Send the AODA Alliance Feedback on Our Draft Brief to the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee on What Should Be Enacted to Tear Down Disability Barriers in Ontario’s Built Environment

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/aodaalliance

 

Send the AODA Alliance Feedback on Our Draft Brief to the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee on What Should Be Enacted to Tear Down Disability Barriers in Ontario’s Built Environment

 

September 9, 2024

 

SUMMARY

 

Once again, we’re seeking your feedback on a draft brief. This brief describes the measures we need the Ontario Government to enact to tear down the many disability barriers in Ontario’s built environment. We are sorry to emphasize this, but we need any feedback very, very quickly.

 

What is this brief about? On June 5, 2024, the Ford Government posted for public comment the Initial Report by the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee. The Government had appointed that Standards Development Committee under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to make recommendations on what mandatory accessibility standards should be enacted under the AODA to remove and prevent the many unfair accessibility barriers that people with disabilities still face in the built environment in Ontario.

 

Our brief offers our feedback to the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee on its Initial Report. It lists our recommendations on things we would like that Committee to add to or change before it finalizes its Initial Report and submits it to the Ford Government. Our draft brief is about 46 pages long, and has a 20 page appendix. We only need feedback on our brief itself, and not on the appendix.

 

We apologize for our short time line, but we need your feedback by some time this Thursday, September 12, 2024. Write us with your specific suggestions at aodafeedback@gmail.com

 

Please don’t mark up our draft brief. It’s easiest if you just send us an email listing any suggestions you have. We aim to submit our finalized brief to the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee this Friday. As always, we will make our finalized brief public.

 

If you would like us to email you this draft brief as an MS Word file, just write us and ask for it. Again, we can be emailed at aodafeedback@gmail.com

 

You can see all the AODA Alliance’s past briefs on a wide range of accessibility subjects on the AODA Alliance website’s briefs page. You can see all our efforts over the past decade and a half to fight for a barrier-free built environment on the AODA Alliance website’s built environment page.

 

This topic is especially timely since we’ve drawn public attention to Toronto’s new Armoury Street courthouse, which the Ontario Government built and which is replete with disability barriers. The AODA Alliance’s new captioned online video about this billion dollar accessibility bungle has gotten wonderful media and public attention. Watch the 14 minute version or the more detailed 49 minute version.

 

As is always the case, our brief is the result of volunteer effort, informed by input we’ve gathered over the years from a wide range of sources and thoughtful individuals who donate their time to help us out, at times asking not to be thanked publicly by name. We are indebted to them all for their help and their selfless dedication to our accessibility cause.

 

MORE DETAILS

 

 

DRAFT ONLY —   AODA Alliance Brief to the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee on Its October 2022 Initial Report to the Ontario Minister of Accessibility

 

 

 

September 9, 2024

 

Note: This is only a draft. Feedback on it is welcomed by Thursday September 12, 2024. Email feedback to aodafeedback@gmail.com)

 

 

 1. Introduction

 

This is the AODA Alliance’s brief to the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee (DOPSSDC). We thank the DOPSSDC for its work on preparing its Initial Report and for inviting public comment now on that report. This brief offers our feedback and recommendations on refinements that we invite the DOPSSDC to make before finalizing its report and submitting it to the Minister for Seniors and Accessibility.

 

We would welcome a chance to meet with the DOPSSDC and to discuss our recommendations. Several earlier Standards Development Committees afforded the AODA Alliance the opportunity to do so. It is as important here as in those earlier instances.

 

We agree with a number of the disability barriers in the built environment that the Initial Report identifies, and a number of reforms that it recommends. We also respectfully disagree with some of the Initial Report’s recommendations either in whole or in part. We focus this brief primarily on aspects of the Initial Report that we urge the DOPSSDC to make. In summary, this brief recommends as follows:

##(To be inserted in final version)

 

At the end of this brief are the following appendices:

• Appendix 1: K-12 Education Standards Development Committee Final Report’s Recommendations on the Built Environment
• Appendix 2: Consolidated list of the AODA Alliance’s Recommendations in this Brief

 

Who is the AODA Alliance?

 

The AODA Alliance has extensive experience with the design, implementation and enforcement of accessibility legislation in Canada, including in the built environment. We were 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.

 

Our volunteer non-partisan coalition has within it the fullest institutional memory about the AODA available in Ontario. 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 several widely-viewed online videos on barriers in new buildings at Centennial College, Ryerson University (as it was then called), new and renovated Toronto public transit stations, on new Toronto bike paths, and in the new Toronto Armoury Street courthouse. Some of these videos are also used to train design professionals. We have undertaken advocacy on this issue in Canada and New Zealand, and have drawn upon some of these videos.

 

 

2. Need for the DOPSSDC to Hear Directly In Person or Virtually from More Voices in the Disability Community

 

It is very important for the DOPSSDC to hear directly and in person or virtually from a diverse spectrum of voices in the disability community. In the AODA Alliance’s March 27, 2023 brief to the DOPSSDC, we recommended that DOPSSDC do this early in their process:

 

“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 DOPS Standards Development Committee should convene a similar roundtable…

 

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.”

 

Our March 27, 2023 brief recommended that the DOPSSDC should:

 

“now undertake a broad public consultation process, well before finalizing, voting on and circulating a draft report for feedback.”

 

We regret that the DOPSSDC did not do so. The DOPSSDC Initial Report described its consultation process as follows:

 

“The committee was provided with foundational documents and extensive research pertaining to accessibility in the built environment. They also benefited from informative presentations delivered by subject matter experts representing key entities, including the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as well as the City of Ottawa, DesignABLE Environments and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.”

 

From the Initial Report, it appears that the AODA Alliance was the only community disability advocacy organization that was given an opportunity to speak at a DOPSSDC meeting. We appreciate that the AODA Alliance was afforded 30 minutes on April 5, 2023 to make a presentation to a virtual DOPSSDC meeting.

 

The DOPSSDC met with five organizations. One was the AODA Alliance. Fully three are government bodies (two of which are within the Ontario Government itself). The other one, DesignAble Environments was an excellent expert disability accessibility consultant. Contrary to the passage from the Initial Report quoted above, we understand from Ms. Thea Kurdi, who was the president of DesignAble Environments, that their organization never made a presentation to the DOPSSDC. They submitted some written materials to the Standards Development Committee.

 

The DOPSSDC is now holding a consultation with the public, including people with disabilities, on its Initial Report, as the AODA requires. However, this suffers from important limitations.

 

First, it only allows for written feedback, not in-person feedback. From many years of experience, we have found that the feedback produced is massively improved when in person or virtual consultation meetings are held. For example, the AODA Alliance has taken part in an advisory group to give input to the Government on accessibility problems at the new Toronto Armoury Street mega-courthouse, barriers we documented in the AODA Alliance’s online video entitled “Billion Dollar Accessibility Bungle” available in a 14 minute version and a more detailed 49 minute version. The exchange from different participants from different disability perspectives was mutually reinforcing, and generated even more spontaneous feedback. As well, disability sector participants and obligated sector participants, taking part in the same session, learn from each other, respond constructively to each other’s feedback, and refine their own feedback in light of what they hear from each other.

 

Second, from our ample multi-year experience with the Standards Development Committee process, we know that only a tiny fraction of written feedback from the public at this late stage tends to make its way into a Standards Development Committee’s final report. The Standards Development Committee is too far down the road in its work.

 

We realize that for the DOPSSDC to now hold open public consultation meetings on its Initial Report will delay its final report. We are exceedingly concerned about the Ontario Government’s many delays in effectively addressing disability barriers in the built environment, including its 5 year delay in appointing the DOPSSDC (thereby violating the AODA) and its 8 month delay in making the DOPSSDC Initial Report public (also violating the AODA). However, on balance, this additional delay would be worth it, to enable the DOPSSDC to best benefit from the views of the public, including the disability community. After all it has been a decade and a half since a Standards Development Committee last was mandated to consult the public on built environment barriers. These opportunities do not come along very frequently.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#1 The DOPSSDC should now convene open in person and virtual hybrid consultation sessions to get input on its Initial Report from the public, including holding roundtables of sector experts and leading advocates.

 

3. Rename the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard as the “Built Environment Accessibility Standard” and Revamp the Ontario Building Code

 

It is very good that the Initial Report aims to address disability barriers throughout the built environment, and not just those in the few “public spaces” that the DOPS Accessibility Standard now covers. It is excellent that the Initial Report endeavours to address matters now covered by the Ontario Building Code, and areas that neither the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard or the Ontario Building Code cover.

 

By commendably going beyond “public spaces”, it would be incorrect and potentially quite misleading for the 2011 name of the accessibility standard to be left as is.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#2 The accessibility standard should be renamed as the “Built Environment Accessibility Standard.”

 

 

Right now the Ontario Building Code is very deficient in how it approaches accessibility. It does not address anywhere near all the recurring disability barriers in the built environment in areas that the Code now covers. Where it does address disability barriers, it too often is too weak. It does not live up to the accessibility requirements set by the Ontario Human Rights Code or, where applicable, the Charter of Rights. Finally, it does not embed accessibility throughout the Ontario Building Code. Instead, it segregates accessibility as separate requirements. Together, these are fatal flaws. They cannot be fixed by a few amendments here and there.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#3 The Ontario Building Code should be redesigned from top to bottom, with accessibility requirements that meet the standards set by the Ontario Human Rights Code and, where applicable, the Charter of Rights, with accessibility requirements to be built into the requirements throughout the Ontario Building Code, not segregated from them.

 

 

4. Built Environment Accessibility Requirements Must Ensure Designs Meet the Human Rights Code Undue Hardship Standard

 

The Ontario Human Rights Code imposes a duty to remove and prevent disability barriers and to accommodate people with disabilities up to the point of undue hardship. Neither the current AODA Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard nor the Ontario Building Code include prescriptive design requirements that create spaces that align with the Human Rights Code leaving buildings and spaces that are nothing but undue hardship barriers. For decades, even the Ontario Human Rights Commission has called on the Ontario Government to revise the Ontario Building Code so that its requirements achieve the Ontario Human Rights Code legislative requirements. As the Ontario Human Rights Code prevails over all other laws, including the Ontario Building Code, the lack of alignment has left Ontario in a legal and ethical nightmare that has added more and more buildings that illegally discriminate against our largest minority group; hurting millions of people with disabilities and their families.

 

It is important for all the DOPSSDC’s final recommendations to be revised to rectify this long standing injustice.

 

We therefore recommend at least that:

 

#4 All additions and revisions to both the AODA Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard and the Ontario Building Code should all be written to set accessible design requirements that ensure buildings and spaces will prevent undue hardship as per the Ontario Human Rights Code, and, where applicable, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

 

5. Obligated organizations and People with Disabilities Need One-Stop Shopping for All Built Environment Legal Requirements

 

Right now, provincial built environment accessibility requirements are scattered among several laws, including the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act accessibility standards, the Ontario Building Code, the Fire Code and elsewhere. People with disabilities and obligated organizations need one-stop shopping to find them all. Moreover, people with disabilities, who fought hard to win the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, need all of them to be included in AODA requirements, even if they are duplicated elsewhere.

 

The March 27, 2023, AODA Alliance brief to the DOPSSDC stated:

 

“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.”

 

The Initial Report recommends that some be in one law and another be in another law and still others be in a third law. We encourage that this be simplified.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#5 the Initial Report should be revised to recommend that all provincial accessibility requirements be included in a comprehensive AODA Built Environment Accessibility Standard, even if some or all of them are also set out in other laws such as the Ontario Building Code and/or the Fire code.

 

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

 

#7 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.

 

#8 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.

 

 

6. Adopt Effective Measures to Prevent the Disability Barriers Depicted in the Five Widely-Viewed AODA Alliance Built Environment Videos

 

The AODA Alliance has made public a series of five widely viewed captioned online videos that illustrate a series of serious accessibility blunders in new construction in Ontario. Each has secured significant public attention. No one has disputed their accuracy. Some of these videos are used to train design professionals and government facilities management officials. They have been viewed around Canada and internationally.

 

The Built Environment Accessibility Standard and Ontario Building Code should categorically forbid each of these blunders. Some of the Initial Report’s recommendations address some of them, at least to some extent. However, if all the Initial Report were adopted as is, too many of these blunders could be repeated.

 

These videos include:

 

• Accessibility problems at the Centennial College Culinary Arts Centre short version and long version.
• Accessibility problems at the Ryerson Student Learning Centre: short version and long version.
• Accessibility problems at new and recently renovated Toronto area public transit stations short version and long version.
• Dangerous new bike path built in midtown Toronto.
• Billion dollar accessibility bungle at the new Toronto Armoury Street courthouse short version and long version.

 

The AODA Alliance’s newest video, revealing serious accessibility problems at the new Toronto courthouse, is especially telling, because:

 

• We have documented proof that the Government was forewarned about many of these barriers well before any shovels went into the ground.
• Two or three different respected accessibility consulting firms were engaged in this building’s development. It is clear the Government and the private builder simply decided to disregard important accessibility advice that they received.
• Years earlier, the Government had earlier built two major courthouses, in Durham Region and in Waterloo, with serious accessibility problems. After that, the Government said it wanted to get it right the next time. The troubling new Armoury Street courthouse was “the next time” and clearly did not get it right.
• The AODA Alliance pressed the Government over and over in advance about the need to do much better in this new courthouse.
• When this courthouse opened, it had even more accessibility problems than the earlier advice foresaw. Information has emerged showing that the courthouse’s accessibility problems are even worse than the AODA Alliance video depicts.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#9 The DOPSSDC should review the AODA Alliance’s five online videos on built environment accessibility problems and make specific recommendations to forbid all of these barriers.

 

 

7. Extend the Reach of the Built Environment Accessibility Standard

 

We welcome the Initial Report’s recommended extension of existing Design of Public Spaces requirements to small obligated organizations i.e. those with under 50 employees.

However, we believe that the reforms must go much further.

 

The Ontario Building Code is substantially deficient in how it deals with inside buildings. Moreover, it does not deal with retrofits of existing buildings that are not undergoing major renovations.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#10 the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard should be revised to address all disability barriers inside buildings, whether or not they are otherwise covered by the Ontario Building Code and whether or not the building is new or undergoing a major renovation.

 

We commend the Initial Report in Recommendation 79 for reforms in the Ontario Building Code to “require government to review and update the Ontario Building Code with more inclusive language to represent the broad spectrum of disabilities.” We also applaud the DOPSSDC for stating in its cover letter to the Minister:

 

“The committee has endeavored to be considerate of the full spectrum of abilities in the development of these initial recommendations.”

 

However, the major focus of the Initial Report’s more detailed requirements regarding the current content of the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard primarily focus on the need of people with mobility disabilities, vision loss, or, to some extent, people who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing. We recognize that the Ontario Government appointed membership of the DOPSSDC that largely focus on those disabilities. There is no cross-disability consumer organization represented on the Standards Development Committee.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#11 The DOPSSDC should strengthen all its recommendations to ensure that they effectively address the accessibility needs of the full spectrum of people with disabilities, using this brief’s recommendations for the DOPSSDC to undertake a broad community consultation now.

 

8. Some Observations With Which We Respectfully Take Issue in the Initial Report, In Whole or Part

 

We respectfully take issue with all or part of each of the following observations in the Initial Report:

 

The Initial Report states:

 

“The current regulatory and legislative framework in place to enforce accessibility in Ontario has not evolved fast enough to keep up with the growing needs of persons with disabilities across the province.”

 

Our Comment: We agree that Ontario’s regulations on built environment accessibility have not kept up with the needs of people with disabilities. However, we disagree that the legislative framework is insufficient. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act in combination are sufficient, if they are properly implemented.

 

We strenuously oppose any effort to re-open the provisions of the AODA in the Ontario Legislature. While of course, the AODA is not perfect and could always benefit from improvements. However, if the Legislature were to reopen the AODA, there is a clear and present danger that it would be weakened, not strengthened. People with disabilities fought too long and hard to win the AODA. We never want to face the risk of it being weakened.

 

The Initial Report states:

 

“In order to effect change that will ensure accessibility for all, regulations and standards should be backed by clear, defensible research and hard data.”

 

Our Comment: Of course, hard data, when readily available and demonstrably reliable, can be helpful. However, there is much that a proper Built Environment Accessibility Standard can include for which we should not have to devote precious time and resources to dig up or create such data. We don’t need research and data to know how pervasive are the barriers that people with disabilities face in our built environment. Whether this extends to 80%, 90% or almost 100% of our built environment does not matter.

 

To require data-gathering risks further delaying the enactment of detailed requirements for the built environment that people with disabilities need now. We don’t need research and data to know that stairs are a barrier. We don’t need research to know that people with print disabilities such as vision loss or dyslexia cannot read print signs on public washrooms.

 

 

Key parts of the Initial Report focus on clarifying existing definitions of existing terms in the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard and the Ontario Building Code. We don’t believe that the major problem impeding Ontario from major progress towards a barrier-free built environment is the lack of definitions in the law for these terms. The major problem is that the Ontario Building Code is severely flawed and leaves out many disability barriers, while no AODA accessibility standard fills the many gaps. We don’t per se object to defining or clarifying legislative terms where needed and helpful. However, we believe that all those clarifications won’t make a material difference in speeding up Ontario’s progress towards the AODA’s mandatory goal for the built environment.

 

 

9. Avoid Dangers and Distractions of Harmful Harmonizing Ontario Built Environment Accessibility Requirements with Other Canadian Jurisdictions

 

 

Beware the seductive siren’s call of harmonizing built environment requirements across different jurisdictions. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 12 focuses in part on taking steps towards harmonizing Ontario’s built environment accessibility requirements with other Canadian Jurisdictions. The Initial Report states in part:

 

“The committee identified a lack of alignment in the terminologies used between the accessibility legislation and other existing regulations, such as the Ontario Building Code. Differences between the design of public spaces standards and the Ontario Building Code, such as in the definitions of major/extensive renovations, have the potential to cause confusion, non-compliance and reduced accessibility in buildings and outdoor spaces.

 

The committee recognizes that new accessibility standards are also being created by Accessibility Standards Canada. The group strongly believes that harmonization across all levels of government is essential moving forward. Harmonization can lessen confusion and aid in the seamless integration of accessibility requirements across different laws, guidelines and standards.

 

Recommendations

 

Recommendation 12: definitions

 

Intended outcome: To align terminology between accessibility legislation, including the Ontario Building Code and the design of public spaces standards.

The committee recommends:

 

• the government shall research existing definitions from standards from other provinces, municipalities and organizations (for example, National Building Code, the Ontario Building Code, municipal Facility Accessibility Design Standards, Accessibility Standards Canada and CSA Group) and adopt the best practices for terms and definitions for the Ontario design of public spaces standards
• in addition, a review and update of terms and definitions shall be considered on a yearly basis
• particular focus shall be placed on clarifying/harmonizing terminology related to alterations, including basic renovation, extensive renovation, retrofit and redevelopment”

 

 

We have serious concerns about this. We anticipated that this issue might arise when we submitted a brief to the DOPSSDC 18 months ago. The AODA Alliance’s March 27, 2023 brief to the DOPSSDC included this important caution:

 

“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:

 

#12 The Initial Report’s Recommendation 12 and all other like recommendations should be revised to remove any recommendation that Ontario harmonize its built environment accessibility requirements with any other jurisdictions.

 

 

The Initial Report also seeks consistency in definitions of major renovations across AODA accessibility standards and the Ontario Building Code to make them consistent and have the greatest level of accessibility. Recommendation 2 of the Initial Report includes:

“require government to review and coordinate the definitions for major/extensive renovations so they are aligned and ensure the greatest level of accessibility when organizations plan renovations”

Elsewhere at various points in the Initial Report, such as in Recommendation 72, the DOPSSDC calls on the Ontario Government to take action that is consistent with other jurisdictions. If another jurisdiction has a good idea, we should of course be open to adopting it. However, before it is adopted, Ontario must ensure that it works and is the best option. Consistency with other jurisdictions, for its own sake, is not good. For Ontarians with disabilities it can make things worse.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#13 The Initial Report’s discussion and recommendations should be revised to eliminate any suggestions that Ontario should endeavour in any context to be “consistent with other jurisdictions.”

 

 

That is not to say that where others have developed stronger accessibility requirements that would effectively serve Ontario, we should not learn from them. The AODA Alliance’s March 27, 2023 brief to the DOPSSDC advised:

 

“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:

 

#14 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.

 

10. Avoid Creating Massive Duplication of Work and Downloading Major Burdens Onto Volunteer Members of Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees or Others

 

The Initial Report understandably seeks to get municipalities to do a much better job of using their site plan approval and other authority to ensure that new builds are accessible. It also seeks to better equip members of municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees to assist with this.

 

However, this approach creates a massive duplication of effort at hundreds of municipalities. It places unfair burdens on volunteer and rotating members of municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees. Those members may well not have the technical expertise to read complex proposals and site plans, much less the time needed to carefully study them for accessibility problems.

 

The Initial Report states:

 

“Recommendation 4: site plan reviews by Accessibility Advisory Committees

 

Intended outcome: To ensure municipalities are supported to meet the requirement related to site plan reviews by Accessibility Advisory Committees, and Accessibility Advisory Committee members are supported to conduct meaningful accessibility reviews of site plans.

 

The committee recommends:

 

• the government shall require municipalities to develop a well-defined process for site plan reviews by their Accessibility Advisory Committee, where these exist
• this shall include training, and the development of materials to assist the Accessibility Advisory Committee in their reviews
• the process shall be evaluated and updated as required as part of a municipality’s multi-year accessibility plan (every five years)
• the government shall ensure municipalities and Accessibility Advisory Committees can be supported to meet this requirement in a timely manner (that is, 30 days), while also upholding Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 and Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022
• the government shall develop guidance to support municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees in reviewing site plans, including training and the development of materials”

 

For hundreds of municipalities to reinvent the same wheel here unnecessarily increases overall costs without adding any benefits. It is not realistic to expect volunteer lay members of municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees to donate their time to undergo any significant amount of training, and then to expect them to shoulder so much of the burden of accessibility oversight.

 

The last 20 years has demonstrated this use of AACs is unsustainable, unrealistic, in light of the following:

 

1. We are advised that volunteers can no longer pick up paper site plans to review and mark them up at home at their leisure. Site applications are now received electronically and reviewed through software like BluBeam or other construction software. It requires costly licenses, professional level computers and familiarity with Computer Aided Design (CAD).

 

1. While Accessibility Advisory Committee members have lived experience with disabilities, they are not expected to be familiar with current official plan and zoning requirements and specifics of the Ontario Building Code. Most volunteers likely lack the technical experience needed to read and understand construction drawings. In addition, the deadlines imposed by the current changes to the Planning Act adds another layer of complications.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#15 Recommendation 4 of the Initial Report should be revised to require a fair and effective process for municipal staff to vet new projects for accessibility, and to provide for openness and accountability for their work by requiring it to be publicly posted and reported to municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees for their oversight. Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees should then be free to apply, leaving them free to add their own experience to any accessibility assessment.

 

#16 Municipal staff who are assigned to review site plans should be required to take training and pass proficiency tests on accessible design.

 

 

Similarly, other recommendations in the Initial Report such as Recommendation 68 correctly identify an issue that needs to be address, but merely assigns obligated organizations to come up with ways to address it in their multi-year accessibility plan. This fails to set a required standard. It delegates to each obligated organization the duty to create their own standard and apply it. This again leads to massive uncertainty and wasteful duplication of effort. It also makes it very hard to effectively enforce the accessibility standard.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#17 Wherever the Initial Report delegates to each obligated organization a responsibility to address something in their Multi-Year Accessibility Plan, The Initial Report should be revised to instead set specific substantive accessibility requirements that must be met.

 

 

11. Remove Duplicative public consultations for design requirements Codesigning with disabled people who can share their lived experience is good. But these public consultations are not that.

 

In some places, the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard requires obligated organizations to consult people with disabilities on design requirements, rather than setting specific design requirements. After 11 years on the books, this has not turned out to work. It requires obligated organizations to duplicate efforts. It unfairly burdens people with disabilities.

 

There is no proof anyone checks that these consultations happen, or are sufficient.

 

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#18 Duplicative redundant and wasteful consultation requirements should be eliminated from the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard and replaced by specific, detailed and enforced built environment accessibility requirements.

 

 

12. Don’t Reinvent the Wheel

 

It is important for the DOPSSDC not to reinvent the wheel. It should use important work that has been done by earlier AODA Standards Development Committees.

The AODA Alliances March 27, 2023 brief to the DOPSSDC urged:

 

“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:

 

#19 The DOPSSDC should endorse the built environment recommendations in the final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, set out in Appendix 1, as usefully applying to the built environment more broadly, and not only to school buildings and grounds.

 

#20 The DOPSSDC 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.

 

13. Set Minimum Requirements for Accessibility Professionals and Other Design Professionals

 

Ontario needs to specify sufficient minimum requirements to hold one’s self out to the public as an “accessibility professional”. Right now, anyone can call themselves an “accessibility professional”. Any organization can purport to “certify” someone as an “accessibility professional” regardless of whether that person has sufficient training.

 

An illustration of this is the Rick Hansen Foundation’s controversial private accessibility certification program. Under it, a private foundation takes it upon itself to decide who it will label as a RHF Accessibility professional, after completing and paying for its short and dramatically insufficient training course that is a few days in length.

 

Such a person gave the new Toronto Armoury Street courthouse a “gold” certification for accessibility, even though the recent AODA Alliance video, referred to earlier in this brief, demonstrated overwhelmingly that this courthouse is replete with significant accessibility blunders. As noted earlier, the Ontario Government has not disputed the accuracy of that video.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#21 Aal post-secondary education design faculties should be required to be trained in equity, disability justice, and practical accessibility principles.

 

#22 All currently licensed design professionals should be required to complete rigorous accessible design training, such as the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada’s “Introduction to Successful Accessible Design” course. The Rick Hansen Foundation’s course should not be considered sufficient.

 

#23 A regulated certification process should be established for accessibility professionals, ensuring that only those who meet rigorous standards, including extensive training and practical experience, can claim this title.

 

Ontarians are typically shocked to learn that a person can be trained and licensed in Ontario to serve as an expert design professional without taking mandatory training on how to ensure that the building or other built environment they design is accessible to people with disabilities. Ontario finances post-secondary training of these professionals in many cases. As such, Ontario is funding new generations of potential barrier-creators.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#24 To be trained and licensed to work as a design professional in Ontario, such as an architect, landscape designer, municipal planner or interior designer, individuals should be required to take sufficient mandatory training on accessible design so that they know how to design barrier-free built environments. This should include far more than training on the Ontario Building Code and current AODA accessibility standards, since those fall far short of ensuring that the built environment is accessible.

 

#25 Existing design professionals should be required to take professional development training on how to design an accessible built environment.

 

 

14. Initial Report’s Recommendation 1 Strengthen the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard Long-term objective

 

We are concerned that the very title of the Initial Report substantially dilutes the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee’s mandate and goal. It is entitled:

“Improving accessible built environment standards — 2023 initial recommendations report.”

 

Similarly, the covering letter which the DOPSSDC Chair sent to the Ontario Government last fall similarly understated the AODA’s goal. The letter stated in part:

 

“…this report has the potential to promote the change necessary to meet the government’s mandate of creating a more accessible Ontario.”

 

The AODA Alliance’s March 27, 2023 brief to the DOPSSDC recommended:

 

“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.”

 

The goal is not merely to “improve accessibility” or to make Ontario “more accessible.” These are far too weak. One new barrier installed anywhere would “improve accessibility” in Ontario and would make Ontario “more accessible.” The AODA’s goal is to achieve an accessible Ontario, not merely an Ontario that is more accessible than it previous had been.

 

We do not believe that the DOPSSDC would support a dilution of the AODA. The Initial Report got this right in its “Background” section where it states:

 

“The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA) aims to achieve an accessible Ontario through the development, implementation and enforcement of accessibility standards that apply to the public, private and not-for-profit sectors.”

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#26 When the DOPSSDC submits its final report to the Ontario Government, it should not use terms like “making Ontario more accessible” or “improving accessibility.” It should instead in all cases echo the AODA’s goal of making Ontario accessible, and nothing less.

 

 

The AODA requires the DOPSSDC to make recommendations on the long-term objectives of the accessibility standard that they are addressing. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 1 is helpful to a point. However, it needs to be strengthened, to incorporate the goal of achieving an accessible built environment by 2025 that the AODA mandates. In light of the fact that the DOPSSDC will not complete its task by the start of 2025, through no fault of the DOPSSDC, this should be refined to set the goal as being “as soon thereafter as possible” or words to that effect.

 

The Initial Report recommends as follows:

 

“Recommendation 1: long-term objectives of the design of public spaces standards

 

The committee recommends adoption of the following as the long-term accessibility objectives:

 

• the long-term objective of the design of public spaces standards is to enhance the quality of life for everyone in the community, including persons with disabilities, by removing and preventing barriers to accessibility to create safe, convenient and inclusive spaces that promote social engagement, physical activity and mental well-being
• this objective will be accomplished by providing obligated organizations with the specifications, guidelines and financial and informational resources needed to design, construct or renovate spaces not governed by the Ontario Building Code in such a way as to create access for everyone”

 

This falls short of the purposes that the AODA sets. Section 1 of the AODA provides:

 

“Purpose

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

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

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

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#27 The Initial Report’s Recommendation 1 should be strengthened to specify that the long term objective of the accessibility standard in question is to ensure the achievement of an accessible built environment in Ontario, including buildings, structures and premises, by 2025 or as soon after 2025 as is reasonably possible.”

 

 

15. Initial Report’s Recommendation 35 Strengthen Proposals for Portable Ramps

 

It is good that the Initial Report addresses the need for regulations to enable the use of portable or temporary ramps. (Recommendation 35) However, the recommendations are not strong enough. They leave it to each municipality to try to address this by bylaws. That massively duplicates effort. Many if not most or all municipalities may not enact anything. It shifts an enormous burden to the beleaguered disability community to have to try to convince hundreds of municipalities to pass such bylaws. It risks inconsistent requirements from one municipality to the next.

 

That is why a strong, detailed and comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the AODA is needed.

 

Five years ago, a widely publicized ordeal was the focus of advocacy efforts by the AODA Alliance in Toronto. A downtown restaurant called “Signs” put a StopGap ramp in front of its main entrance, to make it accessible. Toronto officials demanded that it be removed, even though the ramp left ample space for pedestrians to walk by it. People with disabilities and those obligated organizations that try to do the right thing should not be penalized, or subjected to this abuse of municipal power. Municipalities should devote their resources to making their spaces accessible, not to making them more inaccessible.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#28 the Initial Report’s Recommendation 35 should be revised to impose detailed provincewide requirements for temporary or portable ramps. These should make it clear that such ramps are allowed and should substantially limit municipal officials for demanding that they be removed.

 

 

16. Initial Report’s Recommendation 36 Substantially Strengthen the Initial Report’s Recommendations Regarding Bike Paths

 

We commend the DOPSSDC for attempting to address barriers in bike paths. However, the Initial Reports’ Recommendation 36 needs to be replaced by measures that will be effective.

 

In November 2023, the AODA Alliance made public an online video that secured substantial public and media attention and support. It showed serious dangers in the design of a new Toronto bike path. This video shows serious problems making it impossible for a blind pedestrian to know they are walking on a bike path. We understand that similar bike paths have appeared elsewhere. The Initial Report’s recommendations and especially Recommendation 36 would not prevent this from happening.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#29 The Initial Report’s Recommendation 36 should be replaced with a recommendation that an accessibility standard be enacted that sets mandatory requirements for the design of bike paths, to ensure that they don’t endanger people with disabilities, including such things as:

• The bike path may not be built at sidewalk level.
• “Floating bus stops” must be banned as endangering people with disabilities.

 

 

17. Initial Report’s Recommendation 37 Strengthen Recommendations Regarding Accessible Pedestrian Signals

 

It is good that the Initial Report’s Recommendation 37 seeks to strengthen requirements for audible pedestrian signals. However, it does not address one of the greatest shortcomings in the current Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard.

 

The AODA Alliance’s March 27, 2023 alerted the DOPSSDC to this concern, as follows:

 

“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:

 

#30 The Initial Report’s Recommendation 37 should be revised to require that audible pedestrian signals must operate automatically, without people with disabilities having to find them and push a button to turn them on.

 

 

18. Initial Report’s Recommendation 46 and Following Strengthen Recommendations Regarding Parking Pay Kiosks and on Street Parking

 

It is good that the Initial Report’s Recommendation 46 urges the creation of accessibility requirements for parking electronic kiosks. However, it does not specify key accessibility features that should be mandatory.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#31 Recommendation 46 of the Initial Report should be expanded to stipulate technical requirements for accessibility features in parking electronic pay kiosks, such as requirements for large print, voice output (e.g. for drivers with dyslexia) and other standard features for accessible electronic kiosks.

 

Regarding on-street parking, the AODA Alliance’s March 27, 2023 brief to the DOPSSDC advised:

 

“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.”

 

The Initial Report’s Recommendation 47 only recommends the development of guidance materials for obligated organizations regarding on-street parking. We urge that specific regulatory requirements need to be set.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

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

As part of this, provincial requirements for providing accessible spots especially in parking lots should be extended, as do some municipal requirements, to require “Type C” spots. These are spots that are the same size as typical parking spots, but which are reserved for people with disabilities who do not need a larger spot. This in turn will free up the larger accessible spots for people with disabilities who need a larger spot to accommodate their vehicle.

We therefore recommend that:

 

#33 Provincial accessible parking spot requirements should be expanded to set requirements to create “Type C” parking spots, which are no larger than typical spots, but which are reserved near a building’s entrance for people with disabilities with a disability parking permit and whose vehicle fits in a regular-sized parking spot.

 

19. Initial Report’s Recommendation 67 Strengthen requirements for Service Areas

 

It is good that the Initial Report in effect acknowledges the need for more specifics on the design of service areas in buildings, such as service counters. However, we disagree with the direction of Recommendation 77. It merely calls for more consultations to result in further guidance materials being developed.

 

What is needed are amendments to enact specific requirements, because that regulation is far too vague at present. The AODA Alliance’s March 27, 2023 brief urged the DOPSSDC to address this head on, stating:

 

“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.”

 

The Initial Report commendably recommends specific requirements for certain other areas that the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard addresses. Yet it did not do so for this area of need.

 

The AODA Alliance’s recent video about serious accessibility problems at the new Toronto Armoury Street courthouse includes a clear and troubling example of a customer service area in the court’s 3^rd floor Court Services Office that was badly botched. We need enforceable mandatory requirements to prevent this from happening again.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#34 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.

 

20. Initial Report’s Recommendation 71 and Following Strengthening Sidewalk Repair and Maintenance Requirements

 

It is good that the Initial Report considers ways to strengthen accessibility requirements when sidewalks and other public walkways are being repaired or built. However, here again, more specifics are needed.

 

For example, a serious recurring problem occurs where a municipality or other obligated organization tries to warn the public that an area of sidewalk or other public walkway is unsafe and cannot be used, by surrounding it with a number of cones, and perhaps some ribbon attached to the cones a couple of feet off the ground, to create a visible perimeter. This is dangerous for pedestrians with vision loss, as well as many other pedestrians, because it is not cane detectible, and does not give warning at a sufficient distance.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#35 Mandatory specific cane-detectable warnings around any area of a sidewalk or other public walkway that is under construction should be required.

 

 

21. Initial Report’s Recommendation 76 Strengthen Recommendations on Narrowing exemption Provisions to prevent arbitrary decisions

 

 

It is good that the Initial report sets as a goal the narrowing of overbroad exemptions in the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard. We agree heartily with that goal. However, the Initial Report does not go far enough or adopt the most appropriate approach. Narrowing these to be as strict as the Ontario Human Rights Code “undue Hardship” standard would further our recommendation near the start of this brief that the AODA accessibility standards and the Ontario Building Code should impose at least as high an accessibility requirement as does the Ontario Human Rights Code. We proposed this to the DOPSSDC in the March 27, 2023 AODA Alliance brief. It includes the following:

 

“f) Narrow Excessively Broad DOPS Accessibility Standard Exemptions

 

There 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 into 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:

#36 Each of the exemptions to the DOPS Accessibility Standard requirements addressed in this brief should be substantially narrowed to require the obligated organization show that compliance would constitute an undue hardship within the meaning of the Ontario Human Rights Code or should be eliminated.

 

22. Initial Report’s Recommendation 98 Strengthen accessible door operator requirements

 

It is good that the Initial Report’s Recommendation 98 calls for strengthening of requirements for accessible door operators i.e. power buttons to open and close a door. These should be expanded to require accessible signage at the button, e.g. in large print and Braille.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#37 The Initial Report’s Recommendation 98 should be revised to add that there must be accessible signage immediately adjacent to power door operators, e.g. in large print and Braille.

 

#38 Power door operators should be located within a required minimum distance from the door. For entrances to a building, automatic doors rather should be available wherever possible.

 

23. Initial Report’s Recommendation 113 Increase the Required percentage of barrier-free units in New Multi Unit Residential buildings

 

It is good that the Initial Report highlights as a priority the need to substantially expand requirements for barrier-free residential housing. Ontario has an accessible housing shortage that amounts to an accessible housing crisis. This will only get worse over time as Ontario’s population ages.

 

The Initial Report’s Recommendation 113 proposes that new residential buildings be required to have 20% of their units that are accessible. We believe that this is too low, given the existing crisis. An accessible unit is one that people with disabilities can live in or visit, and that people without disabilities can remain in once they acquire a disability e.g. as they age.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#39 The Initial Report’s Recommendation 113 should be amended to require that new residential buildings have at least 40% of their units be accessible.

 

 

24. Initial Report’s Recommendations 121 and following AODA Accessibility Standards for the Built Environment and the Ontario Building Code Must Require Retrofits in All Existing Buildings, Not Just in Major Renovations

 

It is very good that the Initial Report’s Recommendations 121 and following address the need to require retrofits in the built environment in existing buildings that are not undergoing a major renovation.

 

Right now, the Design of Public Spaces Accessibility Standard and the Ontario Building Code both leave this out, even though it is not left out of the Ontario Human Rights Code and, where applicable, the Charter of Rights.

 

The 2^nd AODA Independent Review, conducted by Mayo Moran, identified the need to address retrofits, as a priority to address the need for retrofits in the built environment almost a decade ago. In 2019, the 3^rd AODA Independent Review conducted by David Onley, reiterated this need in strong terms.

 

We acknowledge that a different approach may be needed for timing for such retrofits in the case of existing buildings that are not undergoing a major renovation. As a starting point, but not and end point, prompt action can and should be required in the case of retrofits that are readily achievable.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#40 The Initial Report’s Recommendations 121 and following should be expanded to require, as a start, that readily achievable accessibility retrofits to existing buildings should be required as a first step, even if the building is undergoing no major renovation, with more significant retrofits to be required as well along longer time lines, consistent with the duty to accommodate people with disabilities up to the point of undue hardship in the Ontario Human Rights Code and, where applicable, the Charter of Rights.

 

The Initial Report’s retrofit recommendations, and especially Recommendation 126, urge the Ontario Government to provide a regime of grants or subsidies to small business for retrofitting existing buildings for accessibility. Public financial support for some obligated organizations can at times have its place. However, we have real concerns about this recommendation. It presupposes that it is the public’s duty to fund these renovations and that without such funding, businesses need not undertake them. These retrofits are a cost of doing business. Obligated organizations have had some four decades to comply with their accessibility duties under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Those organizations will make the profits. At most there might be a consideration of low interest loans for this, in limited situations, such as small non-profit organizations, or a requirement of higher and swifter accessibility expectations for recipients of these loans. As well, this could be tied to other goals, such as expanding employment opportunities for people with disabilities.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#41 The Initial Report’s Recommendation 126 should be revised to substantially qualify public subsidies for accessibility retrofits of any business, to instead make these low interest loans, to prioritize non-profit obligated organizations, and to tie such loans to higher and swifter accessibility expectations (including expanding employment opportunities for people with disabilities) for recipients of those loans.

 

 

25. Substantially Strengthen Enforcement of All Built Environment Accessibility Requirements

 

An implicit important message embedded within the Initial Report is that the enforcement of built environment accessibility requirements need to be substantially strengthened. This is part of a broader need for the AODA to, for the first time, be effectively enforced.

 

Right now, enforcement of legal accessibility requirements in the built environment are splintered among different levels of government, and different public agencies. Obligated organization should be made to expect that the Government will take these requirements far more seriously, through visible and effective enforcement. The AODA Alliance’s efforts over the past decade and a half to get the AODA effectively enforced are documented on the AODA Alliance website’s enforcement page.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#42 The Initial Report should categorically call for far stronger enforcement of built environment accessibility requirements by:

 

A proposed building or project to comply with all accessibility requirements, including those under any laws such as AODA accessibility standards and the Ontario Building Code, before a project can get site plan approval or a building permit.

 

Requiring buildings and other projects to be inspected for compliance after construction before they can be approved.

 

Empowering AODA inspectors and directors to enforce all accessibility requirements, by ensuring that all are incorporated in a comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard.

 

26. Revamp How Public Infrastructure is Designed to Ensure it is Accessible

 

Public money should never be used to create, perpetuate or exacerbate disability barriers. Yet there is a regrettable and long-term record of public money being used this way, especially in the context of public infrastructure projects such as hospitals, universities colleges, schools and courthouses.

 

The fourth Government-appointed AODA Independent Review conducted by Rich Donovan was only the latest to bring attention to this problem. The AODA Alliance’s recent video about serious accessibility problems in the new Toronto Armoury Street courthouse is itself the latest illustration of this. The AODA Alliance website’s Public money page traces our efforts over the past 15 years to change this.

 

 

It is important for the DOPSSDC to again highlight this problem, and call for action, whether in the form of legal requirements, policy reforms, or both.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#43      The Ontario Government should adopt and broadly publicize a cross-government policy that public money may never be used to create or perpetuate accessibility barriers against people with disabilities.

 

#44      The Government should set standards for, implement, widely publicize, monitor, enforce and publicly report on a comprehensive strategy to ensure that public money is never used by anyone to create or perpetuate barriers against people with disabilities, for example, in capital or infrastructure spending or through transfer payments to the Ontario Government’s transfer partners. A senior public official within the Ontario Public Service should be designated with lead responsibility and authority for this effort.

 

#45 In any Government strategy to ensure that public money is not used to create or perpetuate accessibility barriers, it is not sufficient for the Government to make it a condition that a recipient of public money merely obey the AODA and AODA accessibility standards. It should require that recipients of public money comply with accessibility requirements in the Ontario Human Rights Code, and where applicable the Charter of Rights. It should require, among other things, that the recipient organization’s specific capital project or goods, services or facilities be fully disability accessible or require a commitment to remediate these to become fully accessible by timelines to be set out in the grant, loan or other terms of payment of public money.

 

#46      Any Government contract for infrastructure or for increased housing should include a mandatory, enforceable term that requires the recipient of the public money to remediate any accessibility barriers that the recipient allows to be created or perpetuated at the recipient’s expense.

 

#47      The Government should make it a condition of transfer payments and capital or other infrastructure funding to municipalities, hospitals, school boards, public transit providers, colleges, universities, and transfer partners that these recipient organizations adopt comparable initiatives to ensure that their procurement and infrastructure spending do not create, exacerbate or perpetuate barriers against people with disabilities. The Government should make public a resource guide to assist those transfer partners to know how to effectively implement this requirement.

 

#48      The Government should promptly establish a process for monitoring and enforcing the recommended comprehensive strategy to ensure that public money is not used to create, perpetuate or exacerbate accessibility barriers. It should not be left to each ministry to do as little or as much as it wishes to implement Government policy and procedures on this topic, and to have to re-invent the wheel in this area.

 

#49      The Government should widely and prominently publicize as soon as possible to any organization that seeks Ontario infrastructure or procurement funds that they must prove in their applications that they will ensure that public money isn’t used to create, perpetuate or exacerbate barriers against persons with disabilities.

 

#50      The Government should establish and widely publicize an avenue for the public to report to the Government on situations where public money is used to create, perpetuate or exacerbate disability accessibility barriers.

 

#51      The Provincial Auditor should audit the Government to ensure compliance with recommendations on ensuring that public money is not used to create, perpetuate or exacerbate disability accessibility barriers. As one example of this, the Provincial Auditor should audit the accessibility practices at Infrastructure Ontario, and provide a report to the public, including on any recommended reforms to how that Government organization approaches the planning for accessibility in infrastructure projects.

 

#52      It should be a mandatory Government policy that when an accessibility consultant is retained on an infrastructure project to which Ontario public funds are contributed, whether that consultant is working for a Government office or a contractor that is hired using public money the accessibility consultant should report directly to the Ontario Government, with the consultant’s advice being made promptly public.

 

#53      When a public infrastructure project is undertaken involving any Ontario Government funds, the Project Specific Output Specifications (on disability accessibility PSOS) for the project should be made public well before the competition process, and subject to public input. These should not be kept secret until after the bid competition is completed.

 

#54      When a government-funded infrastructure project is undertaken, successive plans in progress for the project should be made public on a real time basis, for crowd-sourced input on accessibility.

 

#55      Where a public official or private contractor project team member, paid out of the public purse, vetoes or decides against an accessibility measure that an accessibility consultant recommends, the identity of that public official or private contractor should be recorded and made public, when successive plans for the project are made public, with an explanation of what the accessibility feature is that was excluded from the project on the decision or advice of that public official or private contractor.

 

27. Additional Built Environment Requirements that Should Be Obligatory

 

In addition to the foregoing, we ask that the Initial Report be revised to recommend the following additions, deletions or revisions to existing built environment requirements.

 

The following should not be allowed in new construction and should require retrofits of existing facilities, except where to do so would cause undue hardship.

 

a) No Stramps.

A stramp is a ramp that has been designed integrated into a stair making both the stairs and the ramp unusable to many and unsafe to all. The ramps are typically so long that the travel distance is unreasonable and unusable.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#56 Stramps should be impermissible.

 

b) No Hangout steps

 

Hangout steps are large seating platforms arranged as tiered levels, akin to amphitheater seating. They are typically 3 steps higher at each level. Each platform is usually reached by stairs that are on one side or down the centre. Similar to theatre seating without the chairs. The only accessible seating locations are at the very top or on the floor at the bottom. Problems with hangout steps are fully shown and described in the AODA Alliance’s video about the Ryerson Student Learning Centre.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#57 Hangout steps should not be permitted.

 

c) Set Detailed Accessible Elevator Requirements

 

Detailed requirements should be set for elevators.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#58 Elevator lobby call buttons should not be located in a corner with no floor clearance to allow a person using a mobility device to reach the call button.

 

#59 Inside an Elevator, the panel of buttons must be located in a position with clear floor space to allow a person using a mobility device to reach the call button. For examples, these should not be placed in the corner or by the elevator doors where the elevator does not have the space for a user to turn to use the buttons independently

 

#60 Elevators should be equipped to provide accessible emergency call and 2-way communication systems, e.g. for people with hearing loss or who are non-verbal.

 

Destination elevators are an accessibility nightmare and should be prohibited. In a typical elevator, a passenger pushes an up or down button, gets on the elevator, and then pushes a button to select which floor they wish to reach. These can be made accessible through accessible markings on buttons, such as Braille and large print numbers on buttons, and through audible announcement of the floor number as the elevator arrives.

 

In contrast, a “destination elevator” system is a new technology that is being deployed in some buildings. These present serious accessibility problems. Attempts to make them accessible have failed. Moreover, most members of the public are confused by these new elevators, since they are so experienced in using traditional elevators, and utterly unfamiliar with destination elevators.

 

A destination elevator has no floor buttons on the elevator. Before one boards an elevator, they must select their destination floor on an electronic kiosk. These often lack accessibility features. Where they do include accessibility features, they are entirely inadequate. Moreover, the technology varies from system to system.

 

It can be difficult for some people with disabilities to find the electronic kiosk to select the floor they wish to reach. The kiosk then indicates which elevator the passenger should wait for and the elevator lobby indicator signals when the elevator has arrived.

 

Once the elevator arrives, it can be difficult to find which elevator the individual is expected to board, and difficult for some people with disabilities to reach the elevator before the doors close.

 

Once the individual boards the elevator, they cannot select a different floor and then get off e.g. if they realize they are on the wrong car, or they had selected the wrong floor. The elevator may not announce the destination floor as the elevator arrives.

 

If a passenger wants to exit the elevator quickly out of concern for their safety, e.g. if another passenger boards the elevator who makes the individual fear for their safety, they cannot simply push a button for the next floor and escape.

 

This type of elevator is supposed to reduce the number of stops per elevator trip. However, this system complicates the elevator experience and is unusable and unsafe to many.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#61 destination elevators should not be permitted.

 

 

d) Remove or remediate existing angled columns or Other Objects that lean into a pedestrian walkway or corridor Which Thereby present an overhead hazard

 

No pillar, column, or other structure should lean into or obstruct the path of travel. This is a safety danger for people with vision loss, and anyone who is looking at their phone as they are walking. This problem is also depicted in the AODA Alliance’s video about disability problems at the Ryerson Student Learning Centre.

 

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#62 Any leaning columns that protract into a pedestrian’s path of travel or other protruding hazards that present an undetectable hazard must be removed or remediated to prevent a danger of injury.

 

e) No Cut-Outs from stairs

 

Some outdoor staircases have cutouts areas, such as ones to drain water. These are a tripping hazard for people with different disabilities, such as balance issues or vision loss.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#63 No outdoor stairs can have any area cut out from them, e.g. to allow water to drain, except if it is under handrails and therefore unable to constitute a tripping hazard for anyone.

 

f) No obstruction on curb ramps

 

Sometimes objects can be located on curb ramps e.g. at a street corner. An example is a traffic light pole. These can constitute a barrier for safe passage by people using a mobility device.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#64 No permanent or temporary obstacle, such as a traffic light pole, may be located on a curb ramp.

 

g) Remove all recommendations that research be done by the government

 

In several places, the Initial Report calls on the Ontario Government to undertake research on various technical built environment accessibility issues. The Government has no expertise in doing this. Moreover, from past experience, there is a real risk of political interference, which could dilute or weaken the work product.

 

Instead, where such research is needed, the Government should fund independent built environment accessibility experts to do the work, with their work product being made public.

 

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#65 Where the Initial Report recommend that the Ontario Government conduct research on built environment technical issues, this should be revised to call for the Government to retain independent built environment accessible design experts to conduct the research, free from Government dictating the results to be reached, with the resulting work product to be made public.

 

 

 

h) Additional Sundry Recommendations

 

There are a number of other areas where specific built environment accessibility requirements are absent. Without here going into excessive detail, we call for the resulting Built Environment Accessibility Standard to truly be comprehensive.

 

We therefore recommend that:

 

#66 A comprehensive new Built Environment Accessibility Standard should include detailed requirements that:

 

1. a) Modernize Anthropometrics used in design standards, i.e. the key size, space and reach dimensions used by designers.

 

1. b) Establish indoor Air Quality requirements to protect people with environmental sensitivities.

 

1. C) Fix waiting room accessibility requirements, including space for mobility devices, sufficient room for turning, effective accessible communication supports.

 

1. D) Create updated lighting requirements in public buildings, with lighting design and positioned so as not to create glare.

 

1. E) Modernize accessible signage requirements.

 

1. F) Prescribe accessible built environment requirements for workspaces in places of employment, because the Employment Accessibility Standard does not address this.

 

1. G) Ensure accessibility of passenger loading zones outside buildings and in parking garages, to minimize the distance from the door to the vehicle and to ensure that the rout to the vehicle has no barriers.

 

1. H) Require in large open spaces in public buildings, such as a lobby, to include colour-contrasted tactile wayfinding on the floor to assist people with vision loss.

 

1. I) Set accessibility requirements for atriums in public buildings to minimize glare and echoes.

 

1. J) Require accessibility of electric vehicle charging stations.

 

1. K) Require accessible wheelchair and other mobility device charging stations in public buildings.

 

1. L) Detail accessibility features to be required in outdoor and indoor playgrounds including splash pads, such as specific features in playground equipment, colour/tonal contrast, accessible ID signage for each play area, level access to enter, exit and move around in the entire playground rest area seating for parents and caregivers to monitor children when playing.

 

1. M) Set specific requirements for outdoor performance areas, including accessible stage and backstage areas.

 

1. N) Fix mandatory provincial requirements for restaurant, bar & cafe sidewalk patios/serving areas, such as ensuring that they are accessible, that no signage or other obstructions protrude into paths of travel, and providing a clear path of travel for the public to by-pass the outdoor serving area.

 

1. O) Set stronger requirements to ensure that public washrooms and employee staff washrooms are accessible.

 

1. P) Require large public buildings to have an outdoor service animal relief area, as close as possible to the exit, with level access and other key accessibility requirements, as illustrated in the AODA Alliance’s video about the new Toronto Armoury Street courthouse.

 

1. Q) Establish accessibility requirements for indoor and outdoor pool areas and change rooms.

 

1. R) Mandate accessibility requirements for accessible breast-feeding rooms.

 

 

26 Appendix1 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