Read the March 27, 2023 AODA Alliance Brief to the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee

AODA Alliance Brief to the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee

 

March 27, 2023

 

 1. Introduction

 

This is the AODA Alliance’s brief to the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee. In summary, this brief recommends that:

1. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should now engage in a very open consultative process with the disability community
2. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should not limit the DOPS Standards Development Committees work to asking if the design of public spaces accessibility standard is working “as intended”
3. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should not have to reinvent the wheel
4. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should address all built environment barriers. Ontario should not leave the achievement of accessibility in most of the built environment to the Ontario Building Code
5. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should not recommend harmonizing the Ontario Building Code with the National Building Code or other provincial building codes
6. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should draw on superior accessibility requirements in some municipal facilities accessible design standards (FADS)
7. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should make recommendations targeted at specific categories of buildings
8. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should recommend specific revisions to the 2012 DOPS Accessibility Standard to:
9. Extend the DOPS Accessibility Standard requirements to existing locations, not just new ones
10. Set specific accessibility requirements for outdoor play spaces
11. Set specific accessibility requirements for on-street parking spaces
12. Set specific accessibility requirements for accessible customer service counters and fixed queuing guides
13. Require audible pedestrian signals to operate automatically, rather than requiring people with disabilities to turn them on whenever
14. Narrow excessively broad DOPS Accessibility Standard exemptions

 

 

At the end of this 22-page brief are the following four appendices:

• Appendix 1: Chapter 4 of the AODA Alliance’s January 15, 2019 Brief to the 3rd AODA Independent Review Conducted by David Onley
• Appendix 2: April 3, 2018 Letter from the AODA Alliance to the Minister Responsible for the AODA
• Appendix 3: K-12 Education Standards Development Committee Final Report’s Recommendations on the Built Environment
• Appendix 4: List of the AODA Alliance’s Recommendations in this Brief

 

2. Background to this Brief

 

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 accessible to people with disabilities by 2025.

 

As part of its implementation of the AODA, somewhere between 2007 and 2009, the Ontario Government appointed the Built Environment Accessibility Standard to make recommendations for a Built Environment Accessibility Standard to achieve a barrier-free built environment in Ontario. The Built Environment Accessibility Standard delivered a final report to the Government some time around 2009 or 2010. In 2012, the Ontario Government enacted the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard (DOPS Accessibility Standard) as part of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation. In 2013, it also made some minor accessibility amendments to the Ontario Building Code.

 

Under Section 9 of the AODA, the Ontario Government was required to appoint a new Standards Development Committee to review the sufficiency of the DOPS Accessibility Standard by December 2017. Violating the AODA, it did not do so until some time in 2022.

 

The Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee (DOPS Standards Development Committee) has authority under the AODA to review the DOPS Accessibility Standard. The DOPS Standards Development Committee is mandated to consult the public, including the disability community. It has authority to make recommendations for revisions to the DOPS Accessibility Standard and to enact any additional accessibility standards that may be needed to achieve the purposes of the AODA.

 

Fundamentally important to the work of the DOPS Standards Development Committee, Ontario is lagging far behind the goal of becoming accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. This is overwhelmingly the case in the area of the built environment. No one could credibly argue otherwise.

 

This was the categorical finding over four years ago in the final report of the 3^rd AODA Independent Review conducted by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley. He concluded that Ontario remains full of “soul-crushing” barriers, and that the goal of full accessibility is “nowhere in sight.”. This was also the finding in the March 1, 2023 interim report of the 4^th AODA Independent Review conducted by Rich Donovan.

 

As such, the DOPS Standards Development Committee’s recommendations need to be strong enough to address this serious situation, in so far as the built environment is concerned.

 

 3. The Sorry History of Our Efforts to Win a Barrier-Free Built Environment

 

The AODA Alliance has extensive experience with the design, implementation and enforcement of accessibility legislation in Canada, including in the built environment. Founded in 2005 shortly after the AODA was passed, 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 the AODA Alliance website. Our coalition is the successor to the non-partisan grassroots Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA) Committee. The ODA Committee advocated for more than 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 supporters from the ODA Committee’s broad grassroots base. To learn about the ODA Committee’s history, visit the ODA Committee’s legacy website.

 

Beyond our work at the provincial level in Ontario, the AODA Alliance has 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 federal legislation should include. That widely read Discussion Paper is now published in the National Journal of Constitutional Law at (2018) NJCL 169-207.

 

The AODA Alliance has spoken to or been consulted by disability organizations, individuals, and 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 by Barrier-Free BC in its grassroots advocacy for that legislation. As other examples, we have also lent our advice and support to similar efforts in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Alberta.

 

We have been consulted outside Canada on this topic, most particularly, in Israel and New Zealand. In addition, in June 2016, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky presented on this topic at the UN’s annual conference of State Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

 

Our advocacy efforts over the past decade and a half to get a strong and effective accessibility standard enacted to address barriers in the built environment are documented on the AODA Alliance website’s built environment page. Beyond advocacy efforts aimed at the Ontario Government, we have delivered presentations to architects and architecture students, produced three widely-viewed online videos on barriers in new buildings at Centennial College, Ryerson University (as it was then called), and new and renovated Toronto public transit stations. These videos are also used to train design professionals. We have done advocacy on this issue in Canada and New Zealand.

 

Too many people do not know the sad history of our uphill efforts since the enactment of the AODA to get effective laws in place to ensure the accessibility of the built environment. If you don’t know that history, you risk inadvertently repeating it. The famous saying (often attributed to the philosopher George Santayan according to Google) reminds us that

 

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

 

We documented that history in Chapter 4 of the AODA Alliance’s January 15, 2019 brief to the 3^rd AODA Independent Review, conducted by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley. We include that chapter in this brief as Appendix 1. It proposed specific findings and recommendations that remain valid to this day regarding the built environment.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#1 The DOPS Standards Development Committee report to the Ontario Government should make the specific findings and recommendations set out in Chapter 4 of the AODA Alliance’s January 15, 2019 brief to the 3^rd Independent Review by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley.

 

4. The DOPS Standards Development Committee Should Now Engage in a Very Open Consultative Process with the Disability Community

 

We invite your Standards Development Committee to undertake a far more open consultative process than the Government has arranged in the past for earlier Standards Development Committees. We anticipate that many if not most people who would like to share their ideas with the DOPS Standards Development Committee do not even know that this Standards Development Committee exists and that it is working. The fact that the minutes of the DOPS Standards Development Committee meetings are posted online is not enough. The public is, of course, not searching daily to find out if a Standards Development Committee is working under the AODA to address built environment barriers. Indeed, the AODA Alliance, as active a grass roots disability voice on this issue as might be found, did not even know for months that the Government had appointed a full DOPS Standards Development Committee until a public official happened to mention it in passing.

 

The broader disability community and related obligated organizations had no open opportunity to try to apply to serve on this Standards Development Committee. Contradicting previous Government practice, there was no open competitive application process to apply for an appointment to this Standards Development Committee. For example, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky had expressed a desire to apply on behalf of our coalition for an appointment to this Standards Development Committee. He made this desire known well in advance to the Minister’s office. Yet, he had no opportunity to submit an application and to be considered, because there was no open competitive application process.

 

The Government’s past practice has been to wait until a Standards Development submits a draft report to the Minister before a Standards Development Committee’s wide-open public consultation and invitation for public feedback is launched. A Standards Development Committee might privately allow a few presenters to briefly speak to their committee before that process. However, overwhelmingly, the major chance for public feedback and input has not occurred until the Standards Development Committee is very far into its work.

 

The result has been that by the time a Standards Development Committee gets that public feedback, it is far too late for the Standards Development Committee to do much more than tinker with its draft report. Yet nothing in the AODA restricts a Standards Development Committee from convening its own public consultation process, whether formally or informally, before it prepares and submits its draft report to the Government.

 

The AODA Alliance has led the campaign for at least 15 years to try to get a strong Built Environment Accessibility Standard enacted under the AODA. We have raised this issue with senior Government officials time and again. We have been a leading voice in the media on these issues. In fact, we have led the campaign at the Government’s highest levels from 2017 and after just to get the DOPS Standards Development Committee appointed. As noted earlier, the AODA required it to be appointed no later than December 2017. Two successive Ontario Governments, in combination, were in flagrant violation of the AODA for at least five years, on that score.

 

As one illustration, after we pressed for this for years, the former Ontario Government held a one-day summit or roundtable on barriers in the built environment, which was held five years ago on March 19, 2018. The AODA Alliance’s April 3, 2018 letter to the minister then responsible for the AODA, included as this brief’s Appendix 2, summarizes key points raised at that roundtable. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should convene a similar roundtable.

 

We welcome the opportunity for a meeting with the DOPS Standards Development Committee on April 5, 2023, but believe that it will be impossible to cover the vast majority of our key concerns in that 30-minute time slot. Before we asked for a chance to speak to the DOPS Standards Development Committee, the Government did not ask the AODA Alliance for any information or advice that might have assisted the Government in getting the DOPS Standards Development Committee underway with its important work.

 

We invite this DOPS Standards Development Committee to learn from the Government’s past mistakes and take a more open approach. We would be happy to do whatever we can to help facilitate this.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#2 The DOPS Standards Development Committee should now undertake a broad public consultation process, well before finalizing, voting on and circulating a draft report for feedback.

 

5. Don’t Limit the DOPS Standards Development Committees Work to Asking if the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard is Working “As Intended”

 

It is our strong advice to this Standards Development Committee that its mandate and job is to consider whether the 2012 Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard, as written, will ensure that Ontario’s built environment will become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. If the Standards Development Committee does not conclude that it will achieve this, then the DOPS Standards Development Committee should recommend the actions needed to revise and strengthen it so that it will achieve that goal.

 

The DOPS Standards Development Committee’s job is not merely to consider whether the 2012 DOPS Accessibility Standard is working “as intended.” It appears that the Government gave some if not all of the earlier Standards Development Committees, appointed to review an existing AODA Accessibility Standard, incorrect advice on what their job is. It appears very likely that the Government told them that their mandate was simply to decide whether the Accessibility Standard that they were reviewing is working “as intended.”

 

Their mandate, defined by the AODA, goes much further. Their job was to advise whether the accessibility standard they were reviewing will ensure that Ontario will become accessible to people with disabilities in the area they were examining, by 2025. Whether or not the original accessibility standard was initially intended to work that way is immaterial to their review, and does not limit their review.

 

That Government advice to previous Standards Development Committees severely diluted and weakened their mandates. It would hurt people with disabilities. It is contrary to the AODA’s description of a Standards Development Committee’s mandate.

 

For example, if an original accessibility standard had a very weak goal or intent underlying it, then it may well be working “as intended”, but it may not be doing much to achieve accessibility for people with disabilities. The AODA’s goal, as noted earlier, is to achieve an accessible Ontario by 2025.

 

We have publicly pointed out several times that that advice or direction was wrong. We have seen no indication that the Ontario Government corrected that serious misunderstanding, after we repeatedly pointed it out. It is very good that the Information and Communication Standards Development Committee, under its Chair Rich Donovan, in effect disregarded that advice. It did not feel itself limited by it.

We do not know if the Government said anything similar to this Standards Development Committee. If it did, we strongly urge you to disregard it, and to follow the AODA.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#3. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should consider whether the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard will ensure that Ontario’s built environment will become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. It should not limit itself to considering whether the 2012 Accessibility Standard is merely working “as intended.”

 

6. This Standards Development Committee Should Not Have to Reinvent the Wheel

 

There are two very important sets of recommendations about the built environment that have already been developed under the AODA. Don’t reinvent the accessibility wheel! Instead, please endorse them!

 

First, 14 months ago, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee submitted its final report to the Ontario Government. It includes detailed recommendations to make the K-12 school system accessible to students with disabilities. That report includes 20 pages or so of detailed recommendations on the built environment. These are set out in this brief’s Appendix 3. We urge the DOPS Standards Development Committee to endorse and not in any way to contradict those recommendations.

 

In 2018, on the advice of the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee set up a subcommittee on the built environment. On agreement of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, that subcommittee was chaired by K-12 Education Standards Development Committee member David Lepofsky (who is also the Chair of the AODA Alliance). That subcommittee was enormously assisted by very experienced built environment accessibility design consultant, Thea Kurdi. She generously volunteered her time to assist the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.

 

The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s resulting built environment recommendations, which we set out in this brief’s Appendix 3, can easily apply to any and all premises, not just schools. They were written with that in mind. These were overwhelmingly supported by the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s diverse membership.

 

These recommendations were included in the draft report of that Standards Development Committee which was provided to the public for a five month public consultation period in 2021. The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee received very substantial feedback from the public, including the disability community and the education sector. That feedback overwhelmingly supported the draft report’s recommendations on all issues. There was no significant resistance (if any at all), on the built environment recommendations. The AODA Alliance knows this because of our Chair’s participation as a member of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.

 

Second, over 13 years ago, the original Built Environment Standards Development Committee submitted a very comprehensive report to the Government on what a standard should do to address barriers in the built environment, at least in new construction and major renovations. The Government did not implement the vast, vast majority of that report in an AODA Accessibility Standard.

 

The new DOPS Standards Development Committee should benefit from the years of hard work that is reflected in that earlier report. We do not know if the Government has given the DOPS Standards Development Committee that earlier report. If not, they should do so now. Where those recommendations remain helpful, the DOPS Standards Development Committee should incorporate them into its report and recommendations.

 

The DOPS Standards Development Committee should of course expand its work to also include areas that were not covered in that earlier report. New accessibility issues have arisen since then, which that earlier Standards Development Committee could not have anticipated so many years ago. For example, we need AODA standards to set accessibility requirements for electric vehicle charging stations.

 

Moreover, the public, including the disability community, should be given a chance now to give feedback to the DOPS Standards Development Committee on that earlier Built Environment Standards Development Committee report. DOPS Standards Development Committee make it public and invite feedback on it. That should take place well before the DOPS Standards Development Committee circulates its full draft report for public feedback under the provisions of the AODA.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#4 The DOPS Standards Development Committee should endorse the built environment recommendations in the final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, as usefully applying to the built environment more broadly, and not only to school buildings and grounds.

 

#5 The DOPS Standards Development Committee should obtain from the Ontario Government the final report of the earlier Built Environment Standards Development Committee, make it public for feedback, and incorporate into its own report anything in those earlier recommendations that would help make Ontario’s built environment accessible.

 

 7. The DOPS Standards Development Committee Should Address All Built Environment Barriers

 

It is critically important that the DOPS Standards Development Committee addresses the entire built environment, and not only the tiny slice of the built environment that the 2012 SOPSAS addresses. There is much more to the built environment than recreation trails, public parking and public service counters.

 

The AODA makes it 100% clear that it covers accessibility of buildings, structures and premises, and requires these to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. Section 1 of the AODA mandates the legislation’s purpose as:

 

“ 1. Recognizing the history of discrimination against persons with disabilities in Ontario, the purpose of this Act is to benefit all Ontarians by,

• developing, implementing and enforcing accessibility standards in order to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1, 2025; and
• providing for the involvement of persons with disabilities, of the Government of Ontario and of representatives of industries and of various sectors of the economy in the development of the accessibility standards.”

As noted earlier, the DOPS Standards Development Committee’s mandate under the AODA can include recommending revisions to the DOPS Accessibility Standard, as well as recommending an entirely new accessibility standard. Section 9(9) of the AODA provides:

 

“(9) Within five years after an accessibility standard is adopted by regulation or at such earlier time as the Minister may specify, the standards development committee responsible for the industry, sector of the economy or class of persons or organizations to which the standard applies shall,

• re-examine the long-term accessibility objectives determined under subsection (2);
• if required, revise the measures, policies, practices and requirements to be implemented on or before January 1, 2025 and the time-frame for their implementation;
• develop another proposed accessibility standard containing such additions or modifications to the existing accessibility standard as the standards development committee deems advisable and submit it to the Minister for the purposes of making the proposed standard public and receiving comments in accordance with section 10; and
• make such changes it considers advisable to the proposed accessibility standard developed under clause (c) based on the comments received under section 10 and provide the Minister with the subsequent proposed accessibility standard.”

 

Too often, accessibility requirements for the built environment focus primarily on the needs of people using mobility devices, and perhaps, some of the barriers facing people with vision or hearing loss. It is essential for the DOPS Standards Development Committee recommendations to address all barriers facing people with all kinds of disabilities.

 

It is vital for AODA Accessibility Standards to address existing premises that are not being renovated. Both the 2015 Mayo Moran AODA Independent Review and the 2019 David Onley AODA Independent Review emphasized that such retrofits need to be a priority. Since then, the Government has done nothing under the AODA to require anything new in that regard.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#6 The DOPS Standards Development Committee should include in its recommendations:

1. a) Measures to ensure that existing buildings and premises become accessible, even if not undergoing a major renovation.
2. b) Measures to ensure accessibility for all people with disabilities, and not only those who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices, or those with vision or hearing loss.
3. c) As a first and transitional step, measures to require retrofit of existing buildings for accessibility, even if not undergoing a major renovation, at least where doing so is readily achievable.

 

8. Do Not Leave the Achievement of Accessibility in Most of the Built Environment to the Ontario Building Code

 

Around 2009 or 2010, the Ontario Government decided, without first consulting the AODA Alliance or the broader disability community, that it would use the Ontario Building Code and not the AODA to address barriers in the built environment inside buildings. This objectional decision would have unilaterally ripped much if not most of the built environment out of the AODA. The result has been over a decade since then of new construction replete with entirely preventable disability barriers. The only part of the interior of buildings that AODA Accessibility Standards have addressed at all are public service counters and queuing lines in new public service areas.

 

The Ontario Building Code does not have adequate accessibility requirements. It never has. Based on decades of experience, we can reasonably predict that it never will. There have been large and insurmountable barriers to overcoming that sad truth. The Ontario Building Code includes too many impediments within its structure, design and operational approach.

 

If the accessibility of buildings is overwhelmingly left to the Ontario Building Code, the result will be a failure to make the built environment accessible to people with disabilities by 2025, or ever. That would violate the AODA and its purposes. On the other hand, the Ontario Building Code is, of course, here to stay. Design professionals know about it. We therefore need a new approach to built environment accessibility that does not depend on the Ontario Building Code alone, or at all.

 

We have a practical and pragmatic solution. A comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard should be enacted under the AODA. The Ontario Building Code should adopt it by reference. To get a building permit or site plan approval, a proposed building should have to be designed to comply with both the detailed requirements in the Ontario Building Code and with the AODA Built Environment Accessibility Standard.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#7 A comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard should be enacted under the AODA, rather than leaving accessibility of buildings exclusively to the Ontario Building Code.

 

#8 The Ontario Building Code should be amended to incorporate the AODA Built Environment Accessibility Standard by reference.

 

#9 The AODA Built Environment Accessibility Standard requirements should be fully enforceable not only under the AODA’s enforcement provisions, but under the enforcement powers available under the Ontario Building Code.

 

#10 A construction plan should not be able to obtain site plan approval and/or a building permit unless it is found to comply with all accessibility requirements created in AODA Accessibility Standards and not just those in the Ontario Building Code.

 

9. Do Not Recommend Harmonizing the Ontario Building Code with the National Building Code or Other Provincial Building Codes

 

We have heard that the Ontario Government is committed to harmonizing the Ontario Building Code with the National Building Code. The Government did not consult us and the disability community on this harmful plan. It should be opposed.

 

The term “harmonizing” sounds like a great idea. However, we must look closer. To harmonize the two building codes inherently risks reducing the accessibility requirements in the Ontario Building Code to an even lower level than their current inadequate level. We should not have to fight a rear-guard battle to retain what little protection we now have.

 

There is no good reason to treat the National Building Code as somehow authoritative, or as taking some sort of precedence over the Ontario Building Code. The National Building Code is not binding on Ontario. Ontario alone sets the Ontario Building Code.

 

If it happens that the National Building Code has some provisions that provide more accessibility than does the Ontario Building Code, then it would be great to improve the Ontario Building Code. However, no one should view either the Ontario or the National Building Code as adequate for people with disabilities.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#11 The Ontario Government should not “harmonize” the Ontario Building Code with the National Building Code. Ontarians with disabilities should not have to fight to prevent any further weakening of the Ontario Building Codes inadequate accessibility provisions.

 

10. Draw on Superior Accessibility Requirements in Some Municipal Facilities Accessible Design Standards (FADS)

 

We understand that years ago, some municipalities established their own superior built environment standards. This was no doubt due to the insufficiency of the Ontario Building Code and of AODA Accessibility Standards. It is our understanding that that began years ago with the City of London’s original Facilities Accessible Design Standards (FADS).

 

We regret that since then, some municipalities may have adopted weaker standards, or diluted their earlier ones. We do not have detailed information to share on this. The Accessibility Directorate of Ontario should gather information on that and supply it to the DOPS Standards Development Committee.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#12 The DOPS Standards Development Committee should draw on the strongest accessibility requirements in any municipal Facilities Accessible Design Standards (FADS) if they are found to be sufficient to ensure accessibility.

 

11. Make Recommendations Targeted at Specific Categories of Buildings

 

It is important for the DOPS Standards Development Committee to make specific recommendations for discrete categories of buildings. The Ontario Building Code does not do this.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#13 The DOPS Standards Development Committee should recommend that any AODA accessibility standard addressing the built environment needs to include specific requirements targeted at discrete categories of buildings, such as residential housing, public transit stations or hospitals and other major health care facilities.

 

12. Examples of Specific Revisions Needed to the DOPS Standards Development Committee

 

Of course, as part of its work, the DOPS Standards Development Committee will be looking for specific revisions needed to the DOPS Accessibility Standard, to address the narrow range of barriers in the built environment that it now speaks to. Here, we identify a selection of the needed revisions, but do not in any way mean to imply that these are the only needed improvements.

 

a) Extend the DOPS Accessibility Standard Accessibility Requirements to Existing Locations, Not Just New Ones

 

The DOPS Accessibility Standard only addresses built environment barriers in new construction or redevelopment of those few public spaces it regulates, such as recreational trails, beach access routes, exterior paths of travel, public parking and public service areas inside buildings (See IASR sections 80.1 to 80.44). The IASR’s Public Spaces provisions exempt any existing barriers except where otherwise provided. Section 80.2 provides:

 

“Except as otherwise specified, this Part applies to public spaces that are newly constructed or redeveloped on and after the dates set out in the schedule in section 80.5…”

 

When the AODA was enacted in 2005, it was widely recognized that Ontario was full of serious barriers against persons with disabilities. The AODA was meant to remove existing barriers as well as prevent new barriers. That is why the Ontario Government allocated a full twenty years for reaching full accessibility. Had the AODA been aimed solely at preventing new barriers, that twenty-year period would have made no sense. It would have been far too long. If under the AODA mainly or only address new barriers, Ontario will not reach full accessibility by 2025, or ever.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#14 The specific provisions in the DOPS Accessibility Standard should be revised to cover existing built environment, not only those developed after the Standard went into effect.

b) Set Specific Accessibility Requirements for Outdoor Play Spaces

 

It is good that the DOPS Accessibility Standard addresses the accessibility of outdoor play spaces. However, it wrong that it sets no specific standards or technical requirements for them. It merely requires obligated organizations to consult persons with disabilities on the needs of children and caregivers with disabilities, and to incorporate accessibility features, such as sensory and active play components, into the design of outdoor play spaces. It also requires them to ensure that outdoor play spaces have a ground surface that is firm, stable and has impact attenuating properties for injury prevention, and sufficient clearance to provide children and caregivers with various disabilities the ability to move through, in and around the outdoor play space (See section 80.20).

 

It is duplicative and exceedingly inefficient and ineffective for the DOPS Accessibility Standard to require each obligated organization to wastefully repeat this consultation work over and over, just to discover the very same barriers and accessibility needs. Children with disabilities need the same accessibility features in a play space, wherever in Ontario that play space may be. Their needs don’t depend on the municipality where they live and play. It is unfair to burden people with disabilities with having to advocate to one obligated organization after the next about these same needs. It is unreasonable to expect persons with disabilities and their parents to know the technical specifications to build into an outdoor play space. There are models for such technical specifications to address outdoor play areas.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#15 The DOPS Accessibility Standard should be revised to set specific accessibility requirements for playgrounds and spaces, rather than wastefully requiring obligated organizations to repeat the same duplicative consultations with people with disabilities across Ontario.

c) Set Specific Accessibility Requirements for On-Street Parking Spaces

 

The DOPS Accessibility Standard requirement for ensuring accessible parking on public streets (as opposed to off-street parking lots) is very minimal. It merely requires public sector organizations, principally municipalities, to consult on the need, location and design of accessible on-street parking spaces (See section 80.39).

 

The IASR leaves municipalities free to not increase the number of accessible parking spots on its streets. It yet again forces each municipality to reinvent the wheel, and forces persons with disabilities to have to separately lobby every Ontario municipality.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#16 The DOPS Accessibility Standard should be revised to set specific accessibility requirements for on-street parking.

d) Set Specific Accessibility Requirements for Accessible Customer Service Counters and Fixed Queuing Guides

 

It is very good that the  DOPS Accessibility Standard sets new accessibility requirements for public service areas in buildings, including accessible counters, fixed queuing guides and waiting areas. However, here again, the Government counterproductively missed an important opportunity to set specific standards. It requires at least one accessible service counter. Yet section 80.41(2) sets vague requirements for these, as follows:

 

“(2) The service counter that accommodates mobility aids must meet the following requirements:

 

1. The countertop height must be such that it is usable by a person seated in a mobility aid.

 

2. There must be sufficient knee clearance for a person seated in a mobility aid, where a forward approach to the counter is required.

 

3. The floor space in front of the counter must be sufficiently clear so as to accommodate a mobility aid.”

 

Obligated organizations want and deserve to know what specific counter height and knee depth they must use, to avoid a violation of the AODA. The  DOPS Accessibility Standard does not tell them this. Each organization should not be saddled with a need to retain consultants for advice on this, hoping the height and knee depth they pick will meet this imprecise standard.

 

This cries out for clear technical specifications. In sharp contrast, the DOPS Accessibility Standard provides helpful technical specifications in other areas, such as recreational trails and off-street accessible parking spots. In its evident fear to step on the toes of obligated organizations, the Government has done them, as well as persons with disabilities, a major disservice.

 

Needed specifics are similarly lacking in section 80.42 for new fixed queuing guides, as follows:

 

“1. The fixed queuing guides must provide sufficient width to allow for the passage of mobility aids and mobility assistive devices.

 

2. The fixed queuing guides must have sufficiently clear floor area to permit mobility aids to turn where queuing lines change direction.

 

3. The fixed queuing guides must be cane detectable. O. Reg. 413/12, s. 6.”

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#17 The DOPS Accessibility Standard should be revised to set a specific height for an accessible customer service counter, and to fix specific accessibility requirements for public service queuing guides.

 

e) Require Audible Pedestrian Signals to Operate Automatically, Rather than Requiring People with Disabilities to Turn Them On Whenever Needed

 

It is helpful that section 80.28 requires the installation of audible pedestrian signals. However that provision does not require that these devices operate automatically. Under the DOPS Accessibility Standard, a municipality can require a person with vision loss to have to navigate around an intersection corner, just to find the device mounted on a telephone pole, and grope around in order to push a button before the device will emit audible traffic light signals. This risks making these audible pedestrian signals a massive waste of money. Many if not most people with vision loss will not bother to do this, especially in cold weather. This may result in municipalities spending money on these devices, and then complaining that people don’t benefit from them.

 

We regret that the Government did not heed our advice. In our submissions to the Government on the  DOPS Accessibility Standard in 2012, we recommended that the IASR should require audible pedestrian signals to operate automatically without any need for a person with vision loss to find and trigger it. Sighted people don’t need to push a button to get traffic lights to be operated and understandable. People with vision loss deserve no less.

 

Moreover, in New Zealand, there are far more audible pedestrian signals than here. These operate automatically, without burdening people with disabilities to hunt and grope around to find them and push a button to start them.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#18 The DOPS Accessibility Standard be revised to require that audible pedestrian signals operate automatically, without people with disabilities having to find them and push a button to turn them on.

f) Narrow Excessively Broad DOPS Accessibility Standard Exemptions

 

Here are several exemptions in the DOPS Accessibility Standard that need to be substantially reduced or eliminated:

 

First, the DOPS Accessibility Standard  provisions wrongly give a sweeping exemption from complying with certain accessibility requirements, where they would merely “affect” certain heritage aspects of a property. This is a much broader exemption from accessibility requirements than that which the Human Rights Code provides or permits.

 

Section 80.15 provides in part:

 

“80.15 Exceptions to the requirements that apply to recreational trails and beach access routes are permitted where obligated organizations can demonstrate one or more of the following:

 

1. The requirements, or some of them, would likely affect the cultural heritage value or interest of a property identified, designated or otherwise protected under the Ontario Heritage Act as being of cultural heritage value or interest.

 

2. The requirements, or some of them, would affect the preservation of places set apart as National Historic Sites of Canada by the Minister of the Environment for Canada under the Canada National Parks Act (Canada).

 

3. The requirements, or some of them, would affect the national historic interest or significance of historic places marked or commemorated under the Historic Sites and Monuments Act (Canada).

 

4. The requirements, or some of them, might damage, directly or indirectly, the cultural heritage or natural heritage on a property included in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s World Heritage List of sites under the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

 

5. There is a significant risk that the requirements, or some of them, would adversely affect water, fish, wildlife, plants, invertebrates, species at risk, ecological integrity or natural heritage values, whether the adverse effects are direct or indirect….

 

6. It is not practicable to comply with the requirements, or some of them, because existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features, such as where surrounding rocks bordering the recreational trail or beach access route impede achieving the required clear width.”

 

Decisions about providing accessibility for persons with disabilities must not be delegated to heritage officials. Such “heritage” considerations are easily and unfairly overblown. Heritage officials have no expertise in accessibility. Heritage considerations should not trump accessibility for persons with disabilities.

 

As one example, there was unwarranted and inappropriate push-back against making the front door accessible for the historic Osgoode Hall courthouse in downtown Toronto. Municipal heritage officials and others wrongly claimed that this would erode the heritage features of that building.

 

Commendably, the Ontario Government rejected those claims. It decided to make accessibility the primary consideration. The result was an excellent new accessible walkway to the front door of the historic Osgoode Hall courthouse that replaced the supposedly “historic” steps. Had the views of municipal heritage officials and others objectors been heeded, persons with disabilities would not have secured full, ready and equal access to that important and historic building through its front door. The new ramp is now a benefit for persons with disabilities, as well as for lawyers, judges and others who come to court with large bags of court materials on wheels.

 

The Western Wall to the historic Temple in Jerusalem and the ancient Acropolis in Athens have evidently been made accessible. So can recreational trails and beach access paths in Ontario.

 

Second, the exemption in section 80.15(4) where these accessibility standards requirements “might damage, directly or indirectly, the cultural heritage or natural heritage on a property included in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s World Heritage List of sites under the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” reduces the burden on obligated organizations far below the mandatory undue hardship bar which they must meet under the Human Rights Code.

 

Third, the “not practicable to comply” exemption in section 80.15(6) falls well short of the Human Rights Code’s undue hardship bar. In the instance in that provision, one is left wondering why some rocks might not simply be moved, if they are in the way. Section 80.15(6) provides an exemption where:

 

“6. It is not practicable to comply with the requirements, or some of them, because existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features, such as where surrounding rocks bordering the recreational trail or beach access route impede achieving the required clear width.”

 

Fourth, the same concern applies to the same overbroad exemptions from the Public Spaces accessibility requirements for exterior paths of travel (See s. 80.31).

 

Fifth, the accessibility provisions for recreational trails, beach access routes, outdoor seating areas, outdoor play spaces, exterior paths of travel and off-street parking only apply if an obligated organization intends to maintain it (See sections 80.6, 80.10, 80.11, 80.17, 80.18, 80.22, 80.32). If an obligated organization simply says it does not intend to maintain the trail, we risk that the Government will conclude that the trail or other regulated public space is exempt from these accessibility requirements, even though the Human Rights Code still applies to them.

 

Sixth, the DOPS Accessibility Standard includes some helpful requirements regarding the provision of accessible parking spots in off-street parking. However section 80.33(2)(a) exempts an organization if:

 

“(a) the off-street parking facilities are not located on a barrier-free path of travel regulated under the Ontario Building Code”.”

 

This makes no sense. It is possible for the organization to later choose to install a barrier-free path of travel. Moreover, for cars to get in to the parking lot, there has to be some sort of level access.

 

A seventh unjustified exemption, this one set out in section 80.32(2), concerns a new or redeveloped off-street parking lot that is not located on a barrier-free path of travel. This, in effect, permits the existence of unjustified existing barriers (including those that can be readily removed) to authorize the creation of new barriers. It is far better to require that a barrier-free path of travel be created to the new lot, except where to do so would cause undue hardship, rather than authorizing the creation of new barriers.

 

Moreover, disability parking spots are needed by persons with disabilities who can climb steps. For example, a person with a serious fatiguing condition can properly qualify for a disability parking permit, because he or she can only walk short distances, even if that person can climb steps and uses no mobility device. Such people could benefit from accessible parking spots in a lot, even if there are some steps on the path to or from that lot.”

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#19 Each of the exemptions to the DOPS Accessibility Standard requirements addressed in this brief should be substantially narrowed or eliminated.

 

 

 

Appendix 1 Chapter 4 of the AODA Alliance’s January 15, 2019 Brief to the 3^rd AODA Independent Review Conducted by David Onley

 

 Chapter 4 The Need for New Accessibility Standards, Including a Strong and Comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard

 

 1. Introduction

 

Chapter 3 of this brief shows that the accessibility standards enacted to date under the AODA, while helpful to a degree, are not sufficient to ensure that Ontario reaches full accessibility for people with disabilities by 2025. It recommends needed actions in so far as those specific accessibility standards are concerned. This chapter addresses the need for the Ontario Government to develop and enact new accessibility standards, to address issues and barriers that are beyond the areas that the existing accessibility standards address.

 

Part 4 of the June 30, 2014 AODA Alliance brief to Mayo Moran shows that since 2012, the Ontario Government’s work on developing new accessibility standards under the AODA had slowed to a virtual crawl. That Part of our 2014 brief reached this conclusion:

 

“This Part of this brief shows that the Government has in recent years taken an unjustified and inordinate amount of time just to decide which accessibility standards to next develop under the AODA. It seems as if the Government has been stuck in neutral. With the 2025 deadline growing ever nearer, this was time that Ontario could not afford to squander.”

 

That slow pace of progress has persisted to the present time. Since June 2014, no new accessibility standards have been enacted. The former Ontario Government only completed the mandatory review of one of the existing accessibility standards, the 2007 Customer Service Accessibility Standard. The mandatory 5-year reviews of the Transportation Accessibility Standard, the Employment Accessibility Standard and the Information and Communication Accessibility Standard are still underway. The mandatory 5-year review of the Public Spaces Accessibility Standard has not even begun. As shown later in this chapter, the Ontario Government has violated the AODA by not starting that mandatory review by the end of 2017.

 

Chapter 3 of this brief shows that the mandatory 5-year review of the weak 2007 Customer Service Accessibility Standard did not lead to that standard being substantially strengthened. In one respect, it led it to be weakened even more.

 

Throughout the past decade, the AODA Alliance has been in the lead in trying to get the Ontario Government to create new accessibility standards. During that period, the Ontario Government did not undertake a comprehensive effort to ascertain all the new accessibility standards that are needed. At most, the former Ontario Government only focused on two of the new subject areas which we had emphasized, namely education and health care. In those two areas, the former Ontario Government took an unconscionably long time to eventually decide whether to create accessibility standards in education and health care. The new Government, elected in June 2018, has frozen ongoing work on accessibility standards in those two new areas, as this chapter addresses.

 

As an illustration of another much-needed new accessibility standard, we have been calling for the Ontario Government to create a Residential Housing Accessibility Standard for over half a decade. In July 2009, the former Ontario Government promised to address residential housing through the standards development process, once the promised Built Environment Accessibility Standard was enacted. It never kept that promise. The former Ontario Government never gave a reason for failing to address accessibility barriers in residential housing. It has never denied to us that there is a protracted and critical shortage of accessible housing in Ontario – a shortage which will get worse as our population continues to age.

 

In this chapter, we first document the exceedingly long delays for the Ontario Government to decide to take action under the AODA on education and health care barriers. We then address the unmet need for a strong and effective Built Environment Accessibility Standard. Finally, we turn to the need for other accessibility standards to be created under the AODA.

 

Chapter 5 of this brief addresses the need for Ontario to develop and enact an Education Accessibility Standard to tear down the disability accessibility barriers facing students with disabilities in Ontario’s education system, and a Health Care Accessibility Standard to tear down the barriers facing patients with disabilities in Ontario’s health care system. It addresses the pressing need for the Government to lift its freeze on the work of three Standards Development Committees which were already at work before the 2018 Ontario election, developing recommendations for an Education Accessibility Standard and a Health Care Accessibility Standard.

 

 2. Recommended Findings

 

We recommend that this AODA Independent Review make the following findings:

 

* After the AODA has been part of Ontario law for 13 and a half years, the built environment in Ontario remains replete with far too many disability accessibility barriers. The AODA has not had a significant effect on removing existing barriers or preventing new ones in the built environment. A new building can be built in full compliance with the AODA and the Ontario Building Code and yet have serious accessibility problems. The Ontario Building Code’s accessibility requirements, like the few built environment requirements in AODA accessibility standards, are entirely inadequate to meet the known modern needs of people with disabilities.

 

* Ontario also has a pressing need for a comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard to be enacted under the AODA. The former Ontario Government’s decision to carve the built environment largely out of AODA accessibility standards and to only address it in the Ontario Building Code was wrong. It set Ontario back.

 

* The former Ontario Government’s failure to keep its August 19, 2011 election promise to promptly enact the promised Built Environment Accessibility Standard set Ontario back.

 

* The former Ontario Government’s failure to act effectively on the 2014 Mayo Moran recommendations to address retrofits in existing buildings further set Ontario further back.

 

* Ontario has a pressing need for a Residential Housing Accessibility Standard. There is a serious shortage of accessible housing in Ontario for people with disabilities. It is getting worse because the demand for accessible housing increases as Ontario’s population ages. There is no effective strategy in place in Ontario to ensure a sufficient increase in the supply of accessible housing in Ontario.

 

* Ontario needs a Goods and Products Accessibility Standard to be created under the AODA.

 

* The former Ontario Government never undertook a comprehensive consultation or other effort to determine what additional accessibility standards need to be created in order for the AODA to ensure that Ontario reaches full accessibility by 2025. There is no indication that the current Government did this, or has a plan to do this.

 

 3. Recommendations Regarding Next Accessibility Standards to be Developed

 

• The Government should consult with the public, including with people with disabilities, over the next three months, on all the sectors that other accessibility standards need to address, to ensure that Ontario becomes accessible by 2025, with a decision to be announced on the economic sectors to be addressed in those standards within three months after that consultation.

 

• The Government should not delay a decision on whether to have a new accessibility standard developed, while the Ontario Public Service decides what barriers it might include.

 

• Immediately after the Government decides what remaining accessibility standards need to be created, it should promptly create Standards Development Committees to develop recommendations for each of those new accessibility standards.

 

• The Government should now publicly recognize that there is a problem with the inaccessibility of the built environment in Ontario. It should launch a concerted and comprehensive strategy that will address new construction, major renovations, and the retrofit of existing buildings that are undergoing no major renovations, using feedback from the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal complaints and findings, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s policies and advice.

 

• The Government should develop and enact a comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the AODA, ensuring that it effectively addresses accessibility retrofits in existing buildings, as well as accessibility in new construction and major renovations (not limited to those covered in the DOPS accessibility standard). Among other things, the new and comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard should include additional accessibility requirements for elevators that are not currently addressed by the requirements in the Ontario Building Code and other provincial laws. To this end, the Ontario Government should appoint a new Built Environment Standards Development Committee, both to review the 2011 Public Spaces Accessibility Standard and to develop recommendations for a far more comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard.

 

• The Government should create a Residential Housing Accessibility Standard under the AODA, and should promptly appoint a Standards Development Committee to make recommendations on what it should include, or assign this to the Built Environment Standards Development Committee, referred to in the preceding recommendation.

 

• The Government should direct each AODA Standards Development Committee now in operation to make recommendations on standards for the built environment as it relates to the area that that Standards Development Committee is studying. For example, the Education Standards Development Committee should be directed to make recommendations for accessibility in schools, colleges or universities. The Health Care Standards Development Committee should be directed to recommend requirements for the accessibility of the built environment in the health care system.

 

• The Government should announce a comprehensive strategy on accessible housing to address the current and growing crisis in accessible housing in Ontario, in addition to creating an AODA accessibility standard on point.

 

• The Government should strengthen enforcement of accessibility in the built environment. For example, it should require that before a building permit or site plan approval can be obtained for a project, the approving authority, municipal or provincial, must be satisfied that the project, on completion, will meet all accessibility requirements under the Ontario Building Code and in all AODA accessibility standards.

 

• The Government should require professional bodies that regulate or licence key professionals such as architects, interior designers, landscape architects, and other design professionals, to require detailed training on accessible design, to qualify for a license, and continuing professional development for existing professionals. The Government should also require, as a condition of funding any college or university that trains these key professions, that their program curriculum must include sufficient training on accessibility and universal design. This should be designed to ensure that no new graduates in these fields will make the same mistakes as too often is the case for those now in practice.

 

• The Government should substantially reform the way public sector infrastructure projects are managed and overseen in Ontario, including a major reform of Infrastructure Ontario. This should include:

 

1. A requirement that accessibility advice be obtained on all major projects starting at the very beginning, during master planning, feasibility studies, and functional programming, with any accessibility advice that is received being made public. This input should also be obtained through consultations with people with disabilities.

 

1. A requirement to track any decisions to reject any accessibility advice, identifying who made that decision and the reasons why. That information should promptly be publicly reported.

 

1. To require the Government to promptly make public the accessibility requirements under consideration as a requirement for a contract for any infrastructure, with enough time before the start of the bidding competition to allow for feedback and adjustments. It is too late to make this public only after the bidding competition.

 

1. A requirement for post-project accessibility commissioning inspections which would include compliance with the project specific output specification accessibility requirements as well as the Ontario Building Code and AODA accessibility standards.

 

1. A requirement in all contracts that any accessibility deficiencies found must be the financial responsibility of the Project Company who built the project to fix them.

 

• The Government should require that when public money is used to create new public housing, 100% of that housing should include universal design and visit-ability as mandatory design features.

 

• The Government should agree to create a Goods and Products Accessibility Standard.

 

• Accessibility standards should include, where appropriate, not only end-dates for achieving results, but also interim benchmarks for major milestones towards full accessibility.

 

 4. Excessive Multi-Year Government Delays in Deciding Whether to Develop a New Accessibility Standard

 

The AODA requires the Ontario Government to create all the accessibility standards needed to ensure that Ontario becomes accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. The former Ontario Government commendably started this journey shortly after the AODA was enacted in 2005, by developing five accessibility standards. These are in the areas of customer service, transportation, information and communication, employment and public spaces.

 

However, after that, it took another half a decade if not more to get the former Government to decide what next accessibility standards to create. At first, the former Ontario Government made it sound like the first five accessibility standards were going to be the only ones it created. Public officials were reluctant to even advert to the possibility of creating additional accessibility standards. This was so even though the former Government asked the first AODA Independent Reviewer, Charles Beer, in 2009, to advise it on what accessibility standards it should make after these first five were enacted.

 

It was not until early 2013, in the final days of Premier McGuinty’s term as premier, that the former Government explicitly acknowledged that it would make more accessibility standards, and that it knew all it needed to know to decide which accessibility standards to next make. The January 21, 2013 AODA Alliance Update included this, referring to a Government news release, and to ASAC, the Government-appointed Accessibility Standards Advisory Council:

 

“What is new today, and a positive step (though an overdue one), is this news release’s commitment in unequivocal terms that new standards will be developed under the AODA. The news release states that the new ASAC’s mandate will include, among other things, responsibility to “Develop new accessibility standards based on the advice and feedback we have received to date from stakeholders.” By stating that the new standards will be created “based on the advice and feedback we have received to date,” the Government is committing that there does not need to be any more consultations before it decides what the topic of the new accessibility standards will be.

 

We have been urging the Government for several years to embark on the creation of new accessibility standards. The standards that have been developed to date, while helpful, do not address anywhere near the full range of barriers that need to be removed or prevented to ensure that Ontario becomes fully accessible by 2025, as the AODA requires.

 

We have been waging an ongoing campaign for quite some time to get the Government to commit that the next three accessibility standards to be developed will address barriers in our education system, barriers in our health care system, and barriers to access to residential housing.”

 

Even after that Government news release, it took the former Government over another year, up to the middle of the 2014 election campaign, just to agree that the next accessibility standards it would create would address barriers in education, health care, or both. It made no commitment at that time which of these it would be sure to address. In her May 14, 2014 letter to the AODA Alliance, setting out her party’s 2014 election pledges on accessibility, Premier Wynne wrote:

 

“The next accessibility standard we will develop will focus on education and/or health.”

 

From Premier Wynne’s letter, it was evident that the former Government had injected a new and unnecessary additional step into the AODA’s standards development process. It had decided that before choosing to embark on creating another accessibility standard, it should first have public servants do the work of studying where there are barriers that need to be addressed. In her May 14, 2014 letter to the AODA Alliance, Premier Wynne wrote:

 

“In order to develop a new accessibility standard, the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Employment has been actively working with the Ministries of Education, Training, Colleges and Universities as well as Health and Long-Term Care to examine where changes and new standards are required to make our education and healthcare systems more accessible. This important work needs to be done prior to broad consultation with the accessibility community.”

 

None of the ministries to which the Premier referred had reached out to the AODA Alliance or, to our knowledge, to the broader disability community, to get information on the barriers we face in those areas, as part of that exercise. The Premier’s letter suggested that those ministries had already been working on this issue. Those ministries should have reached out to us for input, both because of the AODA Alliance ‘s known leadership role in this area, and because we had led the campaign to press the Ontario Government to create accessibility standards in the areas of education and health care.

 

Moreover, the Ontario Government had never injected this new layer of bureaucracy in 2005 before commendably reaching the prompt decision to create accessibility barriers in the areas of customer service, transportation, employment, the built environment, and information and communication. Had it added this additional and unnecessary layer to the standards development process in 2005, the Government would have taken even longer than it did to get the original round of accessibility standards created.

 

We do not know what the Government did during its internal education and health care barrier survey, or whom, if anyone, the Ontario Government contacted to survey barriers in either health care or education. Chapter 5 of this brief addresses the fact that the Government had hired the KPMG consulting firm to do an online survey of disability accessibility barriers in Ontario’s education system and Ontario’s health care system. We were not told about those studies at the time, nor consulted by KPMG.

 

We know that the results of the Government’s efforts at looking into barriers in the context of the health care sector were very limited in scope, and missed key barriers. The August 4, 2016 AODA Alliance Update included:

 

“After all the time the Government spent over the past two years, exploring accessibility barriers in Ontario’s health care system, the Government’s PowerPoint showed that the Government had only found a very small fraction of the areas where people with disabilities actually face barriers. The PowerPoint listed the following barriers:

 

“What’s in?

o          Targeted accessibility training requirements for health care providers

o          Improving the interaction between health care providers and persons with disabilities

o          Identifying best accessibility practices and patient accommodations

o          Accessible prescription drug labels and instructions

o          Other focus areas as identified”

 

The PowerPoint described as barriers to be address: health care providers’ insensitivities towards people with disabilities, and communication barriers when dealing with health care providers. These are all the disability barriers the Government unearthed in Ontario’s health care system, facing people with disabilities, after working on this issue over the past two years. We pointed out at the July 26, 2016 “pre-consultation” meeting, this leaves out a wide range of well-known and critical barriers, including barriers in the built environment in health care facilities, barriers in information technology in the health care system, and barriers in diagnostic equipment in the health care system, just to name a few.”

 

Creating more delay, it took the former Government up until February 13, 2015 to decide to create a Health Care Accessibility Standard. It announced that decision on the day the Government released the final report of the Mayo Moran AODA Independent Review.

 

After that, it took the Government up to December 5, 2016, or almost two more years, to announce that it would also create an Education Accessibility Standard. Put another way, it took the Government as long or longer just to decide to create these two obviously-needed new accessibility standards than it takes to actually do the hard work of developing a proposed accessibility standard.

 

During its multi-year period of deliberating on these issues, the former Ontario Government never disputed that people with disabilities continue to face serious disability accessibility barriers in Ontario’s health care system and education system. It was never credibly suggested that the existing AODA accessibility standards were sufficient to remove or prevent all those disability barriers.

 

For years, the former Ontario Government withheld agreeing to create an Education Accessibility Standard even though in 2013 and afterwards, the Government received letters of support for our call for this accessibility standard from key unions that represent those who work in the front lines of Ontario’s education system. This includes the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario, the Association of English Catholic Teachers of Ontario and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (Ontario). Those front line workers were not opposed to a new AODA accessibility standard in the area of education. To the contrary they were supporting our call for this new measure.

 

It was after a tenacious multiyear campaign that we had spearheaded, and only in an answer to a question from an opposition member, PC MPP Bill Walker, that Premier Wynne announced on December 5, 2016 in the Legislature that the Government had decided to create an Education Accessibility Standard. On that day, the Toronto Star reported on the fact that an open letter to Premier Wynne from 22 disability organizations had called for the Government to agree to create an Education Accessibility Standard.

 

Presumably, Premier Wynne did not spontaneously decide on the spot during Question Period to agree to create an Education Accessibility Standard. We did not know of this decision in advance of that exchange in Question Period. We do not know why the former Government held off announcing this until we were fortunate enough to get an opposition member to raise this issue once again in Question Period.

 

The Government never gave any reasons in public for its multi-year delays in deciding to create these accessibility standards. It was undisputed that Ontario was behind schedule for reaching accessibility by 2025. Ontario could not afford to lose all that time. Had the Government agreed sooner to create the Education Accessibility Standard and Health Care Accessibility Standard, we would now be much further along in the process of creating a barrier-free education and health care system.

 

We have gathered that there was internal resistance within some parts of the Ontario Government or the Ontario Public Service. If so, the Public Service tail should not wag the democratic dog.

 

In Chapter 5, we address the former Ontario Government’s further protracted delays in setting up Standards Development Committees in the areas of education and health care, after it had decided to create accessibility standards in these areas, and the current Government’s protracted freeze on the work of those committees.

 

 5. The Pressing Need for A Residential Housing Accessibility Standard

 

We also pressed the former Ontario Government for several years to create a Residential Housing Accessibility Standard. As is detailed later in this Chapter, in July 2009, the former Ontario Government had publicly stated on its website that it would address the need for accessibility in residential housing, as well as in retrofits to existing buildings that are not undergoing a major renovation, through the Standards Development Committee process. However, it said it would not do this until after the first phase of the promised Built Environment Accessibility Standard was enacted under the AODA, to address built environment barriers in new buildings and major renovations.

 

The former Ontario Government later removed that text from its website. However, the AODA Alliance preserved it on the AODA Alliance’s website. We often reminded the former Ontario Government about this pledge. The former

 

Over the years since then, the former Ontario Government never denied making that announcement. It also never acknowledged it, or acted to fulfil it.

 

There has for years been a crisis in accessible housing. As the population ages, it will get worse.

 

 6. The Pressing Need for a Strong and Effective AODA Built Environment Accessibility Standard

 

1. a) What We Told the Mayo Moran AODA Independent Review

 

Part 4 of the June 30, 2014 AODA Alliance brief to Mayo Moran addressed the pressing need for the Ontario Government to enact a strong and effective Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the AODA. Part 4 of the June 30, 2014 AODA Alliance brief to Mayo Moran described the former Ontario Government’s multi-year foot-dragging on the promised Built Environment Accessibility Standard up to 2014 as follows:

 

“4. The Long, Sad and Unfinished Saga of the Promised Built Environment Accessibility Standard

 

1. a) Overview

 

The AODA requires Ontario’s buildings to become accessible to persons with disabilities by or before 2025. Ontario is clearly not on schedule for achieving a fully accessible built environment by then or ever.

 

During the Legislature’s 2004-2005 debates on Bill 118, the proposed AODA, the need to make Ontario’s built environment was a central focus. MPPs addressed not only the need to prevent new barriers in new buildings, but as well, the need to retrofit the existing built environment to ensure it becomes fully accessible by 2025. The 20 years that the AODA allows for achieving full accessibility was driven in substantial part by the time needed to retrofit Ontario’s largely-inaccessible built environment.

 

Even though the Government commendably focused efforts on the built environment within the first years after the AODA was passed, its efforts eventually slowed to a glacial pace after 2010. It will not be until 2015, if not later, that all its insufficient regulations enacted to date to prevent new built environment barriers will go into operation. No new built environment accessibility standards are now under development. The Government has, to date, done nothing to keep its promise to also address retrofitting of existing built environment barriers, through AODA standards.

 

1. b) Hurry Up and Wait

 

It was not long after the AODA was enacted that the Government commendably decided to make the built environment a priority. In October, 2007 it established the Built Environment Standards Development Committee to develop proposals for a Built Environment Accessibility Standard to be enacted under the AODA.

 

The Built Environment Standards Development Committee began its work in 2008. In the following year, on July 14, 2009 the Government posted for public input the initial proposed Built Environment Accessibility Standard that the Built Environment Standards Development Committee prepared. When the Government released the initial proposed Built Environment Accessibility Standard, its web announcement included the following:

 

“It is important to note that the government does not plan to impose requirements for retrofitting existing buildings at this time. Also, the government does not intend to require Ontarians to make their existing or new single family houses accessible at this time.”

 

The Government’s web posting also said:

 

“The initial proposed standard sets out specific requirements for making the built environment in Ontario accessible, including all new construction and extensive renovations.

 

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act is built on a vision of improving accessibility in Ontario – looking forward, not looking back.”

 

We asked the standards development committee to take a broad look at how to make Ontario’s buildings, structures and other spaces accessible. The requirements the committee is proposing are not law.

 

Requirements for single family residential housing and for retrofitting existing buildings have been included for public discussion. But the government will not impose these requirements in the final built environment standard at this time.

 

The Government does not plan to require that all existing buildings be retrofitted to meet accessibility requirements in the final accessible built environment standard at this time. Terms of reference outline that this standard will be focused on preventing barriers on a go-forward basis. Also, the government does not intend to require Ontarians to make their existing or new houses accessible in the final accessible built environment standard at this time.”

 

The terms of reference which the Community and Social Service Ministry (then responsible for the AODA’s implementation and enforcement) set for the Built Environment Standards Development Committee required, among other things that the Committee:

 

“Focus on first 5-year efforts on preventing barriers, on a go forward basis;”

 

After these announcements were made public in the 2009 summer, we and others raised serious concerns with the Ministry about the need to address, at some point and where appropriate, the retrofitting of existing buildings and accessibility to residential housing. It was a substantial repudiation of much of the AODA’s mission and mandate for the Government to state that the AODA is meant to address accessibility “looking forward, not looking back.” The AODA explicitly addresses not only the prevention of new barriers, but the removal of existing barriers. Otherwise, it would not be possible to reach the AODA’s goal of full accessibility in Ontario by 2025.

 

It was similarly troubling that the Government’s web posting referred to the AODA in terms of “improving accessibility.” This massively diluted the AODA’s goals. There was similar language in a number of the Government’s pronouncements about the AODA after it was enacted. “Improving accessibility” is an impoverished, minimalist goal. It is achieved merely if a single ramp is installed somewhere in Ontario. The AODA seeks to achieve much, much more. Its goal is full accessibility.

 

After we and others objected to the Government’s attempt to walk back much of what the AODA promised, the Ministry promptly replaced the preceding portions of its website so it instead read:

 

“On July 14, 2009, the Ontario government released the initial proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard for a public review period. A standards development committee developed the proposed standard. The committee was made up of representatives from the disability and business communities.

 

Creating an accessible Ontario by 2025 is a big undertaking, but a goal the government is committed to achieving.

 

The committee’s terms of reference outline that this standard will focus on preventing barriers on a go-forward basis. Under this proposed standard, all new buildings and buildings undergoing major renovations would need to meet the proposed requirements if passed as law.

 

The Government does not plan to require that all existing buildings be retrofitted to meet accessibility requirements in the final accessible built environment standard at this time. Also, the government does not intend to require Ontarians to make their existing or new houses accessible in the final accessible built environment standard at this time.

 

A subsequent step the Government plans to take to achieve an accessible built environment in the province is to take a more focused look at how to deal with retrofitting existing buildings and making houses accessible. These two issues are expected to be addressed through a standard development committee process.

 

The standard development process going forward will consider any recommendations made by Charles Beer in his independent review of the AODA, which is currently underway.”

 

We understood this to mean that the Government planned first to enact the first part of a Built Environment Accessibility Standard which addresses barrier-free construction in new buildings and renovated properties. After that was done, the Government would designate a Standards Development Committee or Committees to address measures regarding the retrofitting of existing buildings that are not undergoing renovations, and accessible housing needs facing Ontarians with disabilities. We made it clear to the Government and the public that we hoped that the latter initiative would include the full spectrum of issues relating to access to housing, such as removing barriers to community living options for persons with disabilities.

 

A 2009 CBC report confirmed the Government’s commitment to later deal with retrofits. CBC’s Website on Friday July 17, 2009 included:

 

“The province plans to deal with the issue of retrofits at a later date, according to Social Services Minister Madeleine Meilleur, MP for Ottawa-Vanier.”

 

One year later, on June 1, 2010, Community and Social Services Minister Meilleur committed in Question Period in the Legislature that the four accessibility standards that were then still under development, including the Built Environment Accessibility Standard, would be enacted by the end of 2010. She stated: “Before the end of this year, the five standards will be in place.” It turns out that insofar as the promised Built Environment Accessibility Standard was concerned, she was off by as much as three years.

 

In July 2010, the Built Environment Standards Development Committee finished its work. It submitted its final proposal for the Built Environment Accessibility Standard to the Government. Two months later, on September 10, 2010 the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario, part of the Community and Social Services Ministry posted the final proposed Built Environment Accessibility Standard on the Government’s website for 45 days. The Government did not request public input on that proposal.

 

On September 28, 2010, Minister Meilleur committed that the Built Environment Accessibility Standard would cover barriers both inside and outside buildings. Speaking to the “Business Takes Action” Symposium, she said (according to her speaking notes):

 

“And last but not least, we have the Built Environment Standard. This will address access into and within buildings and outdoor spaces.”

 

On October 14, 2010, Minister Meilleur committed that the final public review period for the Built Environment Accessibility Standard would likely be in 2011. That is the period when the Government posts a draft of the accessibility regulation that it proposes to enact for a final round of public comment and input. This is the last step before an accessibility standard can be enacted. By that announcement, she in effect pushed back the deadline she had earlier announced for enactment of the Built Environment Accessibility Standard. Speaking to honour “World Standards Day” at the Standards Council of Canada, the minister stated (according to her speaking notes):

 

“The Built Environment Standard – which will address access into and within buildings and outdoor spaces – is at an earlier stage of development. It has been submitted by the standards development committee for consideration and is now available on my ministry’s website for the public to see. The public review period for the Built Environment Standard will likely take place next year.”

 

In that same month, October 2010, the Government announced that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing would be undertaking a consultation on proposed changes to the Ontario Building Code. The first round of consultations, to begin in the fall of 2010, would not include Building Code amendments arising from the final proposed Built Environment Accessibility Standard. Rather, that Ministry was deferring accessibility amendments to the Building Code to a later consultation by that Ministry. This would be followed by much more foot-dragging by the Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry.

 

Four months after that, on February 23, 2011, the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario sent out a broadcast email, announcing that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing was commencing a second round of Building Code consultations. However, that too would not include accessibility issues arising from the final proposed Built Environment Accessibility Standard. Accessibility issues were again being deferred to an unspecified future time. It stated:

 

“I want to reassure you that the government continues to consider the Final Proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard submitted to the Minister in July 2010, and is working hard to respond to requests for further research in key areas of the proposed standard to make sure that when we move forward, all requirements will be clear, consistent, enforceable and will build on current accessibility requirements.”

 

The months dragged on with no progress in sight. On June 9, 2011, the AODA Alliance wrote to the two public officials with lead responsibility for this issue at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Community and Social Services Ministry respectively. We asked for a comprehensive update on the state of the government’s work toward enacting the promised Built Environment Accessibility Standard:

 

“It is our understanding that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is working on proposals for incorporating changes regarding accessibility of the built environment within buildings, into the Ontario Building Code, where they fall within the scope of the Building Code. We also understand that proposals from the Standards Development Committee that do not fall within the scope of the Ontario Building Code, are now the focus of work by the Accessibility Directorate at the Ministry of Community & Social Services. To the extent that those are enacted into law, the latter would not be done by amendments to the Building Code.

 

We want to know in detail what has been done in both of these areas, since the Standards Development Committee submitted its final proposal last year. We also want to know what plans the Government has in both of your ministries, and elsewhere, for completing this project. Among other things, we would appreciate learning about the current time lines that are now expected for completing the work that each of your respective ministries is now undertaking.

 

Finally, we are eager to ensure that whatever is enacted, including any changes to the Building Code, is also fully enforceable as a standard enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. What decisions have been made, or action taken in this regard to date.”

 

On June 24, 2011, the two senior Ontario Government officials to whom we had written wrote us a joint response. They described their activities in very general terms. They gave no time lines for finalization of the Built Environment Accessibility Standard. They wrote:

 

“The Accessible Built Environment Standard is still under development. The Accessibility Directorate of Ontario and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) are working together to complete a careful analysis of the proposed standard. In addition, you may be aware that the Standards Development Committee identified a number of areas where additional research was required in order to develop regulations, which were not part of the Final Proposed Standard. These additional recommendations are also part of our analysis of the Standard Development Committee’s recommendations.

 

We are working hard to make sure that the requirements put forward are clear, consistent and enforceable, and build on current accessibility requirements. Once this analysis is complete, the government will make decisions on what requirements will be proposed as regulations and when they will come into force.”

 

In the 2011 Ontario general election, still seeing no end in sight, we sought commitments from the major parties to expeditiously complete the Built Environment Accessibility Standard. In our July 15, 2011 letter to the party leaders, we wrote:

 

“In July 2010 the current Government received a final proposal for a Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the AODA. The current Government has studied it for one year and has set no date for enacting it. … We agree with the current Government’s plan to incorporate it into the Ontario Building Code, to the extent feasible. We ask you to commit to:

 

2. Enact a Built Environment Accessibility Standard as a regulation under the AODA, and to the extent feasible, include the same content as an amendment to the Ontario Building Code, no later than the end of 2012, to address built environment barriers inside and outside buildings.”

 

On August 19, 2011, during the 2011 Ontario election campaign, Premier Dalton McGuinty wrote to us to promise that the Built Environment Accessibility Standard that his Government had under development would be enacted “promptly.” He wrote:

 

“It is a priority for us to enact the Accessible Built Environment standard promptly and responsibly.”

 

Four months after that, on December 2, 2011, after the dust had settled from the October 2011 Ontario election, and with still no signs of progress on the Built Environment Accessibility Standard, we wrote to the new Minister of Municipal Affairs, Kathleen Wynne. Among other things, we urged prompt action on the promised Built Environment Accessibility Standard. Our letter stated in material part:

 

“1. Expediting Enactment of the Built Environment Accessibility Standard

 

First, your ministry has taken on a major role in the development of the forthcoming built environment accessibility standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. In his August 19, 2011 letter to us, setting out your party’s 2011 election commitments, Premier McGuinty pledged that: “It is a priority for us to enact the Accessible Built Environment standard promptly and responsibly.”

 

Over four years ago, in October, 2007, your government appointed the built environment standards development committee, under the provisions of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It was established to develop a proposal for this standard in consultation with experts in the field. After many hours of painstaking work, that Standards Development Committee submitted a very detailed initial proposal for the Built Environment Accessibility Standard to the government.

 

On July 14, 2009, your Government made public the initial proposed Built Environment Accessibility Standard for public comment. After public comment was received, the Built Environment Standards Development Committee undertook many more hours of study to refine their initial proposal in light of public feedback on the initial proposal. Well over a year ago, in July 2010, the Built Environment Standards Development Committee submitted its final proposal for the Built Environment Accessibility Standard to your Government. Since then, that proposal has been under study in your ministry and in the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

 

We understand that your Ministry was extensively involved with the work of the Built Environment Standards Development Committee throughout its many months of activity. As such, your Government should be well-positioned to fulfil the Premier’s commitment to promptly finalize and enact this much-needed accessibility standard.

 

Despite this, this initiative has unfortunately been behind schedule for some time. On June 1, 2010, the Minister of Community and Social Services Minister committed that the Built Environment Accessibility Standard would be enacted by the end of 2010. That deadline was missed.

 

Back on June 9, 2011, we wrote the relevant assistant deputy minister in your ministry and the assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, who together have lead responsibility for the development of the built environment accessibility standard. We asked for details on their plans for bringing this project to completion. Their answer to us, dated June 24, 2011, provided little information. …

 

We understand that your ministry has taken on responsibility for the parts of the built environment accessibility standard that are to be incorporated in the Ontario Building Code. We ask you to expedite the work of your ministry’s officials on this project, so that your government can keep the Premier’s commitment to us. We also ask that any requirements that are incorporated into the Building Code also be enacted as accessibility standards under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, so that we have the full benefit of the protections we won in that legislation.”

 

Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Wynne responded in a letter to us dated January 17, 2012. Her formulaic letter said nothing new. Regarding the built environment, she wrote:

 

“Expediting Enactment of the Built Environment Accessibility Standard

 

I want to acknowledge the work done by the Accessible Built Environment Standards Development Committee, and the contribution of the AODA Alliance as members of the committee, for the development of its final proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard. As you know, the committee’s membership included people from the disability, municipal and business communities. All of them worked very hard to develop and submit their final proposed standard to the former Minster of Community and Social Services in July 2010.

 

It takes time to develop a standard of this complexity and magnitude. In other jurisdictions, it has taken up to 10 years to develop accessibility standards. The Accessible Built Environment Standards Development Committee also identified a number of areas where further research is required. Work is ongoing through analysis of the entire proposed standard by staff from this ministry as well as the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario at the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

 

New requirements will address both the internal built environment (buildings) and the external built environment (which includes parking spaces, signs and displays, and recreation areas such as parks and trails). Once this analysis is complete, our government will decide what requirements will be proposed as regulations and when they will come into force. Any requirements that the government moves forward on must be clear, consistent, enforceable, and must build on current accessibility standards.”

 

Yet another five months slipped past with no discernible progress. Therefore, on Friday, June 1, 2012 we wrote to the two Ministers responsible for the Built Environment Accessibility Standard, to press for its enactment. Our letter to Community and Social Services Minister John Milloy and Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Kathleen Wynne, raised five key issues:

 

1. We asked when the Government will be publicly posting a draft of the proposed Built

Environment Accessibility Standard for public comment.

 

2. We asked the Government to release a summary of the intended contents of the

proposed Built Environment Accessibility Standard, in advance of finalizing its precise legal language.

 

3. We reiterated that the Government planned to enact part of the new Built Environment

Accessibility Standard in the form of amendments to the Ontario Building code. We yet again asked the Government to commit that any new accessibility requirements to be added to the Ontario Building Code also be enacted as part of the enforceable Built Environment Accessibility Standard enacted under the AODA. Our earlier requests in this regard had never been answered. To this day, this request has gone unanswered and unfulfilled.

 

3. We asked the Government to include in the Built Environment Accessibility Standard, a requirement that when public sector organizations engage in the downsizing of their buildings holdings, they give priority to closing inaccessible properties in favour of retaining more accessible properties. The Government has to this day never agreed to this, or responded substantively to this proposal.

 

4. We noted that the anticipated Built Environment Accessibility Standard would not

require retrofitting of any existing buildings that are not undergoing major renovations. We asked for a clear commitment now that as soon as the part of the Built Environment Accessibility Standard that addresses the sphere of the Ontario Building Code was enacted, the Government would immediately launch a prompt standards development process to develop a part of the Built Environment Accessibility Standard to deal with retrofitting of existing buildings that are not slated for major renovations. To this day, that request has gone unanswered and hence, unfulfilled.

 

On July 16, 2012, Minister Wynne responded. Her letter provided few, if any specifics. It stated in material part:

 

“As you know, the Built Environment Accessibility Standard is the final standard to be regulated under the AODA. It is the largest and most complicated standard requiring the cooperation of both the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Our work has been greatly advanced by the noteworthy contribution of the Accessible Built Environment Standard Development Committee.

 

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has a long history of contributing to an accessible built environment through Ontario’s Building Code. We have set increasingly rigorous requirements for barrier-free design since 1975. Moreover, Ontario’s Building Code has been, and continues to be, a leader among Canadian building codes, including the model National Building Code.

 

Currently, ministry staff are developing recommendations for potential Building Code changes based on the Final Proposed Standard, and we expect this information to be made available in the coming months. Any proposed changes to the Building Code will be made available to all Ontarians as part of a public consultation. The consultation will include an explanatory document that outlines the proposed changes in plain language. Once this is complete, the Ontario government will decide which requirements will be proposed as regulations and when they will come into force.

 

Once again, thank you for your input and continued engagement. I look forward to further dialogue with you on this matter.”

 

Our August 16, 2012 AODA Alliance Update commented publicly on this letter:

 

“Minister Wynne’s letter to us…makes undeserved self-congratulatory claims about her Ministry’s past work in this area. In fact, deficiencies over the years in the Ontario Building Code have contributed to the ongoing presence of barriers that persons with disabilities too often still encounter in the built environment. Had her ministry’s work on barrier-free building standards been as effective as Minister Wynne’s letter claims, her Government would not now still be unable to even tell us when it will bring forward the “inside buildings” Built Environment Accessibility Standard provisions for which her ministry has lead responsibility…”

 

On August 15, 2012, a full two years after the Government received the final proposed Built Environment Accessibility Standard from the Built Environment Standards Development Committee, the Government posted for public comment, a draft accessibility standard, to address built environment in public spaces. This in substances was a very limited, partial Built Environment Accessibility Standard.

 

Addressed in detail in Part III of this brief, this accessibility standard, which was ultimately incorporated into the IASR, did not comprehensively address built environment barriers in buildings. It only addresses barriers in outdoor public spaces of new developments or major renovations. It did not address retrofitting of pre-existing barriers in outdoor public spaces where the public space is not being redeveloped. The only thing it addressed inside buildings were new or redeveloped service areas e.g. a public counter and waiting area.

 

Our August 16, 2012 AODA Alliance Update commended the Government for taking this step, but noted:

 

“We still have no specific word from the Government on when it will bring forward its promised draft accessibility standard to address barriers inside buildings. That is a very central part of any effective Built Environment Accessibility Standard.”

 

It also stated:

 

“We remain frustrated that the Government is now only dealing with new construction and renovations to the existing built environment. It has not announced any specifics on how or when it plans to deal with retrofits of barriers in the existing built environment that are not undergoing any renovations. It has previously committed that it would eventually address those retrofits through the standards development process.”

 

Four months later, in December 2012, the Government enacted the Public Spaces provisions of the IASR. It was clear to us that the Community and Social Services Ministry was far ahead of the Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry in its work and its commitment to this issue. From the outside, it appeared that the Community and Social Services Ministry had hived off the Public Spaces part of the Built Environment Accessibility Standard, in hopes of moving forward more quickly and making some progress despite the manifest foot-dragging at the Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry. It was our perception that the delay at the Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry came at least as much from the public servants within that ministry, as from the lack of political leadership on this issue.

 

It was well over two years after the Built Environment Standards Development Committee submitted its final recommendations to the Government in 2010, before we saw the glacial activity at the Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry start to pick up. That ministry’s Building Code officials then went through a long process of consultations that led to Ontario Building Code accessibility amendments that were enacted by the Ontario Cabinet as regulations in December 2013. That was well over two years after Premier McGuinty promised on August 19, 2011 that the Built Environment Accessibility Standard would be enacted “promptly” as a priority.

 

1. c) Reflections on the Promised Built Environment Accessibility Standard

 

We acknowledge the advantages of including accessibility requirements in the Ontario Building Code. Builders look to the Ontario Building Code for directions on what a building must include. Builders likely know little if anything about the Human Rights Code, and even less about the AODA.

 

However, there are major disadvantages to the Government having gone the Ontario Building Code route. As these Building Code accessibility amendments were being developed, we were told time and again that there are some accepted conventions in the Building Code. These led the Government to feel constrained about how effectively it could deal with built environment barriers in that legislation.

 

For example, when we proposed a specific requirement to the Government, we were baldly told that this would be problematic “due to cost.” We have taken the position that the simple fact that an accessibility requirement can occasion some costs cannot of itself stop the Government from imposing it. Under the Human Rights Code, cost can justify a denial of accessibility only where it would cause an organization undue hardship.

 

As we understand it, the Ontario Building Code amendments do not take the approach of requiring an accessibility measure, but exempting an organization from that requirement if its cost would cause that organization undue hardship. We understand that crafting a requirement in that way is not a convention that is typically used in the Ontario Building Code. Instead, the Ontario Building Code simply imposes accessibility requirements, but they are watered down to avoid any chance of an organization having a claim that they would impose costs amounting to an undue hardship.

 

Such “conventions” should not be treated as if they were engraved in stone. The AODA and Human Rights Code prevail over laws that provide lesser accessibility protections.

 

It is troubling that the Government in effect hacked this major part of the built environment away from the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario, the public agency that has led the process of developing accessibility standards. It gave it instead to the Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry. That Ministry has a sorry track record on built environment accessibility. Indeed, when our predecessor coalition, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, was advocating for the AODA from 1994 to 2005, it saw a need to wrench the built environment’s accessibility away from the public officials who had had responsibility for it for years at the Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry. This was because their track record on this issue was so poor. Their delays in dealing with this issue, once the Government re-assigned it to them after the Built Environment Standards Development Committee finished its work in 2010, demonstrated that this long, troubling track record was to continue.

 

It remains seriously problematic that the Government has to date not agreed to enact accessibility requirements in an AODA accessibility standard, that replicate the built environment accessibility provisions of the Ontario Building Code, as amended in 2013. As demonstrated in this Part of this brief, we have made this request of the Government, but it simply has not responded.

 

The Government is in clear breach of its promises to us. What we were promised was a Built Environment Accessibility Standard, to address the physical barriers in the built environment. Only the small slice of the built environment is addressed in the Public Spaces provisions of the IASR. The rest is all addressed, if at all, only under the Ontario Building Code. That is not an AODA accessibility standard.

 

We were not consulted before the Government decided to take this approach. We have not and do not agree with it as the sole way to regulate accessibility barriers in the built environment inside buildings.

 

We need these Ontario Building Code built environment accessibility requirements to be replicated in an accessibility standard enacted under the AODA, so that we can have the benefit of their enforcement under the AODA. Ontario’s Building Code enforcement is conducted by municipal building inspectors, whom the Ontario Government does not hire. We have no way to track how well they are trained, nor how seriously they take these accessibility requirements, nor how effectively they enforce them, without having to shoulder the enormous task of tracking each municipality across Ontario.

 

In addition to those municipal inspectors, any provincial official with AODA inspection or auditing authority should be able to include these accessibility requirements in their enforcement activities. It would be absurd for an AODA compliance order, audit, inspection, enforcement proceeding, appeal, or monetary penalty to disregard unlawful accessibility deficiencies in an organization’s built environment.

 

We also need these Ontario Building Code built environment accessibility requirements to be replicated in an accessibility standard under the AODA, so that we have full recourse to a five-year review of them through the process which the AODA makes mandatory. Ontarians with disabilities fought long and hard for that process to be enshrined in law. The Government’s process for review of the Ontario Building Code does not include all those safeguards. Long experience with the Ontario Building Code also shows that the Ontario Building Code review process has been systemically deficient at effectively addressing the needs of persons with disabilities.

 

It is fundamentally unacceptable that it took from 2005, when the AODA was passed, to 2015, for these Ontario Building Code accessibility requirements to go into effect. That is halfway through the twenty years that the AODA allocates for Ontario to become fully accessible. That in turn means that for the first ten of those twenty years, the AODA did nothing to prevent the creation of new built environment barriers, much less to deal with eliminating old built environment barriers in buildings that will otherwise undergo no major renovations.

 

It makes this sad picture even worse that, as noted earlier, the Government has not kept its promise to address retrofitting of the built environment, in the context of residential housing, and of buildings that are not undergoing a major renovation, through a standards development process. As documented earlier, in response to direct advocacy efforts by us and others in the disability community, the Government promised this in July 2009, to begin after the Government had enacted requirements to deal with barrier-prevention in new construction and major renovations. That work was completed in December 2013, half a year ago.

 

We have repeatedly referred to this commitment in correspondence with the Government and in discussions with public officials at all levels. No Government official has denied that this commitment was made. However, whenever we raise this with the Government, we are typically met with blank stares. It is clear to us that the public service has been given no directions to take any action on this.

 

The Government’s 2009 commitment to this effect was on a web page that the Government has since taken down from the internet. This is because it was part of a posting, discussed earlier, where the Government made public, for public comment, the Built Environment Standards Development Committee’s initial proposed Built Environment Accessibility Standard. The Government has an unfortunate practice of taking down any such postings for public comment after the consultation period expires. However, that announcement, including this specific commitment, is preserved on our website, and is available to be viewed at

https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/newsub2011/mcguinty-government-releases-initial-proposed-built-environment-accessibility-standard-for-public-comment/

 

Part of that 2009 Government commitment, as noted earlier is to address barriers in residential housing through the standards development process. Yet, as documented earlier in this Part of this brief, the Government has never positively responded to our call that the next three standards that the Government should create should include one to address residential housing.

 

To the contrary, when the Government was finally driven to say something in public about the next standards to be developed, under the pressure of the 2014 Ontario election campaign the Government only spoke of accessibility standards to address education and/or health care. That purported to take an accessibility standard to address residential housing right off this table, contrary to its 2009 commitment.”

 

1. b) What the final report of the Mayo Moran AODA Independent Review Found

 

The findings in the 2014 final report of the Mayo Moran AODA Independent Review confirmed the need for a comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard. It identified the barriers in the built environment, including as a priority – one which the AODA’s implementation to date had not adequately addressed. It also emphasized the need to address the unaddressed issue of retrofitting the existing built environment, where accessibility barriers persist. Key passages in the final report of the Mayo Moran AODA Independent Review include:

 

* “The issue of retrofits to remove existing barriers was a particular subject of discussion during the consultations. Current accessibility requirements apply to new buildings and extensive renovations as well as to newly constructed or redeveloped public spaces. They do not call for the retrofitting of the built environment, but many in the disability community and in the business sector do not realize this. As a result, people with disabilities may feel betrayed when they encounter physical barriers, while some businesses are turned against accessibility by what they fear will be high retrofit costs.”

 

* “Built Environment

Perhaps the most overwhelming number of concerns with barriers were those raised about the built environment, specifically access to buildings and public spaces. Again, many examples were cited to the Review – including provincial government offices located in inaccessible premises, or even relocating to inaccessible buildings. Participants told of brand new private sector buildings with no power doors, a new city park that was inaccessible to people with mobility devices, and hospital renovations completed without way-finding for people who are blind. A new playground banned children in wheelchairs from using a splash pad because it was felt the wheels could damage the surface.

 

Perhaps the most overwhelming number of concerns with barriers were raised about the built environment.

 

Many people also reported that facilities that are marked accessible may not be in fact. A Thunder Bay woman who uses a wheelchair found that supposedly accessible washrooms in a recently renovated city hall and hospital could not accommodate her and she was told it would cost too much to fix them now. Restaurants that advertise as accessible often have stairs and don’t have power doors and accessible washrooms. A small business owner reported that most business networking events are inaccessible – and invited anyone who wants to see how accessible Ontario is to borrow her wheelchair for a day.”

 

* “Built Environment

As mentioned above, the current Built Environment Standards do not cover retrofits to remove existing barriers. Many disability stakeholders argued that this must change. They pointed out that barriers in buildings mean people with disabilities cannot use them, whether to shop, study, work, play or obtain services from health care to driver’s licences.

 

During the Review, considerable discussion of retrofits arose in different sectors. Many concerns were raised about the built environment in health care, such as lack of elevators to doctors’ offices and inaccessible hospital washrooms. A strong view was expressed that all health care facilities in particular should be physically accessible to people with disabilities. The importance of access to buildings was also underlined in the education sector. In the housing sector, a suggestion was made for retrofits of all apartment suites to install power door openers.

Generally speaking, the Review heard that if accessibility standards were expanded to require building retrofits, it would be necessary to create exemptions in cases of undue hardship. For example, some people with disabilities who contended that the AODA should require retrofits of ramps and door openers felt this should apply only where it can be done without undue hardship. Other disability stakeholders observed that such exemptions would be inconsistent with the usual approach under the Building Code, which is to impose accessibility requirements without providing for exceptions if the cost would result in undue hardship. It was argued that this usual practice should be overlooked if it stands in the way of retrofits to improve accessibility.

 

Some municipalities expressed concerns about enforcement of the Design of Public Spaces (DOPS) Standard. They pointed out that there is no mechanism for verifying that a project has met DOPS requirements, or that exemptions are justified, prior to construction. The building permit process will ensure compliance with the recent Building Code amendments, but does not cover the DOPS standards. Hence municipalities could be put in the position of approving site plans or building permits that contravene the AODA regulations. Problems will likely not come to light until complaints are made after construction, when it will be more costly or impossible to fix them.

 

Proposed solutions include utilizing the building permit process or the site plan control process to review projects and consider exemption requests, or having a provincial body like the ADO do this. It was pointed out that if existing municipal processes are used, provincial funding would be required to cover the additional costs.

 

Barriers in buildings mean people with disabilities cannot use them.

 

The Review also heard a number of other comments with regard to accessibility in the Built Environment. With regard to on-street parking, disability stakeholders observed that the only obligation is for consultation on the number, location and design of parking spaces. They felt that specific requirements should be spelled out so people with disabilities do not have to lobby on this issue in every community. One Toronto participant also noted that many elevators cannot handle the weight of modern wheelchairs, and suggested adjusting the Building Code to include a minimum capacity for public lifts of 800 pounds.

 

People with environmental and multi-chemical sensitivities pointed out that the Built Environment Standard as proposed by the standards development committee included air quality and ventilation provisions. They were extremely disappointed to find that these requirements did not appear in the final regulations.”

 

* “As noted earlier, the Built Environment standards have been split between two different regulations. Standards affecting the accessibility of buildings have been incorporated into the Building Code, while standards for public spaces have been included in the IASR. Some disability stakeholders called for re-enactment of the Building Code accessibility provisions, including the 2013 amendments, as a regulation under the AODA. In this way, all Built Environment requirements would be subject to the AODA enforcement mechanism as well as to the five-year standards review process.”

 

* “The gap that stood out most clearly from the perspective of this Review concerned the built environment and the issue of retrofits. As mentioned earlier, of all the barriers facing people with disabilities, those involving the built environment attracted the most comment during the Review. Yet, as noted above, barriers in existing facilities – as opposed to those in new construction or renovations – are not covered by the current accessibility standards, leading to much frustration in the disability community. The Review repeatedly heard that in the absence of an obligation to ensure that the built environment eventually incorporates at least some accessibility features, it will be very difficult to celebrate the Ontario of 2025 as a leader in accessibility. At the same time, it is also very clear that retrofit obligations (which many assume are already part of the AODA standards) can be costly undertakings and imposing any new obligations in this regard requires sensitivity.

 

Ontario could begin to address this issue by considering standards resembling the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations which require private facilities that provide goods or services to remove existing architectural barriers where this is “readily achievable, i.e., easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” (ADA Title III Regulations, section 36.304). This approach would lend itself to setting some priorities for accessibility enhancements, such as entry ways and washrooms (the two areas most frequently referred to in the consultations). Although by no means a full solution, beginning to address the built environment through a relatively modest option would significantly improve access for people with disabilities without generating major worries about cost.

As is the case with all AODA standards, compliance with such a requirement would not relieve organizations of their obligation under the Human Rights Code to accommodate people with disabilities to the point of undue hardship. Individuals who believed their needs were not adequately met by “readily achievable” measures would still have the option of seeking recourse through the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.”

 

* “The Review heard frequent comments that Ontario lags behind the United States in many aspects of accessibility, particularly when it comes to the built environment. Surely one factor in progress south of the border has been the tax incentives in place there since the early 1990s. Currently, a small business tax credit of up to $5,000 annually is available, equal to about 50 per cent of access costs – including barrier removal in facilities (such as widening a doorway, installing a ramp), provision of accessibility services (such as sign language interpreters), provision of printed material in alternate formats (such as large-print, audio, Braille), and provision or modification of equipment. As well, businesses of any size can take advantage of a tax deduction of up $15,000 per year for removal of barriers in facilities or vehicles.

Ontario business groups have suggested the introduction of tax incentives and this possibility was also raised in the Beer Report. Tax measures could help to capture the attention of small businesses – and their accountants – and prompt them to go beyond the AODA requirements and see the business case for accessibility. However, any tax incentives should be designed to motivate firms, not simply to comply with AODA standards, but to exceed them in targeted ways.”

 

* “A.    Align the accessibility provisions of the Building Code with the AODA.

The Built Environment accessibility standards that affect buildings have been incorporated into the Building Code. It obviously makes sense from the industry’s point of view to have requirements for the construction and renovation of buildings consolidated in one place. Nonetheless, as the Review heard, this creates certain challenges.

 

The main problem is that the Building Code accessibility amendments that will take effect in 2015 are not regulations under the AODA and are therefore not subject to the AODA process for standards review every five years or less. One proposed solution is to re-enact the Building Code amendments as a regulation under the AODA. In my mind, enacting the same regulation under two different laws would be confusing for stakeholders and legally dubious. I would prefer a simpler approach, such as inserting a provision in the IASR or the Building Code, or both, calling for review of the Code’s barrier-free design requirements through the AODA process.

 

Municipalities also raised a further matter that may demand a quick response, concerning the enforcement of the Design of Public Spaces standards. The issue is that, unlike the Building Code, the DoPS standards have no provision for pre-construction approval of projects. Hence non-compliance will probably come to light only when people start using the public space. By then, it will be very difficult if not impossible to correct the error. I would advise the Government to reconsider this dimension of the DoPS standards as soon as possible.”

 

1. c) No Major Progress on the Built Environment under the AODA Since the 2014 Mayo Moran Report

 

Over the past four years, the former Ontario Government did not act on Mayo Moran’s recommendations regarding the built environment. We tenaciously tried for the past four years since the Moran report, without success, to get effective action on the built environment from the Ontario Government. We raised it time and again with the Premier’s office, and with minister after minister.

 

Right near the end of its last term in office, on March 19, 2018, the former Government finally and commendably held a one-day summit on accessibility problems in the built environment. This included representatives from the disability sector, the public sector and design professionals. The former Ontario Government credited the AODA Alliance with the idea for holding this summit. We had been pressing that idea with the Government for months.

 

On April 3, 2018, the AODA Alliance wrote the former Accessibility Minister, Tracy MacCharles, to summarize the key points raised at that summit. The former Ontario Government also released a less thorough, more sanitized summary of that summit. Our letter’s summary includes:

 

“* Ontario specific laws regulating the accessibility of the built environment, including the Ontario Building Code and the Design of Public Spaces (DOPS) Accessibility Standard enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, do not ensure that a new building or major renovation will be accessible for people with disabilities. Recent construction that complies with these laws continues to include disability barriers.

 

* Many among design professionals (like architects) and even those in the Building code field do not know that beyond the Ontario Building Code and AODA, organizations must also meet the higher accessibility requirements for people with disabilities in the Ontario Human Rights Code, and that it is no defence under the Ontario Human Rights Code to an accessibility barrier in the built environment that a building or other developed built environment complies with the Ontario Building Code and the AODA’s DOPS Accessibility Standard. Indeed, introducing this forum, your Assistant Deputy Minister for the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario referred to there being two laws on point, the Ontario Building Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. No mention was then made of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

 

* Your Ministry heard that many design professionals, including many architects, do not have a good working knowledge of the full spectrum of disability accessibility needs when designing the built environment. These needs go far beyond the important needs of people with mobility disabilities. They include the Needs that often go unaddressed or insufficiently addressed, of people with low vision or who are blind, people who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing, people with learning, intellectual or cognitive impairments, people with fatiguing conditions or balance problems, and people with autism spectrum disorder, just to name a few.

 

* There is nothing now in place under the AODA or the Ontario Building Code to address retrofits of any disability accessibility barriers in existing buildings where there is no major renovation underway. The 2014 final report of the Mayo Moran AODA Independent Review pointed this out as a serious problem that the Government needs to treat as a priority. No action has been taken on this since then.

 

* Even the Ontario Government has problems when it comes to ensuring that its own built environment is properly accessible. The example was given of a consultation session, held the week before this built environment forum, on the Ontario Government’s plans for the new Toronto courthouse, planned for the heart of downtown Toronto. No people with disabilities were consulted on its design before its design was approved by the Ontario Government in a competitive bid process. The resulting design, chosen through a competitive bid process, turns out to have serious accessibility problems. These were pointed out at the disability consultation that the Ministry of the Attorney General held just the week before your built environment public forum.

 

* Design professionals such as architects regularly present proposed designs to accessibility consultants which have real accessibility problems in the design. It then becomes the task of the accessibility consultant to recommend design changes. There is no assurance that these will be adopted.

 

* In recent years, since 2012 for example, accessibility in newer buildings has too often been getting worse, not better.

 

* Commendably, a number of municipalities in Ontario have been taking positive steps to fill the gaps that are left by Ontario’s inadequate Building Code and AODA accessibility standards. Many Ontario municipalities have commendably enacted their own stronger local standards for the accessibility of new built environment in their municipality, that exceed the Ontario Building Code and AODA DOPS standard. These are of course helpful. However, they leave Ontario as an inconsistent patchwork, with different accessibility requirements for the built environment in different parts of the province. Obligated organizations, people with disabilities and design professionals would benefit from Ontario enacting a single, strong, consistent built environment accessibility standard for the entire province.

 

* Where the DOPS accessibility standard addresses some barriers, it is often too vague. For example, it requires a public service counter to be at an accessible height with sufficient knee space. However it does not specify what those dimensions should be. That unfairly burdens each obligated organization and design team to try to figure those out for themselves, and hope they get it right.

 

* Even the limited accessibility requirements in the Ontario Building Code and the AODA DOPS Standard are not effectively enforced. For example, an organization can get a building permit or site plan approval for a project without having to show that it fulfils the accessibility requirements in either law. It is not clear that a building, once built, is inspected for compliance with all existing accessibility requirements. If an organization gets a building permit, it is permitted to build to the approved design, even if new stronger accessibility requirements go into effect before a single shovel goes into the ground to start the actual construction.

 

* There has been a good deal of discussion among design professionals about the examples of disability barriers that are depicted in the AODA Alliance’s online videos about the accessibility problems at the new Ryerson University Student Learning Centre, and the new Centennial College Culinary Arts Centre.

 

* After the AODA was enacted in 2005, the Ontario Government promised to enact a Built Environment Accessibility Standard. The Build Environment Standards Development Committee recommended major reforms in 2009-2010. However under the AODA, the Government only passed the DOPS Accessibility Standard, which left out most of the barriers that the Standards Development Committee had identified. 2013 amendments to the Ontario Building Code did not adequately address what the Built Environment Standards Development Committee had recommended.

 

* In 2009, the Government promised to address retrofits and barriers in residential housing through the AODA standards development process, once the Government passed an accessibility standard to address new construction and major renovations. Yet nothing has been done about this.

 

* The exemption of residential homes from the Ontario Building Code’s accessibility provisions has contributed to the shortage of accessible housing for people with disabilities in Ontario.

 

* Professional training to qualify as a design professional such as an architect does not require sufficient training on disability accessibility in the built environment.

 

* A key area not now covered by the Ontario Building Code or AODA accessibility standards concerns the location and operation of elevators. Ontario needs clear and strong accessibility standards regarding elevators.

 

* Infrastructure Ontario, which is responsible for much of the Ontario Government’s new construction, does not sufficiently address disability accessibility in its standards and practices.

 

* The Ontario Government’s Alternative Finance and Procurement (AFP) approach to building new Government buildings and conducting major renovations, involving private sector organizations that bid for the project, is quite problematic from an accessibility perspective. The job goes to the lowest private sector bidder. There is an incentive created to cut important corners on accessibility to save money on the project.

 

Arising from the forum’s discussion were several good recommendations. We offer this list which we supplement beyond those recommendations specifically mentioned during that forum:

 

1. The Government should begin by now publicly recognizing that there is a problem with the inaccessibility of the built environment in Ontario. It should undertake to launch a concerted and comprehensive strategy that will address new construction, major renovations, and the retrofit of existing buildings that are undergoing no major renovations, using feedback from the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal complaints and findings, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s policies and advice.

 

2. The Government should develop and enact a comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the AODA, ensuring that it effectively addresses accessibility retrofits in existing buildings, as well as accessibility in new construction and major renovations (not limited to those covered in the DOPS accessibility standard). Among other things, the new and comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard should include additional accessibility requirements for elevators that are not currently addressed by the requirements in the Ontario Building Code and other provincial laws.

 

3. The Government should direct each AODA Standards Development Committee now in operation to make recommendations on standards for the built environment as it relates to the area that that Standards Development Committee is studying. For example, the Transportation Standards Development Committee should be directed to make recommendations for accessibility in public transit stations and stops.

 

4. The Government should create a Residential Housing Accessibility Standard under the AODA, and should promptly appoint a Standards Development Committee to make recommendations on what it should include.

 

5. The Government should announce a comprehensive strategy on accessible housing to address the current and growing crisis in accessible housing in Ontario, in addition to creating an AODA accessibility standard on point).

 

6. The Government should strengthen enforcement of accessibility in the built environment. For example, it should require that before a building permit or site plan approval can be obtained for a project, the approving authority, municipal or provincial, must be satisfied that the project, on completion, will meet all accessibility requirements under the Ontario Building Code and in all AODA accessibility standards.

 

7. The Government should require professional bodies that regulate or licence key professionals such as architects, interior designers, landscape architects, and other design professionals, to require detailed training on accessible design, to qualify for a license, and continuing professional development for existing professionals. The Government should also require, as a condition of funding any college or university that trains these key professions, that their program curriculum must include sufficient training on accessibility and universal design. This should be designed to ensure that no new graduates in these fields will make the same mistakes as too often is the case for those now in practice.

 

8. The Government should substantially reform the way public sector infrastructure projects are managed and overseen in Ontario, including a major reform of Infrastructure Ontario.

 

1. Accessibility needs to be addressed far earlier, and more effectively in every project. This should include a requirement that accessibility advice be obtained on all major projects starting at the very beginning, during master planning, feasibility studies, and functional programming, with any accessibility advice that is received being made public. This input should also be obtained through consultations with people with disabilities.

 

1. Any decisions to reject any accessibility advice should be tracked, identifying who made that decision and the reasons why. That information should promptly be publicly reported.

 

1. The accessibility requirements under consideration as a requirement for a contract for any infrastructure should be made public as soon as possible, with enough time before the start of the bidding competition to allow for feedback and adjustments. It is too late to make this public only after the bidding competition.

 

1. The Government should require post-project accessibility commissioning inspections which would include compliance with the project specific output specification accessibility requirements as well as the Ontario Building Code and AODA accessibility standards.

 

1. Any accessibility deficiencies found should be required by contract to be the financial responsibility of the Project Company who built the project to fix them.

 

9. The Government should require that when public money is used to create new public housing, 100% of that housing should include universal design and visit-ability as mandatory design features.

 

10. The Government should create a fund for accessibility retrofits to increase the number of public buildings that agree to make their property available to the public as an emergency shelter, during a crisis or natural disaster.”

 

We emphasize that what was raised at that summit was or should have been well-known to the Government for years, both at the political level and amongst its public servants. In our April 23, 2018 letter to the former Accessibility Minister Tracy MacCharles, we made the following action recommendations, which the former Ontario Government did not act upon:

 

“5. Immediately Launch the Process to Recruit a Built Environment/Public Spaces Standards Development Committee

 

As noted earlier, the Government was required to commence a Standards Development Committee review of the 2012 Public Spaces Accessibility Standard by the end of 2017. As far as we have seen, the Government has not done so, nor has it announced a date on which it will begin this process. This is a contravention of the AODA.

 

We ask the Government to immediately post an announcement, inviting members of the public to serve on a built Environment/Public Spaces Standards Development Committee. Setting up such a committee takes months, according to the Government’s recent practices. We realize the Committee might not be appointed by the June 7, 2018 Ontario election. However the Government should now get this process underway, so that the next Government, elected on June 7, can get right to work on this, rather than having to start from scratch. Immediate action is especially important since the Government has not met the mandatory time lines for commencing this process that the AODA imposes.

 

We also ask you to direct that the mandate for this new Standards Development Committee will include reviewing needed action for the entire built environment, and not just the very limited parts of the built environment that the 2012 Public Spaces Accessibility Standard covers. The AODA itself requires the Government to address the entire built environment.”

 

The pervasive myth in our society is that older buildings lack accessibility because we did not know better, but now, new buildings of course ensure proper accessibility. In fact, new buildings often lack proper accessibility, and can be even worse than some older buildings. As mentioned elsewhere in this brief, the AODA Alliance has over the past two years released three online videos. These show how new and recently renovated construction can and does comply with the Ontario Building Code and AODA accessibility standards, while still including serious accessibility problems. See the November 2016 AODA Alliance video on accessibility problems at the new Centennial College Culinary Arts Centre, the October 2017 AODA Alliance video on accessibility problems at the Ryerson University Student Learning Centre and the May 2018 AODA Alliance video on accessibility problems at new and recently-renovated Toronto area public transit stations. The fact that these videos secured so much media attention and went viral on the internet shows how serious a problem this is.

 

This all leads to these conclusions: The former Ontario Government’s decision to carve the built environment largely out of AODA accessibility standards and to only address it in the Ontario Building Code was wrong. It set Ontario back. Its failure to keep its August 19, 2011 election promise to enact the promised Built Environment Accessibility Standard promptly also set Ontario back. its failure to act effectively on the 2014 Mayo Moran recommendations to address retrofits in existing built environment further set Ontario back.

 

Here is a sample of the kinds of barriers that can be included in new construction and in major renovations in Ontario, without running afoul of the weak accessibility provisions in the Ontario Building Code and the very few built environment accessibility provisions in AODA accessibility standards:

 

1. Areas of Refuge – In the event of fire when elevators cannot be used, areas of refuge (aka rescue assistance) are not required in buildings that are sprinklered or that have fire separation. These spaces are not consistent with International Building Code (IBC) and NPFA. should be in each exit stair to provide the same travel distance, that are smoke protected spaces in all exit stair landing entry points with a 2-way voice communication system for use between each area of rescue assistance and the central alarm and control facility as per the International Building Code (IBC) and NPFA (National Fire Prevention Association).

 

2. All Emergency Exits need not be accessible – and where they aren’t accessible there’s no way to tell which are accessible and which aren’t.

 

3. In public buildings, no accessible tactile wayfinding is required for larger open areas from each entry point to the site to the closest entrance or from the entrance to the reception desk or the elevator directory or from each elevator lobby on non-entry floors to the directional signage or to the main entrances to the suites on each floor.

 

4. Amphitheatre seating, also known as Hangout Steps is permitted despite accessibility problems – Although this is fixed seating spaces that don’t have chairs and although each bench level is technically a drop-off they are installed without integrated accessible seating with a choice of viewing spaces and the drop-offs do not include the required tactile attention indicators (TAI). The stairs do not have handrails on both sides or the TAI at each bench level.

 

5. No Service Animal Relief Areas are required on site close to an entrance or inside a secured building, like a courthouse. The number of working dogs and animals has increased to accommodate the needs of those who are blind, deaf, have seizures, are diabetic, have anxiety, have autism, or are quadriplegic.

 

6. Signage – No accessible signage requirements to ensure consistent design and braille use. That directional signage and elevator lobby directories do not include braille, consistent placement in proximity to the door, braille does not have to translate all of the words on the sign, signage text is not size based on viewing distance, overhead signage has no strategy for tactile with braille alternative.

 

7. No accessibility requirements for Kitchens and Kitchenettes.

 

8. No accessible requirements in Change/Dressing Rooms – path of travel throughout the space, with in room accessible washrooms and showers, individual change rooms for those with opposite sex attendants, with accessible lockers, accessible benches for transfer, space for assistive mobility equipment.

 

9. No accessibility requirements in Offices, Classrooms, Work Areas and Meeting Rooms

 

10. No accessible Lockers – Colour contrast so one can see the door, accessible controls so one can open the door, accessible height hooks and shelves, accessible signage that is colour contrasted and includes braille.

 

11. No broad requirement for Assistive Listening Systems – the code only requires assistive listening systems for large meetings, classrooms and auditoriums with a specified number of occupants. All of these spaces no matter what their size need these systems. Elevators and reception desks need these systems.

 

12. Electronic kiosks can be installed an maintained that lack proper accessibility features. Even in Ontario where the AODA Information and Communication Standard requires some obligated organizations to include or consider accessibility features in new electronic kiosks, the specific accessibility features of accessible kiosks are not stipulated in the standard or the building code. i

 

13. Security Systems do not need to include accessibility feature requirements. Proximity sensors do not include braille so someone who is blind knows what the box is for. Some include green and red lights to indicate if the door is open or closed but for someone who is colour blind the light means nothing and with no audible tone, people who are blind cannot see the colour.

 

As but one illustration of this in practice, in the fall of 2017 and early 2018, we unearthed and revealed that the former Ontario Government was planning to build a massive new courthouse in the middle of downtown Toronto that was replete with serious accessibility problems. This was so even though the former Government claimed that this new courthouse would meet or exceed accessibility requirements and would be a model of accessibility. Our interventions have reduced but not eliminated these accessibility concerns. The April 9, 2018 AODA Alliance Update included:

 

“Here is more proof that Ontario needs strong new action now to ensure that our built environment becomes accessible to people with disabilities.

 

Back on October 5, 2017, the AODA Alliance wrote Ontario’s Attorney General, to raise serious concerns about the Wynne Government’s plans to build a huge new courthouse in the middle of downtown Toronto, without effectively ensuring that this facility has full accessibility for court participants and attendees with disabilities. As a result of our efforts, on March 14, 2018, the Government commendably held a consultation on the proposed design for this courthouse, with representatives from the disability community, including from the AODA Alliance. At this meeting, the Government shared the drawings for this new courthouse which the Government has selected after a competitive bidding process.

 

At this meeting, the disability community representatives quickly identified a number of significant accessibility problems with the proposed design of the building. On April 6, 2018, the AODA Alliance again wrote the Attorney General for Ontario. We set out that letter below. In it, we describe a number of the serious accessibility problems that the Government was told about at this consultation meeting. The Attorney General has not yet responded to our earlier October 5, 2017 letter. We await word from the Government on what it plans to do to alter the design of the New Toronto Courthouse to address our accessibility concerns. Our feedback is now being studied.

 

Several important points spring from this incident. First, contrary to its 2014 election promises, the Government is not effectively ensuring that it will not use public money to create new disability barriers. Second this is further proof that Ontario needs a strong new strategy to address disability barriers in Ontario’s built environment more generally. We need AODA standards and the Ontario Building Code’s accessibility provisions substantially improved. Third, we need Ontario’s design professionals, like architects, to receive substantially improved professional training on disability and accessibility, to avoid problems like this new court’s design.”

 

1. d) The Ontario Government Should Not Invest Public Funds In or Support Any Private Accessibility Certification Process in Ontario

 

For a time several years ago, the former Ontario Government toyed with the idea of supporting the establishment of a private accessibility certification process in Ontario. It evidently spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a private consulting firm, Deloitt, to explore this. Eventually, after Economic Development Minister Brad Duguid was shuffled out of the AODA portfolio in June 2016, this idea was in effect dropped. We opposed the idea of a private accessibility certification process and opposed the Government investing any public money in it. We urge this AODA Independent Review not to re-open that topic, and not to recommend a private accessibility certification process.

 

The February 1, 2016 AODA Alliance Update set out this backgrounder on this issue, including a summary of the AODA Alliance’s submission to the Deloitt consulting firm. It said:

 

“Back on November 16, 2015, the Wynne Government launched a public consultation on its proposal that the Government create a private process for an as-yet-unnamed private organization to provide a private, voluntary accessibility certification of the obligated organization. The Government’s November 16, 2015 email, news release and web posting on this were thin on details.

 

The Government did not have its own Accessibility Directorate conduct this consultation. Instead, at public expense, the Wynne Government hired the private Deloitte firm to consult the public.

 

Last fall, we moved as fast as possible to prepare and circulate a draft submission to Deloitte. It was emailed and posted on the web for public comment on November 25, 2015. We have repeatedly sent out invitations for input on it via Twitter and Facebook.

 

Last fall, we promptly shared our draft submission with Deloitte and with senior Government officials. On December 5, 2015, we wrote Economic Development Minister Brad Duguid to ask for important specifics on the Deloitte consultation. The Government has not answered that letter.

 

2. Summary of the AODA Alliance’s February 1, 2016 Submission to the Deloitte Company

 

This submission’s feedback on the idea of the Ontario Government financing the creation of a private accessibility certification process is summarized as follows:

 

1. It is important to probe beyond any superficial attractiveness that some might think a private accessibility certification process has.

 

2. It is important for the Government to first decide whether it will adopt a private accessibility certification process, before public money and the public’s effort are invested in deciding on the details of how such a process would work. Several serious concerns set out in this submission are fatal to any such proposal, however its details are designed.

 

3. Instead of diverting limited public and private resources, effort and time into a problematic private accessibility certification process, the Government should instead increase efforts at creating all the AODA accessibility standards needed to ensure full accessibility by 2025, and keeping its unkept promise to effectively enforce the AODA. A private accessibility certification process is no substitute for needed accessibility standards that show obligated organizations what they need to do, and a full and comprehensive AODA audit or inspection, conducted by a director or inspector duly authorized under the AODA.

 

4. The Government cannot claim that it has deployed the AODA’s compliance/enforcement powers to the fullest, and gotten from the AODA all it can in terms of increasing accessibility among obligated organizations. The Government has invested far too little in AODA enforcement.

 

5. The entire idea of a private organization certifying an obligated organization as “accessible” is fraught with inescapable problems. Obligated organizations will ultimately realize that a so-called “accessibility certification” through a private accessibility certification process is practically useless. It does not mean that their organization is in fact accessible. It cannot give that obligated organization any defence if an AODA inspection or audit reveals that the organization is not in compliance with an AODA accessibility standard, or if the organization is subject to a human rights complaint before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. An obligated organization cannot excuse itself from a violation of the AODA, the Ontario Human Rights Code or the Charter of Rights by arguing that thanks to its private accessibility certification, it thought it was obeying the law.

 

6. A private accessibility certification could mislead people with disabilities into thinking an organization is fully accessible in a situation where that organization is not in fact fully accessible.

 

7. Obligated organizations that have spent their money on a private accessibility certification will understandably become angry or frustrated when they find that this certification does not excuse unlawful conduct. They will understandably share these feelings with their business associates. Ontarians with disabilities don’t need the Government launching a new process that will risk generating such backlash.

 

8. A private accessibility certification could have a very limited shelf-life. When the Government enacts a new accessibility standard (as it has promised to do in the area of health care), or revises an existing one, (as the Government is required to consider every five years in the case of existing AODA accessibility standards), that certification would have to be reviewed once new accessibility requirements come into effect.

 

9. The Government’s idea that a private accessibility certification process would be self-financing creates additional serious problems.

 

10. Any private certification process raises serious concerns about public accountability. As such, the public will not be able to find out how it is operating, beyond any selective information that the Government or the private certifier decides to make public. Without full access to the activities and records of a private certifier, the public cannot effectively assess how this private accessibility certification process is working, and whether it is helping or hurting the accessibility cause…”

 

1. e) What the Ford Government Has Said about Accessibility in the Built Environment and the AODA

 

In his May 15, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance, setting out his party’s 2018 election pledges on accessibility, Doug Ford wrote:

 

“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.”

 

On November 9, 2018, The Ford Government made a deeply disturbing statement to CBC news, suggesting that the accessibility of buildings does not fall within the AODA. The November 16, 2018 AODA Alliance Update includes:

 

“The Government’s November 9, 2018 statement to CBC includes a very disturbing new and clearly incorrect statement on the reach of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The CBC’s November 13, 2018 news report does not address this issue.

 

The Ford Government told CBC:

 

“It is important to note that accessibility in buildings does not fall under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), but under the Ontario Building Code. Accessibility requirements for buildings are included in Ontario’s Building Code to make it easier for organizations by ensuring that all construction requirements are found in one place. The Building Code is the responsibility of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.”

 

This is obviously untrue. Accessibility in buildings falls well within the AODA. It is true that the Ontario Building Code has provisions, albeit chronically insufficient ones, on accessibility in new buildings and in major renovations of existing buildings. However, it is incorrect for the Government to claim that accessibility of buildings is somehow outside the scope of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

 

The very first section of the AODA specifically includes accessibility of buildings. It defines the scope and purpose of the AODA. Section 1 of the AODA provides:

 

” 1. Recognizing the history of discrimination against persons with disabilities

in Ontario, the purpose of this Act is to benefit all Ontarians by,

• developing, implementing and enforcing accessibility standards in order to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1, 2025; and

 

• providing for the involvement of persons with disabilities, of the Government of Ontario and of representatives of industries and of various sectors of the economy in the development of the accessibility standards.”

 

Section 3(d) of the AODA makes the AODA apply, to among others, a person who:

 

” (d) owns or occupies a building, structure or premises…”

 

Section 6 of the AODA requires an accessibility standard to address, among other things, barriers in buildings. Section 6 includes:

 

” (6) An accessibility standard shall,

• set out measures, policies, practices or other requirements for the identification and

removal of barriers with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures, premises or such other things as may be prescribed, and for the prevention of the erection of such barriers;…” ”

 

The November 16, 2018 AODA Alliance Update later stated:

 

“It is true that AODA standards to date have not comprehensively addressed disability accessibility barriers in the built environment. The former Ontario Government promised to enact a Built Environment Accessibility Standard, but did not ever do so. It only enacted a much narrower accessibility standard, addressing barriers in a limited number of public spaces.

 

However, that does not mean that “accessibility in buildings does not fall under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act” as the Ford Government claims. It is very important for the Ford Government to correct this serious misunderstanding of its obligations under the AODA.”

 

 7. The Need for the Ontario Government to Decide Promptly on the Other Accessibility Standards that Ontario Needs to Create

 

The current Ontario Government took power at a pivotal point in time in the AODA context. The Government must decide promptly on what all the other accessibility standards are that will be created. This is because these all need to be created during this Government’s current term, if Ontario is to reach full accessibility by 2025.

 

We explained this need in the AODA Alliance’s April 3, 2018 letter to the leaders of the major political parties. In that letter, we identified the election commitments on accessibility that we were seeking. On this issue we wrote:

 

“Central to the AODA is the Government’s duty to create and enforce accessibility standards in different sectors of our economy. These specify what obligated organizations must do to become accessible to people with disabilities. They help business and public sector organizations know what to do. They contribute to the profitability and success of these organizations.

 

We need the Ontario Government to develop and enact new accessibility standards. The AODA requires the Ontario Government to enact all the accessibility standards needed to ensure that Ontario becomes fully accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. The accessibility standards enacted to date will not ensure that Ontario becomes fully accessible by 2025, even if they are fully complied with. While helpful, they are too weak and limited.

 

It can take years to develop a new accessibility standard. With only eleven (Sic. 6.75) years left to reach 2025, it is necessary for the Ontario Government in the next term to ensure that all accessibility standards are developed and enacted that will ensure that the 2025 goal is reached.”

 

We do not here list all the additional accessibility standards that the Ontario Government needs to create. The Ontario Government should consult people with disabilities on this.

 

Beyond areas addressed earlier in this chapter, one additional area which current accessibility standards do not cover, and which we know is a pressing need, is the accessibility of goods and products. No current accessibility standards address this in a comprehensive way. The Information and Communication Accessibility Standard explicitly excludes product labelling from its reach. Among the few products or goods that are directly covered, in some degree (albeit insufficiently), are new public transit vehicles (under the Transportation Accessibility Standard), new playgrounds (under the Public Spaces Accessibility Standard), teaching books and like materials used by education organizations (addressed by the Information and Communication Accessibility Standard) and electronic kiosks installed by some organizations. (under the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation).

 

Those requirements address organizations that purchase and deploy such products and goods, but not the organizations that manufacture or create products. Ontario needs a Goods and Products Accessibility Standard to implement principles of universal design in the design of goods and products.

 

A prompt and proper public consultation would no doubt identify other accessibility standards that Ontario needs to create, beyond the need, addressed in Chapter 3, to substantially strengthen the accessibility standards that have already been enacted, as well as the Health Care Accessibility Standard and Education Accessibility Standard (which were already under development before the 2018 Ontario election, and the work on which the current Government has frozen).

 

 8. Developments Since the June 2018 Ontario Election

 

Doug Ford’s May 15, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance, setting out his party’s election pledges on accessibility, included:

 

“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.”

 

The July 17, 2018 AODA Alliance briefing note for the new Minister for Accessibility and Seniors, Raymond Cho, includes:

 

“d) The Development of New Accessibility Standards Has Been Too Slow

 

The main way that the Ontario Government is to lead Ontario to become fully accessible by 2025 under the AODA is by enacting and effectively enforcing all the accessibility standards that are needed to get Ontario to that goal. You will face the challenge that the Government has also fallen far behind on fulfilling its core duty under the AODA to develop and enact all the accessibility standards needed to ensure that Ontario reaches full accessibility by 2025. Section 7 of the AODA provides:

 

“7. The Minister is responsible for establishing and overseeing a process to develop and implement all accessibility standards necessary to achieving the purposes of this Act.”

 

In 2005, the previous Government got a good start on developing the first round of needed accessibility standards. The original accessibility standards enacted by the end of 2012 address some new disability barriers in customer service, employment, transportation, information and communication, and in a very small part of the built environment, largely that outside buildings.

 

These first AODA accessibility standards were a helpful start. However, they are limited in scope. The 2014 final report of the Mayo Moran AODA Independent Review identifies several deficiencies with the accessibility standards that had been enacted up to then. Even if all obligated organizations fully comply with all of them on time, those accessibility standards will not ensure that Ontario reaches full accessibility by 2025, or at any future time.

 

Since then, and over the past six years, the Government’s work on developing new accessibility standards has proceeded, at best, at a painfully slow snail’s pace. No new accessibility standards have been enacted since the end of 2012. For example, we have pressed the Government for over five years to develop the next accessibility standards in the areas of health care, education and residential housing.

 

The Government must review each accessibility standard within five years of its enactment, with a view to revising the standard if needed to ensure that the AODA’s goal of full accessibility is reached by 2025. Under the previous Government, only one of the existing accessibility standards, earlier enacted under Premier McGuinty, was revised. That was the 2007 Customer Service Accessibility Standard. It was by far the weakest accessibility standard enacted to date. The previous Government’s revisions to it were, at best, only minor tinkering. They would not significantly strengthen it.

 

Making this worse, the previous Government revised the 2007 Customer Service Accessibility Standard in a way that further weakened it, when we needed it strengthened. The previous Government took the backwards step of amending it so that private sector organizations with 20 to 49 employees no longer had to keep a written policy on customer service accessibility. They had to have a policy, but no longer had to have it in writing. They still had to train their employees on that unwritten policy, but no longer had to keep written records of the training conducted. These harmful amendments made the 2007 Customer Service Accessibility Standard virtually impossible to effectively enforce for private sector organizations with 20-49 employees. The previous Government thereby rewarded rampant law-breaking by amending that law to make that very law harder to enforce.

 

In the past two years, the previous Government fulfilled its duty under the AODA to appoint Standards Development Committees to review the transportation, employment and information and communication provisions of the 2011 AODA Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation. However, by the time the previous Government’s term came to an end, only one of those Standards Development Committees had delivered its final recommendations to the Government, the Transportation Standards Development committee. That committee’s final recommendations were exceedingly weak and inadequate. If implemented, they will leave Ontario’s transportation system replete with accessibility barriers. The Employment Standards Development Committee made public its draft recommendations in the 2018 spring. These too need to be substantially strengthened.

 

The AODA requires the new Government to continue with the work of having those 2011 accessibility standards reviewed by the existing Standards Development Committees. It requires the new Government to consider what revisions to make to those standards. This includes considering what revisions are needed to the transportation accessibility standards provisions of the 2011 Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation that were delivered to the previous minister just before this spring’s election campaign. We presented a detailed brief last summer to the Transportation Standards Development Committee. It identifies the improvements to the Transportation Accessibility Standard that the Government needs to make.

 

Over the past five years, the previous Government did nothing effective to address the many disability barriers in Ontario’s built environment, be they existing buildings or new buildings. Minor amendments were made in 2013 to the Ontario Building Code in 2013 on accessibility. These fell miles short of what Ontarians with disabilities need. They only deal with new buildings and major renovations to existing buildings.

 

No comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard has ever been enacted under the AODA. This is so despite the fact that in the 2011 election, Premier McGuinty promised that the previous Government would enact a Built Environment Accessibility Standard “promptly”. In late 2014, the Moran Report of the 2nd AODA Independent Review emphasized the need to address the many continuing barriers in Ontario’s built environment, even after a decade of the AODA’s implementation. That included the area of retrofitting existing buildings (which the previous, Government had not address.

 

It was only in March 2018, in its final weeks before the spring election, that the previous Government finally started to devote new attention to barriers in the built environment, including the topic of retrofitting existing buildings. In March 2018, the previous Government convened a very good experts’ discussion forum on the built environment. At that forum, the previous Government heard what people with disabilities had told the Government for years – that the Ontario Building Code and AODA accessibility standards don’t ensure an accessible built environment. A new building can fully comply with those laws, and still have serious accessibility barriers.

 

The previous Government appointed two additional Standards Development Committees. These too Committees are right in the middle of their work. the Health Care Standards Development Committee was appointed in 2017 to make recommendations on what to include in a Health Care Accessibility Standard.

 

The Education Standards Development Committee was appointed earlier this year to make recommendations on what to include in an Education Accessibility Standard. It has two branches. The K-12 Standards Development Committee was appointed to make recommendations regarding disability barriers in the school system. The Post-Secondary Standards Development Committee was appointed to make recommendations regarding disability barriers in colleges and universities.

 

Right now, all Standards Development Committees have been frozen by the Ontario Public Service, pending briefing the new Government. It is important for these Committees to get right back to work. the previous Government cancelled the planned next meeting of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, set for June 21 and 22, 2018, pending the new Government taking office.

 

People with disabilities have for years faced an accessible housing crisis. The AODA Alliance had been asking the previous Government for over seven years to create a Residential Housing Accessibility Standard under the AODA. The previous Government never did so, nor did it ever appoint a Standards Development Committee to make recommendations for one. This was so even though in the 2009 summer, the previous Government committed that it would address accessibility in the residential housing area, as well as the area of retrofits to the built environment in existing buildings, through the standards development process, once the promised Built Environment Accessibility Standard was enacted to address accessibility in new construction and major renovations.

 

Once a Standards Development Committee is appointed, it takes years to develop a new accessibility standard. With less than six and a half years left before 2025, the Government must, in this term in office, ensure that all accessibility standards are developed and enacted that will bring Ontario to full accessibility by 2025. That means that the Government must promptly identify all the accessibility standards that need to be developed to ensure that Ontario reaches that goal on time. The current accessibility standards plus the promised Health Care Accessibility Standard, and, if created, an Education Accessibility Standard and a comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard, are not enough to ensure that Ontario will reach that mandatory goal.”

 

That briefing note proposes priorities for the minister, amongst which are the following:

“

2. Immediately lift the Ontario Public Service’s current freeze on the work of AODA Standards Development Committees, which have been working on recommendations for the Government in the areas of education, health care, employment, and information and communication.

 

3. Free up the unduly narrow mandate of the Health Care Standards Development Committee that is now developing recommendations on what the Government should include in a Health Care Accessibility Standard, so it can consider any part of Ontario’s health care system. The previous Government tried to restrict that Committee to barriers in the hospital sector. Yet there are disability accessibility barriers throughout Ontario’s health care system. Patients with disabilities need to have access to the entire health care system, not just hospitals. With 2025 looming closer, we cannot afford to put off any consideration of barriers outside hospitals until some future date years from now.

 

4. Get a Standards Development Committee appointed to develop recommendations on accessibility standards needed to address barriers in the built environment, in residential housing, and in existing buildings whether or not they are undergoing major renovations.

 

One effective way to do this would be to fulfil the Government’s overdue obligation under the AODA, which the previous Government failed to fulfil, to appoint a new Standards Development Committee to make recommendations on any revisions needed to the 2012 provisions of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation which address disability barriers in public spaces. That Committee should be mandated to make recommendations to the Ontario Government on what a comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard should include, both to deal with new construction/renovations, and to deal with barriers in existing buildings, including residential housing. The Committee should be asked for recommendations for any revisions that can address barriers in the built environment, whether or not these were addressed in the existing standard.

 

This should be part of a broader comprehensive strategy to ensure that Ontario’s built environment becomes fully accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. In March 2018, the previous Government held a helpful forum on this topic. The Accessibility Directorate already has at hand good background on what is needed. The built environment accessibility requirements in the Ontario Building Code and in AODA accessibility standards are far too weak to ensure that either new or old buildings will ever be accessible to people with disabilities.

 

5. Working with the AODA Alliance and the disability community, identify any other areas of our economy where an AODA accessibility standard will be needed, to ensure that Ontario reaches full accessibility by 2025. After that, the Government should appoint any Standards Development Committee needed to develop recommendations in for those sectors of the economy.

 

6. Effectively improve Ontario’s weak Customer Service Accessibility Standard, by bringing together representatives from the disability sector and obligated organizations to produce recommendations to strengthen the existing AODA Customer Service Accessibility Standard. The AODA Alliance has been calling for this for over three years. We and the ARCH disability Law Centre have offered a list of constructive, high-impact, low-cost reforms as a basis for discussion.”

 

The Minister’s August 15, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance did not specifically address any of these points. We do not know about anything The Ford Government is doing regarding the development of new accessibility standards, beyond its ongoing freeze on the work of the Health Care Standards Development Committee and the two Education Standards Development Committees.

 

 

 

Appendix 2 April 3, 2018 Letter from the AODA Alliance to the Minister Responsible for the AODA

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

1929 Bayview Avenue,

Toronto, Ontario M4G 3E8

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

 

April 3, 2018

 

Via Email Tracy.MacCharles@ontario.ca

 

The Honourable Tracy MacCharles,

Minister of Accessibility and Minister of Government and Consumer Services

Office of the Minister Responsible for Accessibility

6th Floor, Mowat Block

900 Bay St,

Toronto, ON M7A 1L2

 

Dear Minister,

 

Re Need for a Comprehensive New Ontario Government Action Plan to Address Accessibility Problems in Ontario’s Built Environment

 

We wish to congratulate you and your Ministry for holding a successful March 19, 2018 day-long forum on how to address the many disability barriers in Ontario’s built environment. We appreciate your taking up the idea of holding this forum, which we shared with you some months ago.

 

Your Ministry did a good job, bringing together many key players and experts in this area. It was important to everyone there that you were able to attend part of this forum, and that you invited input from the attendees. It is unfortunate that the Ontario Association of Architects was not in attendance, as its membership should play an important part in long-term solutions.

 

The AODA Alliance has tried to play a helpful role for several years, by urging the Ontario Government to take more action to address the many recurring disability barriers that impede people with disabilities in the built environment. We were delighted that the open discussion at the March 19, 2018 built environment forum saw strong support from participants on a number of key points including these:

 

* Ontario specific laws regulating the accessibility of the built environment, including the Ontario Building Code and the Design of Public Spaces (DOPS) Accessibility Standard enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, do not ensure that a new building or major renovation will be accessible for people with disabilities. Recent construction that complies with these laws continues to include disability barriers.

 

* Many among design professionals (like architects) and even those in the Building code field do not know that beyond the Ontario Building Code and AODA, organizations must also meet the higher accessibility requirements for people with disabilities in the Ontario Human Rights Code, and that it is no defence under the Ontario Human Rights Code to an accessibility barrier in the built environment that a building or other developed built environment complies with the Ontario Building Code and the AODA’s DOPS Accessibility Standard. Indeed, introducing this forum, your Assistant Deputy Minister for the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario referred to there being two laws on point, the Ontario Building Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. No mention was then made of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

 

* Your Ministry heard that many design professionals, including many architects, do not have a good working knowledge of the full spectrum of disability accessibility needs when designing the built environment. These needs go far beyond the important needs of people with mobility disabilities. They include the Needs that often go unaddressed or insufficiently addressed, of people with low vision or who are blind, people who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing, people with learning, intellectual or cognitive impairments, people with fatiguing conditions or balance problems, and people with autism spectrum disorder, just to name a few.

 

* There is nothing now in place under the AODA or the Ontario Building Code to address retrofits of any disability accessibility barriers in existing buildings where there is no major renovation underway. The 2014 final report of the Mayo Moran AODA Independent Review pointed this out as a serious problem that the Government needs to treat as a priority. No action has been taken on this since then.

 

* Even the Ontario Government has problems when it comes to ensuring that its own built environment is properly accessible. The example was given of a consultation session, held the week before this built environment forum, on the Ontario Government’s plans for the new Toronto courthouse, planned for the heart of downtown Toronto. No people with disabilities were consulted on its design before its design was approved by the Ontario Government in a competitive bid process. The resulting design, chosen through a competitive bid process, turns out to have serious accessibility problems. These were pointed out at the disability consultation that the Ministry of the Attorney General held just the week before your built environment public forum.

 

* Design professionals such as architects regularly present proposed designs to accessibility consultants which have real accessibility problems in the design. It then becomes the task of the accessibility consultant to recommend design changes. There is no assurance that these will be adopted.

 

* In recent years, since 2012 for example, accessibility in newer buildings has too often been getting worse, not better.

 

* Commendably, a number of municipalities in Ontario have been taking positive steps to fill the gaps that are left by Ontario’s inadequate Building Code and AODA accessibility standards. Many Ontario municipalities have commendably enacted their own stronger local standards for the accessibility of new built environment in their municipality, that exceed the Ontario Building Code and AODA DOPS standard. These are of course helpful. However, they leave Ontario as an inconsistent patchwork, with different accessibility requirements for the built environment in different parts of the province. Obligated organizations, people with disabilities and design professionals would benefit from Ontario enacting a single, strong, consistent built environment accessibility standard for the entire province.

 

* Where the DOPS accessibility standard addresses some barriers, it is often too vague. For example, it requires a public service counter to be at an accessible height with sufficient knee space. However it does not specify what those dimensions should be. That unfairly burdens each obligated organization and design team to try to figure those out for themselves, and hope they get it right.

 

* Even the limited accessibility requirements in the Ontario Building Code and the AODA DOPS Standard are not effectively enforced. For example, an organization can get a building permit or site plan approval for a project without having to show that it fulfils the accessibility requirements in either law. It is not clear that a building, once built, is inspected for compliance with all existing accessibility requirements. If an organization gets a building permit, it is permitted to build to the approved design, even if new stronger accessibility requirements go into effect before a single shovel goes into the ground to start the actual construction.

 

* There has been a good deal of discussion among design professionals about the examples of disability barriers that are depicted in the AODA Alliance’s online videos about the accessibility problems at the new Ryerson University Student Learning Centre, and the new Centennial College Culinary Arts Centre.

 

* After the AODA was enacted in 2005, the Ontario Government promised to enact a Built Environment Accessibility Standard. The Build Environment Standards Development Committee recommended major reforms in 2009-2010. However under the AODA, the Government only passed the DOPS Accessibility Standard, which left out most of the barriers that the Standards Development Committee had identified. 2013 amendments to the Ontario Building Code did not adequately address what the Built Environment Standards Development Committee had recommended.

 

* In 2009, the Government promised to address retrofits and barriers in residential housing through the AODA standards development process, once the Government passed an accessibility standard to address new construction and major renovations. Yet nothing has been done about this.

 

* The exemption of residential homes from the Ontario Building Code’s accessibility provisions has contributed to the shortage of accessible housing for people with disabilities in Ontario.

 

* Professional training to qualify as a design professional such as an architect does not require sufficient training on disability accessibility in the built environment.

 

* A key area not now covered by the Ontario Building Code or AODA accessibility standards concerns the location and operation of elevators. Ontario needs clear and strong accessibility standards regarding elevators.

 

* Infrastructure Ontario, which is responsible for much of the Ontario Government’s new construction, does not sufficiently address disability accessibility in its standards and practices.

 

* The Ontario Government’s Alternative Finance and Procurement (AFP) approach to building new Government buildings and conducting major renovations, involving private sector organizations that bid for the project, is quite problematic from an accessibility perspective. The job goes to the lowest private sector bidder. There is an incentive created to cut important corners on accessibility to save money on the project.

 

 

Arising from the forum’s discussion were several good recommendations. We offer this list which we supplement beyond those recommendations specifically mentioned during that forum:

 

 

1. The Government should begin by now publicly recognizing that there is a problem with the inaccessibility of the built environment in Ontario. It should undertake to launch a concerted and comprehensive strategy that will address new construction, major renovations, and the retrofit of existing buildings that are undergoing no major renovations, using feedback from the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal complaints and findings, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s policies and advice.

 

2. The Government should develop and enact a comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the AODA, ensuring that it effectively addresses accessibility retrofits in existing buildings, as well as accessibility in new construction and major renovations (not limited to those covered in the DOPS accessibility standard). Among other things, the new and comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard should include additional accessibility requirements for elevators that are not currently addressed by the requirements in the Ontario Building Code and other provincial laws.

 

3. The Government should direct each AODA Standards Development Committee now in operation to make recommendations on standards for the built environment as it relates to the area that that Standards Development Committee is studying. For example, the Transportation Standards Development Committee should be directed to make recommendations for accessibility in public transit stations and stops.

 

4. The Government should create a Residential Housing Accessibility Standard under the AODA, and should promptly appoint a Standards Development Committee to make recommendations on what it should include.

 

5. The Government should announce a comprehensive strategy on accessible housing to address the current and growing crisis in accessible housing in Ontario, in addition to creating an AODA accessibility standard on point).

 

6. The Government should strengthen enforcement of accessibility in the built environment. For example, it should require that before a building permit or site plan approval can be obtained for a project, the approving authority, municipal or provincial, must be satisfied that the project, on completion, will meet all accessibility requirements under the Ontario Building Code and in all AODA accessibility standards.

 

7. The Government should require professional bodies that regulate or licence key professionals such as architects, interior designers, landscape architects, and other design professionals, to require detailed training on accessible design, to qualify for a license, and continuing professional development for existing professionals. The Government should also require, as a condition of funding any college or university that trains these key professions, that their program curriculum must include sufficient training on accessibility and universal design. This should be designed to ensure that no new graduates in these fields will make the same mistakes as too often is the case for those now in practice.

 

8. The Government should substantially reform the way public sector infrastructure projects are managed and overseen in Ontario, including a major reform of Infrastructure Ontario.
9. a) Accessibility needs to be addressed far earlier, and more effectively in every project. This should include a requirement that accessibility advice be obtained on all major projects starting at the very beginning, during master planning, feasibility studies, and functional programming, with any accessibility advice that is received being made public. This input should also be obtained through consultations with people with disabilities.
10. b) Any decisions to reject any accessibility advice should be tracked, identifying who made that decision and the reasons why. That information should promptly be publicly reported.
11. c) The accessibility requirements under consideration as a requirement for a contract for any infrastructure should be made public as soon as possible, with enough time before the start of the bidding competition to allow for feedback and adjustments. It is too late to make this public only after the bidding competition.
12. d) The Government should require post-project accessibility commissioning inspections which would include compliance with the project specific output specification accessibility requirements as well as the Ontario Building Code and AODA accessibility standards.
13. e) Any accessibility deficiencies found should be required by contract to be the financial responsibility of the Project Company who built the project to fix them.

 

9. The Government should require that when public money is used to create new public housing, 100% of that housing should include universal design and visit-ability as mandatory design features.

 

10. The Government should create a fund for accessibility retrofits to increase the number of public buildings that agree to make their property available to the public as an emergency shelter, during a crisis or natural disaster.

 

We always welcome opportunities to assist the Government with issues like this.

 

With less than 7 years until 2025, it is important for your Government to make it clear before or during the upcoming Ontario election what it will do in this area. Nothing that came up at the March 19, 2018 built environment forum was a new revelation. This has all been well-known for years.

 

This subject requires action now. It should not be left to the next AODA Independent Review to recommend action on this issue. As noted earlier, the last AODA Independent Review, conducted by Mayo Moran, called for action on this almost three and a half years ago.

 

Sincerely,

 

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont

Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

 

cc: Premier Kathleen Wynne, premier@ontario.ca

Bill Mauro, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing bill.mauro@ontario.ca

Marie-Lison Fougère, Deputy Minister of Accessibility, marie-lison.fougere@ontario.ca

Ann Hoy, Assistant Deputy Minister for the Accessibility Directorate, ann.hoy@ontario.ca

Steve Orsini, Secretary to Cabinet steve.orsini@ontario.ca

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3 K-12 Education Standards Development Committee Final Report’s Recommendations on the Built Environment

Section seven: Physical and architectural barriers

When it was passed in 2005, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 required Ontario, including its schools, to become fully accessible to persons with disabilities by 2025. The government did not effectively address the need to achieve this in schools’-built environments up until now. These recommendations are designed to achieve the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 goals. It will be for the government to implement measures to ensure that school boards can fulfil them.

The intent/rationale of these recommendations is to ensure that as soon as possible, and no later than January 1, 2025, the built environment in the education system, such as schools themselves, their yards, playgrounds, etc., and the equipment on those premises (such as gym and playground equipment) would all be fully accessible to persons with disabilities and would be designed based on the principle of universal design. Where school programs or trips take place outside the school, these will be held at locations that are disability accessible. The intent/rationale is also to ensure that no public money is used to create new barriers or perpetuate existing barriers in the school system.

Ontario Building Code:

• Ontario Building Code and existing accessibility standards do not set out all the modern and sufficient accessibility requirements for the built environment in Ontario. The Ontario Building Code does not implement the seven principles of Universal Design.
• The building code is largely if not entirely designed to address the needs of adults, not children or the specific types of spaces found in K through 12 schools.

 

Accessibility standards

• the Government of Ontario and the Ministry of Education have no accessibility standards for the built environment in schools, whether old or new schools. The government should develop a Built Environment Accessibility Standards to substantially strengthen the accessibility provisions in the Ontario Building Code.
• neither the Ministry of Education nor the individual school boards have any expertise on staff on how to design a school to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Architects and design and construction teams have no standardized education for accessibility beyond building code minima. Many are not aware of or understand the current minimal requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 Design of Public spaces enacted in 2013.
• when the ministry reviews proposals from a school board for construction of a new school or renovation of an existing school, the ministry does not require those plans to be accessible to persons with disabilities, but instead, leaves it to each school board to address accessibility as much or as little as it wishes.
• it is left to each school board to come up with its own designs to address accessibility in the built environment in schools and at other school board locations even though the needs of persons with disabilities to an accessible built environment do not vary from community to community around Ontario. An inaccessible doorway is an inaccessible doorway, whether in Kingston or Chatham.

 

Summary of recommendations for mandatory beyond building code accessibility requirements

This section includes three different areas of requirements for beyond code additional mandatory requirements for schools and associated facilities including the exterior site elements, the buildings interior elements, and universal design better practices.

The exterior site elements include five topics:

1. access to the site for pedestrians
2. access to the site for vehicles
3. parking
4. exterior doors
5. public playgrounds on or adjacent to school property

The interior building elements include 10 topics:

1. entrances
2. door
3. layout
4. gates, turnstiles and openings
5. windows, glazed screens and sidelights
6. circulation including elevators, ramps and stairs
7. drinking fountains
8. general facilities
9. washroom facilities
10. specialty room and spaces

Finally, enhanced universal design best practice section includes 17 different elements and considerations have been provided based on feedback from a recognized accessibility and universal design expert for ways to improve building and facilities use for all users of the school and community.

Section seven recommendations:

Timeline: six months for all recommendations as they relate to construction of new school facilities or major renovations of existing school facilities.

Ensuring a fully accessible built environment at schools recommendations

Barriers: Too often, the built environment where K-12 education programming is offered, have physical barriers that can partially or totally impede some students with disabilities from being able to enter or independently move around. These barriers also impede parents/caregivers, teachers and other school staff and volunteers with disabilities.

The Ontario Ministry of Education does not effectively survey all school buildings to ensure that they are accessible, or to catalogue what accessibility improvements are needed.

The Ministry of Education’s specifications for new school construction do not require all accessibility features or can even preclude needed accessibility features in a new school or other education facility.

Public feedback on the Standards Development Committee’s initial report reinforced the need for school facilities to be accessible, and the pressing need for strong provincial leadership and standards in this area. Of course, this also can have potential financial implications.

Recommendations:

93. The K-12 Education Accessibility Standards should set out specific requirements for accessibility of the built environment in schools and other locations where education programs are to be offered. Where built environment requirements are included in the Education Accessibility Standard, these should be mirrored in the same terms in the Ontario Building Code to maximize compliance. However, no built environment requirements in the Education Accessibility Standard should be held up pending any amendments to the Ontario Building Code, since effective improvement of the Ontario Building Code’s disability accessibility provisions has been delayed for many years.

Accessibility requirements should not only include the needs of people with mobility disabilities. They should include the needs of people with other disabilities such as (but not limited to) people with vision and/or hearing loss, autism, intellectual or developmental disabilities, learning disabilities or mental health disorders. There should be no priorities among disabilities. These requirements should meet the accessibility requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These should include:

1. specific requirements to be included in a new school to be built.
2. requirements to be included in a renovation of or an addition to an existing school, and
3. retrofit requirements for an existing school not slated for a major renovation or addition.

 

94. Each school board should develop a plan to ensure that the built environment of its schools and other educational facilities becomes fully accessible to persons with disabilities as soon as reasonably possible, and in any event, no later than January 1, 2025. As part of this:
95. as a first step, each school board should develop a plan for making as many of its schools’ disability-accessible within its current financial context.
96. each school board should identify which of its existing schools can be more easily made accessible, and which schools would require substantially more extensive action to be made physically accessible. An interim plan should be developed to show what progress towards full physical accessibility can be made by first addressing schools that would require less money to be made physically more accessible, taking into account the need to also consider geographic equity of access across the school board and a school building’s expected lifespan.
97. when designing a new school or managing an existing school, wherever possible, a quiet room should be assigned in a school facility to assist with learning by those students with disabilities who require such an environment. For example, when a school board is deciding what to do with excess building capacity, it should allocate unused or under-used rooms as quiet rooms whenever possible.

 

95. When a school board seeks to retain or hire design professionals, such as architects, interior designers or landscape architects, for the design of a new school or an existing school’s retrofit or renovation, or for any other school board construction or other infrastructure project, the school board should include in any Request for Proposal a mandatory requirement that the design professional must have sufficient demonstrated expertise in accessibility design, and not simply knowledge about compliance with the Ontario Building Code or the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005. This includes the accessibility needs of people with all kinds of disabilities, and not just those with mobility impairments. It includes the accessibility needs of students and not just of adults.

 

96. When a school board is planning to construct a new school, or expanding or renovating an existing school or other infrastructure, a properly qualified and experienced accessibility consultant should be retained by the school board (and not necessarily by a private architecture firm) to advise on the project from the outset, with their advice being transmitted directly to the school board and not only to the private design professionals who are retained to design the project. Completing the eight-day training course on accessibility offered by the Rick Hansen Foundation should not be treated as either necessary or sufficient for this purpose, as that brief course is substantially inadequate and has significant problems.

 

97. A committee of the school board’s trustees, and the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee or Accessibility Committee should be required to review design decisions on new construction or renovations to ensure that accessibility of the built environment is effectively addressed. A school’s Accessibility Committee should also be involved in this review. Consultations should include getting input from students, parents/caregivers, school employees and school volunteers with disabilities. These committees should not be seen as technical experts, or as a substitute for the earliest engagement of accessible design experts.

 

98. Where possible, a school board should not renovate an existing school that lacks disability accessibility, unless the school board has a plan to also make that school accessible. For example, a school board should not spend public money to renovate the second storey of a school which lacks accessibility to the second storey, if the school board does not have a plan to make that second storey disability accessible. Very pressing health and safety concerns should be the only reason for any exception to this.

 

99. When a school board decides which schools to close due to reduced enrollment, a priority should be placed on keeping open schools with more physical accessibility, while a priority should be given to closing schools that are the most lacking in accessibility, or for which retrofitting is the most costly.

 

100. Each school board should hold off-site educational events at venues whose built environment is accessible.

 

101. The Ministry of Education should be required to revise its funding formula or criteria for school construction to ensure that it requires and covers and does not obstruct the inclusion of all needed accessibility features in a school construction project. Barriers should be removed from the Ministry of Education’s funding policies, practices and rules that can impede a school board from ensuring that its schools become accessible to people with disabilities, for example:
102. After a school board sells off a property, The Ministry of Education should permit a school board to use some or all of those proceeds, if it wishes, to help fund accessibility improvements to schools that are in operation, without needing prior Ministry approval for that use of those proceeds.
103. For purposes of provincial funding of school facilities, The Government should designate gyms, sensory rooms, and accessible outdoor play spaces as “learning spaces” and included in the calculation of the capacity of a school, albeit separate from standard classrooms.

 

Ensuring accessibility of gym, playground and like equipment and activities recommendations

Barrier:

Schools or school boards that have gym, playground or other equipment not designed based on the principles of universal design, which some students with disabilities cannot use, as well as certain gym, sports and other activities in which students with disabilities cannot fully participate.

Section 80.18 of the Ontario Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation, O. Reg. 191/11 as amended in 2012, requires accessibility features to be considered when new outdoor play spaces are being established or existing ones are redeveloped. However, those provisions do not set the spectrum of detailed requirements that should be included. They do not require any action if an existing play space is not being redeveloped. They ultimately leave it to each school board or each school to re-invent the accessibility wheel each time they build or redevelop an outdoor play space. They do not require anything of indoor play spaces or gyms.

Recommendations:

102. To ensure that gym equipment, playground equipment and other like equipment and facilities are accessible for students with disabilities, the Education Accessibility Standards should set out specific technical accessibility requirements for new or existing outdoor or indoor play spaces, gym and other like equipment, drawing on accessibility standards and best practices in other jurisdictions, if sufficient, so that each school board does not have to re-invent the accessibility wheel.

 

103. Each school board should:
104. take an inventory of the accessibility of its existing indoor and outdoor play spaces and gym and playground equipment, and make this public, including posting this information online.
105. adopt a plan to remediate the accessibility of new gym or playground equipment, in consultation with the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee and Accessibility Committee, and widely with the families of students with disabilities.
106. ensure that a qualified accessibility expert is engaged to ensure that the purchase of new equipment or remediation of existing playground is properly conducted, with their advice being given directly to the school board.

 

104. Where playground or other school equipment or facilities to be deployed on school property for use by students is funded and/or purchased by anyone other than the school board, the school board should remain nonetheless responsible for approving the purchases and ensuring that only accessible equipment and facilities are placed on school property for use by students or the public. Decisions over whether accessibility features will be included, or which will be included, should not be totally left to community groups which may fund-raise for such equipment or facilities.

 

Specific accessibility requirements recommendations

The following design features should be required by the Education Accessibility Standard and in any new school construction or renovation, and effectively addressed in the Ministry’s funding/approval requirements for school construction projects. Where an existing school is undergoing no renovation, any of the following measures which are readily achievable should be required. The Ministry should enact technical requirements for the following, as binding enforceable rules, not as voluntary guidelines.

Recommendation part three: usable accessible design for exterior site elements

The following should be required:

105. Access to the site for pedestrians:
106. clear, intuitive connection to the accessible entrance.
107. a tactile raised line map shall be provided at the main entry points adjacent to the accessible path of travel but with enough space to ensure users do not block the path for others.
108. path of travel from each sidewalk connects to an accessible entrance with few to no joints to avoid bumps. The primary paths shall be wide enough to allow two-way traffic with a clear width that allows two people using wheelchairs or guide dogs to pass each other. For secondary paths where a single path is used, passing spaces shall be provided at regular intervals and at all decision points. The height difference from the sidewalk to the entrance will not require a ramp or stairs. The path will provide drainage slopes only and ensure no puddles form on the path. Paths will be heated during winter months using heat from the school or other renewable energy sources.
109. bike parking shall be adjacent to the entry path. Riders shall be required to dismount and not ride on the pedestrian routes. Bike parking shall provide horizontal storage with enough space to ensure users and parked bikes do not block the path for others. The ground surface below the bikes shall be colour contrasted and textured to be distinct from the pedestrian path.
110. rest areas and benches with clear floor space for at least two assistive mobility devices or strollers or a mix of both shall be provided. Benches shall be colour contrasted, have back and arm rests and provide transfer seating options at both ends of the bench. These shall be provided every 30 metres along the path placed adjoining. The bench and space for assistive devices are not to block the path. If the path to the main entrance is less than 30 metres at least one rest area shall be provided along the route. If the drop-off area is in a different location than the pedestrian route from the sidewalk, an interior rest area shall be provided with clear sightlines to the drop-off area. If the drop-off area is more than 20 meters from the closest accessible entrance an exterior accessible heated shelter shall be provided for those awaiting pick-up. The ground surface below the rest areas shall be colour contrasted and textured to be distinct from the pedestrian path it abuts.
111. tactile directional indicators shall be provided where large open paved areas happen along the route.
112. accessible pedestrian directional signage at decision points.
113. lighting levels shall be bright and even enough to avoid shadows and ensure it’s easy to see the features and to keep people safe.
114. accessible duress stations (emergency safety zones in public spaces).
115. heated walkways shall be used where possible to ensure the path is always clear of snow and ice.

 

106. Access to the site for vehicles:
107. clear, intuitive connection to the drop-off and accessible parking.
108. passenger drop-off shall include space for driveway, layby, access aisle (painted with non slip paint), and a drop curb (to provide a smooth transition) for the full length of the drop off. This edge shall be identified and protected with high colour contrasted tactile attention indicators and bollards to stop cars, so people with vision loss or those not paying attention get a warning before walking into the car area. Sidewalk slopes shall provide drainage in all directions for the full length of the dropped curb.
109. overhead protection shall be provided by a canopy that allows for a clearance for raised vans or buses and shall provide as much overhead protection as possible for people who may need more time to load or off-load.
110. heated walkways from the drop-off and parking shall be used to ensure the path is always clear of snow and ice.
111. a tactile walking directional indicator path shall lead from the drop-off area to the closest accessible entrance to the building (typically the main entrance).
112. a parking surface will only be steep enough to provide drainage in all directions. The drainage will be designed to prevent puddles from forming at the parking or along the pedestrian route from the parking.
113. parking design should include potential expansion plans for future growth and/or to address increased need for accessible parking.
114. parking access aisles shall connect to the sidewalk with a curb cut that leads to the closest accessible entrance to the building. (so that no one needs to travel along the driveway behind parked cars or in the path of car traffic).
115. lighting levels shall be bright and even enough to avoid shadows and to ensure it’s easy to see obstacles and to keep people safe.
116. if there is more than one parking lot, each site shall have a distinctive colour and shape symbol associated with it that will be used on all directional signage especially along pedestrian routes.
117. Parking:
118. the provision of parking spaces near the entrance to a facility is important to accommodate persons with a varying range of abilities as well as persons with limited mobility. Medical conditions, such as anemia, arthritis or heart conditions, using crutches or the physical act of pushing a wheelchair, all can make it difficult to travel long distances. Minimizing travel distances is particularly important outdoors, where weather conditions and ground surfaces can make travel difficult and hazardous.
119. the sizes of accessible parking stalls are important. A person using a mobility aid such as a wheelchair requires a wider parking space to accommodate the manoeuvring of the wheelchair beside the car or van. A van may also require additional space to deploy a lift or ramp out the side or back door. An individual would require space for the deployment of the lift itself as well as additional space to manoeuvre on/off the lift.
120. heights of passage along the driving routes to accessible parking is a factor. Accessible vans may have a raised roof resulting in the need for additional overhead clearance. Alternatively, the floor of the van may be lowered, resulting in lower capacity to travel over for speed bumps and pavement slope transitions.
121. wherever possible, parking signs shall be located away from pedestrian routes, because they can constitute an overhead and/or protruding hazard. All parking signage shall be placed at the end of the parking space in a bollard barricade to stop cars, trucks or vans from parking over and blocking the sidewalk.

 

108. 108. A building’s exterior doors:
109. level areas on both sides of a building’s exterior door shall allow the clear floor space for a large scooter or mobility device or several strollers to be at the door. Exterior surface slope shall only provide drainage away from the building.
110. 100 per cent of a building’s exterior doors will be accessible with level thresholds, colour contrast, accessible door hardware and in-door windows or side windows (where security allows) so those approaching the door can see if someone is on the other side of the door.
111. main entry doors at the front of the building and the door closest to the parking lot (if not the same) to be obvious, prominent and will have automatic sliders with overhead sensors. Placing power door operator buttons correctly is difficult and often creates barriers especially within the vestibule.
112. accessible security access for after hours or if used all day with two-way video for those who are deaf and/or scrolling voice to text messaging.
113. all exit doors shall be accessible with a level threshold and clear floor space on either side of the door. The exterior shall include a paved accessible path leading away from the building.

 

Accessible design for interior building elements – general requirements recommendations

The following should be required:

 

109. 109. Entrances:
110. all entrances used by staff and/or the public shall be accessible and comply with this section. In a retrofit situation where it is technically infeasible to make all staff and public entrances accessible, at least 50 per cent of all staff and public entrances shall be accessible and comply with this section. In a retrofit situation where it is technically infeasible to make all public entrances accessible, the primary entrances used by staff and the public shall be accessible.
111. Door:
112. doors shall be sufficiently wide enough to accommodate stretchers, wheelchairs or assistive scooters, pushing strollers, or making a delivery
113. threshold at the door’s base shall be level to allow a trip free and wheel friendly passage.
114. heavy doors and those with auto closers shall provide automatic door openers.
115. room entrances shall have doors.
116. direction of door swing shall be chosen to enhance the usability and limit the hazard to others of the door opening.
117. sliding doors can be easier for some individuals to operate and can also require less wheelchair manoeuvring space.
118. doors that require two hands to operate will not be used.
119. revolving doors are not accessible.
120. full glass doors are not to be used as they represent a hazard.
121. colour-contrasting will be provided on door frames, door handles as well as the door edges.
122. door handles and locks will be operable by using a closed fist, and not require fine finger control, tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate
123. If one must be buzzed in to be able to enter a school, the outside buzzer should be located in an easily found area. The audible sound that indicates that the door is unlocked should be sufficiently loud and accompanied by a light.

 

111. Gates, turnstiles and openings:
112. gates and turnstiles should be designed to accommodate the full range of users that may pass through them. Single-bar gates designed to be at a convenient waist height for ambulatory persons are at neck and face height for children and chest height for persons who use wheelchairs or scooters.
113. revolving turnstiles should not be used as they are a physical impossibility for a person in a wheelchair to negotiate. They are also difficult for persons using canes or crutches, or persons with poor balance.
114. all controlled entry points will provide an accessible width to allow passage of wheelchairs, other mobility devices, strollers, walkers or delivery carts.

 

112. Windows, glazed screens and sidelights:
113. broad expanses of glass should not be used for walls, beside doors and as doors can be difficult to detect. This may be a particular concern to persons with vision loss/no vision. It is also possible for anyone to walk into a clear sheet of glazing especially if they are distracted or in a hurry.
114. windowsill heights and operating controls for opening windows or closing blinds should be accessible…located on a path of travel, with clear floor space, within reach of a shorter or seated user, colour contrasted and not require punching or twisting to operate.

 

113. Drinking fountains:
114. Drinking fountain height should accommodate children and that of a person using a wheelchair or scooter. Potentially conflicting with this, the height should strive to attempt to accommodate individuals who have difficulty bending and who would require a higher fountain. Where feasible, this may require more than one fountain, at different heights. The operating system shall account for limited hand strength or dexterity. Fountains will be recessed, to avoid protruding into the path of travel. Angled recessed alcove designs allow more flexibility and require less precision by a person using a wheelchair or scooter. Providing accessible signage with a tactile attention indicator tile will help those who with vision loss to find the fountain.

 

114. Layout:
115. the main office where visitors and others need to report to upon entering the building shall always be located on the same level as the entrance, as close to the entrance as possible. If the path of travel to the office crosses a large open area, a tactile directional indicator path shall lead from the main entrance(s) to the office ID signage next to the office door.
116. all classrooms and or public destinations shall be on the ground floor. Where this is not possible, at least two elevators should be provided to access all other levels. Where the building is long and spread out, travel distance to elevators should be considered to reduce extra time needed for students and staff or others who use the elevators instead of the stairs. If feature stairs (staircases included in whole or in part for design aesthetics) are included, elevators shall be co-located and just as prominent as the stairs.
117. corridors should meet at 90-degree angles. Floor layouts from floor to floor should be consistent and predictable so the room number line up and are the same with the floors above and below along with the washrooms.
118. multi-stall washrooms shall always place the women’s washroom on the right and the men’s washroom on the left. No labyrinth entrances shall be used. Universal washrooms shall be co-located immediately adjacent to the stall washrooms, in a location that is consistent and predictable throughout the building.

 

115. Facilities:
116. the entry doors to each type of facility within a building should be accessible, colour contrasted, obvious and prominent and designed as part of the wayfinding system including accessible signage that is co-located with power door openers controls.
117. tactile attention indicator tile will be placed on the floor in front of the accessible ID signage at each room or facility type. Where a room or facility entrance is placed off of a large interior open area.

 

Accessible design for interior building elements – circulation recommendations

The following should be required:

 

116. Elevators:
117. elevator doors will provide a clear width to allow a stretcher and larger mobility devices to get in and out.
118. doors will have sensors so doors will auto open if the doorway is blocked
119. elevators will be installed in pairs so that when one is out of service for repair or maintenance, there is an alternative available.
120. elevators will be sized at allow at least two mobility device users and two non-mobility devices users to be in the elevator at the same time. This should also allow for a wide stretcher in case of emergency.
121. assistive listening will be available in each elevator to help make the audible announcements heard by those using hearing aids.
122. emergency button on the elevator’s control panel will also provide two-way communication with video and scrolling text and a keyboard for people who are deaf or who have other communication disabilities.
123. inside the elevators will be additional horizontal buttons on the side wall in case there is not enough room for a person using a mobility aid to push the typical vertical buttons along the wall beside the door. If there are only two floors the elevator will only provide the door open, close and emergency call buttons and the elevator will automatically move to the floor it is not on.
124. the words spoken in the elevator’s voice announcement of the floor will be the same as the braille and print floor markings, so the button shows one as a number, one in braille and the voice says first floor not G for Ground with M in braille and voice says first floor.).
125. ensure the star symbol for each elevator matches ground level appropriate to the elevator. The star symbol indicates the floor the elevator will return to in an emergency. This means users in the elevator will open closest to the available accessible exit. If the entrance on the north side is on the second floor, the star symbol in that elevator will be next to the button that says two. If the entrance on the south side of the building is on the first floor, the star symbol will be next to the button that says one.
126. the voice on the elevator shall be set at a volume that is audible above typical noise levels while the elevator is in use, so that people on the elevator can easily hear the audible floor announcements.
127. lighting levels inside the elevator will match the lighting at the elevator lobbies. Lighting will be measured at the ground level.
128. elevators will provide colour contrast between the floor and the walls inside the cab and between the frame of the door or the doors with the wall surrounding in the elevator lobbies. Vinyl peel and stick sheets or paint will be used to cover the shiny metal which creates glare. Vinyl sheets will be plain to ensure the door looks like a door, and not like advertising.
129. in a retrofit situation where adding two elevators is not technically possible without undue hardship, platform lifts may be considered. Elevators that are used by all facility users are preferred to platform lifts which tend to segregate persons with disabilities and which limit space at entrance and stair locations. Furthermore, independent access is often compromised by such platform lifts because platform lifts are often requiring a key to operate. Whenever possible, integrated elevator access should be incorporated to avoid the use of lifts.

 

117. Ramps:
118. a properly designed ramp can provide wait-free access for those using wheelchairs or scooters, pushing strollers or moving packages on a trolley or those who are using sign language to communicate and don’t want to stop talking as they climb stairs.
119. a ramp’s textured surfaces, edge protection and handrails all provide important safety features.
120. on outdoor ramps, heated surfaces shall be provided to address the safety concerns associated with snow and ice.
121. ramps shall only be used where the height difference between levels is no more than 1 meter (4 feet). Longer ramps take up too much space and are too tiring for many users. Where a height difference is more than 1 meter in height, elevators will be provided instead.
122. landings will be sized to allow a large mobility device or scooter to make a 360-degree turn and/or for two people with mobility assistive devices or guide dogs to pass.
123. slopes inside the building will be no higher than is permitted for exterior ramps in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 Design of Public Spaces Standards, to ensure usability without making the ramp too long.
124. curved ramps will not be used, because the cross slope at the turn is hard to navigate and a tipping hazard for many people.
125. colour and texture contrast will be provided to differentiate the full slope from any level landings. Tactile attention domes shall not be used at ramps, because they are meant only for stairs and for drop-off edges like at stages.
126. 
     Stairs:
127. stairs that are comfortable for many adults may be challenging for children, seniors or persons of short stature.
128. the leading edge of each step (aka nosing) shall not present tripping hazards, particularly to persons with prosthetic devices or those using canes and will have a bright colour contrast to the rest of the horizontal step surface.
129. each stair in a staircase will use the same height and depth, to avoid creating tripping hazards.
130. the rise between stairs will always be smooth, so that shoes will not catch on an abrupt edge causing a tripping hazard. These spaces will always be closed as open stairs create a tripping hazard.

The top of all stair entry points will have a tactile attention indicator surface, to ensure the drop-off is identified for those who are blind or distracted.

1. handrails will aid all users navigating stairways safely. Handrails will be provided on both sides of all stairs and will be provided at both the traditional height as well as a second lower rail for children or people who are shorter. These will be in a high colour contrasting colour and round in shape, without sharp edges or interruptions.

 

Accessible design for interior building elements – washroom facilities recommendations

The following should be required:

 

119. General washroom requirements
120. washroom facilities will accommodate the range of people that will use the space. Although many persons with disabilities use toilet facilities independently, some may require assistance. Where the individual providing assistance is of the opposite gender then typical gender-specific washrooms are awkward, and so an individual washroom is required.
121. parents and caregivers with small children and strollers also benefit from a large, individual washroom with toilet and change facilities contained within the same space.
122. circumstances such as wet surfaces and the act of transferring between toilet and wheelchair or scooter can make toilet facilities accident-prone areas. An individual falling in a washroom with a door that swings inward could prevent his or her own rescuers from opening the door. Due to the risk of accidents, emergency call buttons are vital in all washrooms.
123. the appropriate design of all features will ensure the usability and safety of all toilet facilities.
124. the identification of washrooms will include pictograms for children or people who cannot read. All signage will include braille that translates the text on the print sign, and not only the room number.
125. there are three types of washrooms. Single use accessible washrooms, single use universal washrooms, and multi-use stalled washrooms. The number and types of washrooms used in a facility will be determined by the number of users. There will always at least be one universal washroom on each floor.
126. all washrooms will have doors with power door opening buttons. No door washrooms will be hard to identify for people who have vision loss.
127. stall washrooms accessible-sized stalls – At least two accessible stalls shall be provided in each washroom to avoid long wait times. Schools with accessible education programs that include a large percentage of people with mobility disabilities should have all stalls sized to accommodate a turn circle and the transfer space beside the toilet.
128. all washrooms near rooms that will be used for public events shall include a baby change table that is accessible to all users, not placed inside a stall. It shall be colour contrasted with the surroundings and usable for those in a seated mobility device and or of shorter stature.
129. at least one universal washroom will include an adult-sized change table, with the washroom located near appropriate facilities in the school and any public event spaces. These are important for some adults with disabilities and for children with disabilities who are too large for the baby change tables. This helps prevent anyone from needing to be changed lying on a bathroom floor.
130. where shower stalls are provided, these shall include accessible-sized stalls.
131. portable toilets at special events shall all be accessible. At least one will include an adult-sized change table.

 

120. 120. Washroom stalls:
121. size: manoeuvrability of a wheelchair or scooter is the principal consideration in the design of an accessible stall. The increased size of the stall is required to ensure there is sufficient space to facilitate proper placement of a wheelchair or scooter to accommodate a person transferring transfer onto the toilet from their mobility device. There may also be instances where an individual requires assistance. Thus, the stall will have to accommodate a second person.
122. stall door swings are normally outward for safety reasons and space considerations. However, this makes it difficult to close the door once inside. A handle mounted part way along the door makes it easier for someone inside the stall to close the door behind them.
123. minimum requirements for non-accessible toilet stalls are included to ensure that persons who do not use wheelchairs or scooters can be adequately accommodated within any toilet stall.
124. universal features include accessible hardware and a minimum stall width to accommodate persons of large stature or parents/caregivers with small children.
125. Toilets:
126. automatic flush controls are preferred. If flushing mechanisms are not automated, flushing controls shall be on the transfer side of the toilet, with colour contrasted and lever style handles.
127. children-sized toilets and accessible child-sized toilets will be required in kindergarten areas either within the classroom or immediately adjacent to the facilities.
128. Sinks:
129. each accessible sink shall be on an accessible path of travel that other people, using other sinks or features (like hand-dryers), are not positioned to block.
130. the sink, sink controls, soap dispenser and towel dispenser should all be at an accessible height and location and should all be automatic controls that do not require physical contact.
131. while faucets with remote-eye technology may initially confuse some individuals, their ease of use is notable. Individuals with hand strength or dexterity difficulties can use lever-style handles.
132. for an individual in a wheelchair and younger children, a lower counter height and clearance for knees under the counter are required.
133. the insulating of hot water pipes shall be assured to protect the legs of an individual using a wheelchair. This is particularly important when a disability impairs sensation such that the individual would not sense that their legs were being burned.
134. the combination of shallow sinks and higher water pressures can cause unacceptable splashing at lavatories.

 

123. 123. Urinals:
124. each urinal needs to be on an accessible path of travel with clear floor space in front of each accessible urinal to provide the manoeuvring space for a mobility device.
125. urinal grab bars shall be provided to assist individuals rising from a seated position and others to steady themselves.
126. floor-mounted urinals accommodate children and persons of short stature as well as enabling easier access to drain personal care devices.
127. flush controls, where used, will be automatic preferred. Strong colour contrasts shall be provided between the urinal, the wall and the floor to assist persons with vision loss/no vision.
128. in stall washrooms with Urinals, all urinals will be accessible with lower rim heights. For primary schools the urinal should be full height from floor to upper rim to accommodate children. Stalled washrooms with urinals will have an upper rim at the same height as typical non-accessible urinals to avoid the mess taller users can make. All urinals will provide vertical grab bars which are colour contrasted to the walls. Where dividers between urinals are used, the dividers will be colour contrasted to the walls as well.

 

124. 124. Showers:
125. roll-in or curb less shower stalls shall be provided to eliminate the hazard of stepping over a threshold and are essential for persons with disabilities who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices in the shower.
126. grab bars and non-slip materials shall be included as safety measures that will support any individual.
127. colour contrasted hand-held shower head and a water-resistant folding bench shall be included to assist persons with disabilities. These are also convenient for others.
128. other equipment that has contrasting colour from the shower stall shall be included to assist individuals with vision loss/no vision.
129. shower floor drain locations will be located to avoid room flooding when they may get blocked.
130. colour contrast will be provided between the floor and the walls in the shower to assist with wayfinding.
131. shower curtains will be used for individual showers instead of doors as much as possible as it.
132. where showers are provided in locker rooms each locker room will include at least one accessible shower, but an additional individual shower room will be provided immediately adjacent to allow for those with opposite sex attendants to assist them with the appropriate privacy.

 

Accessible design for interior building elements – specific room requirements recommendations

125. 125. Performance stages

The following should be required:

1. elevated platforms, such as stage areas, speaker podiums, etc., shall be accessible to all.
2. a clear accessible route will be provided along the same path of access for those who are not using mobility assistive devices as those who do. Lifts will not be used to access stage or raised platforms unless the facility is retrofitting an existing stage and it is not technically possible to provide access by other means.
3. the stage shall include safety features to assist persons with vision loss or those momentarily blinded by stage lights from falling off the edge of a raised stage, such as a colour contrasted raised lip along the edge of the stage.
4. lecterns shall be accessible with an adjustable height surface, knee space and accessible audio visual (AV) and information technology (IT) equipment. Lecterns shall have a microphone that is connected to an assistive listening system, such as a hearing loop. The office and/or presentation area will have assistive listening units available for those who may request them, for example people who are hard of hearing but not yet wearing hearing aids.
5. lighting shall be adjustable to allow for a minimum of lighting in the public seating area and backstage to allow those who need to move or leave with sufficient lighting at floor level to be safe.

 

126. Sensory rooms

The following should be required:

1. sensory rooms will be provided in a central location on each floor where there are classrooms or public meeting spaces.
2. they will be soundproof and identified with accessible signage.
3. the interior walls and floor will be darker in colour, but colour contrast will be used to distinctly differentiate the floor from the wall and the furniture.
4. lighting will be provided on a dimmer to allow for the room to be darkened.
5. weighted blankets will be available along with a variety of different seating options including beanbag chairs or bouncy seat balls.
6. they will provide a phone or other two-way communication to call for assistance if needed.

 

127. Offices, work areas and meeting rooms

The following should be required:

1. offices providing services or programs to the public will be accessible to all, regardless of mobility or functional needs. Offices and related support areas shall be accessible to staff and visitors with disabilities.
2. all people, but particularly those with hearing loss/persons who are hard-of-hearing, will benefit from having a quiet acoustic environment – background noise from mechanical equipment such as fans, shall be designed to be minimal. Telephone equipment that supports the needs of individuals with hearing and vision loss shall be available.
3. the provision of assistive speaking devices is important for the range of individuals who may have difficulty with low vocal volume thus affecting production of normal audible levels of sound. Where offices and work areas and small meeting rooms do not have assistive listening, such as hearing loops permanently installed, portable assistive hearing loops shall be available at the office.
4. tables and workstations shall provide the knee space requirements of an individual in a mobility assistive device. Adjustable height tables allow for a full range of user needs. Circulation areas shall accommodate the spatial needs of mobility equipment as large as scooters to ensure all areas and facilities in the space can be reached with appropriate manoeuvring and turning spaces.
5. natural coloured task lighting, such as that provided through halogen bulbs, shall be used wherever possible to facilitate use by all, especially persons with low vision.
6. in locations where reflective glare may be problematic, such as large expanses of glass with reflective flooring, blinds that can be louvered upwards shall be provided. Controls for blinds shall be accessible to all and usable with a closed fist without pinching or twisting.

 

128. Outdoor athletic and recreational facilities

The following should be required:

1. areas for outdoor recreation, leisure and active sport participation shall be designed to be available to all members of the school community.
2. outdoor spaces will allow persons with a disability to be active participants, as well as spectators, volunteers and members of staff. Spaces will be accessible including boardwalks, trails and footbridges, pathways, parks, parkettes and playgrounds, parks, parkettes and playgrounds, grandstand and other viewing areas, and playing fields.
3. assistive listening will be provided where game or other announcements will be made for all areas including the change room, player, coach and public areas.
4. noise cancelling headphones shall be available to those with sensory disabilities.
5. outdoor exercise equipment will include options for those with a variety of disabilities including those with temporary disabilities undergoing rehabilitation.
6. seating and like facilities shall be inclusive and allow for all members of a disabled sports team to sit together in an integrated way that does not segregate anyone.
7. seating and facilities will be inclusive and allow for all members of a sports team of persons with disabilities to sit together in an integrated way that does not segregate anyone.

 

129. Arenas, halls and other indoor recreational facilities

The following should be required:

1. areas for recreation, leisure and active sport participation will be accessible to all members of the community.
2. assistive listening will be provided where game or other announcements will be made for all areas including the change room, player, coach and public areas.
3. noise cancelling headphones will be available to those with sensory disabilities.
4. access will be provided throughout outdoor facilities including to; playing fields and other sports facilities, all activity areas, outdoor trails, swimming areas, play spaces, lockers, dressing/change rooms and showers.
5. interior access will be provided to halls, arenas, and other sports facilities, including access to the site, all activity spaces, gymnasia, fitness facilities, lockers, dressing/change rooms and showers.
6. spaces will allow persons with disabilities to be active participants, as well as spectators, volunteers and members of staff.
7. indoor exercise equipment will include options for those with a variety of disabilities including those with temporary disabilities who are undergoing rehabilitation.
8. seating and facilities will be inclusive and allow for all members of a sports team of persons with disabilities to sit together in an integrated way that does not segregate or stigmatize anyone.

 

130. Swimming pools

The following should be required:

1. primary considerations for accommodating persons who have mobility impairments include accessible change facilities and a means of access into the water. Ramped access into the water is preferred over lift access, as it promotes integration (everyone will use the ramp) and independence.
2. persons with low vision benefit from colour and textural surfaces that are detectable and safe for both bare feet or those wearing water shoes. These surfaces will be provided along primary routes of travel leading to access points such as pool access ladders and ramps.
3. tactile surface markings and other barriers will be provided at potentially dangerous locations, such as the edge of the pool, at steps into the pool and at railings.
4. floors will be slip resistant to help those who are unsteady on their feet and everyone even in wet conditions.

 

131. Cafeterias

The following should be required:

1. cafeteria serving lines and seating area designs shall reflect the lower sight lines, reduced reach, knee-space and manoeuvring requirements of a person using a wheelchair or scooter. Patrons using mobility devices may not be able to hold a tray or food items while supporting themselves on canes or while manoeuvring a wheelchair.
2. if tray slides are provided, they will be designed to move trays with minimal effort.
3. food signage will be accessible.
4. all areas where food is ordered and picked up will be designed to meet accessible service counter requirements.
5. self-serve food will be within the reach of people who are shorter or using seated mobility assistive devices.
6. where trays are provided, a tray cart that can be attached to seated assistive mobility devices or a staff assistant solution that is readily available shall be available on demand, because carrying trays and pushing a chair or operating a motorized assistive device can be difficult or impossible.

 

132. Libraries

The following should be required:

1. all service counters shall provide accessibility features
2. study carrels will accommodate the knee-space and armrest requirements of a person using a mobility device.
3. computer catalogues, carrels and workstations will be provided at a range of heights, to accommodate persons who are standing or sitting, as well as children of different ages and sizes.
4. workstations shall be equipped with assistive technology such as large displays, screen readers, to increase the accessibility of a library.
5. book drop-off slots shall be at different heights for standing and seated use with accessible signage, to enhance usability.

 

133. Teaching spaces and classrooms

The following should be required:

 

1. students, teachers and staff with disabilities will have accessibility to teaching and classroom facilities, including teaching computer labs.
2. all teaching spaces and classrooms will provide power door operators and assistive listening systems such as hearing loops.
3. additional considerations may be necessary for spaces and/or features specifically designated for use by students with disabilities, such as accessibility standards accommodations for complex personal care needs.
4. students teachers and staff with disabilities will be accommodated in all teaching spaces throughout the school.
5. this accessibility will include the ability to enter and move freely throughout the space, as well as to use the various built-in elements within (such as, blackboards and/or whiteboards, switches, computer stations, sinks, etc.). Classroom and meeting rooms must be designed with enough room for people with mobility devices to comfortably move around.
6. individuals with disabilities frequently use learning aids and other assistive devices that require a power supply. Additional electrical outlets shall be provided throughout teaching spaces to accommodate the use of such equipment.
7. except where it is impossible, fixtures, fittings, furniture and equipment will be specified for teaching spaces, which is usable by students, faculty, teaching assistants and staff with disabilities.
8. providing only one size of seating does not reflect the diversity of body types of our society. Offering seats with an increased width and weight capacity is helpful for persons of large stature. Seating with increased legroom will better suit individuals that are taller. Removable armrests can be helpful for persons of larger stature as well as individuals using wheelchairs that prefer to transfer to the seat.
9. Lighting levels should be adjustable in all classrooms. In addition to classrooms, schools should include alternative or quiet learning areas. These could be used as an “Alternative Learning Environment” that also for 1:1 teaching, professional services/therapy (e.g., ABA, mental health counselling, Speech Language Pathology), student-selected “quiet time”, multisensory experiences. This should not detract from the availability of dedicated sensory rooms.

 

134. Laboratories will provide, in addition to the requirements for classrooms, additional accessibility considerations may be necessary for spaces and/or features in laboratories.

 

135. Waiting and queuing areas

The following should be required:

1. queuing areas for information, tickets or services will permit persons who use wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility devices as well as for persons with a varying range of user ability to easily move through the line safely.
2. all lines shall be accessible.
3. waiting and queuing areas will provide space for mobility devices, such as wheelchairs and scooters.
4. queuing lines that turn corners or double back on themselves will provide adequate space to manoeuvre mobility devices.
5. handrails, not flexible guidelines, with high colour contrast will be provided along queuing lines, because they are a useful support for individuals and guidance for those with vision loss.
6. benches in waiting areas shall be provided for individuals who may have difficulty withstanding for extended periods.
7. assistive listening systems will be provided, such as hearing loops, will be provided along with accessible signage indicating this service is available.

 

136. Information, reception and service counters

The following should be required:

1. all information, reception and service counters will be accessible to the full range of visitors. Where adjustable height furniture is not used, a choice of fixed counter heights will provide a range of options for a variety of persons. Lowered sections will serve children, persons of short stature and persons using mobility devices such as a wheelchair or scooter. The choice of heights will also extend to any speaking ports and writing surfaces.
2. counters will provide knee space under the counter to accommodate a person using a wheelchair or a scooter.
3. the provision of assistive speaking and listening devices is important for the range of individuals who may have difficulty with low vocal volume thus affecting production of normal audible levels of sound. The space where people are speaking will have appropriate acoustic treatment to ensure the best possible conditions for communication. Both the public and staff sides of the counter will have good lighting for the faces to help facilitate lip reading.
4. colour contrast will be provided to delineate the public service counters and speaking ports for people with low vision.

 

Accessible design for interior building elements – other features recommendations

137. Lockers

The following should be required:

1. lockers will be accessible with colour contrast and accessible signage.
2. in change rooms an accessible bench will be provided in close proximity to lockers.
3. lockers at lower heights serve the reach of children or a person using a wheelchair or scooter.
4. the locker operating mechanisms will be at an appropriate height and operable by individuals with restrictions in hand dexterity (such as, operable with a closed fist).

 

138. Storage, shelving and display units

The following should be required:

1. the heights of storage, shelving and display units will address a full range of vantage points including the lower sightlines of children or a person using a wheelchair or scooter. The lower heights also serve the lower reach of these individuals.
2. displays and storage along a path of travel that are too low can be problematic for individuals that have difficulty bending down or who are blind. If these protrude too much into the path of travel, each will protect people with the use of a trip free cane detectable guard.
3. appropriate lighting and colour contrast are particularly important for persons with vision loss.
4. signage provided will be accessible with braille, text, colour contrast and tactile features.

 

139. Public address systems

The following should be required:

1. public address systems will be designed to best accommodate all users, especially those that may be hard of hearing. They will be easy to hear above the ambient background noise of the environment with no distortion or feedback. Background noise or music will be minimized.
2. technology for visual equivalents of information being broadcast will be available for individuals with hearing loss/persons who are hard-of-hearing who may not hear an audible public address system.
3. classrooms, library, hallways, and other areas will have assistive listening equipment that is tied into the general public address system.

 

140. Emergency exits, fire evacuation and areas of rescue assistance

The following should be required:

 

140.1 in order to be accessible to all individuals, emergency exits will include the same accessibility features as other doors. The doors and routes will be marked in a way that is accessible to all individuals, including those who may have difficulty with literacy, such as children or persons speaking a different language.

 

140.2 persons with vision loss/no vision will be provided a means to quickly locate exits – audio or talking signs could assist.

 

140.3 Areas of rescue assistance

1. in the event of fire when elevators cannot be used, areas of rescue assistance shall be provided especially for anyone who has difficulty traversing sets of stairs.
2. areas of rescue assistance will be provided on all floors above or below the ground floor.
3. exit stairs will provide an area of rescue assistance on the landing with at least two spaces for people with mobility assistive devices sized to ensure those spaces do not block the exit route for those using the stairs.
4. the number of spaces necessary on each floor that does not have an at-grade exit should be sized by the number of people on each floor.
5. each area of refuge will provide a two-way communication system with both two-way video and audio to allow those using these spaces to communicate that they are waiting there and to communicate with fire safety services and or security.
6. all signage associated with the area of rescue assistance will be accessible and include braille for all controls and information.

 

141. Other features

The following should be required:

 

141.1 Space and reach requirements

1. the dimensions and manoeuvring characteristics of wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility devices will allow for a full array of equipment that is used by individuals to access and use facilities, as well as the diverse range of user ability.

 

141.2 Ground and floor surfaces

1. irregular surfaces, such as cobblestones or pea-gravel finished concrete, shall be avoided because they are difficult for both walking and pushing a wheelchair. Slippery surfaces are to be avoided because they are hazardous to all individuals and especially hazardous for seniors and others who may not be sure-footed.
2. glare from polished floor surfaces is to be avoided because it can be uncomfortable for all users and can be a particular obstacle to persons with vision loss by obscuring important orientation and safety features. Pronounced colour contrast between walls and floor finishes are helpful for persons with vision loss, as are changes in colour/texture where a change in level or function occurs.
3. patterned floors should be avoided, as they can create visual confusion.
4. thick pile carpeting is to be avoided as it makes pushing a wheelchair very difficult. When deploying carpets in winter to manage traction of water, ensure that it does not make it difficult to maneuver wheelchairs and mobility devices. Small and uneven changes in floor level represent a further barrier to using a wheelchair and present a tripping hazard to ambulatory persons.
5. openings in any ground or floor surface such as grates or grilles are to be avoided because they can catch canes or wheelchair wheels.

 

142. Universal design practices beyond typical accessibility requirements

The following should be required:

 

142.1 areas of refuge should be provided even when a building has a sprinkler system.

142.2 no hangout steps* should ever be included in the building or facility.

* Hangout steps are a socializing area that is sometimes used for presentations. It looks similar to bleachers. Each seating level is further away from the front and higher up but here people sit on the floor rather than on seats. Each seating level is about as deep as four stairs and about three stairs high. There is typically a regular staircase provided on one side that leads from the front or stage area to the back at the top. The stairs allow ambulatory people access to all levels of the seating areas, but the only seating spaces for those who use mobility assistive devices are at the front or at the top at the back, but these are not integrated in any way with the other seating options.

142.3 there should never be “stramps.” A stramp is a staircase that someone has built a ramp running back and forth across. These create accessibility problems rather than solving them.

142.4 rest areas should be differentiated from walking surfaces or paths by texture- and colour-contrast.

142.5 keypads angled to be usable from both a standing and a seated position.

142.6 finishes

1. no floor-to-ceiling mirrors
2. colour luminance contrast will be provided at least between:
3. floor to wall
4. door or door frame to wall

iii. door hardware to door

1. controls to wall surfaces

 

142.7 furniture – Arrange seating in square or round arrangement so all participants can see each other for those who are lip reading or using sign language.

142.8 no sharp corners especially near turn circles or under surfaces where people will be sitting.

Sundry additional requirements

143.The Standard should set requirements to ensure accessibility for people with environmental sensitivities, including such things as choice of building materials, cleaning materials and ventilation. Additional accessibility considerations may be necessary for spaces and/or features in laboratories and other rooms including a pure air environment in which to learn or to eat meals, for people with environmental or sensory sensitivities.

144.School bells and bathroom electric hand dryers often cause severe auditory pain to students with autism. While the safety of students is paramount, care must be taken to minimize these noises wherever possible. Similar concerns can arise from other avoidable loud sound sources that are not needed for health and safety purposes.

145. In addition to indoor classrooms, all these recommendations should apply where they can to outdoor classroom venues and spaces, increasingly created with the advent of COVID-19.
146. Requirements for public playgrounds on or adjacent to school property

The following should be required:

 

146.1 accessible path of travel from sidewalk and entry points to and throughout the play space. Tactile directional indicators would help as integrated path through large open spaces.

146.2 accessible controlled access routes into and out of the play space.

146.3 multiple ways to use and access play equipment.

146.4 a mix of ground-level equipment integrated with elevated equipment accessible by a ramp or transfer platform.

146.5 where stairs are provided, ramps to same area.

146.6 no overhead hazards.

146.7 ramp landings, elevated decks and other areas should provide sufficient turning space for mobility devices and include fun plan activities not just a view.

146.8 space to park wheelchairs and mobility devices beside transfer platforms.

146.9 space for a caregiver to sit beside a child on a slide or other play element.

146.10 provide elements that can be manipulated with limited exertion.

146.11 avoid recurring scraping or sharp clanging sounds such as the sound of dropping stones and gravel.

146.12 avoid shiny surfaces as they produce a glare.

146.13 colour luminance contrast will be provided at least at:

1. different spaces throughout the play area.
2. differentiate the rise and run on steps. include colour contrasting on the edge of each step.
3. play space boundaries and areas where children should be cautious, such as around high traffic areas for example, slide exits.
4. entry to play areas with shorter doors to help avoid hitting heads.
5. tactile edges where there is a level change like at the top of the stairs or at a drop-off.
6. transfer platforms.
7. railings and handrails contrasted to the supports to make them easier to find.
8. tripping hazards should be avoided but if they exist, providing colour contrast, to improve safety for all. this is more likely in an older playground.
9. safe zones around swings, slide exits and other play areas where people are moving, that might not be noticed when people are moving around the playground.

 

146.14 play surfacing materials under foot will be pour-in-place rubber surfacing that should be made of either:

1. rubber Tile
2. engineered wood fiber
3. engineered carpet, artificial turf, and crushed rubber products
4. sand

 

146.15 accessible parking and curbs, where provided, at least one clearly marked accessible space positioned as close as possible to the playground on a safe, accessible route to the play space.

 

146.16 accessible signage:

1. accessible signage and raised line map at each entrance to the park.
2. provide large colour contrasted text, pictograms, braille.
3. provide signage at each play element with id text and braille, marked with a tactile attention paver to make it easier to find.
4. identify the types of disability included at each play equipment/area.

 

146.17 for caregivers:

1. junior and senior play equipment within easy viewing of each other.
2. sitting areas that offer a clear line of sight to play areas and equipment.
3. clear lines of sight throughout the play space.
4. access to all play areas in order to provide assistance.
5. sitting areas with back support, arm rests and shade.
6. benches and other sitting areas should be placed on a firm stable area for people using assistive devices such as wheelchairs.

 

146.18 for service animals:

1. nearby safe, shady places at rest area benches where service animals can wait with a caregiver with a clear view of their handlers when they are not assisting them.
2. spaces where dogs can relive themselves – dog relief area with nearby garbage can.

 

146.19 tips for swings:

1. providing a safe boundary area around swings which is identified by surface material colour and texture.
2. swings in a variety of sizes.
3. accessible seat swings or basket swings that require transfer. If size and space allow provide two accessible swings for friends with disabilities to swing together. Platform swings eliminate the need to transfer should be integrated.

 

146.20 tips for slides:

1. double slides (side by side) allow caregivers to accompany and, if needed, to offer support.
2. slide exits should not be directed into busy play areas.
3. transfer platforms at the base of slide exits.
4. seating spaces with back support adjacent to the slide exit where children/caregivers can wait for their mobility device to be retrieved.
5. metal versus plastic slides (metal slides avoid static electricity which damaged cochlear implants, while sun exposure can leave metal slide hot, so shade devices are vital).
6. roller slides are usually gentler in slope and provide both a tactile and sliding experience or an avalanche inclusive slide.

 

Timeline: six months for all recommendations

 

 

 

 

Appendix 4 List of the AODA Alliance’s Recommendations in this Brief

 

1. The DOPS Standards Development Committee report to the Ontario Government should make the specific findings and recommendations set out in Chapter 4 of the AODA Alliance’s January 15, 2019 brief to the 3^rd Independent Review by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley.

 

2. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should now undertake a broad public consultation process, well before finalizing, voting on and circulating a draft report for feedback.

 

3. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should consider whether the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard will ensure that Ontario’s built environment will become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. It should not limit itself to considering whether the 2012 Accessibility Standard is merely working “as intended.”

 

4. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should endorse the built environment recommendations in the final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, as usefully applying to the built environment more broadly, and not only to school buildings and grounds.

 

5. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should obtain from the Ontario Government the final report of the earlier Built Environment Standards Development Committee, make it public for feedback, and incorporate into its own report anything in those earlier recommendations that would help make Ontario’s built environment accessible.

 

 

6. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should include in its recommendations:
   1. Measures to ensure that existing buildings and premises become accessible, even if not undergoing a major renovation.
   2. Measures to ensure accessibility for all people with disabilities, and not only those who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices, or those with vision or hearing loss.
   3. As a first and transitional step, measures to require retrofit of existing buildings for accessibility, even if not undergoing a major renovation, at least where doing so is readily achievable.

 

7. A comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard should be enacted under the AODA, rather than leaving accessibility of buildings exclusively to the Ontario Building Code.

 

8. The Ontario Building Code should be amended to incorporate the AODA Built Environment Accessibility Standard by reference.

 

 

9. The AODA Built Environment Accessibility Standard requirements should be fully enforceable not only under the AODA’s enforcement provisions, but under the enforcement powers available under the Ontario Building Code.

 

10. A construction plan should not be able to obtain site plan approval and/or a building permit unless it is found to comply with all accessibility requirements created in AODA Accessibility Standards and not just those in the Ontario Building Code.

 

11. The Ontario Government should not “harmonize” the Ontario Building Code with the National Building Code. Ontarians with disabilities should not have to fight to prevent any further weakening of the Ontario Building Codes inadequate accessibility provisions.

 

12. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should draw on the strongest accessibility requirements in any municipal Facilities Accessible Design Standards (FADS) if they are found to be sufficient to ensure accessibility.

 

13. The DOPS Standards Development Committee should recommend that any AODA accessibility standard addressing the built environment needs to include specific requirements targeted at discrete categories of buildings, such as residential housing, public transit stations or hospitals and other major health care facilities.

 

14. The specific provisions in the DOPS Accessibility Standard should be revised to cover existing built environment, not only those developed after the Standard went into effect.

 

15. The DOPS Accessibility Standard should be revised to set specific accessibility requirements for playgrounds and spaces, rather than wastefully requiring obligated organizations to repeat the same duplicative consultations with people with disabilities across Ontario.

 

16. The DOPS Accessibility Standard should be revised to set specific accessibility requirements for on-street parking.

 

17. The DOPS Accessibility Standard should be revised to set a specific height for an accessible customer service counter, and to fix specific accessibility requirements for public service queuing guides.

 

18. The DOPS Accessibility Standard be revised to require that audible pedestrian signals operate automatically, without people with disabilities having to find them and push a button to turn them on.

 

19. Each of the exemptions to the DOPS Accessibility Standard requirements addressed in this brief should be substantially narrowed or eliminated.