HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS 03-24Report to Council
Report Number: CS 03-24
Date: February 26, 2024
From: Laura Gibbs
(Acting) Director, Community Services
Subject: Independent 4th Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act - Accessibility Advisory Committee Recommendations - File: A-1440-001
Recommendation:
1. That Report CS 03-24, regarding the Independent 4th Review of the Accessibility for
Ontarians with Disabilities Act, Accessibility Advisory Committee Recommendations be received;
2. That, further to the recommendations of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, Council be requested to send a letter to the Premier of Ontario, endorsing the Summary of
Recommendations as outlined in the Independent 4th Review of the Accessibility for
Ontarians with Disabilities Act, recognizing the accessibility crisis in the Province of
Ontario; and
3. That the letter be copied to the local area Minister of Provincial Parliament, and the Association of Municipalities in Ontario.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to advise that that Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) recommends Pickering Council to send a letter to the Premier of Ontario, endorsing the Summary of Recommendations outlined on pages 5-6 of the
Independent 4th Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).
The AAC discussed the Independent 4th Review report at their committee meeting of January 17, 2024. The Committee clarified that endorsement is not being sought for the entire report sent to the Province of Ontario but rather the Summary of Recommendations set out therein.
Accordingly, the following recommendations were adopted by the AAC:
1. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee endorse the Summary of Recommendations as outlined in the Independent 4th Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act authored by Rich Donovan dated June 5, 2023;
2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee requests that the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering:
a. Endorse the Summary of Recommendations as outlined in the Independent 4th Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act authored by Rich Donovan dated June 5, 2023;
CS 03-24 February 26, 2024
Subject: Independent 4th Review of the AODA Page 2
b. Recognize the accessibility crisis in the Province of Ontario; and,
c. That the resolution of Council be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario and other
applicable parties as deemed appropriate.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community.
Financial Implications: There are no financial impacts that result from adopting the recommendations in this report.
Discussion: People with Disabilities are one of the largest population categories in Ontario. Approximately 2.9 million Ontarians aged 15 and above currently have one or more disabilities. By 2040 this number will increase by another one million. Also, the majority of these functional disabilities are not visible.
Enacted in 2005, the AODA sets out accessibility standards for organizations in with an aim to make the province fully accessible by 2025. In 2022, the Government of Ontario appointed Rich Donovan, an expert in accessibility issues, to conduct the mandatory 4th Independent Review of the implementation and enforcement of the AODA. The process involved consultation with the public and key stakeholders throughout 2022 and 2023. The Independent
4th Review of the AODA was completed in June 2023 and submitted to the province. The
report was made public in December 2023.
The report indicated that the province will not achieve a fully accessible province by 2025, negatively impacting those living with disabilities in Ontario. With a view to moving forward, the report has made 23 recommendations under three categories: crisis, strategic and tactical.
The majority of recommendations are designed to be completed in the next three years.
Five main concerns were outlined in the report:
• AODA outcomes are poor and are failing people with disabilities.
• Enforcement of the legislation does not exist.
• The lack of data and research for people with disabilities was the "single biggest missed
opportunity" since the AODA was enacted in 2005.
• There is a "lack of urgency" on the file from both current and previous Ontario
governments.
• There is a "lack of accountability" for implementing the AODA both in the public and
private sector.
Recommendations under the Crisis category are intended to address immediate threats to public safety. This includes the creation of emergency response protocols in provincial buildings, creating a new agency dedicated to the AODA, and making sure the government,
CS 03-24 February 26, 2024
Subject: Independent 4th Review of the AODA Page 3
through the Crown agency, Supply Ontario, only procures accessible services and products after 2025.
Strategic recommendations are geared toward shifting private sector accessibility regulation to
the Federal government. This is intended to help eliminate duplication and boost enforcement now that Canada is working on a Federal counterpart of the AODA, the Accessible Canada
Act.
Tactical recommendations focus on immediate tangible improvements, such as building a team to collect, analyze and publish disability research and assembling an initial panel of 100
different people with disabilities, who are not advocates or activists, to help inform policy.
To date, the Ministry of Seniors and Accessibility has begun work on three of Donovan’s recommendations:
•The creation of a new volunteer group of people with disabilities to provide their
experience and feedback on accessibility issues.
•An update to building evacuation plans for all government-owned buildings and leased
buildings.
•All government procurement through Crown agency Supply Ontario incorporating
accessibility standards.
The Ministry continues to work with partners and across government to address the remaining recommendations that could help meet, achieve or exceed AODA standards by 2025.
The purpose of this report is to advise Council that the AAC recommends Pickering Council to send a letter to the Premier of Ontario, endorsing the Summary of Recommendations outlined in the Independent 4th Review of the AODA.
Attachment:
1.Independent 4th Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Timothy Higgins Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc.
Accessibility Coordinator (Acting) Director, Community Services
LG:th
CS 03-24 February 26, 2024
Subject: Independent 4th Review of the AODA Page 4
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
1
Attachment 1 to Report CS 03-24
Independent 4th Review of the Accessibility
for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)
Final Report
June 5, 2023
2
Table of Contents
Introduction: Declaring a Crisis ........................................................................................................... 3
Summary of Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 5
Disability in Ontario ................................................................................................................................. 7
Process of the 4th Review of the AODA ............................................................................................ 8
Summary of Interim Report: The State of Accessibility in Ontario ......................................... 9
What We’ve Heard Since ..................................................................................................................... 11
Full Recommendations of the 4th Reviewer .................................................................................. 12
Crisis Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 13
Strategic Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 20
Tactical Recommendations............................................................................................................. 24
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 48
Appendix 1: List of Organizations Consulted by the 4th Reviewer........................................ 49
Appendix 2: Organizations who Submitted Feedback to the 4th Reviewer ....................... 51
3
Introduction: Declaring a Crisis
Frequently in my career I spend time with Ontario Government stakeholders in upper-
floor offices, taking the elevator up some dozens of levels to rooms with commanding
views of the cityscapes they govern. Years ago, while visiting one of these stakeholders
there was a routine fire drill. Most employees orderly made their way to the stairs for the
long descent. Others – those using wheelchairs and managing vision issues – instead
made their way to what was, in essence, a closet. This was not to spare these people the
hassle of using stairs for a fire drill. This was what they were told to do in a fire. Sit. Wait.
Hope someone comes for you.
In the six years since that fire drill these remain typical emergency procedures. The
Ontario government is aware of this problem – I have raised it personally in formal
letters to two Ministers. For these reasons: the direct and tangible threat to the lives and
well-being of a quarter of Ontario’s population, combined with 17 years of missed
opportunities under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA), I,
the Fourth Reviewer of the AODA, have no choice but to declare a crisis.
This crisis extends beyond immediate emergency response. More than 75% of surveyed
Ontario residents in 2021 with a disability reported negative experiences.1 2.9 million
people in Ontario currently have a disability.2 Despite this, there has been minimal
change in accessibility. This in turn means Ontario is forgoing a material, and growing,
economic opportunity.
This crisis declaration is not intended as an assessment of accessibility in Ontario. This
ground has already been well covered in past reviews of the AODA, as well as the
Interim Report by the Fourth Reviewer.3 Instead, this crisis declaration is intended to be
a necessary catalyst to get Ontario back on track for accessibility.
It is a near certainty that the goal of an accessible Ontario by 2025 will pass. That does
not mean the next years of accessibility regulation, action, and enforcement are not
critical. This crisis state, intended to last six months, will allow Ontario to accelerate key
overdue processes to get accessibility right in the coming years. With this groundwork,
1 IPSOS Awareness & Attitudes Towards Accessibility 2021.
2 Disability estimates based on disability rates by age and gender categories as found on the 2017
Canadian Study on Disability (see Stuart Morris, Gail Fawcett, Laurent Brisebois, and Jeffrey Hughes, A
demographic, employment, and income profile of Canadians with disabilities aged 15 years and over, 2017.
Statistics Canada: 2018. These estimates are applied to reference growth projections for 2021 and 2040, as
found in the Ontario Data Catalogue. The Ontario Data Catalogue can be accessed here
3 The Interim Report of the Fourth Reviewer can be downloaded here
4
Ontario will see major improvements in accessibility. Not just blue buttons at doors (that
work), but major changes that allow the province to maximize the contributions of the
2.9 million Ontarians with a disability. These people are not statistics. They work. They
pay taxes. They purchase goods and services. They vote.
After 17 years and three reviews, this Fourth Review recommends a profound shift in
how accessibility is regulated and enforced in Ontario. In brief, the Fourth Reviewer
strongly recommends shifting accessibility regulation of the private sector from
provincial jurisdiction to federal, while leaving the provincial government accountable
for ensuring the services, buildings and careers of the broader public sector in Ontario
are accessible to all Ontarians. The reasons for this are outlined in the following sections.
This final report should not be read as an admonishment of the provincial government.
This ground has been covered, and doing so, in itself, does not improve the experiences
of the 2.9 million Ontarians living with disabilities. A key reason for releasing an interim
report was to ensure that this final report can instead focus on concrete action the
Ontario government can take to get its own house in order, fulfill its promises, and
unlock the potential of millions of Ontarians.
5
Summary of Recommendations
This report outlines 3 categories of recommendations: immediate crisis
recommendations, strategic recommendations intended to shift accessibility to new
partners, and tactical recommendations that can make meaningful strides to improve
accessibility while also retaining the ability to be integrated into strategic changes later.
Crisis recommendations are intended to solve immediate safety threats and to lay the
necessary foundation for all other recommendations. Within 30 days of the tabling of
this report, the province must form a Crisis Committee chaired by the Premier and co-
chaired by the Secretary of Cabinet. This committee will be tasked with implementing 5
recommendation themes:
1. Emergency response
2. Service delivery and employee experience within the broader public sector
3. Creating a new Accessibility Agency to be elevated above the legislature
4. Creation of a preliminary action plan with corresponding success metrics
5. Develop initial actions for accessible government procurement
These crisis recommendations, or a detailed plan for their implementation, must be
completed within 180 days of the formation of the Crisis Committee. These
recommendations form the basis of the strategic and tactical recommendations that
follow, and include key emergency procedures intended to save lives.
Strategic recommendations are those intended to shift the bulk of private sector
accessibility regulation and enforcement to the Federal Government. The key reasons for
this are twofold.
First, the Accessible Canada Act (ACA), which pertains to federally regulated entities,
creates a duplication of accessibility regimes in Ontario. Second, the province has often
lacked resources to properly enforce the AODA, even for large organizations. This
problem is compounded by the fact that there are 412,000 entities in Ontario subject to
the AODA, 370,000 of which are small businesses. Ontario does not have the
infrastructure to properly regulate this many entities for accessibility, and building such
infrastructure is costly. However, federal agencies such as the Canada Revenue Agency
(CRA) regularly collect information from, and audit, such small and medium enterprises
(SMEs). With tweaks to budget and training, the CRA has the potential to audit and
enforce accessibility in a far more cost-effective way than the provincial government.
Tactical recommendations are immediate actions the province can take following the
conclusion of crisis recommendations. They can be pursued concurrently to the strategic
6
recommendations of federal integration. The majority of these recommendations would
fall under the purview of a new Accessibility Agency, and thus ownership of activities
would be more easily transferable once strategic recommendations are complete. This
report includes 23 tactical recommendations centered around the following four themes:
1. Research
2. Tools and Mechanisms for Behavioural Change
3. Mobilizing Government Actions
4. Built Environment
The vast majority of recommendations are designed to be completed within the next
three years. The reason for the short timeframe is simple: the recommendations
provided by the 4th Review are not centered on standards, but on process. While
standards may be one viable tool to attain the goal of an accessible Ontario, they
cannot be the only tool. Only by creating repeatable and measurable processes –
centered on understanding, measuring and improving experiences of People with
Disabilities (PWD) – can Ontario (or any jurisdiction) reach its accessibility goals.
7
Disability in Ontario
People with Disabilities (PWD) are one of the largest population categories in Ontario.
Approximately 2.9 million Ontarians aged 15+ currently have one or more disabilities. By
2040 this number will increase by another one million.4 The majority of these functional
disabilities are also not visible.
The sheer size of the population with disabilities means that PWD are everywhere: as
consumers, employees, friends, and family. It is likely that every person in Ontario knows
a PWD. Probably more.
Despite this, PWD regularly face discrimination. This takes two main forms: attitudes of
individuals; and conscious design decisions that exclude PWD from activities, services,
and structures. These activities include career progression, education, and health care.
To address the discrimination faced by PWD, in 2005 the Ontario government passed
the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). Its purpose is to develop,
implement, and enforce accessibility standards to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with
disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment,
buildings, structures and premises. The target for completion of these goals is January 1,
2025.
Despite these goals, the progress of the AODA has been, to borrow the words of the
Third Reviewer, the late David Onley, glacial. Each review of the AODA has commented
on its lack of progress. As at June 2023, the goal of an accessible Ontario for 2025 is
difficult to achieve. Over the course of 15 months, the Reviewer consistently heard
stories of frustration, both from PWD and AODA stakeholders.5
These experiences underscore the motivation for the 4th Review of the AODA: The
current experience for many people with disabilities in Ontario is poor. This stems from
design flaws in services, products, technology, buildings, infrastructure, careers, processes,
and human imagination.
4 Disability estimates based on disability rates by age and gender categories as found on the 2017
Canadian Study on Disability (see Stuart Morris, Gail Fawcett, Laurent Brisebois, and Jeffrey Hughes, A
demographic, employment, and income profile of Canadians with disabilities aged 15 years and over, 2017.
Statistics Canada: 2018. These estimates are applied to reference growth projections for 2021 and 2040, as
found in the Ontario Data Catalogue. The Ontario Data Catalogue can be accessed here
5 For a longer discussion of the current state of accessibility in Ontario, please refer to the Interim Report
8
Process of the 4th Review of the AODA
The key focus of this 4th Review of the AODA has been data and outcomes. Both are
rooted in experiences and demands. Not just the experiences of PWD, but also the
experiences of AODA stakeholders that must follow and/or enforce the legislation. This
experiential focus differs from previous reviews, which have focused on defining
disability, creating or expanding accessibility standards, and complying with/enforcing
these standards. There were three reasons for this decision:
1. PWD do not demand standards or definitions, they demand positive experiences
similar to that of the rest of the population.
2. Grounding assessments in experience prevents viewing accessibility as “checking
a box” tied to standards
3. Definitions tied to identities like disability are fluid. An experiential focus elevates
assessment and action above attempts to expand or narrow categories. This is
consistent with the goal of an accessible Ontario for all.
This shift from a sole reliance on standards, and towards data-driven experience, differs
from past AODA Reviews. This is intentional. To advance a stalled agenda, it is necessary
to adopt new principles centered in emerging best practices. The six principles
embedded in the Fourth Review of the AODA are:
1. Focus on execution: ensuring that final recommendations address actionable
ways to drive immediate change.
2. Not tethered to past Reviews: use a comprehensive approach that reflects recent
innovative thinking.
3. More than compliance: a focus on what will work to create a barrier-free
environment, not just checking a box.
4. Grounded in lived experience: continuously seeking and embedding real world
PWD experiences to prioritize change and evaluate success
5. Considering multi-year implications: develop recommendations focused on both
2025 deadline and continuous improvement objectives.
6. Evidence-based data-centric approach: apply credible data to form an evidence-
based approach for assessments and recommendations
Consistent with this evidence-centric approach, the Reviewer conducted interviews with
over 100 AODA stakeholders and disability experts, convened 4 virtual public town halls
with over 300 participants, and conducted two surveys of 250 business leaders and 400
PWD. These, combined with the Reviewer’s 15 years of experience working in the
disability market, have formed the basis of the recommendations of this final report.
9
This Review process has not been adequate to address the complexity of making
Ontario accessible. The Reviewer notes that adjusting for accessibility in one large
organization is a series of difficult tasks requiring all manners of economics,
organizational change, risk management, process development and sourcing adequate
funding. Any attempt to adjust the behaviours of Ontario’s broader public sector and its
412,000 businesses must be viewed as a challenge beyond taking humans to Mars.
Complex. Multi-faceted. A worthy, yet gargantuan lift requiring deep knowledge of the
factors affecting policies and their resulting processes.
Perhaps a microcosm of the AODA itself, the 4th Review has a team of 3 people and a
budget of less than $500,000. To get to Mars. The AODA has a 17-year history of under
resourcing and failing to put the best minds of our generation to tackle an epic societal
challenge: full participation of people with disabilities in our economy and society.
Society has decided to tackle this problem. Let us, finally, do it properly.
Summary of Interim Report: The State of Accessibility
in Ontario
It is the assessment of the 4th Reviewer that at present the AODA can only be described
as a failure. After 17 years, the Reviewer has heard stories of missed opportunities and
stalled progress – from both PWD and those AODA stakeholders responsible for
implementing or complying with the regulation.
The Reviewer has identified 5 key themes from consultation feedback during this review
as to why the AODA is currently a missed opportunity. These themes are:
1. Outcomes are poor: There is a near unanimous consensus that the AODA is
currently failing People with Disabilities. Experience design does not consider the
functional needs of PWD and thus PWD receive poorer experiences than their
peers – including in health care and education. Senior business and government
leaders told the Reviewer that changing behaviours to incorporate disability is
not a priority.
2. Enforcement does not exist: There is no meaningful enforcement of the AODA.
There are significant logistical constraints to enforcement. The entire Compliance
and Enforcement Branch of the AODA has approximately 25 staff. This staff is
responsible for the management, policy, administration, and enforcement of
legislation that pertains to 412,000 private sector organizations.
3. Data/research does not exist: AODA stakeholders consistently indicated a lack of
data was a significant problem in improving the experiences of PWD. Concerns
10
were raised that the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility were not experts on
disability by an individual with significant insight on these issues. The Reviewer
considers the lack of data to be the single biggest missed opportunity over the
17 years of the AODA.
4. Basic leadership does not exist: Stakeholders observed there was a lack of
urgency on getting accessibility right within the Ontario government. Leadership
has been further hampered by legislative and senior staff turnover.
5. Nobody owns outcomes/no accountability: Tied closely to leadership and
enforcement, consultation participants indicated there was a lack of
accountability for implementing the AODA within both the private and public
sector. This lack of accountability is compounded by lack of public knowledge,
which makes it difficult to hold organizations to account.
From these consultation themes, the Reviewer provided five categories of assessments.
These assessments are summarized below. A full explanation can be found in the Interim
Report of the 4th Reviewer.
1. Outcomes: Outcomes under the AODA have been poor. The underlying causes
are a lack of data that has led to an overreliance on standards; and a lack of
enforcement or incentives to comply with regulation. Too often, standards ignore
the lived experiences of PWD and fail to identify cost-effective solutions to
maximize impact. A lack of incentives – penalties for non-compliance or financial
incentives for getting accessibility right – means accessibility is frequently ignored
in planning decisions. This lack of positive incentives too is a symptom of a lack
of data.
2. Government and Governance: There are two governance issues that prevent the
AODA from operating as intended. First is a lack of a “north star” or positive role
model for organizations to emulate. This role can and should be played by the
Ontario government. Second is a lack of harmonization across accessibility
regimes that leads to inefficient and confusing processes. One critical area of
harmonization is with the Accessible Canada Act.
3. Leadership: Leadership has been absent on this file for 17 years. The reason for
this is a lack of incentive for political leaders to prioritize it. This responsibility
rests with a combination of the Ontario government, who is obligated to serve
the needs of the 22% of Ontarians with a disability; but also the media and
political opposition, whose role is to hold the government to account.
4. Accountability: Leadership requires accountability. Yet at present there is no
accountability on this file. A key driver of this issue is lack of data, which prevents
11
transparency and accurate tracking of progress. One needs only to compare data
on disability over the course of the AODA with provincial tracking of Covid-19 via
public dashboards to appreciate the lack of public accountability mechanisms. It
should be noted the Federal Government has started its own journey of data
collection about disability in Canada.
5. Built Environment: It is the assessment of the 4th Reviewer that accessibility as it
pertains to built environments should be treated separately from other
accessibility priorities. Costs associated with changes to built environments have
been a reason not to advance accessibility in general. These costs are real, and
failure to address them is a significant risk. The Accessible Canada Act, requires
federally regulated entities to remove barriers in their operations, including built
environments. Soon entities such as banks will be required to have accessible real
estate – and no later than 2040. They hold or lease thousands of retail locations
across the province, and will be forced to abandon these should remediations not
occur. Addressing this issue will take additional resources and strategies beyond
that of other AODA areas.
What We’ve Heard Since
Since the publication of the Interim Report, the 4th Reviewer has continued to hold
consultations with AODA stakeholders, especially those within the Ontario Government.
The Reviewer has noted that Assistant Deputy Ministers (ADMs) have been more active
in their engagements with the Reviewer since the release of the Interim Report. This
reflects the importance of the file. This is a positive development.
The Reviewer would also like to highlight that the Ontario Government is currently
spending approximately $160 million on the remediation of Ontario Government
buildings. This is a positive and necessary step. However, the Reviewer is obliged to
report that this spending is likely insufficient to cover the full remediation needs of the
province. The Reviewer addresses these concerns with a series of Built Environment
Recommendations.
While a theme in the Interim Report, it is also increasingly clear that there is little to no
research on disability as a market segment in Ontario. Instead, information is derived
from a series of often ad hoc advisory committees of PWD, both to elicit feedback in
general, and to inform the development of new disability standards. It is also clear that
this approach, while almost always involving PWD, rarely centers on everyday lived
experiences. The reason for this is relatively simple: advisory committees are rarely
composed of “typical” PWD users of a given service or experience. Because of this, the
12
advice of advisory committees does not center the way in which a “typical” PWD user
navigates an environment. This is not a rebuke of those on advisory committees. It is an
observation that advocates view problems differently than the average user.
An additional theme that was touched on in the Interim Report, and is increasingly
obvious, is that official government opposition – that in the Legislature – has yet to
attempt to hold the government to account on accessibility. Given that disability
represents approximately 22% of the voting age population, this is a clear failure. It
should also be noted this failure is consistent across opposition parties for 17 years. The
Reviewer extended multiple invitations to Members of Provincial Parliament
representing both opposition parties to discuss accessibility. The Reviewer has yet to
receive a response to these requests. The Reviewer considers this lack of response
insulting to 2.9 million Ontarians with disabilities. It appears that Queen’s Park harbours
many politicians who are willfully oblivious to a quarter of their constituents.
As part of the Reviewer’s role, he interacts with members of the media upon request for
transparency and as public education. In the course of these media requests, one
national broadcast media outlet requested the Reviewer be interviewed regarding the
interim report. After a preliminary interview, the producer informed the Reviewer that
their supervisor had concerns about the Reviewer’s voice, suggesting they reduce the
interview to a 5-minute pre-recorded session from a 45-minute live show (the Reviewer
has a unique accent caused by his disability). After pointing out the irony of the request
and politely suggesting the producer’s supervisor remove their head from their body
cavity, the Reviewer declined the invitation. While the supervisor changed their mind
after conferring with colleagues, this anecdote illustrates the outright discrimination that
people with disabilities face every day. Even those that are tasked with reviewing
accessibility regulations. The media plays a key role in holding government accountable
in a democratic society. The media is failing people with disabilities by excluding voices
(literally and figuratively) and tending to cover disability as “inspirational” public interest
content or as The Honourable David Onley once described as “water-skiing squirrel”
stories. The media must do better for 25%+ of its audience.
Full Recommendations of the 4th Reviewer
This section outlines the full recommendations of the 4th Reviewer. These
recommendations are organized into three categories: crisis, strategic, and tactical. Crisis
recommendations must be resolved within 180 days, and are intended to address
immediate threats to public safety, and to lay the necessary groundwork for a successful
accessibility regime that has been absent for 17 years. These recommendations are to
13
be overseen by a special Crisis Committee. Strategic recommendations are those
pertaining to shifting accessibility regulation of the private sector to the Federal
Government. Tactical recommendations are intended to build on the foundations laid by
the Crisis Committee, make immediate tangible improvements to accessibility regimes
in Ontario, and ensuring these improvements are sustainable while strategic
recommendations are being acted upon.
Crisis Recommendations
As noted in the opening of this report, the 4th Reviewer declares the current state of
accessibility to be a crisis. Within 30 days of the tabling of this report, the province of
Ontario must form a Crisis Committee chaired by the Premier and co-chaired by the
Secretary of Cabinet. Within 30 days of the formation of the Crisis Committee, said
committee must communicate its ability to take action on the crisis recommendations. All
crisis recommendations are intended to be actioned within 180 days of the formation of
the Crisis Committee. If any actions will take longer than 180 days, the Crisis Committee
must provide publicly explicit reasons as to why this is the case within this 180 day
window. All crisis recommendations are to be owned by the Crisis Committee until
implementation, and accountability will rest with the Premier and Secretary of Cabinet.
Crisis Recommendation 1: Implement Emergency Response Protocols
Context:
At present, emergency procedures for People with Disabilities that manage limited vision
or mobility often consist of sheltering in place. Given the lack of accessibility of many
buildings and the shutting down of lifts during emergencies, there is often no way for
some PWD to safely evacuate a building. In addition, communication during emergencies
fails to account for the life-critical needs of those that manage hearing and/or
cognitive/neurodiverse issues. This represents an immediate and acute risk to a significant
number of Ontarians that has remained unaddressed. Moreover, it is clear that there is no
standard for the safety of PWD that can be easily emulated, leading to a system in which
there is a general unawareness of best practices, uneven access to lifesaving process and
equipment, and lack of knowledge for how to improve this situation.
Actions:
i. The Crisis Committee must establish clear, consistent emergency response
protocols for all provincial government buildings that include the immediate,
safe evacuation of all individuals within the building regardless of their mobility,
vision, or any other functional difference that individual may have. This will
alleviate the immediate risk to wellbeing in all provincially operated buildings.
14
ii. The Ontario government, via the Crisis Committee, must publicly publish its
emergency procedure plans integrating PWD. This will provide an example of
best practices for other organizations to follow, and provide a potential catalyst
for change. At present there is a lack of knowledge of accessible emergency
procedures. There is material opportunity for leadership on this issue.
iii. The Ontario government, via the Crisis Committee, must table legislation that
all places of employment develop an emergency response plan that includes
PWD within 180 days of implementation. While requirements for such
procedures are embedded into accessibility standards, lack of enforcement
has meant these standards are rarely followed. Organizations, especially small
and medium enterprises, also often lack knowledge on how to do this
properly. Combined with the publication of provincial emergency plans, this
will alleviate a significant public safety concern.
iv. Alongside legislation, the Crisis Committee must develop a plan for oversight
of emergency response plans in the broader public sector and the private
sector to ensure compliance. Compliance has been difficult to achieve via
AODA. It is essential for emergency procedures.
Timeline and Success Metrics:
i. Publish government evacuation plans publicly within 180 days of Crisis
Committee formation.
ii. Alongside emergency procedure plans, publish a supporting document
outlining the process of ensuring successful execution of emergency
procedures, as well as known gaps in the process that were identified in the
creation of emergency procedure plans for public buildings
iii. All Ontario employers develop an emergency response plan within 180 days
of the passing of related legislation.
Crisis Recommendation 2: Focus Deputy Ministers (DMs) on service delivery
and employee experience
Context:
As per the Interim Report, an overreliance on standards derived from input from
advisory committees has created a situation in which the lived experiences of everyday
PWD are ignored, both in accessing government services and as employed government
workers. Given that PWD represent roughly a quarter of Ontario’s population, a
standards-based approach is not sufficient, nor is one predicated on raising awareness.
15
Virtually everyone in Ontario knows at least one PWD. It should be noted for service
delivery, the highest touch areas are likely health care and education. Ergo, these areas
deserve enhanced attention for both the number of individuals they serve, and the
critical nature of their services.
Action:
i. The Crisis Committee must issue a directive to all Deputy Ministers to identify
barriers in customer (public) and employee experiences within their respective
Ministry and its services. To identify such barriers, DMs must engage in
material consultations with PWD, both as customers and employees. For
clarity's sake, “material” is intended to refer to a statistically relevant sample
size of the population served by a given business unit.
ii. The Crisis Committee must issue a directive to all Deputy Ministers that they
must publish the barriers identified during consultations, as well as a plan to
remove these barriers. This plan will have a three-year timeframe, after which
a new plan must be developed. It should be noted that both actions within
this recommendation mirror the requirements of federally regulated entities
under the Accessible Canada Act (ACA), and as such, there is a repository of
best practices on which to draw upon. Like ACA plans, each should include a
mechanism to anonymously provide feedback.
Timeline and Success Metrics:
i. Written directives are to be received by all DMs within 180 days of Crisis
Committee forming
ii. Within 180 days of receiving said directives, each DM must submit their plan
to uncover barriers
iii. Within one year of receiving directives, each DM must provide a report of key
barriers faced by both customers and employees within their respective
Ministry and its services, as well as the steps that will be taken to remove
these barriers. These plans must be made public, in a variety of formats, to
maximize transparency
Crisis Recommendation 3: Create a new agency to elevate AODA delivery
above legislature
Context:
At present there is no body that has demonstrated success in enforcing accessibility
standards and regulation on to the provincial government itself. Due to this lack of
16
accountability, disability has rarely been a priority within the Ontario government. This
has downstream effects: unless government can lead on this file, it is unreasonable to
expect others to do so. Moreover, there is a lack of centralized resources to tackle
accessibility challenges within government. These resources are not just financial: the
largest current resource gap is reliable information. The Reviewer found that Ministries
often work in “silos” in developing their own accessibility initiatives, meaning there is no
repository of best practices or opportunity for inter-organizational learning. An agency
dedicated to accessibility can alleviate these coordination problems.
Action:
i. Develop a framework for the creation of a new Accessibility Agency. This
agency would be tasked with leading and coordinating provincial and
municipal accessibility activities, many of which are outlined in the tactical
recommendations. The agency would also be responsible for the oversight of
AODA recommendations; maintain control of processes; conduct research;
create, analyze and distribute data; provide consultation to relevant
stakeholders; and broader public sector enforcement. Many of these
correspond with other recommendations in this report. To underscore its
importance, it is recommended this agency report into either the Ministry of
Economic Development, Job Creation, and Trade or the Ministry of Public and
Business Service Delivery. Both capture missed opportunities in private sector
growth and government services, respectively. The creation of such an agency
allows for more independent, flexible, direct action and follows other key
government priorities such as infrastructure. This will improve accountability.
ii. Develop list of funding sources for the new Accessibility Agency
Timeline and Success Metrics:
i. Plan for the creation of new agency published within 180 days of the
formation of the Crisis Committee
ii. Creation of fully funded Accessibility Agency within one year of announced
plan
iii. All AODA and major accessibility initiatives moved under purview of new
agency within 180 days of its inception
17
Crisis Recommendation 4: Develop Success Metrics and New Action Plan
Context:
There are currently no clear metrics as to what success looks like in accessibility, apart
from adherence to an ever-shifting landscape of standards and definitions. This lack of
metrics has made accountability difficult to achieve, not only for the Ontario
government, but also for Ontario’s private sector who are seeking a clear “north star” to
emulate. This lack of clear success is striking given the stated goal of an accessible
Ontario by 2025. Without a clear action plan 2030, much less 2025, is unattainable.
Action:
i. Assign the Secretary of Cabinet as the owner accountable for Ontario’s
accessibility action plan over the next 5 years. This owner should have a close
working relationship with the head of the new Accessibility Agency.
ii. Define and publicly communicate clear success metrics embedded within a
multiyear accessibility plan for which progress is tracked and publicly
communicated. This will likely be an aggregated form of the individual
Ministry accessibility plans, combined with goals for the private sector and
municipalities. Success metrics must be tied to economic and PWD experience
goals, not simply the meeting of standards, to provide positive incentives for
private sector entities to comply with the AODA and preferably exceed it. This
is especially important for small businesses for whom the AODA is largely
viewed as a pure compliance cost.
iii. Provide a budget for each accessibility plan action item that does not fall
within the budgetary purview of individual Ministries.
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Owner for new accessibility action plan identified and put in place within 30
days of Crisis Committee formation
ii. Working with their team, owner of accessibility plan must publish preliminary
success criteria within 180 days of being assigned to their position
iii. First provincial action plan must be published within one year of publication
of preliminary success criteria, coinciding with plans of individual Ministries
18
Crisis Recommendation 5: Accessible Procurement
Context:
Accessibility gaps frequently occur when organizations source products and services
from third party vendors that fall short of their own stated accessibility standards. This
problem is especially acute for smaller organizations, who lack the purchasing power to
leverage vendors to include built in accessibility features at a feasible price point. Large
organizations such as governments have the purchasing power to shift incentive for
third party vendors to ensure product accessibility, creating downstream benefits for all.
It should be noted the Federal Government leverages its purchasing power in this way,
creating the potential for collaboration to improve accessibility in frequently sourced
third-party systems such as digital hardware and software.
Action
i. Assign owner to audit provincial procurement processes. This auditor must
have the resources to coordinate their activities across Ministries. For this
reason, the auditor should be based in the new Accessibility Agency
ii. Develop a plan to audit accessibility in systems procured by the Ontario
government, prioritizing those used by the largest number of people. This
process should also prioritize systems frequently used in the private sector,
especially by small and medium enterprises who lack the purchasing power to
leverage accessible procurement at favourable price points
iii. Through the accessibility audit, identify and remove accessibility gaps within
the procurement process itself, coordinating with Ministries on their individual
accessibility plans. Combined with the procurement of accessible goods, this
will create a fully accessible public procurement process end-to-end.
Published alongside Ministry plans, this will provide a series of best practices
for private sector emulation, which will combine with leveraged procurement
from the provincial and/or Federal Government (see below) to increase
accessibility in Ontario
iv. Open discussions with the Federal Government to combine purchasing power
in procurement agreements. This will provide further purchasing leverage on
commonly sourced systems to ensure they are fully accessible. By allowing the
government to procure accessible systems, these systems will become
available at better price points for smaller enterprises throughout Ontario
19
v. Issue a mandate that Supply Chain Ontario must only procure accessible
products and services after January 1, 2025. Any exception must be approved
by the Premier and published for public consumption.
Timeline and Success Metrics
i. Audit ownership to be assigned within 180 days of the creation of the new
Accessibility Agency
ii. A full audit of the five most procured systems, measured in terms of number
of users, should be completed within the first year of audit following
assignment of ownership
iii. Talks of coordinating procurement should commence within 30 days of the
formation of the Crisis Committee
iv. Mandate to Supply Chain Ontario published within 180 days of the formation
of the Crisis Committee
v. The province should set a goal of coordinated procurement with the Federal
Government within two years
vi. Within three years of tabling this report accessibility is fully integrated into all
Ontario government procurement practices
20
Strategic Recommendations
After 17 years of inaction, a different approach to accessibility is required. This is true
not just within Ontario, but across Canada. The Federal Government has begun to act
more decisively in the disability market with the passing of the Accessible Canada Act.
This requires that all crown corporations, Federal Government entities, and federally
regulated organizations publish public accessibility plans outlining key barriers and how
they will be removed, in consultation with People with Disabilities, every three years.
They must also produce annual progress reports.
Readers of these recommendations will note that these criteria and timelines align with
those required of the individual Ministry plans as per Crisis Recommendations. This is
intentional. The surest path to an accessible Ontario is to harmonize provincial efforts with
federal ones, leveraging the financial, logistical, and knowledge advantages of the Federal
Government in this space. It is this insight that drives the 4th Reviewer’s two strategic
recommendations which aim to federalize accessibility in the private sector while enabling
the Ontario Government to set its own specific internal priorities for the broader public
sector. The Reviewer also notes the opportunity for the provision of access to federal
funding to provinces for accessibility, provided the provinces meet to be considered pre-
established quality standards. These recommendations are detailed below.
Given the scope of strategic recommendations, these must be owned by a combination
of the Premier’s Office and Cabinet. The new Accessibility Agency can play a supporting
role in this process.
Strategic Recommendation 1: Shift private sector regulation to Federal
Government. Ontario to retain regulation of, and focus on, broader public sector.
Context
There is currently a duplication of accessibility regimes in Ontario that affect some of the
province’s largest private sector employers with operations in multiple provinces such as
large retailers, large manufacturers, financial institutions and telecommunications
providers. These two accessibility regimes are the Accessible Canada Act and the
melange of provincial accessibility regimes. Of the two, the ACA has far more robust
reporting requirements and enforcement mechanisms, making it a more useful
regulatory platform to drive results.
Enforcement is non-existent under the AODA, due to a combination of lack of resources
and the size of the private sector that falls under the jurisdiction of this legislation. There
are 370,000 small businesses in Ontario, which creates a logistical enforcement issue
unless an agency is already collecting data on each of these enterprises.
21
As of December 2021, there were 1.21 million employer businesses in Canada. Of these,
1.19 million (97.9%) were small businesses, 22,700 (1.9%) were medium-sized
businesses, and 2,868 (0.2%) were large businesses.6 Ontario hosts 32% of Canada’s
small businesses. This represents the largest regulatory burden, by province, in the
country.
The Federal Government has tools that can be utilized to solve the logistical hurdle of
regulating Ontario’s 380,000 small businesses. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
routinely collects information from, and audits small and medium businesses across
Ontario, making it an ideal partner to enforce the accessibility legislation currently under
the AODA. While such a transition would require additional training and resources
within the CRA, it is a more efficient means of enforcing accessibility than what currently
occurs in Ontario, and while outside the scope of the Reviewer’s mandate, opens an
avenue to extend such accessibility legislation across the country.
An additional advantage of shifting private sector regulation to the Federal Government
is that it is farther along in building the regulatory structure and data gathering process
in disability than the Ontario Government. Alongside the ACA, the Federal Government
has launched funding for numerous disability research projects that can be leveraged to
provide more informed auditing and advice to both the private and public sectors. It is a
more efficient use of resources to leverage these data collection processes than to
develop them independently of and redundantly to the Federal government.
Finally, the financial resource advantage of the Federal Government makes it a natural
candidate to be responsible for accessibility regulation. Not only can it commit
additional resources to fund research and audit results, but its greater borrowing power
also means it is in a better position to retain risk for capital intensive actions such as
systemic remediation of assets for accessibility (see also Crisis Recommendation 5).
Action
i. Initiate a conversation with Federal Government partners as to the feasibility
and potential timelines of transferring private sector accessibility regulation
and its enforcement from the provincial to federal level
ii. Following agreement with the Federal Government, Ontario is to transfer the
regulation, enforcement and legislative authority surrounding private sector
accessibility to the Federal Government
6 Government of Canada 2022. Key Small Business Statistics 2022. Note that these numbers follow the
Statistics Canada definition of small and medium-sized businesses, rather than that of the AODA, which
defines a large business as any with 50 or more employees.
22
iii. Following the transfer of authority, the current AODA enforcement and
research body – the new Accessibility Agency – becomes a provincial resource
to assist in implementing and enforcing broader public sector accessibility
changes
iv. Public sector regulation, enforcement and legislation remains under provincial
control, with tied federal funding to ensure completion and maintain quality
standards
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Ontario government initiates discussions with Federal Government within 180
days of the tabling of this report
ii. Within one year of tabling of this report, create priority areas in which to
transfer jurisdiction to the Federal Government
iii. The Ontario government is to transfer the enforcement and legislative
authority of the private sector to the Federal Government within three years
of the creation of priority areas
iv. Within three years of the transfer of enforcement and legislative authority, the
Canada Revenue Agency becomes responsible for auditing Ontario SMEs for
accessibility
Strategic Recommendation 2: While Federal Government is to own laws,
standards, and regulations, Ontario maintains control over accessibility
regulation of Ontario’s broader public sector, under the AODA. The Federal
and Ontario governments to coordinate on quality standards tied to funding.
Context
As per above, the current regulatory environment surrounding accessibility in Ontario is
inefficient and ineffective. Governments outside Canada that have implemented
accessibility legislation rely on a more centralized model. The Reviewer contends that
one unified centralized approach is more effective and efficient for all parties
implementing regulations.
Action
i. Alongside federal partners, develop a set of quality standards that all broader
public sector entities must meet to be compliant with accessibility regulation
ii. Develop a funding model with federal partners to attain and maintain
accessibility in the Ontario broader public sector, in accordance with
previously established quality standards. Funding is to be tied to adherence
with these standards. It is the recommendation of the 4th Reviewer that the
23
Federal Government provide 50% of costs of remediating public sector
buildings and digital holdings if quality standards are met. For clarity, quality
standards may exceed building codes and accessibility standards. Quality
standards should be directly linked to an intended experience for people with
disabilities.
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Development of set of quality standards within one year of accepted transfer
of authority to Federal Government. These standards must be grounded in
data and experience (see Tactical Recommendations)
ii. Funding model established within one year of agreement of quality standards
iii. Long term: Ontario becomes “north star” of provincial accessibility that other
provinces seek to emulate within a national accessibility regulatory framework
24
Tactical Recommendations
Tactical recommendations are intended to build on the foundation created by the Crisis
Recommendations to create a sustainable accessibility regime in Ontario. To create such
sustainable change, these tactical recommendations emphasize data collection, data
analysis, information dissemination, behavioural change mechanisms, and government
action. The 4th Reviewer also includes a section specific to the built environment,
following the assessment that this area should be treated separately from other
accessibility initiatives given its future risk and high financial cost.
It should be noted that while these recommendations build on the Crisis
Recommendations, they may operate independently of the Strategic Recommendations.
All data and change mechanisms recommended in this section, the majority of which
would be owned by the new Accessibility Agency, can be shared with federal partners
depending on the progress of the Strategic Recommendations. These recommendations
will significantly improve the bedrock on which accessibility regulation and enforcement is
based in Ontario irrespective of the progress made on the Strategic Recommendations.
Tactical Recommendation Area 1: Data, Analytics, and Research
As has been noted in this report, and extensively in the Interim Report, data on disability
and accessibility in Ontario is poor. This is not unique to Ontario. The Federal
Government is only beginning its foray into actionable accessibility data. These
recommendations are intended to create a robust quantitative and qualitative data
collection, data analysis and information dissemination regime for Ontario.
Research Recommendation 1: Build team to collect, analyze, and publish
disability research as a public asset
Context:
At present disability data is largely limited to the Federal Government, using blunt tools
such as census data. There has been little effort to systematically collect information to
understand the experiences of PWD. In these conditions, reliable data is poor, as no
Agency or Ministry routinely seeks to collect, analyze and understand this data nor has a
disability data and information strategy been developed.
Action:
i. Identify and hire a data, analytics and research team lead. This individual will
be a key member of the leadership team of the new Accessibility Agency.
ii. Empower team lead to hire team of qualitative and quantitative data experts
to collect and analyze experiences of PWD. This team should have mixed
methods expertise and operate within the new Accessibility Agency. To be
25
clear, the team should be research and experience (UX) experts first, and can
learn disability through their research.
iii. Reallocate and increase funding from current accessibility awareness
campaigns to the research team. This research team serves a similar role of
disseminating information, yet produces greater results by also conducting
original research that can then be utilized by media and/or other interested
parties.
Timelines and Success Metrics:
i. Research lead appointed within 180 days of creation of the new Accessibility
Agency
ii. Budget for research team and initial six years of research sourced within 180
days of creation of the new Accessibility Agency
iii. Initial research team hired within 180 days of hiring research lead
iv. Publication of first research project within one year of hiring of full team.
Publication of new public research quarterly, and continuously, including
updates to past research
Issue owner:
i. Head of the new Accessibility Agency to be responsible for hiring of research
team lead
ii. Crisis Committee to establish operating budget for the new Accessibility
Agency, including research funding, for initial six years. Budget cycle must be
longer than election cycle
iii. Research lead within the new Accessibility Agency to be responsible for hiring
research team and conducting and disseminating research findings
Research Recommendation 2: Build equitable representation and analysis of
the disability population in publicly collected datasets to be used for decision-
making and evaluation
Context:
Simply collecting disability data is insufficient to ensure an accessible Ontario. There is a
need to ensure this data is not only an accurate representation of disability (i.e.:
proportionately capturing disability “types” across social groups) but is also integrated
into analysis across social issues. For example, disability data must be integrated into the
analysis of housing, educational outcomes, and health care outcomes. This capacity for
data capture and analysis must be in-house and not outsourced. Once collected, this
data must form a basis for public policy decision making and evaluation, and should be
26
used to inform the activities of broader public sector organizations. This information
should be a public asset to be used to inform the activities of private sector
organizations. This research will also allow for the benchmarking of PWD experience.
Action:
i. As part of research activities, the research team within the new Accessibility
Agency must be tasked with building public datasets. These datasets should
reflect known frequency of disability within the population, across age and
disability type. It must include economic data such as income, employment
and added cost to individuals driven by disability.
ii. Data and analysis must be widely marketed to the public, the broader public
sector and private sector shareholders for use in decision making
iii. Data must be actively disseminated to the public in channels and formats that
allow for easy consumption (see Research Recommendation 4).
iv. Data is to be used for audits and public policy decisions by relevant policy
stakeholders
Timelines and Success Metrics:
i. Creation of first working dataset within two years of securing the new
Accessibility Agency research funding
ii. Publication of public dataset within three years of the new Accessibility
Agency research funding
iii. Recurring updates to dataset(s) every 90 days to reflect ongoing research
iv. Mandated use of accessibility datasets within one year of publication for
public policy decisions in all issue areas at provincial and municipal levels of
government, as well as audits of public policy – starting with health,
education, housing and transportation
Issue owner:
i. The creation, curation, and analysis of datasets is the responsibility of the
research lead within the new Accessibility Agency
ii. The new Accessibility Agency is responsible for demonstrating relevance of
public data for public policy making, and in specific issue areas, within one
year of its publication
iii. Individual stakeholders in the broader public sector are responsible for using
this data in their design, evaluation, and auditing of public policy and service
delivery, with the new Accessibility Agency research team providing a
supporting role upon request
27
Research Recommendation 3: Direct coroner reports to record disability in
order to measure relative mortality
Context:
One critical area of missing data pertains to life expectancy for PWD. Because disability
is not captured in mortality demographics, this is a critical black box of information. Yet,
it is likely that there are significant differences in life expectancy for PWD compared to
the general population. First, disability is not well considered in emergency procedures,
making accidental death more likely. Second, disability is more likely to coincide with
co-morbidities for illnesses such as Covid-19. Finally, disability is more prevalent in other
conditions likely to lead to higher mortality rates such as age and lifestyle.
Action:
i. Ontario must direct coroner reports to include disability, including disability
type, regardless if disability is related to cause of death
ii. Coroner data must be shared with the new Accessibility Agency research team
for integration into public datasets, with required consideration of the privacy
of health care data
Timelines and Success Metrics:
i. Ontario must direct coroners to record disability within one year of the tabling
of this report
ii. Disability should be integrated into mortality reporting within 180 days of
provincial directive
Issue owner:
i. The Ministry of the Solicitor General is responsible for directing coroners and
ensuring disability is integrated into mortality reporting
ii. The Ministry of Solicitor General must ensure this data is shared with the new
Accessibility Agency research team
iii. The new Accessibility Agency research team is responsible for integrating this
data into public datasets
Research Recommendation 4: Develop a province-wide public disability
dashboard
Context:
Accountability for progress under the AODA is low. A key reason for this is the lack of
data and knowledge about the state of accessibility in Ontario. From a public education
perspective, this has also led to disjointed and ad-hoc activities that rarely capture the
28
scale of disability in Ontario and the experience of PWD in any way, thus leading to
wasted resources on educational opportunities.
To create accountability, media, opposition parties, and the public must be able to
clearly track accessibility and accessibility progress in Ontario. This is the case for other
states in the disability space, such as New Zealand, which has created a public disability
dashboard that is easily consumed by all.
It should be noted that this public dashboard approach was recently adopted in Ontario
for tracking Covid-19 data. At that time, this allowed for greater public debate and
accountability. It was also an invaluable resource for the Ontario private sector for
charting their course in an otherwise information poor environment.
Action:
i. As part of the Data, Analytics and Research Team, identify lead specialized
data and visualization analyst within the new Accessibility Agency research
team to own public data presentation
ii. Create a public dashboard with all quantitative accessibility data
iii. Continued updating of dashboard to reflect new research and findings
iv. Provide links on dashboard to further qualitative studies and reading
Timelines and Success Metrics:
i. Hiring of data analyst responsible for public dashboard within 180 days of
hiring research team lead
ii. Launch of dashboard including first database results within 90 days of first
dataset completion
iii. Creation of qualitative research library within one year of dashboard launch
Issue owner:
i. The public dashboard is to be owned by the new Accessibility Agency
Research Recommendation 5: Establish a panel with PWD to consult on
priority issues impacting accessibility
Context:
A key principle in accessibility is “nothing for us without us.” In other words, that People
with Disabilities must be consulted through the entirety of a product, service, or policy
design cycle. This emphasis on experience is a major theme of the 4th Review of the
AODA.
29
Too often, the principle of “nothing for us without us” has led to an emphasis on
consulting advocacy organizations and/or “experts” rather than the main PWD users of a
product, service, or experience. This has in turn led to an emphasis on standards rather
than the processes PWD most frequently use when engaging with a given environment.
It has also led to costly accessibility initiatives on systems that PWD almost never use.
Done properly, consulting with those with lived experience reduces the cost of targeted
program delivery. An example is the UK Fulfilling Lives Programme, which funded local
partnerships across 12 areas in England to address complex needs such as
homelessness, mental illness, and substance abuse. This program saved more than £700
per person, per year in government services. Essential to this program was that its
intended beneficiaries were engaged as users to co-produce program reports. This led
to the abandonment of programs that actual users knew would be ineffective, saving
significant resources.
Given the number of PWD in Ontario, building a significant panel of users to consult is
not a difficult undertaking. Having these individuals available will provide a simple and
direct source of consultations for government stakeholders, both for creating their own
accessibility plans, and for the creation and evaluation of policy.
Action:
i. Assemble panel of 100 PWD for initial consultation work. This panel should
reflect the disability population in terms of disability type. These users should
not be employed as activists or be members of advocacy organizations to
ensure consultations capture ordinary users (advocates may be consulted at
other stages of projects)
ii. Make panel available across government stakeholders for consultations on
accessibility plans, experience design and public policy
iii. Continue to expand panel over time, with a goal of exceeding 1,000 users,
with rotating membership
iv. The new Accessibility Agency may wish to consult with advocacy groups and
“experts” periodically as a confirmation and/or fact-finding exercise. This must
not act as a replacement for robust user research
Timelines and Success Metrics:
i. Assembly of initial panel of 100 users within one year of appointment of the
new Accessibility Agency research team lead
ii. Addition of 100 panelists/quarter, with a target of 1,000 PWD as “steady state”
after two years
30
iii. Consultation with PWD users for every service design, accessibility plan,
legislative design or review, as needed, within 180 days of assembly of first
panel
iv. Creation of specific panels for health, education, and Ontario Public Service
within two years
v. Build and maintain specific panels for municipalities and/or groups of
municipalities, within three years
Issue owner:
i. The creation and maintenance of user panels is to be owned by the new
Accessibility Agency
ii. Public sector stakeholders are responsible for engaging these panels in
consultation with the new Accessibility Agency
Research Recommendation 6: Define and update measurable outcomes for
accessibility success, reflecting diverse stakeholder needs
Context:
A common theme that emerged when consulting private and public sector AODA
stakeholders is that there is no clear idea as to what success looks like. This has led to
either following the advice of advocacy organizations, or relying on externally generated
standards, both of which materially ignore the experiences of core PWD users. A key
task of the Crisis Committee is to establish a set of preliminary outcomes to inform the
first year of accessibility planning (see Crisis Recommendations 2 and 4). These
outcomes must continue to evolve as new data is collected. These outcomes must be
multifaceted, targeting specific policy areas such as, but not limited to, employment
experience within the broader public sector, health, and education. For reference, see
Phase 2 of the Review of the Information and Communications Standards – 2020 Final
Recommendations Report. For clarity’s sake, it is plausible that “audited adherence to
Standard X” could be a measurable outcome. This assumes, of course, that adherence to
Standard X reflects the actual intended experiences of users with disabilities.
Action:
i. Develop clear metrics establishing the current state of accessibility in the
public sector, emphasising health, education, and the Ontario Public Service
ii. Establish clear target benchmarks that can be measured and tracked over time
to ensure progress and accountability
31
Timelines and Success Metrics:
i. Establishment of key metrics to be used to define current state of accessibility
within one year of hiring research team in the new Accessibility Agency
ii. Publication of “where we are” metrics across health, education, and Ontario
Public Service within one year of definition of key metrics. This publication
should include integration into the public dashboard (see Research
Recommendation 4)
iii. Continuous updating of metrics as new information becomes available,
including new research and annual progress reports
Issue owner:
i. The new Accessibility Agency is responsible for the creation of success
metrics, in consultation with relevant public sector stakeholders
ii. Broader public sector Ministries, departments and agencies are responsible
for collecting and sharing internal data on their current state, using the new
Accessibility Agency success metrics
iii. The new Accessibility Agency is responsible for aggregating and
disseminating current state of accessibility and track/publish progress over
time
Research Recommendation 7: Develop public accessibility action plan and
publicly share and track progress against previously identified milestones
Context:
Publicly available data and clear success metrics promote accountability. Accessibility
action plans can only be successful if owners are held to account. A key element of
improving accessibility is thus ensuring that plans, success metrics, and progress are
made publicly available. It should be noted that it is already mandatory for many
organizations to create public multiyear accessibility plans – the key needed differences
are that these plans have annual public progress reports tied to milestones to ensure
accountability, and critically, that the plans must extend beyond legalistic/boilerplate
commitments to meet the experience needs of the public and of public sector
employees. While provincial public sector entities must already meet these
requirements, they must be made more robust in light of stalled progress on this file.
Action:
i. The Ontario Government, municipalities and their respective Ministries,
departments and Agencies must each publish an accessibility plan every three
years, with progress reports every year (see Crisis Recommendation 2). These
32
plans must be based on consultations with PWD, identify current barriers for
both the public and employees in their interaction with the Ministry/Agency, and
how the Ministry/Agency intends to remove those barriers over the life cycle of
the plan. Note that this follows the structure of the Accessible Canada Act.
ii. A new plan must be published for each Ministry, department and Agency
every three years
Timelines and Success Metrics:
i. Publication of an accessibility plan for each Ministry, department and Agency
within two years of the tabling of these recommendations (see Crisis
Recommendation 2).
ii. Publication of success metrics, as defined by the new Accessibility Agency
within one year of the public release of accessibility plans to be integrated
into subsequent plan cycles
iii. Publication and tracking of all broader public sector accessibility plans as part
of the provincial accessibility dashboard within 180 days of integrating
success metrics
Issue owner:
i. Each government Ministry, department and Agency is responsible for their
respective accessibility plan and progress report
ii. The new Accessibility Agency is to play a support role, upon request, in the
creation of accessibility plans
iii. The new Accessibility Agency is responsible for aggregating Ontario
accessibility plans and integrating into public dashboard
Research Recommendation 8: Develop public feedback mechanisms for
accessibility across the broader public sector
Context:
The collection of data is not limited to specific studies conducted by the new
Accessibility Agency. Particularly in the context of identifying accessibility barriers and
obstacles to maximizing public and/or employee experiences with a Ministry,
department or Agency, it is necessary to collect continuous stakeholder feedback. For
this reason, it is essential that all Ministries/Departments/Agencies allow for the
submission of anonymous feedback through a variety of channels. Moreover, given the
lack of knowledge of government agencies, it is necessary that feedback be shared from
where it is submitted to the correct stakeholder to allow proper aggregation and
response (No Wrong Door).
33
Action:
i. Each Ministry, department and Agency must provide multiple means of
providing feedback related to accessibility in their area of operations,
including employment. Feedback should be able to be provided via phone,
email, or mail, at minimum. Feedback information should be easily available
on the website of the Ministry, department or Agency, and also be within the
3-year Accessibility Plan (see Research Recommendation 7)
ii. Each Ministry, Department or Agency must forward feedback that does not
pertain to their organization but instead to an alternative Ministry,
Department or Agency to the new Accessibility Agency
iii. The new Accessibility Agency must organize feedback sent to the wrong
Ministry or Agency and provide it to the relevant stakeholder
iv. Feedback should inform Ministry and Agency progress reports and
subsequent Accessibility Plans. They are not sufficient on their own to
constitute consultations
Timelines and Success Metrics:
i. Feedback mechanisms must be published alongside Accessibility Plans (see
Research Recommendation 7)
ii. The new Accessibility Agency must have a team in place to reallocate
feedback prior to the publication deadline of provincial Accessibility Plans
Issue owner:
i. Each Ministry, department and Agency is responsible for providing feedback
mechanisms
ii. The new Accessibility Agency is responsible for reallocating feedback as
required and ensuring compliance with feedback obligations by Ministries,
Departments and Agencies
Tactical Recommendation Area 2: Behavioural Change Tools and
Mechanisms
For 17 years the AODA has created and nominally enforced standards as a way of
changing behaviour in both the private and public sectors. The sole use of standards has
failed. Alongside lack of consistent and meaningful enforcement, there have been few
positive incentive-based mechanisms of change. This in turn has made organizations
reluctant to increase accessibility for a misguided fear of high costs and low returns.
Both the costs and returns must be addressed to create sustained behavioural change.
34
Behavioural Change Recommendation 1: Pilot accessibility funding initiatives
including social impact bonds and customer fees
Context:
A crucial barrier in addressing accessibility concerns is cost, especially for small- and
medium-sized enterprises, and for capital-intensive remediations such as those to built
environments. This has led to inaction across accessibility. Without intervention, smaller
organizations will be unable to meet their accessibility requirements, and large, federally
regulated organizations may consider divesting certain assets if they must unilaterally
bear the cost of meeting their accessibility requirements in built environments. This will
in turn put downward pressure on some of the highest value corporate real estate in
Ontario, thus creating a significant economic risk.
Action:
i. Identify and vet investors that aspire to provide social impact bonds tied to
accessibility
ii. Create social impact bond pilot project that prioritizes high cost remediations
such as those to built environments. Results of pilot project are to be
aggregated by the new Accessibility Agency and publicly published
iii. Conduct research on public response to small accessibility surcharges on
identified government services. The model for this program would be airport
improvement fees that can only be applied to remediations and
improvements of current airport infrastructure.
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Plan for social impact bond developed, including process of vetting of
potential investors, within one year of the new Accessibility Agency receiving
full funding
ii. Opening of application process for social impact bond pilot process within
180 days of plan development
iii. Full evaluation report of pilot study within two years of launch, with
subsequent publication
iv. New Accessibility Agency to complete study of reaction to surcharges within
two years of hiring internal research team
Issue Owner
i. Social impact bond program to be developed and operated by the Ontario
Financing Authority, in consultation with the new Accessibility Agency
ii. Study of surcharges to be completed by the new Accessibility Agency
35
Behavioural Change Recommendation 2: Apply social influence tools to shift
public conversations and underlying social norms about disability and
accessibility
Context:
People with disabilities consistently indicate the most frequent barriers they encounter
are attitudinal. Shifting attitudinal barriers is difficult to do through regulation. Instead,
the Ontario Government should be seeking to shift norms underlying discussions of
disability. Normative shifts require persuasion, especially on key potential first-movers
that will push smaller players to follow. This will require a multifaceted approach
including use of social platforms, understanding current norms, and identifying key
messages and potential first-movers.
Action:
i. Identify current norms and conversational trends surrounding issues of
disability and accessibility in Ontario, emphasizing social platforms and
mainstream media to maximize reach. The focus needs to be outside of
advocacy groups
ii. Identify potential first-movers that could be engaged to shift conversations on
disability in Ontario
iii. Craft potential messages to emphasize for first-movers, centering lived
experiences and the messages themselves avoiding stereotypes
iv. Create process to measure changes in conversations on disability on social
platforms over time
v. The Reviewer highly recommends engaging high-quality outside message
consultants to assist in messaging. To date, Provincial communications teams
have struggled to deliver compelling messages involving disability
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Audit of accessibility norms and conversations in Ontario context within one
year of the new Accessibility Agency receiving full funding
ii. Identification of key influencers within one year of the new Accessibility
Agency receiving full funding
iii. Crafting of targeted message points within 180 days of identification of key
influencers
iv. Launch of influence campaign leveraging and potentially funding influencers
to spread identified messaging within two years of the new Accessibility
Agency receiving full funding
v. Quarterly analysis of influence campaign impact
36
Issue Owner
i. The social influence campaign will be designed and operated by the new
Accessibility Agency
Behavioural Change Recommendation 3: Partner with Ontario’s tech leaders
to explore low-cost technology solutions to identify leaders in space and build
accountability
Context:
Given current regulatory challenges, it has been difficult to generate accountability
within the private sector. Indeed, PWD have consistently indicated few improvements in
accessibility in Ontario. Alongside this lack of accountability, there are no clear examples
of who is doing this well. To mitigate this, there is the potential to use crowd-sourced
review software to provide real time feedback for accessibility, thus identifying leaders
and laggards in this space.
Action:
i. Explore partners that can configure interfaces that enable required user inputs
for relevant accessibility information
ii. Partner with companies to add features that promote accessibility within
businesses by providing a public score that users can contribute to
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Explore partners that can configure necessary interface within one year of
launch of the new Accessibility Agency
ii. Bid out and award contract to develop program within 180 days of partner
exploration
iii. Create a fully functional pilot program within one year of awarding of this
contract; overall target is three years since the reading of this report
Issue Owner
i. The interface program is to be owned by the new Accessibility Agency
Behavioural Change Recommendation 4: Identify organizational benefits in
increasing accessibility and build appeal into communications with private
sector stakeholders
Context:
The market size of PWD should create incentives for private sector entities to increase
accessibility in order to maximize profitability. However, at present few organizations are
37
aware of the size of the disability marketplace. Moreover, inaccurate preconceptions of
PWD poverty have precluded organizations from meaningful action in this space.
From a practical standpoint, creating change is easier and more sustainable through the
realization of positive incentives than solely from the threat of regulatory penalty. Not
only does it incentivize organizations going above and beyond minimum standards, it
also reduces the cost of regularly auditing over 412,000 organizations.
Action:
i. Identify priority messages to communicate to private and public sector
stakeholders, emphasizing economic return
ii. Communicate these messages amongst stakeholders, prioritizing larger
organizations that are likely to be emulated by smaller ones
iii. Reinforce messaging during audit cycles, especially in instances of non-
compliance, to promote change
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Identification of key messages within 180 days of the new Accessibility
Agency receiving funding
ii. Targeted messaging disseminated to large public sector stakeholders within
90 days of message identification, to large private sector stakeholders within
180 days of identification, and to medium-sized stakeholders within one year.
Mass communication to small enterprises within two years of key message
identification or during audit processes, whichever is sooner
Issue Owner
i. The new Accessibility Agency is responsible for collecting and disseminating
key messages of the benefits of accessibility
Behavioural Change Recommendation 5: Deliver nudge-based programs and
tools to incentivize more prompt and effective organizational compliance
Context:
Regulation and “strong” incentives, such as those that provide additional funding, are
costly. Given the scale of change that must occur in Ontario, reducing these costs is a
public expenditure priority providing accessibility targets can be met.
One way of reducing costs is by using information sharing and the desire to emulate
more successful practices on the part of public and private organizations to “nudge”
compliance. This approach has been used most successfully in the U.K. whose
government has invested significantly in this approach.
38
Action:
i. As part of accessibility auditing and data collection processes, identify key
barriers to compliance in different sized organizations and in different
public/private sectors
ii. Identify leading and/or innovative practices that organizations have used to
overcome these barriers while maintaining proprietary information
iii. Communicate best practices in comparable organizations to those struggling
to overcome key barriers to compliance to encourage emulation and build
their internal processes and capacity
iv. Research must be global, beyond Ontario’s borders, to maximize impact.
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Identification of key barriers within one year of full Accessibility Agency
funding
ii. Identification of leading organizations that have overcome key barriers within
180 days of barrier identification
iii. Communication of key insights from leading organization to lagging
organizations within one year of identification of leading practices, to be
repeated during audit periods
Issue Owner
i. Nudge practices are to be owned by the new Accessibility Agency
Behavioural Change Recommendation 6: Tie public sector results and
execution of accessibility plans to compensation packages at Deputy Minister
level
Context:
Within an organization, two of the most significant barriers to acting on accessibility
commitments are a lack of governance and a corresponding lack of accountability.
Establishing governance and accountability starts at the top of an organization. This is
true of both the private and public sectors.
Unlike the private sector, the Ontario Government can shape governance within public
sector organizations. While recognizing the need for organizational autonomy, leaders
of Ministries – Deputy Ministers – must be held accountable for accessibility within their
Ministries to avoid a repeat of 17 years of inaction.
39
Action:
i. Tie action – the publication of accessibility plans and the meeting of their
goals – to compensation for Deputy Ministers. This will establish individual
responsibility for instituting proper internal governance and accountability
models. To be clear, the Reviewer is recommending that Deputy Ministers be
required to sign accessibility plans and that their pay be cut by at least 5% if
they do not meet the objectives on accessibility in their plans
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Progress, measured in annual progress reports of accessibility plans, to be tied
to Deputy Minister signing and pay within three years
Issue Owner
i. Responsibility for ensuring signing of accessibility plans and pay incentives
are executed will rest with the Treasury Board Secretariat, supported by the
new Accessibility Agency.
Behavioural Change Recommendation 7: Formally recognize disability as
core platform of Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG)
Context:
At present, ESG is a key pillar shaping business decisions, and one of the core concepts
encouraging and incentivizing businesses and public sector organizations to conduct
their business and service delivery in ways that capture emerging demand. Explicitly
including disability under the “social” component of ESG will accelerate action within
organizations by providing easier socialization and harmonizing accessibility initiatives
with other areas of corporate governance. Tying accessibility to ESG is also a no-cost
way of the Ontario Government signalling the importance of this issue. It also presents
an opportunity for the Ontario Government to demonstrate leadership on this file.
Action:
i. Identify leading large private organizations willing to be first movers in
integrating accessibility into ESG
ii. Alongside potential first movers, collaborate on relevant accessibility
standards and definitions to be incorporated into ESG umbrella – for example,
The Global Reporting Initiative7
iii. Provide public support to first movers, including announcements from senior
government leadership and funding mechanisms
7 Information on The Global Reporting Initiative can be found here
40
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Identify first movers within 1 year, consistent with timelines for nudge tactics
ii. Working with first movers, create definitions within 180 days of identification
of first movers
iii. Relevant public sector leaders to support announcements from first movers at
discretion of first movers
Issue Owner
i. The new Accessibility Agency will be responsible for identifying potential first
movers
ii. The Ontario Financing Authority will be responsible for working with first
movers to establish definitions and to publicly support announcements
Behavioural Change Recommendation 8: Explore and pilot technology and
digital solutions to bypass built environment barriers
Context:
Remediations to built environment, while necessary, are both costly and time
consuming. To ensure inclusion of PWD in the workplace and as consumers, it is
essential to develop rapid solutions that can bypass barriers in the built environment
while barriers are remediated. Technology can be leveraged to temporarily overcome
these barriers. In particular, insights from the Covid-19 Pandemic can be leveraged to
understand how to maximize participation even when built environments remain
inaccessible. This includes working from home, digital shopping, and increases in
services offered online. Providing a stop-gap to built environment barriers will increase
Ontario’s workforce and consumer base. Moreover, it should be noted that in the survey
commissioned by the 4th Reviewer, PWD consistently indicated they faced few, if any,
digital barriers when compared to built environments.
Action:
i. Identify industries that provide greatest impact from implementing digital
technologies that emphasize working from home
ii. Create and fund pilot project to implement/incentivize digital solutions in
select, high value sectors.
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Begin return on investment (ROI) analysis for digital solutions within one year
of launch of the new Accessibility Agency
ii. Completion of ROI analysis within 180 days
iii. Launch of first pilot program within 180 days of completion of ROI analysis
iv. Public report on preliminary project results after 180 days of program
41
Issue Owner
i. The new Accessibility Agency will be responsible for conducting research and
this pilot project(s)
Tactical Recommendation Area 3: Mobilizing Government Actions
Notwithstanding the Reviewer’s Strategic Recommendations, there is need to further
mobilize government action in two key areas: cooperation between levels of
government and the enforcement of accessibility legislation in both the public sector
(auditing themselves) and the private sector.
Mobilizing Government Recommendation 1: Develop a cooperation
framework between levels of government that clarifies their roles in
improving accessibility
Context:
Once the Strategic Recommendations are completed it will be necessary to develop
clear role expectations for three levels of government: federal, provincial, and municipal.
Even prior to the completion of the Strategic Recommendations there is a key need to
harmonize provincial and municipal service delivery, as municipalities are often on the
front line of service delivery, with the provincial government providing funding.
Action:
i. Assess level of need to initiate reforms based on specific levels of
government. This should be done in consultation with key stakeholders,
including a range of municipalities across the province that vary along key
demographic factors such as age, population, and population density.
ii. Assign a federal liaison to coordinate with the new Accessibility Agency to
ensure cooperation between three levels of government. Given existing
overlap with the ACA, it is imperative that this liaison work with all three levels
of government even before completion of Strategic Recommendations
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Assessment of potential reforms across levels of government completed
within one year of the publication of the provincial accessibility plans
ii. Appointment of federal liaison within one year of the publication of provincial
accessibility plans
Issue Owner
i. The federal liaison will be tied to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.
42
ii. The assessment of potential reforms will be done by the new Accessibility
Agency, in collaboration with stakeholders across levels of government
Mobilizing Government Recommendation 2: Strengthen enforcement measures
Context:
Independent reviews of the AODA have consistently found that enforcement is non-
existent. This is in large part due to lack of resources made available given the number
of organizations subject to the AODA. While the Reviewer views positive incentives –
“carrots” – as preferable to sanctions, sanctions must be available as a viable policy
lever. Enforcement should fall under the purview of the new Accessibility Agency to
ensure the power to sanction is combined with the knowledge necessary to utilize
complementary tactics such as nudging.
Action:
i. Provide resources to Accessibility Agency to increase number of audits and
site inspections – the level of which should be similar in scale to Ontario
Securities regulations and CRA audit/enforcement metrics
ii. Leveraging data collection and organizations identified as leaders in the
accessibility space, provide necessary support to small and medium
enterprises to comply with regulations (see also Behavioural Change
Recommendation 5)
iii. Provide greater authority to relevant enforcement officials, including the
ability to publicize and prosecute instances of non-compliance
iv. KEY SHIFT: Establish complaint procedures for centralized resolutions of
public sector barriers
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Develop and implement public complaint procedures within 1 year of the
tabling of this document
ii. Provide greater authority to enforcement officials within 1 year of the tabling
of this document
iii. Allocate additional resources for hiring within provincial jurisdiction of AODA
enforcement (keeping in mind strategic recommendations), within 3 years of
the tabling of this document
iv. Create a package of support tools for small and medium enterprises –
including explicit funding – to comply with the AODA, leveraging insights
from Research and Behavioural Change Recommendations, within two years
of the tabling of this document
43
Issue Owner
i. Enforcement and complaint mechanisms should be owned by the new
Accessibility Agency
Mobilizing Government Recommendation 3: Create the permanent position
of Assistant Auditor General, Commissioner of Accessibility within the Office
of the Auditor General of Ontario
Context:
The role of Reviewer has proven to be a dull tool to hold the government of the day to
account on accessibility. Four consecutive reviews have found fundamental gaps in
implementing the AODA. Clearly, this approach has not been effective. Furthermore, it is
unclear whether the AODA allows for continued reviews after 2025.
In creating the new role of Assistant Auditor General, Commissioner of Accessibility
within the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, a more consistent approach to
oversight is created. This action also elevates accessibility to a prominent place within
the formal oversight regime of the province. Given the scale and scope of disability and
17 years of inaction from two duly elected governments, the Reviewer sees this as an
appropriate impetus for oversight and public accountability.
Action:
i. Establish the role of Assistant Auditor General, Commissioner of Accessibility
within the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario
ii. Assistant Auditor General, Commissioner of Accessibility, along with the
Auditor General is to report to the Ontario Legislature on the State of
Accessibility in Ontario no less than annually.
iii. These reports must include the following:
a. An independent assessment regarding progress made on the Crisis
Recommendations made in this report. This shall continue until the
Auditor General deems the crisis over
b. A financial accounting of program spending for accessibility within
Ontario’s broader public sector
c. An assessment of the level of accessibility in Ontario
d. Ongoing recommendations to achieve full accessibility in Ontario’s
broader public sector
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Hire the role Assistant Auditor General, Commissioner of Accessibility under the
Office of the Auditor General of Ontario within 180 days of tabling this report
44
ii. Publish an audit of action on the Crisis Recommendations contained in this
report within 270 days of the tabling of this report. Until the crisis is deemed
over by the Auditor General, subsequent gap analyses shall be published
every 90 days
iii. Publish a Report to the Ontario Legislature annually
iv. Liaise closely with the new Accessibility Agency and Ministries to educate,
provoke best practise and audit activity
Issue Owner
i. The process managed by the Commissioner of Accessibility is to be owned by
the Office of the Auditor General.
Tactical Recommendation Area 4: Built Environments
It is the assessment of the 4th Reviewer that built environments must be considered
separate from other accessibility initiatives and projects. The reason for this is twofold.
First, the cost of remediating built environments far exceeds the capacities of most small
or medium enterprises to do so. Even for large organizations, the amount of property
owned can make the cost of full remediation difficult if not impossible.
Second, built environment concerns pose a material risk to the Ontario economy. The
Accessible Canada Act mandates that all federally regulated entities must remove
barriers in their built environment. These entities – including all financial institutions and
telecommunications providers – are major leaseholders in some of the most lucrative
real estate markets in the province. Unless these buildings can be remediated, these
organizations will have little choice but to abandon such leases. This will put significant
downward pressure on corporate real estate valuations, leading to reduced revenue for
the province and larger municipalities.
Built Environment Recommendation 1: Provide financial and non-financial
support for existing and new built environment projects as they pertain to
accessibility
Context:
The cost of built environment remediations exceeds the ability of organizations to
unilaterally bear. Without government intervention, this will create high levels of risk as
leases to federally regulated entities expire. These types of interventions represent a
perfect risk mitigation role for governments in a market economy.
45
Action:
i. Explore social impact bonds for high-cost infrastructure projects (see also
Behavioural Change Recommendation 1)
ii. Issue negative interest rate loans for built environment improvements. These
loans should incur negative interest providing accessibility goals are being
met, thus incentivizing built environment improvements. Priority should be
given to spaces leased by federally regulated entities to mitigate future
economic risk
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. For timelines on social bonds see Behavioural Change Recommendation 1
ii. Assess requirements and feasibility of negative interest rate loans within one
year of tabling this report
iii. Providing loans are feasible, open first round of applications and assessments
within 180 days of completing assessment of feasibility, prioritizing those
space leased to federally regulated entities and those with greatest financial
risk
iv. Expansion of program to other entities within five years of launch, prioritizing
based on highest cost and number of persons impacted by potential barriers
Issue Owner
ii. The loan program is to be owned by the Ministry of Economic Development,
Job Creation and Trade
Built Environment Recommendation 2: Audit accessibility of public sector
built environments
Context:
It is probable that large amounts of public sector real estate fall short of accessibility
requirements. This is in large part due to the large number of older buildings in use
across the province. However, to be a leading organization that the private sector can
emulate, the Ontario Government must prioritize its own accessibility. The first step to
doing this is identifying current gaps, while also making these gaps public to ensure
accountability.
Action:
i. Conduct full accessibility audit of all provincial building, prioritizing education
and healthcare
ii. Publication of audit results on accessibility dashboard
46
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Commencement of audit process within 180 days of tabling of this report
Issue Owner
i. Each Ministry to be responsible for the auditing of its built environments, in
consultation with the new Accessibility Agency
Built Environment Recommendation 3: Ministry of Infrastructure to become
Center of Excellence for accessibility in built environments
Context:
As both a high-cost area and one in which the province will be making continued
investments to both its property holdings and those in the private sector, it is essential
to develop centralized built environment expertise. Consistent with the principle of
separating the built environment from the remainder of accessibility initiatives, this
expertise should reside within the Ministry of Infrastructure.
Action:
i. Identify best practices in built environment remediations by identifying
leading players and practices in this space
ii. Create repeatable processes and benchmarks for remediations in different
built environments that can be provided to public and private stakeholders
iii. Create an action team within the Ministry of Infrastructure that can provide
expertise and advice to private and public stakeholders for all new projects
and remediations
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. Identification of best practices and leading actors in this space within two
years of tabling of this document.
ii. Creation and publication of sharable documents within 180 days of identifying
best practices
iii. Action team within the Ministry of Infrastructure to be created within two
years of the tabling of this document
Issue Owner
i. New Accessibility Agency to be responsible for initial identification of best
practices and leading actors
ii. Ministry of Infrastructure responsible for creating sharable documents and
building internal expertise in consultation with the new Accessibility Agency
iii. New Accessibility Agency to provide oversight of program
47
Built Environment Recommendation 4: All provincial buildings to be
accessible by 2030
Context:
Given the current state of accessibility progress in Ontario, the goal of provincial
government real estate being accessible by 2025 is unrealistic. A 2030 timeline is
plausible with material investment. These investments must be made. The Ontario
Government must demonstrate leadership in the built environment – the most costly
aspect of accessibility – so others will follow.
Action:
i. Full remediation of all provincial buildings, making them accessible
Timelines and Success Metrics
i. All provincial buildings pass accessibility audit by 2030
ii. Highest traffic buildings: schools, hospitals, Service Ontario, and large
provincial employers to be remediated prior to 2030 deadline
iii. Publication of audit results in 2027 and 2030, including explanations for
remaining non-compliant environments
Issue Owner
i. Each Ministry responsible for its own remediations
ii. Budgetary support to be provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat
iii. Audit of built environments to be conducted by the new Accessibility Agency
iv. New Accessibility Agency to publish audit results every three years thereafter
to maintain and improve experience for PWD
48
Conclusion
This report is not intended to be an indictment of the Ontario Government. While the
identification of gaps is necessary, the emphasis of the Recommendations Report is how
to move forward. It is the conclusion of the 4th Reviewer that accessibility in Ontario
currently constitutes a crisis, and that bold and decisive action is needed. Declaring a
crisis allows this action to occur. Within one year of the tabling of this document, the
Ontario Government must implement all Crisis Recommendations to reduce immediate
risks to life and to lay the necessary groundwork for future success in accessibility.
A second bold – and in the eyes of the Reviewer necessary – action is transitioning the
regulation of accessibility in the private sector from the Ontario Government to the
Federal Government. At present there is a wasteful duplication of regimes for some of
the largest organizations operating in the province, as well as a lack of provincial
resources to properly audit and enforce the number of small and medium enterprises in
the province. These tools are available to the Federal Government. They must be
utilized.
Finally, while the Reviewer provides 23 tactical recommendations, emphasis must be
placed on lived experience, aggregated as proper data and analysis. The single greatest
missed opportunity of the past 17 years of the AODA has been data collection. Without
data, there can be no informed decision-making, no accurate measure of improvement,
no accountability, and thus no impetus for change. More importantly, data presents the
positive case for accessibility.
The case for accessibility is clear for those with experience in disability economics. At
least 2.9 million Ontarians currently live with a disability. This number is growing. These
Ontarians represent at least 22% of the consumer base and the workforce. Due to
barriers, Ontarians with disabilities are too often falling short of their full potential. This
is a massive cost to the Province of Ontario, limiting economic efficiency and
consumption. They are also voters. The conclusion of the Interim Report opened and
concluded with the question “Do you care?” The implications of getting accessibility
right – and the continually rising costs of failing to do so – are why the Ontario
Government must care. Must prioritize. And must act. Any further delays are an
unacceptable risk to the province.
49
Appendix 1: List of Organizations Consulted by the 4th
Reviewer8
• Organizations Consulted
• Accessibility Standards Advisory Council
• Accessibility Standards Canada
• AODA Alliance
• Association of Municipalities Ontario
• BC Accessibility Directorate
• Cabinet Office
• Carleton University
• Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
• City of Toronto
• Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB)
• Colleges Ontario
• Conference Board of Canada
• Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee
• Employment and Social Development Canada
• Inclusive Research Design Centre
• Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs
• Inter-University AODA Coordinators
• K-12 Education Standards Development Committee
• March of Dimes Canada
• Metrolinx
• Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery
• Ministry of Infrastructure
• Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
• Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility
• Ministry of Transportation
• Ontario Human Rights Commission
• Ontario Hospital Association
• Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association
• Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association
8 Note that the Reviewer spoke to multiple individuals at many organizations, as well as with a series of
individuals whose organizational affiliation would reveal their identity if listed here. Moreover,
consultations were with individuals within these organizations, and as such, the Reviewer did not meet
with the entirety of a given organization.
50
• Ontario Network of Accessibility Professionals
• Post-secondary Education Standards Development Committee
• Retail Council of Canada
• Supply Ontario
• Spinal Cord Injury Ontario
• Transportation Standards Development Committee
• Treasury Board Secretariat
• University of Guelph
• University of Ottawa
• University of Toronto
• Winnipeg Transit
• YMCA
• United Way of Greater Toronto Area
51
Appendix 2: Organizations who Submitted Written
Feedback to the 4th Reviewer9
Organizations
• Accessible Housing Network
• Advancement of Women Halton
• AODA Alliance
• ARCH Disability Law Centre
• Association of Municipalities of Ontario
• Citizens with Disabilities Ontario
• City of Ottawa
• Colleges of Ontario
• March of Dimes Canada
• Ontario Human Rights Commission
• Ontario Public School Boards’ Association
• Ontario Society of Occupational Therapists
• The City of Cambridge
• The City of Pickering
9 Note the Reviewer also received written submissions from individuals. To ensure anonymity, these
individuals are not listed here.