any law enacted in this context must fully comply with the Charter of Rights and the Ontario Human Rights Code. Among other things, the standard that it mandates for making a decision over who will be denied life-saving critical care that they medically need must be sufficiently clear and not vague.

 3. Right to Early Notice

As part of due process, a patient and their family should be given notice as early as possible in advance that they may be subjected to triage for critical care. This should include a full explanation of such things as what critical care is, what medical triage is, what the steps of the triage process include, what rights the patient has to input into the process, what appeals are available from an adverse triage decision, and whom the patient and their family could consult for assistance in this process. This rights advice and information should be readily available in a wide range of languages.

 4. Right to Disability Accommodation in the Triage Process

If a person with disabilities, either a patient or a member of their family/support people, needs an accommodation to enable them to fully participate in this due process, it is important to ensure that their accommodation needs are promptly and fully met. For example, relevant printed material should be readily available in accessible alternate formats. Electronic documents should be provided in an accessible format where needed, such as an accessible html or MS Word document. PDF does not fulfil this need. Sign Language and other communication supports should be available for those needing them to take part in this process. Patients and their families should be told as soon as possible that these accommodations and supports are available on request.

 5. Who Should Make the Triage Decision

The triage protocol assumes that this decision over who, among those who need it, should get critical care is a medical decision, and as such, it should automatically be made by physicians. However, that should not be assumed.

It can be argued instead that the decision is not a medical decision, or an exclusively medical decision, even though it relates to medical services. It is a decision over how to ration publicly funded critical medical care in circumstances where there is not enough to go around. It is a decision that should be made by those who are publicly accountable for their decision on how to allocate a scarce life-saving public service or resource.

However, if, despite this serious concern, it were decided to proceed with a medical model for this triage, the following due process is proposed. This due process is proposed without accepting that such a decision should be left at all or exclusively to physicians or other health care professionals.

The hospital team that makes the triage decision should include more than one or two doctors. The Government or Bioethics Table should present a range of options for the Government to consider adopting, listing the advantages and disadvantages of each option, on which public input can be obtained. One option to consider is a committee created by the institution comprised of doctors with expertise in relevant areas such as intensive care or palliative care, nurses, social workers, and ethicists (Sprung, Charles L, et al. “Adult ICU Triage During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Who Will Live and Who Will Die? Recommendations to Improve Survival.” US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, NCBI, 6 May 2020).

Sufficient safeguards must be in place and monitored to ensure that the persons on the triage team taking part in the triage assessment and decision have no actual or perceived conflict of interest. For example, they should have no personal relationship with the patient or with any of the other patients who are subject to a triage decision. Those making the decision should have personally met the patient, and not simply been briefed by other members of the triage team.

The members of the team taking part in the triage assessment and decision should be required to have recently completed sufficient designated training in the use of the assessment tool, in the assessment due process requirements, and in applicable human rights principles and the requirement to conduct bias-free and barrier-free assessments that do not discriminate against patients with disabilities. This should not be purely passive online training (where a participant simply reads text or watches lectures and then clicks that they did so).

6. Right to Input Into Triage Decision

As part of the critical care triage assessment process, the patient and their family/support people should be given a full and fair opportunity to give the assessment team information on the patient as it relates to the triage assessment criteria, before any critical care triage decision is made. This should include, among other things, the opportunity to present input from others, such as the patient’s personal physician or other support people.

If a patient that is to be considered for possible critical care triage appears to have no substitute decision-maker on the scene with them, and appears to be incapable of managing their health care decisions, the hospital should immediately notify the Public Guardian and Trustee’s office so that that office can consider taking part in the medical triage process on the patient’s behalf, if needed.

 7. Right to Appeal a Denial of Needed Critical Care

If a triage decision is made to refuse critical care to a patient who needs critical care, the senior member of the triage team should tell the patient about the decision and the reasons for it, immediately or as quickly as possible. The patient and their family/support people should be given “rights advice” about the ways for the patient or their family to appeal or dispute the decision. This “rights advice” should also be quickly provided to the patient and their family in writing, written in plain language, in documents provided in an accessible format where needed.

Where a patient is denied needed critical care due to a triage decision, that decision should be re-assessed each 24 hours after this denial (Sprung, Charles L, et al. “Adult ICU Triage During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Who Will Live and Who Will Die? Recommendations to Improve Survival.” US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, NCBI, 6 May 2020).

If any Ontario emergency orders now suspend due process protections for hospital patients such as opportunities to seek appeals or reviews of refusals of treatment, any such suspension of due process should be lifted. Where a patient who needs critical care is denied it due to a triage decision, the patient and their family should have a right to a swift appeal process within the health care system, with an ultimate option of an appeal to court or an appropriate independent tribunal with the needed expertise and expeditious procedures. This appeal process must be swift due to the fact that the patient needs critical care for a life-threatening condition, and because the health care facility is under incredible work pressure due to the pandemic crisis.

The AODA Alliance has not had the time and capacity to obtain and compare a wide range of hospital appeal protocols. We propose that the appeal process should include these features:

  1. a) Information about the availability of an appeal and how to launch an appeal should be widely available and well publicized, within a hospital.
  1. b) The appeal process must be very fast.
  1. c) The appeal process should rapidly get right to the substantive critical care issues, without being distracted by extraneous considerations. This is needed to minimize the time that the process takes and the need to enable medical staff to spend their time treating patients.
  1. d) A patient or their family/support people should be able to quickly and easily launch an appeal by sending in an email, placing a phone call, or verbally advising a person in charge e.g. a charge nurse in an emergency room. Whoever receives the written or oral notification that the appeal is being launched should be required to immediately communicate it to a central hub at the hospital.
  1. e) To speed up this process, to the extent possible, virtual meetings should be used to conduct the parts of the appeal that do not require in-person contact.
  1. f) On an appeal being launched, a hospital staff person who had no involvement in the triage decision should immediately be assigned to manage the appeal process, and to be the patient/family’s/support people’s primary contact.
  1. g) Immediately upon launching an appeal, an independent person either within the hospital or on stand-by at Ontario Health should review the initial triage team’s documentation of their triage decision. If the documentation reveals any possible errors, the triage team that made the decision should be required to reconsider its decision afresh.
  1. h) If, after that review, the triage team sticks by its decision to deny critical care to the patient, a second triage team, either in the hospital or elsewhere, should be appointed to immediately perform an independent clinical care triage assessment of the patient’s case. The second triage team should have the same required qualifications and training on the triage process as did the first triage team. The second triage team should, of course, include no members from the first triage team.
  1. i) The second triage team should start the assessment from scratch, and should not be provided any of the assessment decision ratings or deliberations of the first triage team. The members of the second triage team should not communicate about this case with members of the first triage team before or while making their assessment.
  1. j) The patient should get the benefit of the most favourable assessment, as between the first and second triage teams. If, after this second team’s assessment, the patient is still denied critical care, they should have an opportunity to have a rapid appeal/review by an independent court or tribunal. New legislation or regulations may be needed to spell this out. We do not have time to specify to whom this appeal should go. One option worth considering is the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB). Another option to consider is a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. A short list of judges from that court could be designated to be on stand-by for cases coming to them, if it is decided that a judge should hear these cases.
  1. k) Whether this final appeal is to a judge or to the CCB or some other body, to expedite this process, a panel of qualified lawyer-mediators should be designated to be on stand by to assist that judge or tribunal e.g. to quickly gather, organize and disclose to the parties and the appeal judge or tribunal all the relevant information from the hospital and the two triage teams that had reviewed the case. Because such appeals must happen extremely quickly, it would be important for the patient, family/support people and hospital to have that emergency assistance.
  1. l) To ensure that the playing field is level for all patients, the Government should direct that Legal Aid Ontario is required to provide free legal representation to any patient invoking this appeal process after being denied critical care. A panel of Legal Aid-funded lawyers should be available on stand-by for emergency engagement if needed.

 8. Accountability for Triage Decisions

At each stage of the medical triage process, the triage team should be required to keep detailed contemporaneous records of their entire triage process including any triage assessments. These cases should be reported weekly for review by the hospital’s senior management and ethics committee, and should be reported weekly to the Ministry of Health. These should also be made public on a weekly basis as aggregated information that does not disclose patient identities. This is all needed to ensure that hospital administration and the Government are kept up-to-date on how the clinical care triage process is operating on the front lines, so that corrective action can be quickly ordered where needed.

For proper public accountability, during any period when a critical care triage protocol is in effect, The Ministry of Health should make public, on a weekly basis, information on a province-wide, municipality and hospital-by-hospital basis, about cases where critical care has been denied due to triage decisions, such as:

  1. a) the number of cases and related medical decisions;
  1. b) key demographic data such as racialized and disability status; and
  1. c) number of decisions appealed and whether the appeal resulted in a refusal or offer of critical care.

C. The Second Issue: Serious Problems with The Triage Protocol Using the Clinical Frailty Scale As A Triage Assessment Tool

 1. The Bottom Line

Up to now, this submission has focused on the process for critical care triage decisions. We now turn to consider the yardstick or assessment tool to be used to make decisions over who will be given critical care and who will be refused it, among all the patients who need critical care, should there be a shortage of critical care beds, equipment or services.

Both the March 28, 2020 triage protocol and the subsequent revised draft protocol, created by the Bioethics Table, use the “Clinical Frailty Scale” (CFS) as the tool that doctors are to use to assess whether a patient should be denied critical care. We oppose the use of the CFS as a critical care triage assessment tool in either protocol. The following are key reasons why use of the CFS is highly objectionable from the perspective of patients with disabilities who need critical care. We also endorse the concerns with the CFS that are outlined in the written submission to be provided to the Bioethics Table by the ARCH Disability Law Centre.

 2. The Burden of Proof to Justify the Use of the CFS in Critical Care Triage

Critical triage decisions decide whether a patient will receive life-saving medical care they need. Before it can be used, a critical care triage assessment tool must be affirmatively proven to be consistently and reliably valid and consistently and reliably applied, based on rigourous peer-reviewed scrutiny. Such an assessment tool, if adopted, would carry with it a strong aura of objective scientific legitimacy and fairness, clothed in the mantle of science.

Accordingly, a substantial burden of proof rests on those who propose a specific assessment tool, to justify its use. Its validity is not presumed, until or unless someone proves that there is a better assessment tool.

 3. CFS Has Not Been Shown to Meet That Burden of Proof

The March 28, 2020 triage protocol and the revised draft triage protocol each use the CFS as the tool for assessing the likely mortality of a patient who needs critical care. During our virtual meetings with some members of the Bioethics Table, members of the Table stated that scientific data shows that the CFS is reliably predictive of a critical care patient’s likely mortality, and that it is more reliable than other assessment tools. However, the Bioethics Table has not provided sufficiently compelling proof that the CFS is a consistent and reliable tool for predicting a critical care patient’s likely mortality, for the entire patient population who would be subjected to the CFS under either triage protocol. The ARCH Disability Law Centre will be making a submission that addresses the studies which members of the Bioethics Table have identified in support of the CFS. The AODA Alliance‘s submission supplements ARCH’s submissions.

Members of the Bioethics Table acknowledged that the CFS was not created or designed for the purpose of making critical care triage decisions. Therefore, we propose that the Bioethics Table must demonstrate that even though the CFS was not designed for the purpose to which the Bioethics Table wishes to deploy it, it coincidentally does consistently and reliably serve that unintended, unplanned purpose.

The Bioethics Table was asked for any studies that show that the CFS is an accurate predictor of a critical care patient’s likely mortality. The AODA Alliance has not had sufficient time to fully review all the information provided in response. Despite that, the following appears evident, in addition to points to be made in the forthcoming ARCH written submission:

  1. a) It is our understanding that the peer-reviewed studies provided to us by the Bioethics Table do not appear to have been undertaken for the purpose of assessing if the CFS is a consistent and reliable predictor of a critical care patient’s likely mortality, when it is used in a critical care triage context.
  1. b) It does not appear that the studies provided assessed the CFS’s application across a full spectrum of patients of all ages to which the triage protocol would apply it. During discussions with some members of the Bioethics Table, we were told that the data provided in those studies address patients at or over the age of 65. They also may provide some data for patients over the age of 50. Yet the revised draft triage protocol does not limit the use of the CFS to those populations that the peer-reviewed studies actually studied. The triage protocols under discussion here draw an age line of 18. They would apply the CFS to any and all patients over the age of 18.
  1. c) During our discussions with some members of the Bioethics Table, we were told that Dr. James Downar, a member of that Table, is currently conducting research on the possible connection of CFS scores to a critical care patient’s likely mortality. Any such unpublished data should not be used as a proper basis for the current life and death policy decision, especially when there has been no public scrutiny of it or of its use. For it to be used when designing a protocol for critical care triage, that data should first have been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and exposed to further critical exploration by other studies to see if the conclusions are verified or should be qualified.
  1. d) To rely on any of the CFS rating data in any of the published or unpublished studies or analysis of this issue, it would also be necessary to affirmatively establish that the CFS was properly and consistently applied to all patients who were assessed in those studies or data. Otherwise, the ratings may not consistently correlate to the patients’ actual status. Sufficient proof has not been provided that convincingly establishes this.
  1. e) It would be important to know to what extent the CFS scoring in the studies on point varies depending on whether the professional, doing the rating, has had training on CFS rating. Similarly, it would be important to know if any studies on point were assessing the consistency of CFS ratings when undertaken in a critical care triage context. It would be necessary to rule out the possibility that a doctor’s CFS rating in a critical care triage context is different than their CFS rating when they know it is for a different purpose. It would be important to know if the person doing the CFS scoring knew that their scoring could determine whether the patient would be thereby denied needed life-saving critical care.

The foregoing amply warrants a rejection of the CFS as the critical care triage assessment tool. However, each of the following additional reasons, on their own, also compel its rejection. Each of these points would have to be convincingly disproven before the CFS could properly be deployed in Ontario.

For the CFS to be used as the critical care triage assessment tool, it would also be necessary to establish with convincing proof that different doctors and other hospital staff, applying the CFS to the same patient, will consistently and reliably get the same results, or extremely similar results, and that there is no room for subjectivity in its application. If this is not shown to be the case, then a patient may well get triaged out of critical care due to arbitrary differences in how the CFS is applied by different doctors, and not because of the patients’ likely mortality. The risk must be disproven that two doctors or other health care professionals would assess the same patient differently. This consistency of application cannot simply be assumed.

In discussions with some members of the Bioethics Table, Dr. James Downar candidly acknowledged that there is subjectivity in how the CFS would be applied to a specific patient. That is fatal to its use for critical care triage.

This serious concern is reinforced by feedback we received from the Bioethics Table on the conduct of doctors who assess a patient for admission to palliative care. As we understand it, a doctor is required to give a prognosis of the patient’s likely mortality within a specified period (such as 3 months), to qualify for admission to palliative care. We were candidly told at a meeting with some members of the Bioethics Table that doctors routinely give result-oriented assessments that serve the purpose of getting the patient into palliative care, rather than purporting to accurately assess the patient’s likely mortality. There is a comparable risk that the CFS’s implicit subjectivity will lead to result-oriented decisions by triage doctors or teams, clothed in the image of objective science. As further explored later, this has enormous risks from a disability human rights perspective.

Making this an even greater concern, the fact that a person has an MD does not mean they have expertise in assessing a patient’s ability to undertake activities of daily living. During our meetings, we were told that most physicians are not trained in medical school on how to use the CFS. Some geriatricians have training or experience in its use. In contrast, we noted for the Bioethics Table that the health care professionals whose expertise more specifically focuses on a patient’s ability to undertake activities of daily living (a central part of the CFS) are occupational therapists, not physicians.

 4. CFS Impermissibly Discriminates Against Some Patients with Disabilities

The foregoing warrants a rejection of the CFS for critical care triage purposes, without any resort to human rights principles. However, even if it were assumed that there is no merit to any of the preceding serious concerns with the CFS as a critical care assessment tool, the following human rights concerns also warrant a rejection of the CFS as a critical care assessment tool.

As more fully documented in earlier submissions by the ARCH Disability Law Centre and the AODA Alliance, the use of the CFS for critical care triage purposes would discriminate against some patients with disabilities, implicating the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is no answer to this that the CFS was not intended to be discriminatory or to be unfair to any patients with disabilities, or that it is equally applied to all patients in the same way, or that its use is supported by mortality data (addressed earlier).

The CFS and even the drawings accompanying it are clear illustrations on their face of direct disability discrimination. As such, there is no need to resort to the additional fact that it also has clear disproportionate impact on patients with disabilities. To now cosmetically edit out the CFS’s accompanying drawings would not retroactively erase this.

It is a core feature of the CFS that it calls for an assessment of a patient’s ability to undertake certain activities of daily living independently or without assistance. At the core of equality and human rights protections for people with disabilities in Canada is their right to disability accommodations where needed, and their right to have their abilities assessed with needed disability accommodations, not without needed disability accommodations. The CFS embodies a deeply entrenched, blistering violation of human rights on that basis alone.

For the triage protocol to invite doctors or other health care professionals to assess the abilities of a patient with disabilities to undertake certain activities of daily living independently or without assistance is to reinforce and build upon deeply injurious stereotypes about people with disabilities. To do so in a protocol that invokes bioethical commitments to “fairness” is especially indefensible.

It would be wrong to assess a doctor’s ability to practice medicine by first requiring them not to wear their eyeglasses. In a decision over life or death, it is all the more wrong to take that erroneous kind of approach to assessing a patient’s abilities to undertake the CFS-listed activities of daily living without considering their needed disability accommodations.

Making the CFS still worse, such an assessment by doctors or other health professionals of people with disabilities risks triggering a covert assessment of the social worth or “quality of life” of patients with disabilities. That deliberative process must be strictly and proactively prevented, and not directly or indirectly tolerated or encouraged.

Amplifying its arbitrariness and unfairness, the CFS’s core focus on a patient’s ability to perform certain activities of daily living can bias against patients based on their socio-economic status, or the timing of their disability. Poor people with disabilities can have less access to rehabilitation training and supports compared to the more affluent. Someone who acquired their disability long ago can have had much more opportunities to learn to perform such tasks of independent living, as compared to those who more recently acquired a disability. When reviewing the CFS with some members of the Bioethics Table, it was not disputed that the CFS measures can have such adverse affects depending on a patient’s socio-economic status or when they acquired a disability.

At one meeting, Dr. James Downar of the Bioethics Table commendably made it clear in response to our question that he would not support using a patient’s race or gender to make triage decisions, even if the data had scientifically showed that a critical care patient’s race or gender correlated to their likely mortality. We emphasize that in our raising this, there was no suggestion that the data had shown such a nexus. We respond that if race or sex should not be used here, even if the data had supported its use, the same should go for a patient’s disability. Race, sex and disability are all forbidden grounds of discrimination.

 5. CFS Deficiencies Are Not Fixable

It would not eliminate or materially reduce these concerns if the protocol allowed a triage doctor or team to use the CFS rating of a patient as “a factor” in the triage decision, without it being mandated as the sole or determinative factor. This is because:

  1. a) To the extent that a triage doctor or team uses the CFS at all for triage, it has all the serious problems here identified.
  1. b) If the triage protocol gave a triage doctor or team a discretion to weigh a patient’s CFS score as a factor in their triage decision, there would be no assured consistency in how much weight each triage doctor or team gives that CFS score. Some could give it a lot of weight. Others could give it much less weight. Some or all doctors or triage teams could give a patient’s CFS score different weight from patient to patient.
  1. c) For a triage doctor or team to be given a discretion to decide how much weight to give a patient’s CFS score in making a triage decision is in effective to give that doctor or team a carte blanche to apply whatever triage criteria they wish. After using whatever triage criteria they wish, they could thereafter assign to the patient’s CFS score that amount of weight that will support the outcome that the triage doctor or team had preferred.
  1. d) This opens the door to discriminatory or stereotype-based decisions. It also opens the door to a triage doctor or team in effect making their decisions on the patient’s perceived quality of life or social utility.

Beyond the foregoing, there is a practical risk that this triage protocol will not govern actual triage decisions, regardless of its contents. In a specific hospital, in the midst of a pandemic surge, there is a real risk that a triage doctor or team, called upon to make a critical care triage decision, will look at the four patients who need critical care and the two available critical care beds, and will size them up based on the doctor’s or team’s own personal assessment or views of who is the most “deserving”. Here again, the risk of stereotypes and of assessing perceived quality of life or social utility of each of the patients is palpable. The CFS’s focus on a patient’s ability to undertake certain activities of daily living independently or without assistance risks triggering such stereotype-based thinking.

The Bioethics Table has asked if the problem is not with the CFS as a critical care triage assessment tool, but simply with its application. By this it might be thought that the CFS is fine as an assessment tool, but that steps need to be taken to ensure that it is applied properly.

This is incorrect. For the reasons set out above, the CFS is fatally flawed as the tool for making such life and death decisions. Those fatal flaws are not fixed by focusing on its application. To illustrate this, had the triage protocol authorized a doctor to take into account a patient’s race when making a critical care triage decision, such impermissible racism could not be cured by simply setting out cautions in the protocol regarding its application, such as a direction to not discriminate because of race.

The Bioethics Table raised with us a suggestion that if physicians were to assess a critical care patient’s likely mortality without using the CFS, there is a risk that in the case of some seemingly frail patients with disabilities, physicians would be more likely to assess them as more likely to die than would be the case if those patients were assessed using their CFS score. To even begin to entertain such a justification for the CFS, it would be essential as a first step to have reliable studies showing that this risk is the case, and to explore what the causes are for the differential in physicians’ assessment of those critical care patients. If it were true that physicians who do not use the CFS are so prone to overestimate the mortality of seemingly frail patients or of some patients with certain disabilities, this would call into question the entire enterprise of having physicians making these triage decisions.

At bottom, after extensive and thorough meetings with some members of the Bioethics Table, we were not given a clear and convincing explanation why in the case of a critical care patient with a progressive disease but who has more than six months to live, how soon that patient will die is correctly measured by the number of activities of daily living that they can perform without assistance, having regard to each of these specific activities: dressing, bathing, eating, walking, getting in and out of bed, using the telephone, going shopping, preparing meals, doing housework, taking medication, or handling their own finances. What is it about those specific activities of daily living that the CFS measures that is supposedly so clearly and causally predictive of the patient’s likely mortality? We asked for this several times.

 6. No Matter What, the Triage Protocol Should Include Certain Specific Directions

Whatever be the assessment tool, if any, that is mandated in the triage protocol, the protocol should give the following directions. These derive from the he April 14, 2020 AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on Ensuring that Medical Triage or Rationing of Health Care Services During the COVID-19 Crisis Does Not Discriminate Against Patients with Disabilities, on which the AODA Alliance has received no negative feedback in the four months since it was made public:

  1. A hospital or physician should never take into account or hold against a patient with a disability the hospital’s or physician’s beliefs or assessment of a patient’s future quality of life living with a disability, when deciding if that patient will get critical care that they need. A patient’s disability must not be used as a factor weighing against that patient receiving needed medical services.
  1. The hospital, physician or other official deciding who will get critical care they need must never weigh or hold against a patient with a disability the fact of their disability or the hospital’s or doctor’s belief about the cost to the public that the patient’s needs in future will pose if they survive the COVID-19 virus.
  1. The personal ventilator of a person with a disability who comes to hospital with COVID-19 symptoms and who brings their personal ventilator with them must not have the hospital try to re-allocate their ventilator to another patient.
  1. Decisions over which patients needing critical care will get critical care should not be based on the physician’s predictions, whether accurate or stereotype-based, about the eventual long-term lifespan of that patient unrelated to the COVID-19 diagnosis. The hospital, physician or other official deciding who will get the critical care must not weigh or hold against that patient with a disability the fact of their disability or its perceived impact on their long-term lifespan.
  1. The hospital, physician or other official who is deciding who will get critical care they need must never use a patient’s need for disability-related accommodations as a factor or reason for refusing them critical care they need.
  1. If a patient, needing a COVID-19 test, has difficulties being tested due to their disability, the hospital or other testing facility should not refuse to administer the test. Instead, the patient should be offered an accommodation to their disability, such as voluntarily taking sedation to enable the test to be administered.
  1. A long term care facility’s decisions over whether or not to send a COVID-19 patient to the hospital should not be made on the basis of the resident’s age, disability or both, nor on the belief that the health system is overtaxed and therefore this person should not be offered treatment. This is apart from any question of whether a long-term care home should even make this decision on their own, without contacting the resident’s physician, and without discussing the situation with the resident’s substitute decision-maker.
  1. When an emergency call e.g. for an ambulance is made, emergency medical technicians EMTs should never use the patient’s disability or their predictions about whether that might lead a doctor to refuse to treat them as a reason or factor to refuse to bring them to the hospital if they otherwise have symptoms warranting a trip to the hospital.
  1. No nurse or other hospital staff should ever de-prioritize a hospital patient with disabilities or decline to immediately notify the attending doctor on the request of the patient or their family, on the grounds that the nurse thinks the overloaded doctors may not assign scarce critical care to that patient even though they need critical care.

In recommending these directions, we emphasize that their inclusion in the triage protocol, while essential, would not rectify the serious problems with the CFS from the disability perspective.

 D. Concluding Considerations

In summary, the Bioethics Table needs to go back to the drawing board to identify an assessment tool that is properly justified and that does not enshrine and promote disability-based discrimination in relation to life and death decisions. The middle of a pandemic would not be the place to try out the CFS and see how well it works.

The March 28, 2020 triage protocol must be clearly and categorically rescinded now. The longer the Government delays in doing this, the more it festers, further embedding harmful ideas and practices that discriminate against patients with disabilities.

The AODA Alliance very much appreciates the opportunity to offer its input to the Bioethics Table on this vital issue. We regret that we were not included in the consultation process in February and March of this year leading to the development of the March 28, 2020 triage protocol. Had we been included in this process much earlier, we would have been able to raise these concerns in fuller detail much earlier.

We remain eager to do what we can to assist the Bioethics Table and the Ontario Government as they grapple with this issue.

Watch the Archived Online video of the 3rd COVID-19 Town Hall by the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition Entitled: “Preparing for School Re-Opening — Action Tips for Parents of Students with Disabilities” – And Check Out the Media Coverage It Got

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Watch the Archived Online video of the 3rd COVID-19 Town Hall by the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition Entitled:   “Preparing for School Re-Opening — Action Tips for Parents of Students with Disabilities” – And Check Out the Media Coverage It Got

August 24, 2020

          SUMMARY

 1. Now Available to Watch Online at Any Time! The 3rd AODA Alliance/Ontario Autism Coalition COVID-19 Virtual Town Hall “Preparing for School Re-Opening — Action Tips for Parents of Students with Disabilities”

It is online, archived and ready to watch any time you want! Check out “Preparing for School Re-Opening — Action Tips for Parents of Students with Disabilities.” This is the latest COVID-19 Virtual Town Hall by the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition. If you want to copy and paste the link to the video, it is https://youtu.be/ZB78Wt9TJGk

This online video already includes American Sign Language interpretation. We deeply regret that due to an extremely frustrating technical error that we have not been able to track down, the real time captioning did not stream with the event. We are working on getting captioning embedded into the Youtube video as soon as we can. In the meantime, the less reliable Youtube automated captioning is available.

We and the Ontario Autism Coalition again thank the ARCH Disability Law Centre for arranging and providing the ASL and captioning. ARCH was not in any way responsible for the unfortunate technical failure.

 2. Help Encourage Parents of Students with Disabilities to Watch the Helpful 3rd COVID-19 Virtual Town Hall

In a one hour event, our third Virtual Town Hall crams a ton of helpful practical tips that every parent or guardian of a student with disabilities would like to know. Although it focuses on Ontario, our tips will be helpful to parents of students with disabilities outside Ontario as well.

Here are ways you can help, using just a few moments of your time:

  1. Encourage others who could benefit from it to watch our 3rd Virtual Town Hall. Send the link to anyone you know who might benefit from watching it. This includes parents or guardians of students with disabilities teachers, principals and other school board staff, members of the Ontario legislature and school board trustees, and any education professionals.
  1. Ask your school board to publicize to all parents the link to our 3rd Virtual Town Hall and to post a link to it prominently on its website.
  1. Post the link to our 3rd Virtual Town Hall on your Facebook page, Twitter feed, or other social media. If you are a member of any Facebook groups, you can also help by posting this to those Facebook groups.

For example, you might post this on Facebook:

Are you a parent of a student with disabilities? Do you know parents of any students with disabilities ? Want practical tips for navigating the stressful return to school this fall? Check out the virtual public forum for practical tips by the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition, and please share this with others who might benefit from it. https://youtu.be/ZB78Wt9TJGk

  1. Bring this issue and our 3rd Virtual Town Hall to your local media. Ask them to cover the serious challenges facing parents of students with disabilities as they face the uncertainties of school re-opening. Give them examples of the challenges you know these parents and students now face. Forward this AODA Alliance Update to them. Also encourage them to visit the AODA Alliance’s COVID-19 page where they can see our efforts to get the Ford Government to address the needs of students with disabilities .

 3. Helpful Media Coverage Once Again

With so much going on in the world, the 3rd COVID-19 Virtual Town Hall organized by the AODA Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition has really struck a note with the media. It has gotten coverage on TV, radio and in print.

The day after the event, it was covered on the August 22, 2020 CTV National News. An excellent Canadian press story on this event was posted on the websites of several major news organizations. The Toronto Star also included a somewhat shortened version of that story in its August 23, 2020 hard copy edition. We set the full article out below as it appeared on the CBC News website.

 4. The Ford Government Gives a Deeply Troubling Response to the Media to Justify Its Failure to Announce a Comprehensive Plan to Ensure that Students with Disabilities are Fully and Safely Included in School Re-Opening

What has the Ford Government said to justify the fact that it still has announced no comprehensive plan for ensuring that one third of a million students with disabilities in Ontario are fully and safely included in the fast-approaching re-opening of schools? Here is what is reported in the Canadian Press article, set out below:

“A spokeswoman for Education Minister Stephen Lecce said the government has allocated $10 million in additional funding specifically dedicated to supporting students with special education needs.

“We are spending more money than any other province on special education,” Caitlin Clark said.”

We wish to respond. First, the ten million dollars that the Ford Government announced this summer for students with disabilities boils down to a meager $34 per student. That paltry amount cannot buy much for a student in the way of additional help or support.

Second, Ontario will always need to spend more than any other province on special education . Ontario has the largest population of any province. It therefore will have the largest number of students with disabilities of any province.

Third, the Ford Government’s answer provides no excuse for its failure to bring forward a comprehensive plan for meeting the needs of students with disabilities during school re-opening. By leaving each of 72 school boards to figure it out, the Ford Government is causing wasteful duplication of effort and tremendous inefficiency in the middle of a pandemic. The Government has been advised of the need for it to create a plan of action for students with disabilities by the AODA Alliance and by many others. Among those giving this advice is the COVID-19 subcommittee of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.

Send us your feedback. Let us know how you can help get others to watch our 3rd Virtual Town Hall. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

          MORE DETAILS

 CBC News Online August 22, 2020

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/advocates-caution-students-disabilities-more-obstacles-1.5696390

Students with disability face more obstacles amid coronavirus: advocates

Osobe Waberi The Canadian Press

Advocacy groups in Ontario say students with disabilities will face additional obstacles returning to class following the pandemic, leaving parents unsure if their children will be fully and safely included in school reopening plans.

The Ontario Autism Coalition and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance held an online town hall meeting Friday to discuss what they say is the provincial government’s “failure” to put parents at ease with the school year looming.

OAC president Laura Kirby-McIntosh said when it comes to welcoming children with disabilities back to school, the province is doing the bare minimum at best.

“The Ministry of Education’s guide to reopening Ontario schools is not really a plan,” she said in an interview. “What we get is some very nice words.”

Kirby-McIntosh said the province’s school system is designed primarily with non-disabled children in mind, and while children with disabilities are treated as an afterthought.

“One thing that COVID has done very effectively is it has exposed systemic issues across our society — of racism, medical infrastructure — and now we are getting to school infrastructure.”

A spokeswoman for Education Minister Stephen Lecce said the government has allocated $10 million in additional funding specifically dedicated to supporting students with special education needs.

“We are spending more money than any other province on special education,” Caitlin Clark said.

However, Kirby-McIntosh said schools run on more than just money.

“They run on good planning,” she said. “Yes, they are spending more money on schools, but why wait until the third week of August to announce that? I don’t feel that we are ready, it is not good enough.”

AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky said both his group and the Autism Coalition have offered plenty of proposals and advice to the government, before and during the pandemic, in relation to students with special needs.

“Not one public official at the Ministry of Education picked up the phone to ask for more information, and they have done nothing about it,” he said.

Lepofsky said students with disabilities risk not being fully supported during the pandemic and through their education. Even worse, he said, is the looming fear of being told they can not attend in-person learning come the fall school year.

Toronto District School Board spokesman Ryan Bird assured parents that when it comes to students with special needs, the board has a number of congregate sites available for them in the fall.

“These schools specialize in supporting these students and that will continue,” he said, noting the TDSB is trying to get as much information as possible to parents in the upcoming days and weeks.

“We get the frustration from parents, and we understand that there are important decisions to be made in sending your child back to school in September,” he said.

“We realize the time is ticking.”

11am Eastern Today, Grassroots Virtual Town Hall Will Give Anxious Parents of One Third of a Million Ontario Students with Disabilities Practical Tips to Prepare for School Re-Openings

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

ONTARIO AUTISM COALITION

 

News Release  For Immediate Release

11am Eastern Today, Grassroots Virtual Town Hall Will Give Anxious Parents of One Third of a Million Ontario Students with Disabilities Practical Tips to Prepare for School Re-Openings

August 21, 2020 Toronto: Today at 11am Eastern, a grassroots Virtual Town Hall will be held online to give deeply worried parents of one third of a million students with disabilities practical tips on what to do to prepare for and cope with the impending re-opening of Ontario schools, in the absence of a much-needed comprehensive provincial plan to ensure that students with disabilities are fully and safely included in re-opened schools. This event will have simultaneous captioning and American Sign Language interpretation.

COVID-19 hardships disproportionately fell on students with disabilities and their families while schools were closed last spring. What can parents of students with disabilities do now to prepare for the fast-approaching school re-opening? What should they be asking their school boards? What should they be telling their school boards? What can they do if their child is not being fully and safely included in school programming, whether in-person in the classroom or distance learning?

We’ll tackle these questions today from 11 am to noon. Log in to https://www.youtube.com/c/OntarioAutismCoalition and wait for the event’s live link to appear. The media is free to broadcast any clips from this town hall.

Speaking will be three experts with extensive experience advocating for students with disabilities :

  1. Laura Kirby-McIntosh, high school teacher and president of the Ontario Autism Coalition. Among her many advocacy activities, last year she sat on the Ontario Government’s panel giving advice on reforming the Ontario Autism Program.
  1. David Lepofsky, retired lawyer, part-time visiting professor at the Osgoode Hall Law School, and chair of the AODA Alliance. He is also a member and past chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Toronto District School Board. He is a member of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, and a member of its COVID-19 subcommittee.
  1. Robert Lattanzio, lawyer and executive director of the ARCH Disability Law Centre. He and ARCH have done extensive work providing legal advice and representation to students with disabilities and their families.

“All parents are worried about school re-opening, but parents of students with disabilities are especially anxious about whether their children’s needs will get lost in the chaos that we’re expecting,” Said Laura Kirby-McIntosh.

“The Ford Government has announced no comprehensive plan for ensuring that one third of a million students with disabilities one out of every six students, will be fully and safely included in school this fall, even though we’ve been asking the Government for months to come up with a plan and have been offering constructive suggestions. The Ford Government can’t once again just leave it to each school board to try to figure this out, while scrambling in the midst of a global pandemic,” said David Lepofsky.

This is the third OAC/ AODA Alliance virtual town hall to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis. Taken together, the first two virtual town halls have been viewed thousands of times.

For further information, please contact:

David Lepofsky, Chair, AODA Alliance, aodafeedback@gmail.com Twitter: @aodaalliance

Laura Kirby-McIntosh President Ontario Autism Coalition laura.kirbymcintosh@gmail.com

416-315-7939 www.ontarioautismcoalition.com Twitter @OntAutism

For more background check out:

The first OAC/ AODA Alliance virtual town hall, held on April 7, 2020 surveying the major issues facing people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

The second OAC/AODA Alliance virtual town hall, held on May 4, 2020, exploring strategies for teaching students with disabilities during distance learning.

The Ontario Autism Coalition web page, setting out its advocacy efforts for people with autism.

The AODA Alliance’s COVID-19 web page, describing its advocacy efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ARCH Disability Law Centre’s website.

The Ford Government’s Announced Measures for Students with Disabilities Largely Leaves it to Each of 72 School Boards to Figure Out What to Do to Fully and Safely Include Them in School Re-opening

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

The Ford Government’s Announced Measures for Students with Disabilities Largely Leaves it to Each of 72 School Boards to Figure Out What to Do to Fully and Safely Include Them in School Re-opening

August 20, 2020

          SUMMARY

Earlier this week, we asked this important question: What is the Ford Government’s plan to ensure that over 340,000 students with disabilities are fully and safely included in Ontario’s schools when they open next month? It is now clear that the Ford Government has no comprehensive plan.

At the start of this week, the August 17, 2020 AODA Alliance Update made public the fact that back on August 4, 2020 we had emailed the Ontario Ministry of Education to ask what measures the Government had announced for students with disabilities in connection with school re-opening, and that we had received no answer. Two days later, on August 19, the Ministry responded.

The list of measures that the Government provided is set out below. These include no comprehensive plan of action to ensure that students with disabilities are fully and safely included in school re-opening. These measures do not ensure that the barriers that faced students with disabilities last spring during distance learning are removed and that no new ones are created. The Government has once again left it to each of Ontario’s 72 school boards to figure out what to do for students with disabilities , floundering as they scramble to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.

A month ago, on July 24, 2020, the Government received a strong report identifying key actions the Government needs to take to ensure that the needs of students with disabilities are met during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. These came from the COVID-19 subcommittee of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. Among other things, that report recommended the following, which the Government has not included in its list of actions for students with disabilities :

”1)  The Ministry of Education should establish a Central Education Leadership Command Table with responsibilities for ensuring that students with disabilities have access to all accommodations and supports they require during the present COVID-19 pandemic. The responsibilities of the Command Table shall include:

  1. a) immediately develop a comprehensive plan to meet the urgent learning needs of students with disabilities during COVID-19 pandemic quickly and resolve issues for students with disabilities as they arise. The comprehensive plan should be shared for implementation by school boards. This plan should include and incorporate the three options for education:
  • normal school day routine with enhanced public health protocols
  • modified school day routine based on smaller class sizes, cohorting and alternative day or week delivery, and,
  • at-home learning with ongoing enhanced remote delivery
  1. b) collect and share data on existing and emerging issues as a result of COVID-19, the effective responses of other jurisdictions in supporting students with disabilities during the current emergency, using evidence-based data collection methods for people with disabilities
  2. c) establish a fully accessible centralized hub, and share and publicize the hub, for sharing of effective practices about supporting students with disabilities
  3. d) develop a rapid response team to receive feedback from school boards on recurring issues facing students with disabilities and to help find solutions to share with school boards
  4. e) provide clear communication and guidance on school opening, health service delivery, etc. based on data collected.”

On August 19, 2020, the Ontario New Democratic Party wrote Ontario Education Minister Stephen Lecce about this subject. We set that letter out below. That letter calls on the Government to take action now to plan for the needs of students with disabilities during school re-opening.

What are parents of students with disabilities to do now, in this situation? Tune in to the Ontario Autism Coalition‘s Youtube channel tomorrow, Friday at 11 am for the new virtual Town Hall to be convened by the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition, which will be entitled: “Preparing for School Re-Opening — Action Tips for Parents of Students with Disabilities.” This event will have American Sign Language interpretation and captioning. Check out the AODA Alliance’s announcement of this event for more details. Encourage others to log on to this event.

We always welcome your feedback. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

          MORE DETAILS

August 19, 2020 Information Provided to the AODA Alliance from the Ontario Ministry of Education

School Re-Opening Initiatives for Students with Disabilities and Students with Special Education Needs

  • As announced July 30, based on the best medical advice available, the province is implementing additional public health protocols to keep students and staff safe when they return to school in September. To support the implementation of these protocols, the government is providing over $300 million in targeted, immediate, and evidence-informed investments, including:
  • $10 million to support special needs students in the classroom; and
  • $10 million to support student mental health.

This funding is in addition to a $25 million investment in mental health and technology, which will see an additional $10 million dedicated to mental health staff, resources, and programs, as well as $15 million in technology funding to support the procurement of over 35,000 devices for Ontario’s students to support their synchronous learning in-school and beyond.

  • As part of the plan the government is providing additional supports to enable a successful return to school. For students with a high-level of special education needs, the government is directing school boards to facilitate full-time in-school instruction, regardless of whether a secondary school begins the instructional year using an adapted model. The Ministry of Education will work with designated school boards to achieve this goal and will review and approve requests by designated school boards to open small or specialized secondary schools or programs with full-time attendance. Additionally, the government is directing boards to consider changing the school environment and remote learning needs in reviewing and updating Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to best-serve students.

 

  • In addition to doubling the mental health funding in the Ministry of Education, the government has also worked with School Mental Health Ontario and will provide school boards with a professional learning framework and toolkit to support the mental health of all students. This can be tailored at the board and school levels for different audiences. The professional learning will have a strong focus on building students’ social-emotional learning skills so that they can respond to what they are facing in the COVID-19 outbreak, manage their stress and build positive relationships. Professional learning will be provided for system leaders, educators and mental health professionals to support the approach to school re-entry, as well as throughout the school year.

The re-opening plan builds the summer learning plan for Ontario students to ensure students have every opportunity to continue their learning through the summer months that included focused programming for students with special education or mental health needs, including dedicated learning supports such as access to educational assistants and existing after-school programs that could be delivered through summer school and summer programming in Provincial and Demonstration Schools to focus on continued learning for our students with specialized learning needs.

  • On August 12, the ministry communicated its expectations for three Professional Activity days be implemented prior to the start of the 2020-21 school year that will focus on topics for restarting the school year, to ensure the safety of staff, students and the broader community, and delivery of high-quality education for all learners. The ministry expects that professional learning will consider and incorporate the implications for teaching students with special education needs.
  • Where appropriate, educators should provide more opportunities than the minimum requirements for synchronous learning for students with special education needs, based on their individual strengths and needs, and provide differentiated support and instruction.
  • Educators should continue to provide accommodations, modified expectations, and alternative programming to students with special education needs, as detailed in their IEPs. If it is not possible to meet a student’s needs through synchronous learning, educators and families will work together to find solutions.
  • School boards are encouraged to provide continued access to assistive technology, including Special Equipment Amount (SEA) equipment, where possible, to support students with special education needs as they participate in remote learning. In situations where access to assistive technology is not feasible, educators are expected to work with students and parents to determine workable solutions on an individual basis.

August 19, 2020 letter from the Ontario New Democratic Party to the Ford Government

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Ministry of Education

5th Floor

438 University Ave.

Toronto, ON M5G 2K8

August 19, 2020

Dear Minister Lecce,

We are writing to insist that your government adopts a comprehensive COVID-19 plan for students with disabilities, ensuring that they have the tools they need to thrive during this pandemic.

On July 8, you stated in the legislature that you’ve been in touch with disability rights leaders, but there is still no plan to support the learning requirements of 340,000 students with special education needs.

Firstly, we are concerned about the lack of any uniform guidance on the issue of school exclusions. The AODA Alliance has reported that a majority of Ontario’s 72 school boards do not even have a policy guiding the use of exclusions.

This could set the stage for exclusions to be applied by administrators when schools lack the resources to accommodate students with disabilities.

Your Ministry should issue guidelines to school boards on the use of exclusions without delay, so that no student with a disability is unfairly denied the right to learn with their peers.

Another area where some students with disabilities have been denied equal learning opportunities relates to the discrepancies in how online learning has been implemented. Depending on the school board, different platforms with wildly varying levels of accessibility are being used. It is important for the Ministry to be supporting boards to ensure their online learning systems are equitable and accessible to all students.

Finally, your government has committed only $10 million in additional funding for students with special education needs to date. This amounts to a paltry investment of $34 per disabled student. How could anyone believe that is sufficient to meet the challenges before us? Significant investment in hiring additional educational assistants

and reducing class sizes is crucial to ensuring that all students’ learning needs are supported.

Minister, people with disabilities have been among those hit the hardest by this pandemic. This includes education, where many students with special education needs have struggled with the transition to distance learning.

In order to ensure that students with disabilities can thrive in the classroom or remotely, it is crucial that your Ministry develops a plan in consultation with the disability community, and puts real resources behind it.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Joel Harden

Official Opposition Critic for Accessibility & People with Disabilities

MPP for Ottawa Centre

Marit Stiles

Official Opposition Critic for Education

MPP for Davenport

Monique Taylor

Official Opposition Critic for Children & Youth Services

MPP for Hamilton Mountain

On Friday, August 21, 2020 at 11 AM Eastern Time, Watch “Preparing for School Re-Opening — Action Tips for Parents of Students with Disabilities” – A Virtual Town Hall Organized by the Ontario Autism Coalition and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

On Friday, August 21, 2020 at 11 AM Eastern Time, Watch “Preparing for School Re-Opening — Action Tips for Parents of Students with Disabilities” — A Virtual Town Hall Organized by the Ontario Autism Coalition and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

August 19, 2020

Like all parents, parents of a third of a million students with disabilities in Ontario are very anxious about the re-opening of schools next month. Will their children be safe? Will their disability-related needs be accommodated?

So much remains uncertain and worrisome about school re-opening during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the face of that, the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition would like to offer parents some practical action tips on how to get ready for school re-opening. We don’t have all the answers, but we want to offer what we can.

On Friday, August 21, at 11 AM Eastern time, log onto the Ontario Autism Coalition’s Youtube channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/OntarioAutismCoalition/. The link to watch this one-hour virtual town hall will appear at or just before 11 AM.

This event will feature a conversation between three speakers, all experts in advocacy for students with disabilities:

  1. Laura Kirby-McIntosh. She is a high school teacher and president of the Ontario Autism Coalition. Among her many advocacy activities, last year she sat on the Ontario Government’s panel giving advice on reforming the Ontario Autism Program.
  1. David Lepofsky. He is a retired lawyer, a part-time visiting professor at the Osgoode Hall Law School, and chair of the AODA Alliance. He is also a member and past chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Toronto District School Board. He is also a member of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, and a member of its COVID-19 subcommittee.
  1. Robert Lattanzio. He is a lawyer and executive director of the ARCH Disability Law Centre. He and ARCH have done extensive work providing legal advice and representation to students with disabilities and their families.

Thanks is extended to the ARCH Disability Law Centre, which is providing American Sign Language interpretation and real time captioning for this event. After the event is concluded, it will be permanently available for viewing on Youtube.

This is the third in a series of virtual town halls that the Ontario Autism Coalition and the AODA Alliance have provided to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis. Taken together, the first two virtual town halls have been viewed thousands of times.

Please spread the word about this event. Post this announcement on your social media feeds. Encourage as many as possible to log on to this virtual Town Hall.

For more background check out:

* The first OAC/ AODA Alliance virtual town hall, held on April 7, 2020 surveying the major issues facing people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

* The second OAC/AODA Alliance virtual town hall, held on May 4, 2020, exploring strategies for teaching students with disabilities during distance learning.

* The Ontario Autism Coalition web page, setting out its advocacy efforts for people with autism.

* The AODA Alliance’s COVID-19 web page, describing its advocacy efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

* The ARCH Disability Law Centre’s website.

If you have questions that you would like the panel to address, send them in advance to Forum@ontarioautismcoalition.com

What are the Ford Government’s Plans for Ensuring that One Third of a Million Students with Disabilities are Fully and Safely Included During School Re-Opening Next Month?

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

What are the Ford Government’s Plans for Ensuring that One Third of a Million Students with Disabilities are Fully and Safely Included During School Re-Opening Next Month?

August 17, 2020

          SUMMARY

With just two weeks left in August, what are the Ford Government’s plans to ensure that one third of a million students with disabilities will be fully and safely included in Ontario schools when they re-open next month? The Ford Government has received excellent advice on what it needs to do. We are still waiting for it to unveil a comprehensive plan of action, so that 72 school boards are not left to flounder, reinventing the wheel, with the serious risk that they may get it wrong. The Ford Government has had five months to plan for this issue.

On August 4, 2020, we asked senior Ministry of Education officials in writing for any announcements on this topic. The Government has not provided anything in response.

This issue bears on the needs of at least one out of every six students in Ontario-funded schools. The Ford Government’s recently announced plan for school re-opening allocated an additional $10 million to school boards for meeting the needs of students with special education needs. This boils down to a total of $34 for each such student. That will fund very little for each student.

Over three weeks ago, on July 24, 2020, the Ford Government received a comprehensive and excellent set of recommendations on what the Ontario Government and school boards need to do to fully and safely include students with disabilities during school re-opening. That report came from the COVID-19 subcommittee of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. The Government knew that this report was coming and had seen earlier drafts.

Moreover, in June, the Government received detailed recommendations on this important subject from the public, including the 19 recommendations in the AODA Alliance’s June 19, 2020 brief on school re-opening. The AODA Alliance ‘s brief was endorsed by several important disability community organizations and by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation. The July 24, 2020 recommendations to The Government from the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s COVID-19 Subcommittee commendably include, expand upon and add to the 19 recommendations in the AODA Alliance’s June 19, 2020 brief to The Government.

The Government knows what happens when it does not announce a timely plan of action to meet the needs of students with disabilities during this COVID-19 pandemic. Last spring, the Ford Government announced no comprehensive plan of action to ensure that the learning needs of students with disabilities were met during distance learning while schools were closed due to COVID-19.

Throughout the spring, each school board, each teacher and parent were all left struggling as they tried to figure out what to do to meet the needs of students with disabilities during distance learning. Last spring, we and many others urged the Government to announce such a plan of action and offered our help and advice.

Here are several illustrations of this issue as school re-opening rapidly approaches. As a first illustration, back on July 8, 2020, Ontario’s Education Minister Stephen Lecce commendably stated in the Ontario legislature that on the AODA Alliance’s advice, he is directing all school boards as follows regarding parents of students with disabilities:

“We’ve asked for a check-in of every parent by the school board to ensure that they’ve got the tools they will need to succeed. “

However, we have not yet seen that direction being given to school boards. We have not heard that all school boards have been following this direction in the weeks leading up to school re-opening. We set out below the relevant excerpt from the transcript of that day’s Question Period proceeding in the Legislature.

As a second illustration, we have still seen no plan of action from the Ontario Government or its public education TV network, TVO, to make the Government’s and TVO’s online educational content and teaching tools accessible for students, parents and teachers with disabilities. Over three months ago, at the May 4, 2020 online town hall on teaching students with disabilities, which was organized by the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition, we made public the fact that there are serious accessibility problems with the Ministry of Education’s online materials for teachers, parents and students during distance learning and with the distance learning resources on TVO’s website. The Ford Government had repeatedly proclaimed that TVO was its major partner during the COVID-19 pandemic for delivering online courses to students while schools were closed.

On May 21, 2020, the AODA Alliance wrote TVO’s vice president of digital content. We reiterated these concerns and called for TVO to adopt and implement a plan of action to fix this. Our letter confirmed the content of an earlier phone call between the TVO vice president and AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. Since then, we have not heard a word from TVO and have not seen any plan of action from TVO or the Ford Government to solve this. This fall, when school re-opens, Ontario’s education program will still need to deliver online education. This will be needed for students who opt not to attend school in person, for students whose in-class programs will be delivered in part through distance learning, and for all students if a second COVID-19 wave requires schools to again close.

The Ministry of Education and TVO have now had ample time to address this problem – one that should never have occurred in the first place. The Ministry’s and TVO’s duties to ensure the accessibility of their online content has existed for years. The Ford Government claims to be “leading by example” on accessibility for people with disabilities. These are illustrations of their leading by a very poor example.

As a third example, the Ford Government has not announced any concrete measures to prevent a rash of school principals sending some students with disabilities home when schools re-open, using their arbitrary power to refuse to admit some students or others to school at all. On July 23, 2020, the AODA Alliance made public its extensive and detailed report that shows that for much of Ontario, school principals are a law unto themselves when it comes to their sweeping power under section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act to refuse to admit a student or others to school. The AODA Alliance ‘s concerns about this have been covered several times in the media. For example, we set out below the excellent August 10, 2020 article on the AODA Alliance‘s report in “QP Briefing” a very influential publication about important events at Queen’s Park.

Among its many compelling July 24, 2020 recommendations, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s COVID-19 Subcommittee urged the Government to take action on this issue. That report recommends:

“11) To promote transparency, accountability and identify trends, the Ministry of Education should immediately issue a policy direction for boards to create an exclusion policy, that imposes restrictions on when and how a principal may exclude a student from school, including directions that:

  1. a) Does not impede, create barrier, or disproportionally increase burdens for students with disabilities the right to attend school for the entire day as do students without disabilities. The power to refuse to admit a student to school for all or part of the school day should not be used in a way that disproportionately burdens students with disabilities or that creates a barrier to their right to attend school.
  1. b) Tracks exclusions and provides a transparent procedure and practice to parents/guardians, by requiring a principal who refuses to admit a student to school during the school re-opening process to immediately give the student and their parent/guardian written notice of their decision to do so, including written reasons for the refusal to admit, the duration of the refusal to admit and notice of the parent/guardian’s right to appeal this refusal to admit to the school board.
  1. c) Tracks exclusions, increases accountability and informs policies by requiring a principal who refuses to admit a student to school for all or part of the school day to immediately report this in writing to their school board’s senior management, including the reasons for the exclusion, its duration and whether the student has a disability. Each school board should be required to compile this information and to report it on a regular basis to the board of trustees, the public and the Ministry of Education (with individual information totally anonymized).”

In the weeks since the AODA Alliance made public its detailed July 23, 2020 report on principals’ power to refuse to admit a student to school, the Government has issued no detailed policy direction to school boards to rein in the power to refuse to admit a student to school. no public servants from Ontario’s Ministry of Education have contacted the AODA Alliance to discuss its report or to seek any further information about our research and revelations on this important topic.

The final illustration reflects a broader difficulty with the Ford Government’s overall approach to accessibility for people with disabilities, including in Ontario’s education system. Earlier this summer, the Ford Government announced that it was spending over a half billion dollars on building new schools and expanding existing ones. Yet it announced no new measures to ensure that those new building projects will be accessible to students, parents and school staff with disabilities. Since we made this concern public, we have seen no Government announcement fixing this problem.

For more background on these issues, visit

* The AODA Alliance’s COVID-19 web page and our education accessibility web page.

* The July 24, 2020 report on meeting the needs of students with disabilities during school re-opening by the COVID-19 subcommittee of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.

* The AODA Alliance‘s July 23, 2020 report on the need to rein in the power of school principals to refuse to admit a student to school.

* The AODA Alliance’s June 19, 2020 brief to the Ford Government on how to meet the needs of students with disabilities during school re-opening.

* The widely viewed online video of the May 4, 2020 virtual Town Hall on meeting the needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis, co-organized by the Ontario Autism Coalition and the AODA Alliance.

          MORE DETAILS

Ontario Hansard July 8, 2020

 

Question Period

 

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is for the Premier. Speaker, students with disabilities and their families are wondering when this government will announce something—anything—to make sure that their learning needs are going to be supported this fall. COVID-19 has hit people with disabilities particularly hard in many ways, including the move to distanced learning. Online platforms are not always accessible for all students, and in-class resources are more difficult or even impossible to access from home.

Without new supports, Speaker, there’s a real risk that students who were already struggling before COVID and during COVID will continue to struggle this fall when schools reopen, in whatever form the government decides they can. Premier, will you release a plan to ensure that all learners, particularly those with disabilities, will be supported?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Education.

 

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. We do agree that these particular children will need continued support and heightened levels of support, given the challenges that they would have faced over the past months while being at home.

What I’ve directed school boards to do for this summer is to continue to provide a continuity of access to special education and mental health supports that normally would end at the end of school in June. We’ve asked them to continue funding those to create continuity. We’ve asked them, for September, for their IEPs and IPRCs to continue unimpeded. We’ve asked for a check-in of every parent by the school board to ensure that they’ve got the tools they will need to succeed. We’ve added additional funding in special education this year in the GSN—the highest contribution ever made. We’ve also added an additional $10 million to hire more psychologists and more psychotherapists, as well as other important social workers to assist these students.

We know that there is more to do in this respect. We’ve added additional funding in the Support for Students Fund. There’s more support specifically tailored for spec ed educators because we know they’re going to be important to the restart and to the success of these young people in September.

 

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question?

 

Mr. Joel Harden: I heard earlier the minister talking about a four-year math plan. I have a simple proposition to the government: Given this phone that the people of Ontario have given to me—they pay for it—why not a four-minute phone plan, Minister? Why not pick up the phone and call David Lepofsky from the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, which has given your government a brief to which they’ve heard no response yet about how they can help students with disabilities this fall? They’ve made appeals to this government, Speaker; their appeals have not been answered. Their brief is supported by 10 disability rights organizations and a major teachers’ union.

Speaker, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. All this government and all this minister needs to do is answer the voice mails, answer the multiple emails, answer the appeals.

In all sincerity, Speaker, after the break of question period, I’m happy to sanitize my phone, walk across the aisle, and give the minister—

 

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I overlooked it the first time, but you can’t use props during question period or in the House.

Response?

 

Hon. Stephen Lecce: You know, Speaker, I actually speak to Mr. Lepofsky quite often. I spoke to him just two weeks ago in advance of our reopening plan. I’ve spoken to the AODA Alliance, and likewise I’ve spoken to the Minister’s Advisory Council on Special Education on a biweekly basis throughout this pandemic. So you don’t need to share your phone; I am in contact with him, and I care deeply about it.

In fact, it was his opinion and his recommendation to me that there be a check-in of every student by the school boards before September. We adopted that recommendation; I thought that was prudent.

Speaker, in addition, what he has also called for is additional access to support and funding. What we’ve done is increased the GSN, the largest investment in special education, because we recognize, most especially with those families, that they face challenges. We’re going to continue to invest in them.

We’re going to continue to provide mandatory professional development for all educators in the area of mental health, and we’re going to continue to ensure that there is staffing in place to help these kids succeed in September.

QP Briefing August 10, 2020

ADVOCATES FEAR ‘RASH OF EXCLUSIONS’ OF SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS WHEN SCHOOLS REOPEN

10.08.2020 By Sneh Duggal, Queen’s Park Briefing

Disability and autism advocates are concerned that the COVID-19 pandemic could result in principals keeping more students with disabilities out of classrooms this fall and are calling on the government to create a “consistent exclusion policy” for the province.

“We’re concerned about the real risk of a rash of exclusions and part of the problem is that principals aren’t getting enough direction and support from the province for COVID for working for students with disabilities,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the AODA Alliance advocacy group. “We are worried because we know that this power has been arbitrarily used before COVID, there’s nothing about COVID that will make that risk reduce.”

The power Lepofsky said school administrators have is outlined in the Ontario Education Act, which gives principals the right “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.”

The issue, Lepofsky said, is that there isn’t one single policy across the province, with research from his group showing that while some school boards have policies around exclusions, others don’t. With increased pressure and uncertainty around the reopening of schools during a global pandemic, Lepofsky fears “some principals could well use their power to tell some of those students with disabilities to just stay home, to refuse to admit them to school.”

Laura Kirby-McIntosh, president of the Ontario Autism Coalition and a high school teacher, noted that exclusions, which she described as the removal of a student from school for an indefinite period of time, can take different forms. Kirby-McIntosh, who raised the issue of exclusions with Lepofsky at Queen’s Park in early 2019, has previously spoken of her autistic son who she said had “one meltdown” and was kept out of school for six months.

While some exclusions might be more formalized with a letter being sent to the parent, others might be less so, she said.

“It’s that phone call you get at 10 o’clock in the morning saying ‘Johnny’s got here, but he’s not coping well, can you come and pick him up?’ It’s the call you get from the principal saying, ‘you know what, we need to start Suzy on half days, I’m not sure we’ve got enough to support her for a full day, so we’re just going to bring her in for half a day, or an hour a day.’

“Those are soft exclusions and they happen all of the time, and our kids lose hundreds of hours of instructional time to soft exclusions,” she said. “It’s a very arbitrary power; where suspensions and expulsions have very strict rules around them, exclusions are still very fuzzy and very much up to the individual discretion of the principal, and therein lies the problem.”

There is particular concern within the autism community about what could happen this fall, she noted. Thousands of children with autism have been out of routine and therapy for months, meaning some might have lost certain skills, Kirby-McIntosh said.

Returning to school in the middle of a global pandemic is a “very unusual school experience,” she said, noting that people will be wearing masks and be distanced.

“It’s a very tumultuous situation and transitions for kids with autism are hard at the best of times, but the type of transition that we’re asking them to prepare for now is a really unusual one,” she said. “You could have a kid go who experiences sensory overload, is scared by the masks, has been at home for six months and is not used to being around this many people and is overwhelmed by the smells and the sounds and the sights of all of it and as a result has a meltdown and acts out.”

“My fear is that the temptation for the principal is going to be to just use exclusion and to just say, ‘Sorry, it’s a global pandemic, we can’t keep you safe so you have to go home,'” she said.

Lepofsky said while not all students with disabilities are excluded from school, anecdotal feedback from parents over the years has suggested it is “disproportionately used on those kids.”

The AODA Alliance released a report in July detailing the results of a survey to school boards about exclusion policies. Lepofsky said half didn’t respond, but the group found that just 33 of 72 boards had any sort of policy on exclusions. He said they were “wild variations” from one board to the next, with the Toronto District School Board, for example, outlining that an exclusion can last five days and then be extended, while others set no time limit.

“These are entirely arbitrary and unfair differences,” said Lepofsky. “Before COVID and even more so in light of COVID, we need the province to step up to the plate now and to issue detailed directions setting firm practices across the province on when and how a refusal to admit can take place.” Some of the requirements he outlined included setting maximum time limits for exclusions or requiring that boards have a meeting with the family before a “refusal to admit is imposed.”

The Ministry of Education and Education Minister Stephen Lecce’s office did not directly respond to questions about whether the government would be issuing any guidance on the use of exclusions, develop a provincewide set of requirements for exclusions or support tracking the use of them.

Ministry spokesperson Ingrid Anderson stated in an email that for students with high special education needs, the government is “directing school boards to facilitate full-time in-school instruction, regardless of whether a secondary school begins the instructional year using an adapted model.”

Anderson then pointed to the $309 million the government has announced to help with the reopening of schools during COVID-19, including $10 million to support special needs students and $30 million for additional staffing for smaller classes or “other safety-related measures.”

Lepofsky said special needs funding envelopes were “underfunded before,” but that his asks aren’t about money. Identifying a provincewide attendance code that schools can use to indicate an exclusion, for example, doesn’t come at a cost, he said.

Cathy Abraham, president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, said the organization is “aware of concerns about the practice of exclusions from our member school boards, as well as members of the public, and have requested that education stakeholders, including trustees, be part of any future consultation in this area.”

“The changes to suspensions, as a result of the recent passing of Bill 197, offers an opportunity for the government to consult with education partners to ensure that the term ‘exclusions’ be clearly defined. Should the government seek to consult on this, our association will be ready to provide expert advice based on feedback from trustees and senior school board staff,” Abraham said.

Ann Pace, president of the Ontario Principals’ Council (OPC), said in an email that exclusions aren’t used to discipline students, but rather “when there are serious safety concerns, such as when a student’s actions or presence is detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of other students.”

“While it is always the goal of all educators that students attend school, there are, unfortunately, some instances in which the needs of a student cannot be met due to a lack of human or financial resources,” Pace said. “When necessary, these decisions are made by a principal, but only after consulting with board officials and supervisory officers.”

She stressed that principals should be part of any conversations related to boards implementing requirements for exclusions and that consideration should be given to things like the safety and well-being of the student, their classmates, and staff, the ability of the school

to provide the needed resources and support the student and the capacity of the parent to do the same.

The OPC did say it’s open to tracking the use of exclusions.

“As long as this is not a labour-intensive process, it could be done by school principals. Indeed, it may reveal how rarely they occur,” Pace said.

As part of plans to reopen schools, one focus is on supports for students with disabilities and special needs, she added.

“School boards have implemented a transition plan for high needs students prior to the official start of the 2020-2021 school year to mitigate the issues that would create a barrier for a successful return for those students who we believe have been most impacted by a six-month withdrawal from the structure and routine of school,” said Pace. “We recognize the stress that the closure has placed on families, and we have advocated for additional supports to promote a successful transition back to school.”

An Important New Report to the Ontario Government Calls on the Government and School Boards to Take Action Now to Ensure that One Third of a Million Students with Disabilities are Able to Fully Participate in Ontario Schools as They Re-Open This Fall

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

An Important New Report to the Ontario Government Calls on the Government and School Boards to Take Action Now to Ensure that One Third of a Million Students with Disabilities are Able to Fully Participate in Ontario Schools as They Re-Open This Fall

August 14, 2020

          SUMMARY

We today share with you a very important new report that bears on the needs of a third of a million students with disabilities in Ontario-funded schools, as the COVID-19 pandemic continues. Three weeks ago, the Ford Government received a detailed report on the steps it needs to take to meet the needs of students with disabilities now and into the fall, in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. This thorough report, which we set out in full below, was written by a subcommittee of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky serves on that Standards Development Committee and was one of the members of the subcommittee that collectively developed this report. The subcommittee included representation from the disability sector and the school board community.

We are delighted that this report includes the substance of all the recommendations that the AODA Alliance put forward in its June 19, 2020 brief to the Ontario Government on how to meet the needs of students with disabilities during school re-opening. It expands and enhances on the recommendations in the AODA Alliance‘s June 19, 2020 brief to the Ontario Government. This report also goes further, adding other important recommendations.

With school re-opening fast approaching, it is important for the Ford Government to now announce a plan to implement these recommendations. Until the Ford Government does so, we call on all Ontario school boards to review this report and implement its recommendations in their plans for school re-opening.

We encourage one and all to send this report to your member of the Ontario legislature, your school board trustee, and your local media. Email Premier Doug Ford and Education Minister Stephen Lecce. Emphasize to all of them that this report needs immediate action.

The AODA Alliance has been spearheading a campaign for over a decade to tear down the barriers facing students with disabilities in Ontario’s education system. We led the multi-year campaign to get the Ontario Government to agree to create an Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act .

For more background on these issues, please visit the AODA Alliances COVID-19 web page and our education web page. Check out the widely-viewed online video of the May 4, 2020 virtual Town Hall on meeting the needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis, co-organized by the Ontario Autism Coalition and the AODA Alliance.

Stay safe, and let us know what you do to help us press for these reforms. Email us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

          MORE DETAILS

July 24, 2020 Letter to the Ontario Minister of Education and Minister for Accessibility from the Chair of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee

Date: Friday, July 24, 2020

The Honourable Stephen Lecce

Minister of Education

5th Floor, 438 University Avenue,

Toronto, Ontario M7A 2A5

The Honourable Raymond Cho
Minister for Seniors and Accessibility
5th Floor, 777 Bay Street,

Toronto, Ontario M7A 1S5

Dear Minister Lecce and Minister Cho,

Re: K-12 Education Standards Development Committee: Planning for Emergencies and Safety Small Group Report

On behalf of the members of the Planning for Emergencies and Safety small group (the small group), I am pleased to submit the small group’s advice and recommendations on emergency planning and safety for students with disabilities in K-12 education during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee (The Committee) formed the small group when the Ministry of Education was seeking feedback from the Committee on the barriers and issues identified through the COVID-19 pandemic. The small group’s mandate includes using experiential learning from the COVID-19 pandemic to:

  • identify new and reoccurring accessibility barriers to learning for students with disabilities in the context of remote learning; and
  • develop an emergency plan framework (that covers the phases of preparing, planning, response and recovery) for a systematic response to an emergency.

The small group members have put incredible effort, time and passion to complete this report that includes valuable advice and recommendations for government consideration. The report addresses the following 9 barriers for students with disabilities as a result of COVID-19:

  1. organizational, policy and procedural barriers
  2. mental health and well being
  3. academic (learning inequities for students with disabilities)
  4. support for secondary school students with disabilities
  5. transitions between in school and virtual learning
  6. accessible communication and technology
  7. training on the integration of digital technology into learning
  8. transportation
  9. recommendations addressing barriers for the Government and School Boards in emergency planning and safety

Thank you for your shared commitment to ensuring accessibility and inclusion for students with disabilities in Ontario. We have appreciated the discussions with Minister Lecce on Grants for Students Needs funding and the school board memos that address the current work being done to support students. The barriers in our report reflect what we have heard from various educational partners, families of student with disabilities and students within Ontario. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss these additional recommendations. The work and passion of the Committee continues, and we look forward to more opportunities to share our advice and feedback with you.

Together we can create an accessible and inclusive education system for students with disabilities during this unprecedented time.

Sincerely,

(Original signed by)

 

 

Lynn Ziraldo,
Chair, K-12 Education Standards Development Committee

Attachments:

  1. Small group report

July 24, 2020 Report to the Ontario Government from the Planning for Emergencies and Safety Subcommittee of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee

July 24, 2020


Introduction

The COVID-19 Pandemic has tested emergency plans for all levels of government, businesses, agencies, education systems, communities, families, and citizens in the province of Ontario. Many risks have been identified and challenges have arisen because of the pandemic and more continue to be identified as we move through the stages of the emergency. Emergency plans, response and procedures need to be reviewed to address these risks and barriers immediately and to improve responses to emergencies in the future.

As the Ministry of Education was seeking feedback on barriers and emerging issues identified during the COVID-19 Pandemic, the K-12 Standards Development Committee formed the Planning for Emergency and Safety Working Group with a focus on students with disabilities with the following mandate:

Using experiential learning from the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • Identify new and reoccurring accessibility barriers to learning for students with disabilities in the context of remote learning
  • Develop an emergency plan framework (that covers the phases of preparing, planning, response and recovery) for a systematic response to an emergency.

Methodology

The Planning for Emergencies & Safety Working Group gathered resources from experts including the Framework for Reopening Schools developed by UNICEF, SickKids recommendations to Reopening Schools, Letters to Minister Lecce from the Ontario Human Rights Commission of July 14, 2020; and various other resources and articles from educational partners within Ontario, other provinces and countries (See Resource Section). While reviewing the documents, the Working Group identified barriers and subsequently developed recommendations to address said barriers.

Organizational Challenges and Barriers during COVID-19

Through a review of resources, feedback from parents and guardians, agencies, health professionals and educational stakeholders’ opinions expressed, the Working Group found that students with disabilities have faced challenges compounded by COVID-19.  Their needs have been inconsistently addressed or not at all. These are some organizational, policy and procedural barriers identified:

  • Inconsistent or unclear messaging from varying levels of government, health agencies and school boards
  • Lack of or unable to access consistent data from all regions and school boards to support data driven decisions and implement actions quickly and effectively.
  • Policies and procedures outdated, non-existent, or inflexible to accommodate this type of emergency – COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Emergency response teams not reflecting the different subject knowledge needed to support decision making and development of a plan that reflects the needs of students with disabilities.
  • Inter-governmental, health service, service agencies and school board service agreements did not reflect the ability to provide services in a virtual learning environment
  • Service delivery models used by government, health services, service agencies and school boards not conducive to virtual service delivery.
  • The extent to which Board’s utilized or sought feedback from its SEACs in developing response or action plans to the COVID-19 pandemic varied from none to fully participated.
  • Not all school boards have an Accessibility Standards Committee or for those school boards that do have members of the community or people with disabilities who have lived experience that can help plan and implement the Public Health Guidelines to mitigate risks of COVID-19 in schools for students with disabilities
  • School board Accessibility Standards Committee can be helpful in helping to plan and implement the Public Health Guidelines to mitigate risks of COVID-19 in schools for students with disabilities. However, not all school boards have such committees, or committee membership that includes members of the community or people with disabilities who have lived experience that can inform planning and implementation.

Key Recommendations for Planning for Emergencies

It is important in planning for return to school, the opportunity is taken to review and create structures, policy and procedures that can adapt and be more flexible for a 2nd wave or future emergencies.

By learning from innovations and emergency processes, systems can adapt and scale up the more effective solutions. In doing so, they could become more effective, more agile, and more resilient” – (quoted from THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: SHOCKS TO EDUCATION AND POLICY RESPONSES, World Bank).

There are 5 known steps to Emergency Planning and Preparedness: 1) Know your risk, 2) Build your Team, 3) Make critical information accessible quickly, 4) Update alert and response procedure, 5) Test the plan and revise.

To eliminate barriers identified, that a return to school plan has input from end users, be designed through an inclusive process and not by one team or group. A team of subject expertise from across the organization is critical for developing a strong plan.

Recommendations – Government

For the above reasons, it is recommended that

  • The Ministry of Education should establish a Central Education Leadership Command Table with responsibilities for ensuring that students with disabilities have access to all accommodations and supports they require during the present COVID-19 pandemic. The responsibilities of the Command Table shall include:
    1. immediately develop a comprehensive plan to meet the urgent learning needs of students with disabilities during COVID-19 pandemic quickly and resolve issues for students with disabilities as they arise. The comprehensive plan should be shared for implementation by school boards. This plan should include and incorporate the three options for education:
  • normal school day routine with enhanced public health protocols
  • modified school day routine based on smaller class sizes, cohorting and alternative day or week delivery, and,
  • at-home learning with ongoing enhanced remote delivery
    1. collect and share data on existing and emerging issues as a result of COVID-19, the effective responses of other jurisdictions in supporting students with disabilities during the current emergency, using evidence base data collection method for people with disabilities
    2. establish a fully accessible centralized hub, and share and publicize the hub, for sharing of effective practices about supporting students with disabilities
    3. develop a rapid response team to receive feedback from school boards on recurring issues facing students with disabilities and to help find solutions to share with school boards
    4. provide clear communication and guidance on school opening, health service delivery, etc. based on data collected.
  • The government/Ministry of Education shall establish a cross sectorial Partnership Table at provincial and regional levels with the responsibility to integrate, coordinate and foster cross sector planning and response to emergencies. Responsibilities of this table are to:
    1. enhance an interlinked, coordinated and inter-ministerial approach in providing a seamless service delivery model to provide services and supports to students with disabilities (Psychology, Physical Therapy, Speech Therapy, Mental Health, etc.).
    2. collect data now, from respective sectors, health services, education, service agencies, etc. to identify existing and emerging barriers, know exactly which students with disabilities and how they are impacted, their needs, and how to better direct resources to support them
    3. provide clear communication and guidance on school opening, health service delivery, etc. based on data collected to ensure accessibility for students with disabilities.
  • The Ministry of Education provincial and regional partnership tables should include advisors that can provide insight on the needs and challenges of students with disabilities from lived experience and the collective experience of disability support groups, as well as students with disabilities.
  • The Ministry of Education should assign staff to assist the Central Educational Command Table by serving as a central rapid response team to receive feedback from school boards on recurring issues facing students with disabilities and to help find solutions to share with school boards.
  • The Ministry of Education should direct that each school board shall establish a similar Board Command table. (See recommendation 12 for School Boards).
  • The provincial government continue and enhance an interlinked, coordinated and inter-ministerial approach in providing a seamless service delivery model to provide services and supports to students with disabilities (Psychology, Physical Therapy, Speech Therapy, Mental Health, etc.).
  • The Ministry of Education should collect and aggregate International data, resources and information from other countries experiences for use in planning transitions between in-school and distance education, including continuation of virtual learning at home.
  • The Ministry of Education should developed comprehensive plans for students with disabilities that addresses the surge in demand and increase capacity to provide specialized disability supports, including enhanced staffing, for the return to in-class and distance learning (increase in in-class supports, social workers, psychologists, guidance counsellors)
  • The Ministry of Education should develop guidelines that provide for alternate or enhanced childcare opportunities to be made available to families of students with a disability, for students required to stay home due to adapted model classroom scheduling. (Excludes childcare needs that are related to quarantine self-isolation for child or family due to exposure or a local outbreak of the virus.)
  • To get the most from the volunteer work of SEACs around Ontario, the Ministry of Education should:
  1. a) Create and maintain a listserv or other virtual network of all Ontario SEACs, to enable them to share their efforts with all other SEACs around Ontario, and
  2. b) Frequently gather input from SEACs around Ontario about the experiences of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis to inform future policies and regulations and directions for school boards.
  • To promote transparency, accountability and identify trends, the Ministry of Education should immediately issue a policy direction for boards to create an exclusion policy, that imposes restrictions on when and how a principal may exclude a student from school, including directions that:
  1. a) Does not impede, create barrier, or disproportionally increase burdens for students with disabilities the right to attend school for the entire day as do students without disabilities. The power to refuse to admit a student to school for all or part of the school day should not be used in a way that disproportionately burdens students with disabilities or that creates a barrier to their right to attend school.
  2. b) Tracks exclusions and provide a transparent procedure and practice to parents/guardians, by requiring a principal who refuses to admit a student to school during the school re-opening process to immediately give the student and their parent/guardian written notice of their decision to do so, including written reasons for the refusal to admit, the duration of the refusal to admit and notice of the parent/guardian’s right to appeal this refusal to admit to the school board.
  3. c) Tracks exclusions, increases accountability and informs policies by requiring a principal who refuses to admit a student to school for all or part of the school day to immediately report this in writing to their school board’s senior management, including the reasons for the exclusion, its duration and whether the student has a disability. Each school board should be required to compile this information and to report it on a regular basis to the board of trustees, the public and the Ministry of Education (with individual information totally anonymized).
  • The Ministry of Education should provide clear guidelines and expectations to school boards on the implementation of Public Health Guidelines to mitigate risks of COVID-19 to ensure that school buildings and grounds be fully accessible for students with disabilities.

Recommendations – School Boards

  • School Boards should establish a similar Board Command/Central table as the Ministry of Education’s Central Education Command/Central Table, to receive and act on feedback from teachers, principals and families about problems they are encountering serving students with disabilities during the COVID-19 period. The Table will quickly network with similar offices/Tables at other school boards and can report recurring issues to the Ministry’s command table.
  • School Boards should utilize the expertise of the Special Education Advisory Committee members by directly involving members in the planning for the delivery of remote learning, other emergency plans, through regular meetings and frequent communications.
  • School Boards should enhance its hub of resources with successful practices, lesson plans, resources specific to students with disabilities in a virtual learning environment for ease of access and support teachers and students in their learning.
  • School Boards should involve their Accessibility Committee, or if there is no committee to establish an Accessibility Advisory Committee which will review all plans at the school board and school level for mitigating risk of COVID-19 meet the accessibility requirements of all students or people with disabilities.
  • School Boards should assign a leadership staff member responsible for ensuring that all changes at schools in response to COVID-19 maintain accessibility for all students with disabilities.

Mental Health & Well Being

As found through the review of resources, student and family mental health & wellbeing needs have soared to due to the traumatic effects of COVID-19. Students wellbeing has suffered for a variety of barriers: effects of isolation from social distancing, increased rise in domestic violence, lack of access to school breakfast programs, lack of access to mental health & therapeutic services, and negative financial impact to family’s income to name a few.

Barriers

  • Agencies, different levels of government and school boards developing plans and working on solutions to barriers with little or no coordination
  • Support for parents with students with complex needs are insufficient
  • Health services and supports not consistently or sufficiently prepared to provide health and mental health services in a virtual setting
  • There is a flood of information and resources being presented to teachers, parents and students
  • More inter-ministerial leadership and collaboration between Ministries of Education (MOE), Community, Children & Social Services (MCCSS) and Health (MOH) is required
  • School Boards and staff must be equipped with appropriate PPE for their own health and wellbeing
  • Need to safely deliver additional supports such and as breakfast & nutrition programs provided by community agencies
  • Plans for the next phase include a return to in-class and virtual instruction, including adapted models whereby some students will be scheduled at home on an alternate day or alternate week basis. Having students at home for short or long periods (alternate day to full semester) will be a significant challenge for families and may prevent the return to work for many parents. Some parents of children with disabilities face barriers to employment, and many others are overburdened with providing 24-hour care to students with complex care needs.

Recommendations – Government

  • The government should enhance the central hub of mental health & wellbeing information resources at provincial and regional levels with key messages and links to other resources. Ensure all resources are in an accessible digital format (as per Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation), well publicised and shared with school boards.
  • Ministries should review and increase capacity of Ontario Telehealth Network (OTN) and other privacy protected health platforms to allow for boards to use (even in non-emergency times) and deliver services by regulated health care professionals that protect the privacy of the health services and IPRCs.
  • Ministries of Education, Health and Children, Community & Social Services should remove any cross-jurisdictional barriers related to the provision of health and education services to ensure students with disabilities can be provided with the mental health & wellbeing services they require to be delivered remotely. (For example, under Policy/Program Memorandum (PPM) 149, Protocol for Partnerships with External Agencies for Provision of Services by Regulated Health Professionals, Regulated Social Service Professionals, and Paraprofessionals permit electric consent for services and virtual access to services for students with disabilities).
  • The Ministry of Education should provide funding and clear guidelines on use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and protocols for detection and containment of COVID-19 for boards, staff and all students, including those with disabilities. Public health authorities should establish clear protocols for the detection and containment of COVID-19 (and other infectious diseases) for school boards. The guidelines and protocols should be flexible for school boards to react to local situations to mitigate risks.
  • The Ministry of Education’s plan for school re-openings must include detailed directions on required measures to mitigate risk for students with disabilities from COVID-19 to maintain their health and wellbeing during any return to school. This requires additional planning in advance by school boards and additional funding to school boards to hire and train the additional Special Needs Assistants (SNA) and Educational Assistants (EA) they will need to ensure the safety of students with disabilities. It also requires safeguards to ensure that EAs or SNAs do not work at multiple sites and risk transmitting the COVID-19 virus from one location to another.
  • Ministries should review policies and regulations to continue to permit the virtual provision of therapy supports and services that have transitioned successfully to a virtual learning environment and where possible, permit and foster increased access to therapies and services to areas in province where a lack of services exists.

Recommendations – School Boards

  • Many students with disabilities volunteer at school events, in school daycares, kindergarten classes as part of their learning plan, IEP or fulfilling the 40 hours volunteer requirement. School Boards should develop/review guidelines for students with disabilities who volunteer in school to limits risk to health and safety but does not stop this valuable learning experience for students with disabilities.
  • Many adults with disabilities volunteer in schools and school daycares for the opportunity to exist as a valued contributing member within their community. School Boards should develop guidelines for people with disabilities who volunteer within the school that limits risk to the health and safety but continues to have the opportunity to be a contributing member of the school community.
  • School Board should provide virtual learning opportunities for volunteering and co-op courses for students with disabilities. Resources and guidelines should be developed to create the opportunity for the student to complete volunteering hours or cooperative credits successfully.
  • School Boards should develop and/or review guidelines for transitions plans for students with disabilities to outline supports and accommodations that may be offered in a virtual learning environment or enhanced by online tools and resources to support the physical and emotions wellbeing of student with disabilities when transitioning back to school. Accommodations or strategies should be reviewed and adapted to the virtual learning environment to support transitions. (An example would be for students with disabilities have access to audio described (DV) and closed-captioned (CC) virtual tours of the school facilities, so students could familiarize themselves with the school prior to the start of school. (See also Transition section).
  • In consultation with community agencies, School Boards should develop/revise procedures and protocols for volunteers and community agencies that support the health and wellbeing of students with disabilities continue to operate in the school (Example, Food nutrition programs, clothing exchanges, etc.)
  • In consultation with Public Health Regional Health, School Boards must develop clear protocols and procedures with accommodations for students with disabilities for the detection, isolation, tracing and follow up those students who develop symptoms for the virus, flu, respiratory infection, etc. For example: Ensure dedicated space to isolate students with disabilities who may need to return home is accessible and provides the accommodations required to meets the needs of any students with disabilities.

Academic

The pandemic has had profound impacts to student’s learning and staff’s ability to provide a learning environment that promotes student success and achievement. Learning inequities for students with disabilities have increased throughout the pandemic due to barriers faced. Some of the barriers identified were:

Barriers

  • Ongoing accessibility issues with online and virtual learning resources provided for learning at home
  • Wealth of resources, tools, etc. being developed by Boards, Agencies and Associations with limited sharing of resources. Resources developed may not be accessible.
  • Virtual learning is not working for many students with disabilities
  • Many students with disabilities were not effectively engaged in virtual learning for a variety of reasons, including accessibility challenges with the internet, computer software and hardware, nature of resources provided, individual challenges related to format, capacity of family, or behaviour.
  • Closure of schools for 3 months has resulted in significant loss of learning for many students
  • Special Education Advisory Committees meetings have been cancelled and some the skills and knowledge of SEAC members has not been fully utilized.
  • Teachers, students and parents were not prepared for the sudden transition from in-class instruction to the virtual learning environment and planning for future interruptions of schools would benefit from proactive planning for education in a virtual instruction and learning environment.

Recommendations – Government

  • The Ministry of Education should develop curriculum for students from Kindergarten to Grade 12 to enable students to develop the skills and knowledge they need for learning in a virtual learning environment. In the interim, the Ministry should share existing, accessible resources on this topic to teachers and School Boards (Please see Training for additional recommendations)
  • The Ministry of Education should collect and make readily available resources/information on practices, effective strategies in learning environment, and alternate approaches for students struggling with online learning, etc. from School Boards, agencies and disability specific associations.
  • Ministry of Education should provide clear expectations for teacher led instruction, synchronous learning, and weekly teacher student-teacher connections for students who are participating in virtual instruction and learning. Expectations should include monitoring if students with disabilities are fully participating, learning and benefiting from these activities; and if not, action to address barriers or issues identified.

Recommendations – School Board

  • School Boards should assess and document accommodations, modifications, resources and supports for all students with disabilities to plan for transition back to school and continuation of virtual instruction and learning. (Please see Transitions Recommendations for details)
  • School Boards should develop and provide all resources for instruction and assessment materials, homework assignments in an accessible digital format (See Communications & Technology section for recommendation on accessible digital format).

Secondary School

The secondary school experience is different from elementary school. It is where students develop, time management, organizational, advocacy skills, networking and social skills, become more aware of community and identify career paths. It is for this reason, the Working Group felt it was important to identify barriers and make recommendations specific to secondary students. Many of these recommendations can benefit the entire secondary school student population.

Barriers

  • Students with disabilities have experienced little to no personal contact with their school community social network supports (classroom teachers, Educational Assistants, custodians, administrative assistants, etc.), who rely on this contact to maintain their engagement within the school community and preserve their mental health.
  • At any time, students with disabilities have very limited opportunity to fulfill the 40 hours of volunteering required for graduation and rely heavily on volunteering at their high school or local elementary school events. All opportunities for volunteering were eliminated during the pandemic.
  • Many students with disabilities take optional specialized courses such as Specialized High School Major (SHSM), cooperative credits, etc. which provide hands on and participation within the community. Hands on learning, skills in applicable to trades and life skills were significantly diminished during COVID-19.
  • Clubs, councils, sports teams and extracurricular activities are a formative and important part of the high school experience. Often these extracurricular activities are the only opportunity students with disabilities has to socialize with their peers. Not having access to extracurricular activities has impacted their mental health and well-being.
  • Many students with disabilities rely on in class instruction be it due to learning disability, anxiety, learning style, ADHD, or simply due to preference in the way they individually learn, among others. The loss of in-class instruction has significantly impacted their learning and future for success.
  • Learning at home during school closure has been challenging for students in terms of academic achievement, mental health and wellbeing
  • All four years of high school are an integral part of a young person’s development and a multitude of students require and rely on in class instruction be it for specialized courses That require specialized equipment, trained staff;
  • The experience of four years of high school are incredibly formative of a young person’s social, emotional, mental and physical relationship with society, the world around them and indeed the values they will build their life around;
  • Return to school planning must consider the impacts on minority & racialized students, students in abusive households, students with limited access to technology or broadband, students with disabilities and students with other complex learning needs;
  • Many students rely on in class instruction be it due to learning disability, anxiety, learning style, ADHD, or simply due to preference in the way they individually learn, among others;

Recommendations – Ministry

  • The Ministry of Education should allow high school in-class instruction to operate for the 2020-2021 school year, if authorized by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health.
  • The Minister should direct School Boards to continue courses which require specialized forms of equipment, classrooms, teaching staff and/or resources (science labs, shops, media classrooms) continue to operate, in accordance with local public health advice.
  • As per the Canadian Mental Health Association, 70% of mental health challenges have their onset in childhood or youth and the Kids Help Phone Line has seen a increase in demand, The Ministries of Education and Health should increase capacity of mental health professionals and supports for School Boards, to ensure there is no waitlist for any secondary student requiring support.
  • The Ministry of Education should include student voice through student trustees’ association or other student leaders, when developing a plan for return to school.
  • The Ministry of Education should waive the compulsory credit in Health & Physical Education for students who have entered secondary school in the 2020-21 school or whose timetable will be negatively impacted, should Physical Education classes not operate in the conventional manner.
  • If required by Public Health, the Ministry of Education should fund PPE for students and staff to mitigate risks of infection.
  • The Ministry should direct School Boards to develop a prioritization and execution plan for conducting clinical assessments (e.g., psycho–educational assessments) that students with disabilities require in order to access necessary supports and services as they transition from secondary to post-secondary destinations.

Recommendations – School Board

  • School Boards and Schools should include student voice, including students with disabilities in developing the Board return to school plan, as well as, individual school return plans respectively.
  • School Boards and Schools should provide clear instruction on proper personal protection equipment (PPE) and safety measures to students, parents, and staff.
  • School Boards should follow or mirror Public Health protocols prescribed by the local Public Health. If PPE is not required by the local Public Health, student have the choice to wear PPE. If PPE is required, that school boards are funded appropriately to provide PPE for all students and staff.
  • Where local public health advice can be adhered to, Schools should continue to offer extracurricular activities such as clubs, councils, teams using proper social distancing and general safety protocols.
  • Where applicable, School Boards should waive parking fees for students to reduce financial burdens and help mitigate health risks for students by not riding on a crowded public transit bus.
  • School Boards should make decisions pertaining to cancellation of extracurricular activities in school mirror that of activities outside of school. (Example: If soccer clubs operate locally, then soccer clubs in schools should continue to operate).
  • School Boards should develop and offer online programming for students who cannot or wish not to attend school in person, but not be considered a long-term alternative to in class instruction.
  • School Boards and schools seek out the voice of students, including voices of students with disabilities, when they develop return to school plan options.
  • School Board should develop guidelines for clubs or programs that supplement or enhance education for students with disabilities so they can continue to operate upon return to school.
  • School Boards should continue to offer where possible, alternate classrooms, quiet workspaces, and other special education requirements prescribed in a student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP).
  • School Boards should research and investigate potential online coop placements that may be available for all students; including students with disabilities.
  • When permitted under local health advice, the School Board should review new health and safety protocols with student and the coop placement provider.

Transitions

An impact of the pandemic for students with disabilities is that learning has been lost or stagnant. Learning recovery will be important when returning to school. This will mean targeted measures to reversing learning loss or closing gaps. There will be a need for clear system wide guidance for in-class and central assessments to inform and plan for curriculum delivery, supports and service upon return to school.

Transition planning will occur at the provincial, local and student level. The Ministry of Education will need to identify barriers and gaps from all educational stakeholders to develop an informed return to school plan. School boards will need identify barriers and gaps at a system and individual student level to create an informed back to school plan as well as address the needs for students with disabilities.

The Individual Education Plan (IEP) is a tool for documenting student strengths and needs and the accommodations, programs and services they require to be successful. IEPs are a valuable tool in documenting the student’s current level of achievement and transition plans for planned changes in grades, schools, and life after secondary school. The IEP can also be used to plan for return to school, full time or in an adapted model, or for continued virtual learning.

Barriers

  • During the school closure gaps in student skills and knowledge related to on-line and distance learning has been evident
  • Planning for school year 2020-2021 will include in school and distance learning
  • School staff will need to assess student’s with disabilities to determine their accessibility and learning needs
  • Students with disabilities individual IEPs and transitions plans need to be reviewed to address barriers and gaps to allow for student success.
  • Student voice often forgotten in the planning process
  • Students and prospective students cannot visit the physical environments of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic and do not have the opportunity to check for physical accessibility and familiarize themselves with environment

Recommendations – Government

  • The Ministry of Education should direct School Boards to develop a prioritization and execution plan for conducting clinical assessments (e.g., psycho–educational assessments) that students with disabilities require, in order to access necessary supports and services as they transition from secondary to post-secondary destinations.
  • The Ministry of Education, in partnership with MCCSS should work with school boards to identify their cohorts of students with intellectual and other disabilities who completed their school careers in June 2020 and identify and assess if barriers faced during COVID-19 did not allow for successful student transitions to their chosen pathway (Examples: to work, volunteer work, recreation/leisure programs, and post-secondary education) as outlined in their transition plans. Jointly, the Ministries and School Boards should develop plans to help this cohort of students with disabilities achieve their individual transition goals.

Recommendations – School Boards

  • School Boards should be independently collecting board wide data on gaps, barriers, emerging issues, transition challenges, technology challenges, additional students’ needs and supports arising or as a result of COVID-19 through assessment, student and parent feedback to address and plan for system wide supports and services required by students with disabilities upon return to school.
  • To help with successful transitions for student with disabilities in returning to school, School Boards shall contact parent/guardians, as soon as possible, to discuss and identify learning gaps, individual needs arising from school shutdown and distance learning, transition challenges, social and emotional needs to inform and revise/or create individualized transition plans for students with disabilities.
  • To help reduce stress and anxiety and prepare themselves for return to school, students with disabilities should be involved with discussions and decision made in developing their Transition Plan.
  • School Boards and Administrators shall ensure Individual Education Plans for students with disabilities are revised/created to reflect specific goals and activities to address the individual needs identified in Recommendation #3 to help increase academic and transition success for each student with a disability upon returning to school.
  • School Boards shall include the student when developing their individualized Transition and IEP. All
  • When School Boards develop the Individualized Transition Plans for each student, it should be:
    1. flexible to accommodate the stop and start of in class learning. All methods of instruction should be considered for learning to ensure students have access to an education (virtual instruction, in home instruction, etc.)
    2. include a flexible and hybrid model for entry needs to accommodate the varying student needs. Any model developed for return to school shall be developed in consultation with parent/guardians and student
    3. include strategies for students around social/physical distancing. Social distancing guidelines should be developed in consultation with parents/guardians and student.
    4. Include steps for follow up and checking in with the student
    5. All documentation or information be provided to the parent/guardian and student before the meeting with enough time to review. Documents should be provided in an accessible format.
  • School Boards should take more interactive approaches to collect on-going feedback from parents, students and staff (i.e. “Thought exchange”) to guide and inform changes to policies and procedures impacted by COVID-19.
  • School Boards should develop a clear system wide plan to address increased classroom and school supports and services (Educational Assistants, Education Works, social workers, psychologists, guidance councillors) identified through assessments to help mitigate issues and support learning for students with disabilities.
  • School Boards should create audio described (DV) and closed-captioned (CC) virtual tours of their school. The virtual tour must be fully accessible and thoroughly provide information on accessibility and locations at the schools. Virtual tours should be made permanently available; not just during the pandemic.

Communications & Technology

For our purpose, communication includes technologies, systems, protocols and procedures that enable an organization to effectively communicate to its employees, partners and community. During an emergency, communication is essential and should ensure all relevant personnel can quickly and effectively communicate with each other during such crises, sharing information that will allow the organization to quickly rectify the situation, protect employees and assets, and allows the business to continue.

To relate this to Education – government, school boards, agencies, staff, students, parent/caregivers, should have the ability to communicate effectively during a crisis, while the business of providing learning continues.

Barriers

  • Ongoing accessibility issues with virtual learning environment or platform (Examples: no closed captions, compatibility issues with screen readers, lack of support or knowledge of accessibility features, no ASL interpretation)
  • Ongoing accessibility issue with information and resources provided
  • Conflicting guidelines provided by different ministries and level of government.

Recommendations – Government

  • That a designated communication lead should be assigned at the provincial and regional level for consistent messaging.
  • For efficiency and elimination of duplication of effort for School Boards, The Ministry of Education should immediately engage an arms-length digital accessibility consultant to evaluate the comparative accessibility of different digital learning and virtual learning environments or platforms available for use in Ontario schools. This should involve end-user testing. The Ministry should immediately send the resulting report and comparison to all school boards and make it public. This should be revisited as the fall approaches, in case there have been changes to the relative accessibility of different virtual instruction environments or platforms.
  • The Ministry of Education should provide a list of acceptable accessible, cross platform virtual learning environments and synchronous teaching systems to be used by school boards.
  • The Ministry of Education should make public a plan of action to swiftly make its own online learning content accessible for people with disabilities, setting out milestones and timelines, and should report to the public on its progress.
  • The Ministry of Education should immediately direct TVO/TFO to make its online learning content accessible to people with disabilities, and to promptly make public a plan of action to achieve this goal, with specific milestones and timelines. The implementation of this recommendation has become urgent since Royal Assent was given to Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 as amends to the Ontario Educational Communications Authority Act broaden the mandates of both TVO and TFO to position them to provide centralized support for online learning in the English-language and French-language publicly-funded education systems, respectively.
  • The Ministry of Education should direct its entire staff and all School Boards that whenever making information public in a Portable Document Format (PDF), it must at the same time, make available a textual format such as an accessible Microsoft Word (MSWord) or accessible HTML document. Videos must be audio described (DV) and closed captioned (CC). Templates and technical guides should be developed and provided to school boards.

Recommendations – School Boards

  • For consistent messaging, that the School board should designate a communication lead for COVID-19 related issues.
  • School Boards should develop protocols and procedures to mitigate security risks for online and virtual learning platforms to help protect privacy of students with disabilities and staff. Online and virtual learning platforms should also be accessible for all students with disabilities.
  • That School Boards should provide clear communication around protocols and return to school plans. Boards should make written communications readily available and accessible by everyone in the community, parents and students.
  • School Boards should review and revise instructional videos for parents around virtual learning tools used in the school board. Videos must be clear and accessible.
  • School Boards should provide solely dedicated or designated staff, who are available to support technology including accessibility needs to parents who are supporting the learning needs of students with disabilities at home.

Training

The COVID-19 Pandemic has changed the way in which education is delivered. Students, parents/guardians, teachers, staff, school boards and government had to change the way they access, support or deliver education. The pandemic highlighted gaps in digital skills, adaptation of technology to teaching and learning. It has also increased demand for technology and the need to integrate technology effectively into teaching and learning. With this increased demand in the use of technology and the gaps in digital skills identified, it is imperative to train students, parent/guardians and staff in the use and integration of technology in teaching and learning.

Barriers

  • Teachers, students and parent/guardians unprepared for learning at home and use of virtual platforms such as google classroom, Microsoft teams, Zoom for individual and synchronous learning
  • Teachers, ECEs, Staff need training in virtual online learning platforms
  • Teachers, ECEs, Staff need training in strategies to support students with disabilities around transitions between education models, including preparation for changing environments and self regulation
  • Teachers, ECEs lack training in strategies to support Public Health directed precautions, such as social distancing, sanitizing procedures and use of PPE when required to support students
  • School closures have had a significant impact on the mental health and well being of students with disabilities and teachers, ECEs, staff will require training on child development and trauma informed practice to assist them in supporting students in transitioning back to school or continuation of virtual education.
  • The expectation on parent/guardians to support students with learning at home were significant and parents need supports and training in virtual learning software and how they can effectively support their child’s learning.

Recommendations – Government

  • That Ministry of Education should model leadership to School Boards and provide accessible virtual learning webinars, templates for learning, etc. to be utilized in training administrators and teachers.
  • The Ministry of Education should direct School Boards to provide all staff training in child development, mental health and wellbeing to support the wellbeing and learning of students with disabilities.
  • The Government should provide direction to School Boards and Public Service agencies to develop a coordinated training delivery model to support parents of students with rehabilitation needs, mental health concerns or who have complex or significant medically needs, with the delivery of virtual care, including privacy protected health platforms such as OTN, ADcare.

Recommendations – School Boards

  • School Boards should provide focused, practical training for administrators and teachers to support students with disabilities’ health, wellbeing and learning in a mixed or virtual environment.
  • School Boards should provide administrators training and guidelines on supporting students with disabilities through transitioning and change.
  • School Boards should develop parent training modules and resources to enable parent/guardians to develop the skills and knowledge required to support online and virtual learning at home for students with disabilities.
  • School Boards should provide training for teachers and staff on specific tips and solutions, successful and evidence based promising practices by disability to support teachers and students with disabilities learning. These should be made available as soon as possible or at the latest, during the first days of PD before school instruction begins.

Transportation

School Bus operation and delivery of bus services is regulated and governed both federally and provincially. Transport Canada has consulted with the Public Health Agency of Canada to provide guidelines around bus operations during the pandemic. The National Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT) has also provided general guidelines for the provision of student (pupil) transportation services.

The Ministry of Education’s Return to School Framework directs School Boards to follow these federal guidelines.

To accommodate Federal Transportation and Public health guideline that require social and physical distancing, School Boards will have to revise transportation services delivery that will impact bus routes, increase the number of buses and drivers required, increase ridership time, etc. to mitigate risks to students with disabilities while transporting to and from school.

Barriers

  • Lack of or reduced public transportation available for students with disabilities, particularly for secondary students who take public transit. Municipal governments eliminated routes or reduced schedules during COVID-19. Municipalities have not made public transportation plans for when students return to school.
  • As School Boards and Consortiums plan transportation services to meet the Transport Canada guidelines, current challenges of inadequate buses, shortage of drivers and increasing fuel costs will be a barrier to boards.
  • Changes to routine can have a significant impact to a student with disabilities’ mental health, success for the start of school day and learning. Predictable changes to transportation for students with disabilities can include, increased ridership time, bus route, bus type (72-passenger, small bus), supports or accommodations required for a successful ride, etc. while maintaining safety and mitigating risks for infection.
  • Many School Boards currently overspend the transportation grant, while still achieving a high efficiency rating from the Ministry of Education. The additional requirements defined under the Transport Canada Guidelines will increase cost pressures to provide transportation services to students with disabilities while maintaining safety and mitigating risk of infection.
  • As students with disabilities require may require specific transportation accommodations such as a safety harness, seat belt, wheelchair accessible which cannot be accommodated in all vehicle types.

Recommendations – School Boards

  • As many School Boards overspend its transportation grant while maintaining a high efficiency rating, the Ministry of Education should provide school boards with additional COVID-19 specific funding to follow the guidelines as provided by Transport Canada around:
    • Measures to mitigate risk of exposure
    • Procedures to be taken before a trip, during a trip and at the end of the trip
    • PPE guidelines
    • Physical Distancing
    • Shield and Enclosure system guidelines (if bus operators choose to do so)
  • School Boards should review transportation accommodations and requirements, in consultation with parents and student, IEPs of students with disabilities who require transportation services to identify any change/modifications to accommodations required. The student’s IEP shall be modified to reflect additional requirements to transport the student safely on the bus. The review for medically fragile students should include professionals, such as nurses, occupational therapists, as well as parents. All transportation requirements shall be relayed to the Bus Consortia and administrator of the school for implementation.
  • School Boards must create/revise a protocol for the safe gathering of all students and parent/guardians at bus stops and safety on the bus. It is important that student with disabilities be included and familiarized with these protocols with their peers.
  • School Boards and Bus Consortia should provide bus drivers with training on new health and safety protocols for students with disabilities on a regular bus, small bus and wheelchair accessible bus.
  • Bus Consortia should minimize changes to routes, vehicle type, and schedules for students with disabilities while developing changes to routes, to limit increased anxiety or behaviours as a result of the changes. When changes are considered, parents and student should be consulted about changes.
  • School Boards and Bus Consortia should review procedures and protocols for persons responsible for putting a student with disability’s harness on/off or supporting a student on the school bus to mitigate health risks for the student, bus driver and support person.
  • School Boards and Bus Consortia should revise/develop, implement and disseminate bus safety protocol Information for parents needs to help mitigate health and safety risks and assuage parent’s fears. This includes protocols around harnesses. All communications should be clear and made readily available on the Board and Bus Consortia website in an accessible digital format.
  • Students with disabilities should be included in any training that is provide for all students on enhanced safety rules on the bus.
  • As students with disabilities are statistically proven to be at a higher risk of infection, School Boards and Bus Consortia should implement enhanced student bus ridership attendance procedures to aid in tracing of COVID-19 and mitigating health risks.
  • Traffic volume, student and road safety is always a concern around schools. It is expected for vehicle traffic to increase when school returns, as parent/caregiver or a secondary student chooses to drive to school. School Boards should work collaboratively with Municipalities to develop safe arrival and departure awareness campaigns for students, parents/caregivers and buses. These campaigns could include guidelines for kiss & ride, audio described (DV) and closed captioned (CC) virtual or diagrams of vehicle traffic flows for entering and exiting school property from the street, identifying school bus only access areas, promote other methods of transportation, etc.

Conclusion

The Planning for Emergencies are please to provide its draft recommendations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Working Group will continue to review resources and information on barriers and issues arising from COVID-19 and as students return to school. It will start work on its mandate to develop an emergency plan framework focused on students with disabilities (that covers the phases of preparing, planning, response and recovery) for a systematic response to an emergency.

Thank you to all the members of the Planning for Emergencies Working Group for their dedication in developing this draft set of recommendations. Working Group members are:

  • Donna Edwards (Chair – Working Group)
  • Stephan Andrews
  • David Lepofsky
  • Dr. Ashleigh Malloy
  • Alison Morse
  • Rana Nasrazadani
  • Ben Smith
  • Angelo Tocco
  • Dr. Lindy Zaretsky
  • Lynn Ziraldo (Chair K-12 SDC)

Glossary

Accessibility: a general term for the degree of ease that something (e.g., device, service, physical environment and information) can be accessed, used and enjoyed by persons with disabilities. The term implies conscious planning, design and/or effort to make sure something is barrier-free to persons with disabilities. Accessibility also benefits the general population, by making things more usable and practical for everyone, including older people and families with small children.

Accessible: does not have obstacles for people with disabilities – something that can be easily reached or obtained; facility that can be easily entered; information that is easy to access.

Accessible digital format: Information that is provided in digital form that is accessible such as HTML and MS Word.

Synchronous learning: is the kind of learning that happens in real time. This means that you, your classmates, and your instructor interact in a specific virtual place, through a specific online medium, at a specific time. In other words, it’s not exactly anywhere, anyhow, anytime. Methods of synchronous online learning include video conferencing, teleconferencing, live chatting, and live-streaming lectures.

Asynchronous learning: happens on your schedule. While your course of study, instructor or degree program will provide materials for reading, lectures for viewing, assignments for completing, and exams for evaluation, you have the ability to access and satisfy these requirements within a flexible time frame. Methods of asynchronous online learning include self-guided lesson modules, streaming video content, virtual libraries, posted lecture notes, and exchanges across discussion boards or social media platforms.

Distance Education Program: Programs to provide courses of study online, through correspondence, or by other means that do not require the physical attendance by the student at a school. (From Bill 197)

Special Education Services – As defined in the Education Act, “facilities and resources, including support personnel and equipment, necessary for developing and implementing a special education program”.

Virtual learning: is defined as learning that can functionally and effectively occur in the absence of traditional classroom environments (Simonson & Schlosser, 2006).

Virtual education: refers to instruction in a learning environment where teacher and student are separated by time or space, or both, and the teacher provides course content through course management applications, multimedia resources, the Internet, videoconferencing, etc. Students receive the content and communicate with the teacher via the same technologies.

Virtual learning environment: refers to a system that offers educators digitally-based solutions aimed at creating interactive, active learning environments. VLEs can help educators create, store and disseminate content, plan courses and lessons and foster communication between student and educator. Virtual learning environments are often part of an education institution’s wider learning management system (LMS).

Virtual instruction: is a method of teaching that is taught either entirely online or when elements of face-to-face courses are taught online through learning management systems and other educational tools and platforms. Virtual instruction also includes digitally transmitting course materials to student.

Resources

Mental Health

Public Health Guidance and Safety

 

Tools/Best Practices

Stakeholder Reports and Information

Additional Reading

Ford Government to Spend Over a Half Billion Dollars on New Schools and Major School Additions, Without Announcing Effective Measures to Ensure that These Schools Will be Fully Accessible to Students, Parents and School Staff with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Ford Government to Spend Over a Half Billion Dollars on New Schools and Major School Additions, Without Announcing Effective Measures to Ensure that These Schools Will be Fully Accessible to Students, Parents and School Staff with Disabilities

July 30, 2020

          SUMMARY

Last week, the Ford Government announced that it is investing over half a billion dollars into building new schools and expanding existing ones, without announcing any effective measures to ensure that those schools will be designed to be accessible to students, parents, teachers, or other school staff with disabilities. Public money should never be used to create new barriers against people with disabilities. If new barriers are created, it costs much more to later renovate to remove them.

For years, Ontario’s Ministry of Education has largely left it to each school board to decide what, if anything, to include in the design of a new school building to ensure it is disability-accessible. Each school board is left to decide on its own whether it will include anything in the building’s design for accessibility, beyond the inadequate accessibility requirements in the Ontario Building Code, in standards enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and under a patchwork of local municipal bylaws. The Ontario Government does not have a standard or model design for a new school or for an addition to a school, to ensure its accessibility to students, parents and school staff with disabilities.

On July 23, 2020, the Ford Government announced a major plan to build 30 new schools and to construct additions to another 15 schools, to provide both learning venues and more day care locations for students across Ontario (announcement set out below). The Ford Government has not announced any requirement that this new construction must be disability-accessible. It is wasteful, duplicative and counter-productive for the Ontario Government to leave it to 72 school boards to each re-invent the wheel when it comes to the design of a school building to ensure that it is accessible. Moreover, school boards are not assured to have the requisite expertise in accessible building design. Making this worse, too often architects are not properly trained in accessible design.

This is not a situation where each school board is best situated to assess the unique local needs of its community. A student, parent or school staff member with a disability has the very same accessibility needs, when it comes to getting into and around a school building, whether that school is in Kenora or Cornwall.

It has been well established for years that compliance with the insufficient accessibility requirements in the Ontario Building Code, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act accessibility standards and local municipal bylaws do not ensure that a new building is in fact accessible and barrier-free for people with disabilities. To the contrary, the AODA Alliance has shown how new buildings and major renovations in major public projects can end up having serious accessibility problems. This is illustrated in three online videos, produced by the AODA Alliance, that have gotten thousands of views and extensive media coverage. Those videos focus on:

* the new Ryerson University Student Learning Centre;

* the new Centennial College Culinary Arts Centre and

* several new and recently renovated Toronto area public transit stations.

Over a year and a half ago, the third Government-appointed Independent Review of the implementation of the AODA, conducted by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley, found that progress in Ontario on accessibility has proceeded at a “glacial” pace. Among other things, it recommended that the Ontario Government should treat as a major priority the recurring barriers facing people with disabilities in the built environment. The Onley Report emphasized as an illustration the AODA Alliance’s video depicting serious accessibility problems at Ryerson’s new Student Learning Centre.

Strong, effective and enforceable provincial accessibility standards for the built environment are long overdue. Yet the Government has announced no plans to develop and enact a Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the AODA. Beyond this, for over two and a half years, the Ontario Government has been in direct violation of the AODA. This is because the Government has still not appointed a mandatory Standards Development Committee to review the palpably inadequate “Design of Public Spaces” Accessibility Standard, enacted under the AODA in December 2012. Under section 9(9) of the AODA, the Ontario Government was required to appoint a mandatory Standards Development Committee to review that accessibility standard by December 2017. The former Kathleen Wynne Government is on the hook for failing to appoint that Standards Development Committee for the seven months from December 2017 up to the Wynne Government being defeated in the June 2018 provincial election. The Ford Government is on the hook for violating the AODA for the subsequent two years, from the time it took office up to today.

The Ford Government should now direct all school boards receiving any of the public money that the Government announced on July 23, 2020 that all those new projects must be fully accessible. This must go further than simply meeting the inadequate accessibility requirements in the Ontario Building Code, in AODA accessibility standards enacted to date, and in local bylaws. The Ford Government should set specific accessibility requirements that must be met. A good template for this is set out in the AODA Alliance’s draft Framework for the Post-Secondary Education Accessibility Standard.

There have now been 546 days, or over a full year and a half, since the Ford Government received the ground-breaking final report of the Independent Review of the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by former Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Government has not announced any comprehensive plan of new action to implement that report. That makes even worse the serious problems facing Ontarians with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

For more background, check out:

* The AODA Alliance website’s Built Environment page, that documents our efforts to get the Ontario Government to enact strong accessibility standards for the built environment.

* The AODA Alliance website’s Education page, documenting the AODA Alliance’s efforts to tear down the many barriers in Ontario’s education system facing students with disabilities.

          MORE DETAILS

 July 23, 2020 Ontario Government News Release

Originally posted at https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2020/07/ontario-building-and-expanding-schools-across-the-province-1.html

Ontario Newsroom

News Release

Ontario Building and Expanding Schools across the Province

July 23, 2020

Modern Facilities Will Strengthen Student Learning and Increase Access to Child Care

BRAMPTON — The Ontario government is investing over $500 million to build 30 new schools and make permanent additions to 15 existing facilities, supporting over 25,000 student spaces across the province. These new, modern schools will create the foundation for a 21st century learning environment for thousands of students across the province. This investment will also generate nearly 900 new licensed child care spaces to ensure families across the province are able to access child care in their communities.

Details were provided today by Premier Doug Ford and Stephen Lecce, Minister of Education.

“Our government is making a significant capital investment in our school system,” said Premier Ford. “By making these smart investments today, we will ensure our students and teachers have access to modern facilities to learn with features like high-speed Internet, accessible ramps and elevators, and air conditioning, while providing parents with access to more licensed child care spaces.”

The government is investing over $12 billion in capital grants over 10 years, including over $500 million invested in this year alone to build critical new school capital projects and permanent additions. Today’s announcement continues to build upon the government’s commitment to invest up to $1 billion over five years to create up to 30,000 licensed child care spaces in schools, including 10,000 spaces in new schools. These new projects will also result in the creation of new jobs in the skilled trades as over $500 million of major infrastructure projects break ground in short order.

“It is unacceptable that too many schools in our province continue to lack the investment that our students deserve,” said Minister Lecce. “That is why this government is making a significant investment to build new schools, to extensively renovate existing schools, and expand access to licensed child care spaces in our province. Our government is modernizing our schools, our curriculum, and the delivery of learning, to ensure students are set up to succeed in an increasingly changing world.”

QUICK FACTS

list of 4 items

  • The Ministry of Education reviews all Capital Priorities submissions for eligibility and merit prior to announcing successful projects.
  • The Ministry is working in partnership with school boards to deliver high-speed Internet to all schools in Ontario, with all high schools having access to broadband by September 2020, and all elementary schools having access by September 2021. As of March 31, 2020, broadband modernization has been completed at 1,983 schools, including 403 Northern schools. Installation is currently in progress at 2,954 schools, including 99 northern schools.
  • The Ministry is investing $1.4 billion in renewal funding, which continues to meet the recommended funding level by the Auditor General of Ontario to preserve the condition of Ontario’s school facilities.
  • To find out more about projects in your community, visit the Ontario Builds map.

list end

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

list of 1 items

  • Learn more about Ontario’s commitment to modernizing schools and child care spaces.

list end

CONTACTS

Ivana Yelich

Premier’s Office

Ivana.Yelich@ontario.ca

Alexandra Adamo

Minister Lecce’s Office

Alexandra.Adamo@ontario.ca

Ingrid Anderson

Communications Branch

437 225-0321

Ingrid.E.Anderson@ontario.ca

Office of the Premier

http://www.ontario.ca/premier

An Interim Victory for Disability Advocates — Toronto City Council Directs City Staff to Investigate Dangers to People with Disabilities If Electric Scooters are Allowed

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

An Interim Victory for Disability Advocates — Toronto City Council Directs City Staff to Investigate Dangers to People with Disabilities If Electric Scooters are Allowed

July 29, 2020

          SUMMARY

Yesterday disability advocates won an important interim victory in Toronto, Canada’s largest city, in the campaign to protect the public, including people with disabilities, from the proven dangers to public safety and disability accessibility that are posed by electric scooters (e-scooters).

At the July 28, 2020 meeting of Toronto City Council, the issue of e-scooters came up on the agenda. A City Staff Report had identified serious problems that e-scooters pose. Despite this, the Staff Report recommended that the City take some preliminary and preparatory steps towards running a pilot with e-scooters next year. However, yesterday Toronto City Council voted instead to direct staff to do more research on the disability accessibility concerns that have been raised regarding e-scooters.

The AODA Alliance has been in the lead in showing that e-scooters pose a serious danger to people with disabilities and others. On February 3, 2020, the City of Toronto’s Accessibility Advisory Committee unanimously voted to recommend to Toronto City Council that e-scooters should not be allowed at all. The City Staff Report had mentioned this important unanimous recommendation, but had given no reasons why the Report did not follow that Accessibility Advisory Committee’s recommendation.

It is our understanding that as a result, nothing moves forward in Toronto until the City staff complete the new research that Toronto City Council has directed. The Toronto City Council motion that passed on a vote of 12 to 11 on July 28, 2020, with 2 Councillors not present, was as follows:

“3 – Motion to Refer Item moved by Councillor Paula Fletcher (Carried)

That City Council refer the Item to the General Manager, Transportation Services and direct the General Manager to report back with any changes needed to address the issues identified by the City’s Accessibility Committee, including issues related to insurance.”

“The AODA Alliance commends Toronto City Council for taking this step, in the face of its being heavily pressured by the corporate lobbyists for e-scooter rental companies to ignore the public safety and accessibility dangers that their product inflicts,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. “In the face of overwhelming evidence that e-scooters in Toronto would endanger public safety, inflict serious personal injuries, create new accessibility barriers for people with disabilities and expose the City to law suits, it is a relief that City Council is slowing down to take a serious look at the problems that e-scooters would cause for all Torontonians, and especially for people with disabilities. With the COVID-19 pandemic raging, City Council should stop debating e-scooters, and should instead focus all its attention on the community’s urgent needs during the COVID-19 crisis.”

This is only an interim victory. We still have a great deal of work ahead of us, and cannot let down our guard. The corporate lobbyists for the e-scooter rental companies are no doubt re-doubling their pressure on members of Toronto City Council.

It is deeply troubling that fully 11 members of Toronto City Council voted against having City Staff conduct further research into the dangers that e-scooters pose to people with disabilities. The members of Toronto City Council that commendably voted in favour of this motion were Mayor John Tory and Councillors Bradford, Carroll, Fletcher, Matlow, Minnan-Wong, Nunziata, Pasternak, Perks, Perruzza, Thompson, Tory and Wong-Tam. The members of City Council who voted against having additional research done on the harms that e-scooters inflict on people with disabilities include Councillors Ainslie, Bailao, Colle, Crawford, Filion, Ford, Grimes, Holyday, Lai, Layton and McKelvie.

On July 28, 2020, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky was interviewed on News Radio 1310 in Ottawa, on the problems with e-scooters that have already emerged shortly after Ottawa began its ill-considered pilot with e-scooters. We will have more to say on the e-scooters issue over the coming weeks. Below is set out an excerpt from an article on this in the July 29, 2020 Toronto Star. The history of this item at Toronto City Council is set out on its website at http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.IE14.10

For more background:

Read the AODA Alliance’s July 8, 2020 brief to the City of Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee, already endorsed by Spinal Cord Injury Ontario and the March of Dimes of Canada

Read the open letter to all Ontario municipal councils from 11 major disability organizations, opposing e-scooters in Ontario, and

Read a sampling of news reports on the serious injuries that e-scooters have caused in communities that permit them.

Read the AODA Alliance’s July 10, 2020 news release explaining what happened at the July 9, 2020 meeting of Toronto’s Infrastructure and Environment Committee where the AODA Alliance and others presented on this issue.

Visit the AODA Alliance e-scooters web page.

          MORE DETAILS

 Toronto Star July 29, 2020

E-scooters remain stalled in Toronto

Council wants answers on safety, insurance before considering pilot project

David Rider and Francine Kopun Toronto Star

Electric scooter services will remain parked for now.

Toronto city council on Tuesday never voted on a city staff proposal that would have laid the groundwork for e-scooter rental services to start operating in Toronto for a trial period starting next spring.

That proposal, which would have seen council decide this fall whether to green-light the controversial pilot project, was rendered moot when a competing motion from Coun. Paula Fletcher passed 12-11.

City staff will now look solely at concerns the short-term rental of e-scooters by companies such as Bird Canada pose to the safety of disabled Torontonians, as well as issues around insurance liability for riders and anyone they might hit.

Council won’t get those answers before fall, almost certainly meaning further delay in a possible start date for the scooter services that have aggressively lobbied city officials, originally in hopes of having riders whizzing around Toronto last spring…

More Overwhelming Proof that Electric Scooters Endanger Public Safety

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

More Overwhelming Proof that Electric Scooters Endanger Public Safety

July 27, 2020

          SUMMARY

On the eve of Toronto City Council considering the question of whether to allow electric scooters in Canada’s largest city, here is yet more overwhelming proof that electric scooters pose a danger to the safety of the public. We set out a sampling of four news articles below. A CBC News July 21, 2020 report showed a troubling increase in serious personal injuries in Calgary, resulting in hospital emergency room visits, due to e-scooters. A January 11, 2020 report in MarketWatch documented is entitled “Electric scooter injuries jumped 222% over the past four years.” The Berlin Spectator June 18, 2020 reported on serious injuries in Berlin, Germany, leading police to sound the alarm. A July 26, 2020 report in the Singapore Press is entitled “E-scooter rider who knocked down woman refuses to pay over $445,000 in damages as he can’t afford it, says lawyer.”

If it is so well established that e-scooters endanger public safety, not to mention accessibility for people with disabilities, why is Toronto City Council even talking about the possibility of conducting a “pilot” with e-scooters? What is the purpose of a pilot? To see if Torontonians will get injured? We know they will. There is no need to subject them to e-scooters to find that out. Should Toronto conduct a “pilot” to find out if it will cost the public money to allow e-scooters? We know it will. Do we need a “pilot” to find out that Toronto’s law enforcement officers don’t have the time and resources to enforce proper conduct by those silently racing around on e-scooters? The City knows that they lack sufficient law enforcement capacity right now, without piling e-scooters onto their responsibilities.

The lead proponents of a “pilot” are the corporate lobbyists for the e-scooter rental companies. They stand to make piles of money from a new market, without bearing the costs. They no doubt want a “pilot” to try to get a foothold on a new market for their product, hoping that if e-scooters are allowed, it would be harder to get them banned.

An e-scooter is a motor vehicle, pure and simple. Yet the corporate lobbyists for the e-scooter rental companies want them treated as if they were not. That would leave public safety less protected.

We will all be watching Toronto City Council tomorrow, July 28, 2020, starting at 9:30 a.m., where its meeting is streamed live at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIKd97OqGeM

It is quite an irony that Toronto City Council has decided to now discuss the possibility of creating this new danger to the public including people with disabilities. On Sunday, July 26, 2020, the US celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Americans with disabilities focused on the progress they’ve made and the barriers yet to be removed for people with disabilities. The US is years ahead of Toronto, of Ontario and of Canada on inclusion and accessibility for people with disabilities.

The fight for the Americans with Disabilities Act inspired a generation of disability advocates around the world, including right here in Ontario, to fight for new disability rights laws. Yet here we are, in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, having to battle to avoid the silent menace that e-scooters present to all innocent pedestrians, including those with disabilities.

Let’s learn from the experience of Montreal, which called off its e-scooter pilot. Let’s learn from the experience of places like Calgary, Berlin, Singapore and several US cities, which have subjected so many of their residents to undue danger from e-scooters. Let’s learn from their mistakes, rather than repeating them.

Tell Toronto City Council to protect public safety rather than corporate lobbyists’ profits. City Councillors’ contact information is available at https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/council/members-of-council/

          MORE DETAILS