AODA Alliance
Sign Up for AODA Alliance Updates by writing: aodafeedback@gmail.com
Learn more at: www.www.aodaalliance.org
March 31, 2010
SUMMARY
Under s. 55.1 of the Election Act, Elections Ontario must have each returning officer report on measures they took to make each election accessible to persons with disabilities. We have obtained the reports of each returning officer in the 2007 general election, and in each by-election since then, from Elections Ontario. Elections Ontario had not made these individual reports public on its website. Elections Ontario converted these to MS Word format for us.
Click here to read the Elections Ontario reports about each riding in the 2007 general election
Click here to read the Elections Ontario report about accessibility in the 2009 Haliburton Kawartha Lakes by-election
Click here to read the report about the 2009 St. Paul’s by-election
Click here to read the report about the 2010 Toronto Centre by-election
Click here to read Elections Ontario’s public report on the overall accessibility of the 2007 election, based on these individual reports
Below we set out some of the most troubling descriptions of barriers set out in the 2007 general election individual riding reports. Just because a returning officer says that all polling stations were accessible in their riding does not necessarily mean that that information is accurate. In his presentation to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly on March 24, 2010, Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa conceded their data may not be entirely accurate.
Preliminary Notes
Each Returning Officer is required under the Election Act to make a report to Elections Ontario on his or her efforts on accessibility. We asked that these be produced to us. The Election Act makes them available to the public. Elections Ontario provided them to us in hard copy and transcribed them to MS Word. The following are extracted from the MS Word version sent to us by Elections Ontario. The Election Act states:
“Report on accessibility
55.1 (1) Within three months after polling day in the election, every returning officer for an electoral district shall prepare a report on the measures that the officer has taken to provide accessibility for electors with disabilities in the district and shall submit the report to the Chief Electoral Officer.
Availability to the public
(2) The Chief Electoral Officer shall make the report available to the public.”
The term “VL” appears to refer to “voting location.”
These forms use terms like “accessible” and “barrier-free” without any explanation or definition, other than some references to “level access” and installing a push button. It is not clear what criteria each returning officer used to offer their opinions on accessibility.
There is some indication among these reports that Elections Ontario changed its definition of “accessible” partway through the process of preparing for the 2007 general election.
Where a returning officer gave comments regarding accessibility of polling stations, they are included here. Where there are no comments here, it is because there were none in the form.
ED 043 – London Fanshawe
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: 98%
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) Yes”
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100% please provide reasons on reverse.
I was unfortunate to be in the unique position of not having the opportunity to preplan my event and having to cope with voting location sites which were unacceptable since all sites were locked in place one day prior to my “appointment” as Election Manager/Returning Officer.
It appeared that a few voting locations were obviously not accessible despite being labeled as such. Wheelchair accessible may not be accessible to people with disabilities who use mobility devices such as canes, scooters, walkers, crutches etc. I am baffled why the following polls were used as voting locations when each is simply inaccessible.
Lord Nelson P.S.
Is wheelchair accessible through the front doors into the gym where the poll was held. The disabled parking is adjacent to the school and the only access to the poll is through an inaccessible door, down three stairs and through a busy hallway. There is no sidewalk from the disabled parking lot to the front of the school, nor is there a sidewalk at the front of the school. The location has little parking and only two disabled spots.
CC Caruthers P.S.
Is not accessible what so ever. I had erected a temporary ramp and hired an information assistant to assist any disabled electors.
Montcalm S.S.
The poll had to be moved from its original location as it was on the second floor and moved to the first floor to accommodate all electors.
St. Stephens Church
Had a wheel chair lift which seemed to be not up to modern code. A full flight of stairs downstairs to the poll location. The only other alternative was to hold the poll in the sanctuary which was for obvious reasons not a choice. The poll had to be closed down a few times to accommodate disabled voters.
It is unacceptable that voters had to face obstacles in the quest to participate in our democratic process. I took several calls on Election day from angry electors who had access issues with the voting locations in London Fanshawe. I could only agree with their views and agree that changes must be made within the process on how voting locations are picked.
I had assumed that all locations were indeed accessible as the former Returning Officer and Election Clerk had participated in the voting location exercise and labeled all locations accessible. I did search through Brad Dorrance’s material but was unsuccessful in locating his rough notes on his poll location sites and the voting location documents on the RO computer contained erroneous information.
My suggestions to tighten up standards are as follows:
1. As part of the voting location exercise, the RO should acquire a map of each location and specifically of the room where the poll will be held. The manager or director of the poll location should be asked to fill out a short five minute survey regarding the accessibility of the location. Such obstacles as stairs, width of ramp, automated doors, size of poll, disabled parking location to the poll, and other questions may be asked to validate the poll meets the Government of Ontario Accessibility Standards. The manager or director of the facility should be asked to sign off on the survey prior to locating a poll at that facility. This exercise will verify the accessibility of the poll and the manager/director could sign a lease at that time as well. On August 26 the 2007, the staff in the London Fanshawe Returning Office were scurrying to get at least 10 leases signed and other polls had to be moved into set poll locations which caused other issues on Election Day. All poll locations should be locked in before the end of June and the accessibility of each poll location verified at that time.
2. The Returning Officer should forward all notes, maps, surveys and signed leases through their Liaison Officer for quality control prior to being sent to Elections Ontario.
3. As part of Returning Officer training, Elections Ontario should invite members of the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario to give a seminar on accessibility planning. An accessible poll is a barrier free poll, not just a wheelchair accessible poll.
4. It may be wise for the Returning Officer to contact and hire a “liaison” who is active in local accessibility issues on the board of the municipality’s local disabled planning issues committee to advise during the poll location exercise. I would have had money in my budget for up to 10 hours far an individual to assist on the issue.
I have never had to deal with accessibility issues during prior events as I have taken this issue very seriously. It’s unfortunate that my predecessor in this riding did not consider accessibility a serious issue or carry out his tasks as appointed. As pointed out in the above paragraphs, it caused several “incidents” on election day in the poll and in turn sparked unneeded stress and “workarounds”. The elector should never have to face obstacles, and I hope that my suggestions can be incorporated into the next event planning so to avoid the issues that we in London Fanshawe faced on October 10, 2007.”
001 Ajax—Pickering
Reports the Returning Officer’s office was not accessible
“We accommodated our electors as much as we could except for our office which was very frustrating.”
Also:
“8. Did you ensure that all advance poll voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? Yes. Notes: Except my office which I had no control over.”
Seemingly somewhat inconsistent with this, the report earlier said:
“Returning Office:
1. Did you ensure that your returning office provided barrier-free/ level access? Yes. Notes: This office was not my first choice and I tried very hard to get it handicapped accessible with the help of my liaison officer
2. Did you have to build or rent a ramp or install a push button to make your office accessible? No
3. Did you take any other measures to make your office accessible? (Please explain on page 4) Yes. Notes: I tried to get Mr. Miller to help us and he brought a steel ramp for us to use, I then told Mr. Hollins when he visited.”
Note: John Hollins was the Chief Electoral Officer.
002 Algoma—Manitoulin
Says 98.7% of polls were accessible. It then gives this detail:
“10. Three locations were not barrier free. Two of these locations where in private homes. One was in a Community Centre, only location in town that was suitable for a polling place.
The three polls involved were as follows:
1) Oba – Blanchette Residence Poll 15
2) Sultan – Ted Castilloux Residence Poll 41
3) Baldwin Town Hall Poll 144”
003 Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale
“10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Yes. Notes: 99% – One school could not locate us on the main level and we were placed in lower level gymnasium. This was not accessable by an elevator. The upper level gym was. We were unaware of this until polling day.”
005 Beaches-East York
“19. Did you ensure that the kits provided to poll officials contained the following aids? …
e) Pictograph Poster E0820 No. Notes: Ordered but never received – see attached order form.
f) Referendum Question – Braille No. Notes: Short 36 – ordered but never received.”
009 Brant
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: 97%
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) Yes”
“10. – 2 churches were not but no problems on polling day
11. – See above”
011 Burlington
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Yes. Notes: 100%. But we discovered that one VL, while accessible, was inconvenient for people with limited mobility, see p. 5.
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) No”
“Question 10: Accessibility of Regular Polls
While all voting locations were theoretically accessible, practically speaking one was not. The way in was circuitous and difficult for voters with limited mobility. We recommend against using Maplehurst School, Burlington, in future.
One DRO reported that some elderly voters had difficulty bending over low children’s desks that held voting screens. On balance, we recommend in future elections using churches, community halls, and high schools in preference to some elementary schools where furniture is minimal.”
014 Chatham – Kent – Essex
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: 99% This is a rural church. There is no other facility in the area to serve the poll.
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) No”
016 Don Valley East
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: 95%
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) No”
“10. We had two schools that were not completely accessible. One school has a 4 inch raised curb at the entrance to the voting location. The main door was not an option for barrier-free access, as it would result in electors having to travel down a half flight of stairs to access the polling station. However, the voting location has been used in the past and is ideally situated amongst a residential area so we kept the location and instructed the poll staff and SDRO on site on how to handle the instances where the ballot box would need to move to accommodate the needs of the elector. The ballot box moved twice during the day and the staff handled everything in a professional and courteous manner. No elector complaints.
The second location we selected because it had the facilities to serve a large number of polls in an otherwise difficult area. Mostly new development without any other available gathering place that was convenient without crossing major streets (Eglinton). Again, we accepted this as the situation and selected the staff accordingly. The wife of the vice-principal agreed to work as an Information Assistant on the outside of the school for the express purpose of handling these circumstances. Throughout the day 4 polls were closed one time each to accommodate those electors with special needs. Again, no elector complaints.”
020 Eglinton – Lawrence
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: Yes 99.5, No 0.5. All but 2/245 in locations where shortage of community space was increased by number of voting locations
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) Yes. Notes: Briar Hill Public School declined offer of ramp as lost too much interior space due to slope required. Used side or gym doors where possible”
“11. The parties were notified at both candidates’ meetings to encourage uses of advance polls for voters in the 3 polls at this location particularly as it was a new location for Eglinton Lawrence. Reminders about Briar Hill Public School, not used by the city as they can go south of Eglinton were also issued. The ballot box and a voter screen with clip board were taken out when asked.”
021 Elgin – Middlesex – London
“Advance Polls
8. Did you ensure that all advance poll voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? Yes
9. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make your advance poll site(s) accessible? (Please explain on page 4) Yes”
“Advance Polls: 9. a last minute fix – The Dorchester Community Centre was leased with room only up in the mezzanine. The information assistant would notify the poll officials when required and they would bring the ballot box down to the main level. The site itself was accessible however the box was located on a different level 50% of the time.”
022 Essex
“1. Did you ensure that your returning office provided barrier-free/ level access? No. Notes: Level access not barrier free – no button
2. Did you have to build or rent a ramp or install a push button to make your office accessible? No
3. Did you take any other measures to make your office accessible? (Please explain on page 4) No”
025 Etobicoke North
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: 97.5%
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) No”
028 Haldimand – Norfolk
“10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: 100. Win-Del used movable ramps if needed. Simcoe Legion access via elevator at alternate door.
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) No”
“General: Some locations, especially schools during day time concerns re distance from parking to VL for elderly, etc.”
ED 037 – Kitchener Centre
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: 98%. 1 location needed a modest ramp – see page 4. A second location (older school) was selected because it had a devise to get people to and from the lower level where we had the poll. However, in September we were told the lift was only for student use, and the Board would not permit us to operate the lift. By now it was too late. We did have 1 elector come to that site who could not get to the poll – so the staff took the poll to the elector – just like in the video.
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) Yes”
“Q 10. 1 location needed a modest ramp – see page 4.
A second location (older school) was selected because it had a devise to get people to and from the lower level where we had the poll. However, in September we were told the lift was only for student use, and the Board would not permit us to operate the lift. By now it was too late. We did have 1 elector come to that site who could not get to the poll – so the staff took the poll to the elector – just like in the video.
10. One location (2 polls) required a 4” ramp to get over a sill. After the election we left the ramp with them.”
ED 041 – Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: Approximately 25% were fully accessible with an access button. Approximately 90% were accessible but without a button. Non-accessibility was due to the age of the building or expense to the owner. 2 private homes were used as polling locations
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible?
(Please explain on page 4) No”
ED 046 – Markham-Unionville
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: 99.9% See Below
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) Notes: See Below”
“10. When ascertaining polling locations in the Spring, I was informed by the Town of Markham that the construction of the Markham Library would be complete by September, 2007. On this assumption, I proceeded to put an Advance and Regular Poll at that site. As the Summer approached, it was evident that this facility would not be complete in time for October 10, 2007. I had to make a decision and place a polling location adjacent to the library – Markham Village Community Centre. This was not the best decision, as the room to be used on polling day would be up a flight of stairs. Voters who were unable to climb the stairs were certainly dealt with in the appropriate manner. The poll was temporarily closed and voters attended to in the main lobby. This did cause unrest but fortunately the staff selected to work at that location, handled the process with extreme professionalism.”
ED 057 – Nipissing
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: 98.7%
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
“Regular Polls
10. One site was not barrier-free. It was the only available site”
ED 058 – Northumberland-Quinte West
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. 98%
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
“Q. 10 – Voting Locations Barrier free. Depends on the definition. If it is “electric button door opening” then we are 20% fully compliant. If it means ramps, wide doors, etc but no button, then we are 98% compliant. We have three locations that are not in any definition accessible and, needless to say, they were chosen as last resorts only:
Castleton Public School: Staircase to lower level. Only suitable public building in the vicinity. New community centre under renovation expected to be fully accessible but not finished by voting day.
Elizabethville Church: Three small steps down to enter lower level hall. Only location in a very rural area and a long, long drive to the nearest community hall. No prospects of anything better in the near future. Would recommend other churches in Campbellville be checked.
Stanwood Church: Furniture in church hall is bolted down to the floor (really) and thus difficult to anyone to move around. It is again in a very rural area and we only put one poll in there.”
ED 062 – Ottawa Centre
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: 100% were handicap accessible but only 15% were not wheelchair accessible
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
“10. EXCLUDING HIGH DENSITY & SPECIAL VOTING LOCATIONS, TWENTY-ONE REGULAR VOTING LOCATIONS WHERE NOT WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE. THAT IS, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE, THEY DID NOT HAVE THE AUTOMATIC PUSH BUTTON DOOR… THIS NEW DEFINITION WAS AFTER THE ASSIGNMENT.”
ED 063 – Ottawa-Orleans
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. NO. Notes: See note 12
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) YES. Notes: IAs at 3 schools which had locked front doors”
“#12. Rural area – 1 poll – school was the former voting location, but it was closed. There were no other choices, so we used a Caisse Populaire which had 2 steps down. This worked fine but DRO did take ballot box out on a couple of occasions.
* My recommendation is to have the ROs whose districts share this rural area to work together for a common facility that is accessible”
ED 064 – Ottawa South
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. 90%
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
“10. All voting locations were handicap accessible but some did not meet new criteria for “wheelchair accessible”.
11. We did hire information officers to man elevators where applicable”
ED 067 – Oxford
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: do not have current access to #, are 75% were accessible using our stringent criteria
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) YES”
“#10 We were stringent in our definition of ‘barrier free’ – unless voters could vote without assistance, we did not id it as barrier free. Several of the locations that we considered accessible were not acceptable to voters – as a new R.O. I was not as clear as I should have been in selecting locations where, accessibility and distance were both considered. Some schools that were technically accessible were still a distance for a person on a scooter thru doors, etc.
We did build a ramp in one church”
ED 068 – Parkdale-High Park
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. 87%
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
“10. Most Public Access BLDGS in Parkdale High Park are older and many have not been retrofitted as of yet e.g. (illegible)
A few churches are accessible from one side but are not accessible to (illegible)
A number of hi rise apartments are accessible to voters i.e. residents but are not accessible to outsiders.
Wherever there was a chair between (illegible) accessible (illegible) close (illegible) most accessible option.”
ED 069 – Parry Sound-Muskoka
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. 99.5% Notes: Henvey First Nation Band office was only Location Not accessible
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
ED 071 – Peterborough
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. Notes: One poll had to be moved to another adjoining room two steps down, due to overcrowding
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
ED 077 – St. Paul’s
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. 99%. Notes: Lack of available locations in one geographic area of the ED required that we use a couple of sites that were not barrier free but which the SDRO and DRO was trained and prepared to accommodate potential electors with disabilities in the front reception area
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
ED 080 – Scarborough – Agincourt
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. 99% Notes: One school had steps down to gym so specified that lobby in school was available for handicapped.
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
ED 082 – Scarborough- Guildwood
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. <0.5%. Notes: (1 of 209) Threshold could be considered a tripping hazard
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
10. Would re-consider using the site in the future if the problem persists.”
ED 084 – Scarborough Southwest
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. 98.5%. Notes: Page 4 for reasons
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
“Regular Polls Question 10 – There were three polls that did not provide barrier free/ level access. One is the Regent Heights Junior Public School (555 Pharmacy Ave.), the school has level access from the north end but there are 5 steps down to the gymnasium level (south end) where the polls are located. The steps are approximately 10 feet from the gym doors. The second location is the Church of St. George where there is no wheelchairs access to the lower level where the polls are located. One person did ask what they would do if a wheelchair person did come to vote and it was explained that they would take the ballot box to the person. This seemed to satisfy the person enquiring and no one required this accommodation. The third location is the private Recreation Centre at 273 Pharmacy Ave. This Recreation Centre is located in the centre of 3 very large apartment buildings (263, 273 and 285 Pharmacy Ave.). The location of the polls is on the second floor with stairs as the only access. The property manger informed me that there were only 2 or 3 tenants in a wheelchair in all of the buildings and they have always been accommodated by the DRO’s by going down the stairs with the ballot box if they came to vote.
All three locations are used Municipal elections one in the Federal AND are well known convenient voting locations.”
ED 087 – Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. 99%. Notes: Only one in a rural area – 8 staff were trained to bring Ballot box to client it wasn’t needed
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
ED 094 – Toronto Centre
Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. 99.7%. Notes: all except one
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO
“10. Multiple Voting Location our Lady of Perpetual Help Church was not accessible. It was selected as the only suitable available location. The SDRO, poll staff and all political parties were briefed that ballot boxes might have to be carried out to disabled voters at this poll. In the event, this happened only once.”
ED 096 – Trinity-Spadina
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. 97/98
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
“#12 comment
-ballot box moved up 7 steps twice at one location.
-This VL was level and accessible from outside but had 7 steps down to gym.
-This location will not be used again
-This was w/out incidence at this location”
ED 100 – Whitby-Oshawa
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. 98%
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
“10. Two voting locations were in accessable – this could not be helped – No place else to hold the Polls
– Ballot boxes were taken out to people who couldn’t access the POLL.”
ED 101 – Willowdale
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. 97.5%
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
ED 103 – Windsor West
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. YES 99%
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”
“10. We used (illegible) church – not accessible –
No other building (no school, etc) were available
We used (illegible) School which (with difficulty) can be accessible by coming in to front door and going a long walk to polling site.
We used (illegible) School – caretaker (illegible) assured us he would put in place a ramp, the caretaker in (illegible) did not
We will not use this location again, a church near by is accessible.”
ED 106 – York South-Weston
“Regular Polls:
10. What percentage of your voting locations provided barrier-free/level access? If this percentage is less than 100%, please provide reasons on reverse. 99.9. Notes: At one community centre the elevator was broken. The poll officials took the ballot box down to the level access when necessary.
11. Did you have to build or rent a ramp, install a push button or take any other measures to make any voting location accessible? (Please explain on page 4) NO”