Draft Brief to the Ontario Government on the August 15, 2012 Posted Draft Regulation to Create a Public Spaces Built Environment Accessibility Standard

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

1929 Bayview Avenue Toronto, Ontario M4G 3E8

Twitter: @aodaalliance

September 20, 2012

Note: This draft has not been approved as the position of the AODA Alliance, and is still being checked for verification. We welcome feedback on this draft. Send feedback to us at: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Introduction

a) General

This brief provides our feedback on the Ontario Government's August 15, 2012 draft accessibility standard regulation. That draft accessibility standard is primarily intended to address barriers facing persons with disabilities in public spaces of the built environment. The draft regulation also includes some proposed amendments to the 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation (IAR), which was enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) to address barriers against persons with disabilities in transportation, employment and information and communication.

The draft regulation on which this brief comments was posted by the Ontario Government on its website. The August 15, 2012 draft regulation, as well as earlier proposals for the Built Environment Accessibility Standard and all our major public activities in this area, are all available on our website at http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/20120914.asp

We commend the Government for bringing forward the draft Public Places Built Environment Accessibility Standard for public comment, albeit quite belatedly. We continue to await the comprehensive Built Environment Accessibility Standard that the Government promised, and that will amend the out-dated and incomplete Ontario Building Code's accessibility provisions.

b) Who is the AODA Alliance?

The AODA Alliance is a voluntary non-partisan coalition of individuals and organizations. Its mission is:

"To contribute to the achievement of a barrier-free Ontario for all persons with disabilities, by promoting and supporting the timely, effective, and comprehensive implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act."

To learn about us, visit: http://www.aodaalliance.org

Our coalition is the successor to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. The ODA Committee advocated for over ten years for the enactment of strong, effective disability accessibility legislation. Our coalition builds on the ODA Committee’s work. We draw our membership from the ODA Committee's broad grassroots base. To learn about the ODA Committee's history, visit: http://www.odacommittee.net

We have taken a lead role in advocating for the enactment of strong and effective accessibility standards in Ontario. Among other things, we have led the campaign to get a strong and effective Built Environment Accessibility Standard enacted in Ontario. For example, Premier Dalton McGuinty's August 19, 2011 election pledge to Ontarians with disabilities to promptly enact the Built Environment Accessibility Standard was set out in a letter to the AODA Alliance, which is available at http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/090220111.asp

c) Summary of this Brief

We summarize our feedback in this brief as follows:

1. The draft regulation identifies a helpful but incomplete range of recurring accessibility barriers that impede persons with disabilities in the built environment of important public spaces in Ontario. The draft regulation needs to be revised, to effectively address a number of recurring barriers that it does not now address.

2. The draft regulation wrongly excludes all small private sector organizations from having to comply with many if not most of its requirements, regardless of whether a small private sector organization (defined solely by the number of its employees) has the resources, revenues and capacity to meet more or all of the draft regulation's requirements. The draft regulation needs to be revised, to extend these requirements to small private sector organizations that have the capacity to comply with them.

3. In a number of places, the draft regulation provides helpful technical standards. However, in a number of other important areas the standard provides only vague requirements that are hard to enforce, or only a nebulous duty to consult with persons with disabilities, but with no actual standards to meet. The draft regulation needs to be revised to incorporate more specific technical accessibility standards.

4. In a number of places, the draft regulation creates exemptions from or exceptions for its accessibility requirements that are too broad, and that are inconsistent with the "undue hardship" requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code and, in the case of public sector organizations, the Charter of Rights. The draft regulation needs to be revised, to narrow these exemptions and exceptions, to make them consistent with the narrower "undue hardship" test.

5. The time lines in the standard are far too long. The draft regulation needs to be revised to shorten several time lines.

6. We are deeply concerned that this draft regulation only addresses new developments, or substantial redevelopments. Otherwise it leaves the many, many existing barriers in the built environment of public spaces in place to continue to impede persons with disabilities. The draft regulation should be revised, where possible, to extend its requirements to removing existing barriers, where no redevelopment is underway, with time lines that are appropriate for those activities.

7. Even if this draft regulation were fully and faithfully complied with, Ontario would not reach fully accessible public spaces by 2025, even in terms of new developments and redevelopments. As such, the draft regulation needs to be substantially strengthened.

8. We are very concerned about the draft regulation's proposed amendments to the 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation that have nothing to do with the built environment. The Government did not comply with the requirements in the AODA that must be followed before it can revise an existing accessibility standard enacted under the AODA.

In the rest of this brief, we offer a series of detailed and specific recommendations to address these concerns. These are divided into three groups. First, we offer recommendations concerning the draft regulation's existing provisions governing the built environment in public spaces. Second, we offer recommendations about aspects of the built environment inpublic spaces that the draft regulation ow does not address. Third, we offer recommendations concerning sundry provisions in the draft regulation that do not pertain to the built environment in public spaces.

After all our recommendations, the brief includes two appendices setting out important supporting documents that the brief mentions. Appendix 3, at the end of this brief, gathers together in one place all the recommendations that we offer.

d) Flagging an Important Preliminary Concern

We are very concerned that the Ontario Government did not release a detailed plain language summary or explanation for the draft regulation. On a number of occasions in the past, the Government has accompanied the release of so complex a document with a plain language guide that gives enough detail to enable members of the public to work through the proposal and give detailed input. The Government did not do so here. Its accompanying explanatory materials on its website are very general. They are insufficient to serve this purpose.

The Government has not, for example, let the public know when and where it has followed or rejected recommendations from the Built Environment Standards Development Committee. That Standards Development Committee invested many, many hours of time into developing proposals for an accessibility standard to address the built environment, including, among other things, accessibility requirements for public spaces.

We have received some well-founded feedback that it is hard to provide full and meaningful input on this draft regulation without such detailed background explanatory materials. This is especially so when the draft standard in some places proposes specific technical standards. Why is the Government proposing to use the specific technical requirement that it does, rather than another, for the width of a recreational path?

We believe that all members of the public, including persons with disabilities deserve such assistance, if the mandatory 45-day consultation period on this draft regulation is to be meaningful. We have done our best to develop constructive proposals in this brief. However, we too are disadvantaged by the lack of such detailed explanatory materials. In several places, we do not here comment on some of the specific technical requirements proposed in the draft regulation. This is due to the lack of an explanation for them that would help us assess their sufficiency. It is not because we are convinced that all the technical standards in this draft regulation are acceptable.

I. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE DRAFT REGULATION'S EXISTING PROVISIONS ON THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT IN PUBLIC SPACES

1. General

Section 1 of the draft regulation proposes to amend the Integrated Accessibility Regulation to add to it Public Spaces accessibility standard requirements. While this is a matter of formality, we believe it is far better to create a separate, free-standing accessibility standard, rather than amending the Integrated Accessibility Regulation that the Government enacted in 2011. We are concerned that, by amending the existing 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation, rather than enacting a separate, stand-alone new Public Spaces accessibility standard, this can create confusion among persons with disabilities and obligated organizations.

We are concerned that the Government has not sufficiently publicized the Integrated Accessibility Regulation enacted last year. It has recently posted a Guide to the Integrated Accessibility Regulation and Compliance Wizard. They are tied to the existing 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation. There is a risk of confusion if there are two versions of the IAR floating around, the one enacted in 2011, and a second that adds new Public Spaces accessibility requirements.

It is therefore recommended that:

1. The draft regulation should be amended to create a separate, stand-alone Public Spaces accessibility standard, rather than incorporating the new Public Spaces accessibility requirements into the 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation.

2. Definitions, Application and Schedule

Section 2 of the draft regulation defines "mobility aid" as a device that is used to transport a person in a seated position.[Note: Section 2 of the draft regulation provides:"mobility aid” means a device used to facilitate the transport, in a seated posture, of a person with a disability; (“aide à la mobilité”]"This wrongly excludes, for example, a device such as a walker, that can be used by a person who is in an upright position.

It is therefore recommended that

2. Section 2 of the draft regulation should be amended to expand the definition of a mobility aid, beyond those in which a person is seated, so as to include, for example, a walker which can be used by a person who is in an upright position.

Section 80.1 of the draft regulation defines "amenities" as "items that are conveniences or services that are usable by the public, examples of which include drinking fountains, benches and garbage receptacles." It is important that the examples of amenities in the definition not serve to limit the items that would fit in this term.

It is therefore recommended that

3. The definition of “amenities” in s. 80.1 of the draft regulation should be amended to provide that the examples of "drinking fountains, benches and garbage receptacles" do not limit the items that fit in the term "amenities." This can be accomplished by altering the provision to read "…examples of which include, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, drinking fountains, benches and garbage receptacles."

Section 80.1 of the draft regulation defines "beach access routes" as "routes that are intended for public pedestrian use and that provide access to a beach recreational level from off-street parking facilities, recreational trails, exterior paths of travel and amenities." It does not say who must intend this use. This makes this definition confusing.

It is therefore recommended that

4. The definition of "beach access route" in s. 80.1 of the draft regulation should be amended to remove the term "intended," to provide instead that "beach access routes" means routes that are available for or customarily used for public pedestrian use and that provide access to a beach recreational level from off-street parking facilities, recreational trails, exterior paths of travel and amenities.

Section 80.1 of the draft regulation defines "off-street parking facilities" as including parking lots "…intended for the temporary parking of vehicles to which the public has access." The term "temporary" may be confusing to some.

It is therefore recommended that

5. Section 80.1 of the draft regulation should be amended to clarify the term "temporary" parking in the definition of "off-street parking facilities.”

Section 80.1 of the draft regulation provides in material part that “redeveloped” means "planned significant or substantial changes to public spaces …" This is the provision that can trigger obligations under this draft regulation. It is far too vague. Persons with disabilities and obligated organizations need more clarity on when an existing property is undergoing "significant or substantial changes to public spaces …."

It is therefore recommended that

6. The definition of "redevelopment" in s. 80.1 of the draft regulation should be amended to provide clear criteria for the term "significant or substantial changes to public spaces …"

3. Application

Section 80.2(2)(b) of the draft regulation exempts "small organizations" from any compliance with it, except where otherwise specified. Small organizations are those with under 50 employees, according the 2011 IAR. [Note: Section 2 of the 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation provides in material part:"small designated public sector organization" means a designated public sector organization with at least one but fewer than 50 employees; (“French”)“small organization” means an obligated organization with at least one but fewer than 50 employees in Ontario, other than the Government of Ontario, the Legislative Assembly or a designated public sector organization."]

We do not see why all small organizations, which make up the vast majority of organizations in Ontario, should get such a blanket exemption. This is especially so when this standard deals only with new developments and substantial redevelopments. This would exempt an organization even if it owns a large amount of land and has ample resources and revenues to ensure the accessibility of its public spaces.

The McGuinty Government promised that the AODA would apply to the private sector, not just the public sector. The McGuinty Liberals slammed the previous Harris Government's exemption of the private sector from their Disabilities Act, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001.

This sweeping and categorical exemption of the vast majority of the private sector flies in the face of these earlier commitments and positions.

It is therefore recommended that

7. Section 80(2)(b) of the draft regulation should be amended to remove the presumptive categorical exemption from this regulation of any small organization, regardless of their resources, revenues and capacity to comply with the draft regulation's accessibility requirements.

The time lines in s. 80.4 of the draft regulation are palpably excessive. They make this part of the regulation only apply on this very delayed schedule:

"1. For the Government of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly, January 1, 2015. 2. For designated public sector organizations, January 1, 2016. 3. For large organizations, January 1, 2017. 4. For small organizations, January 1, 2018."

This draft regulation only addresses barrier prevention. These time lines will leave organizations at liberty to continue to create new barriers in public spaces of the built environment for several years. In the case of small organizations, if they are covered at all, they won't have to start to prevent new barriers until 2018, when there will only be seven years left to meet the AODA's mandatory requirement of full accessibility by 2025.

Barrier prevention should start as soon as possible. The delay in getting it started in the important area of the built environment before now has already set Ontario back on meeting the mandatory full accessibility deadline of 2025.

We have learned from experience under the AODA that it is counterproductive to give long time lines to start taking corrective action. When the Customer Service Accessibility Standard was enacted in 2007, it gave the private sector fully five years, i.e. up to 2012, to start complying. What happened as a result was not that the private sector spent those five years preparing to meet the limited requirements of that accessibility standard. Instead, many if not most private sector organizations simply did not even start to try to comply with that accessibility standard until some time in 2011 or 2012. Years of opportunity for earlier progress were lost. Had private sector organizations been required to comply with the Customer Service Accessibility Standard sooner, Ontario would be further along the way to full accessibility by now.

The Government adhered in that earlier accessibility standard, as well as in the 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation, to the discredited idea that the Ontario Government must become accessible before other organizations should be required to do so. Under the Human Rights Code all organizations, whether in the private or public sectors, are obliged to address barriers. Some may get more time than others to finish the job, but all must immediately get started. None can justify their delay on the fact that some other organization, like the Ontario Government, is lagging behind in meeting its own accessibility requirements. Even if the Ontario Government should get shorter time lines, the gap between its time lines and that for other organizations should not be so wide.

Moreover, if the draft regulation's excessive time lines are set for barrier prevention, then when the Government later finally (and belatedly) starts to set time lines for removing existing barriers in the built environment, the time lines for removal of existing barriers will be even more delayed.

There is, for example, no reason why the Ontario Government is not now following these requirements. Since it is the Ontario Government that is setting these accessibility standards, it could easily now direct its public officials to fall into line now, and not await this regulation's final enactment.

It may be that some of the specific requirements in the draft regulation need more time than others. Regrettably, the draft regulation sets a single time line for all its requirements. That means that those that could be met the soonest are wrongly delayed, to accommodate those that may take the longest.

It is therefore recommended that

8. The time lines for complying with the public spaces accessibility requirements, set out in Section 80.4 of the draft regulation, should be amended to set different time lines for different activities. Alternatively, if the draft regulation is to set a single time line for all activities, then these should be amended to provide:

For the Government of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly, July 1, 2013. For designated public sector organizations, January 1, 2014 For large organizations, January 1, 2014. For small organizations, July 1, 2014.

4. Recreational Trails and Beach Access Routes, General Trails

Section 80.5(2) of the draft regulation gives a blanket exemption from this Part to:

"2. Trails that are not regularly maintained, such as wilderness trails including backcountry trails and portage routes."

This is far too broad an exemption. It does not define "regularly maintained." Thus, neither persons with disabilities nor obligated organizations will have any idea when and whether these requirements will apply to such trails. Moreover, it ultimately lets an organization decide whether it wants to comply with these accessibility requirements by deciding whether it will maintain a trail regularly or irregularly. That boils down to a régime of voluntary compliance by an organization.

When in opposition from 1995 to 2003, the McGuinty Liberals repeatedly criticized the previous Harris Government for leaving it to organizations to voluntarily provide accessibility if they wished. Back then, the McGuinty Liberals said persons with disabilities deserved much better. We deserve mandatory, enforceable legislation. On that score, this provision falls far short.

It is therefore recommended that

8. Section 80.5(2) of the draft regulation should be amended to remove the blanket exemption for trails that are not "regularly" maintained. If any exemption is to be implemented, it should be much narrower, and should not have the effect of leaving organizations free to voluntarily comply or not comply with related accessibility as they wish.

Consultation, Recreational Trails

It is helpful that s. 80.7(1) requires any organization except a small organization to consult on a specified list of topics, before creating or redeveloping a recreational trail. [Note: Section 80.7(1) of the draft regulation provides:"80.7(1) Obligated organizations, other than small organizations, shall consult on the following before they develop new or redevelop existing recreational trails: 1. The slope of the trail. 2. The need for and location and design of, i.rest areas, ii.passing areas, iii.viewing areas, and iv.amenities on the trail."] However, this provision has two problems. First, it entirely exempts small organizations. If there are circumstances when a small organization should not be required to undertake such a consultation, these should be spelled out, rather than giving all small organizations a wall-to-wall exemption.

Second, where it requires an organization to consult with persons with disabilities, it should make the list more flexible than limiting it to the specific list of topics set out in the draft regulation. If the organization is taking the effort to consult with persons with disabilities, and persons with disabilities are taking the time to offer ideas, the list of accessibility issues for the trail should not be artificially truncated.

It is therefore recommended that

9. Section 80.7(1) of the draft regulation should be amended to remove the categorical exemption for small organizations from having to do any consultation whatsoever with persons with disabilities on accessibility needs when creating or redeveloping a recreational trail.

10. Section 80.7(1) of the draft regulation should be amended to open up the list of accessibility topics on which an organization should consult with persons with disabilities when creating or redeveloping a recreational trail, rather than setting out a list of the only accessibility topics for that trail on which the organization must consult with persons with disabilities.

Section 80.7(2) of the draft regulation describes with whom an organization must consult when conducting a consultation that s. 80.7(1) requires on a new or redeveloped recreational trail. [Note: Section 80.7(2) provides:(2) Obligated organizations, other than small organizations, shall consult on the matters referred to in subsection (1) in the following manner:1. The Government of Ontario, the Legislative Assembly, designated public sector organizations, other than municipalities, and large organizations must consult with the public and persons with disabilities. "80.7 (2). (2)Obligated organizations, other than small organizations, shall consult on the matters referred to in subsection (1) in the following manner: 1.The Government of Ontario, the Legislative Assembly, designated public sector organizations, other than municipalities, and large organizations must consult with the public and persons with disabilities. 2.Municipalities must consult with their municipal accessibility advisory committees, where one has been established in accordance with subsection 29 (1) or (2) of the Act, the public and persons with disabilities."]

This provision needs to be clarified, to ensure that the organization engages in a consultation that is fully accessible to and meaningful for persons with disabilities. For example, it would be insufficient to simply post a request for input on an organization's website. Too many persons with disabilities don't have access to, or face barriers when trying to access the internet. An organization may not yet have a fully accessible website. The time lines for making websites accessible under the 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation are far too long. Moreover, persons with disabilities do not daily troll the internet, to see if an organization has posted a website notice of a consultation on the accessibility of recreational trails.

We recognize that the extent of consultation measures can and should be tailored to the size and resources of an obligated organization.

It is therefore recommended that

11. Section 80.7 of the draft regulation should be amended to spell out steps that an organization must take, to ensure that their consultation reaches Ontario's diverse population of persons with disabilities, and should make it clear that posting an invitation for input on the organization's website is not, standing alone, sufficient.

5. Technical Requirements for Recreational Trails

Section 80.8(1) of the draft regulation sets out requirements about the width of the trail.[Note: Section 80.8(1) of the draft regulation provides in material part:"80.8(1) Obligated organizations, other than small organizations, shall ensurethat new and redeveloped recreational trails meet the following technical requirements: 1.A recreational trail must have a minimum clear width of 1,000 mm. …"] We have received feedback for this and other comparable requirements in the draft regulation. This may not accommodate two mobility aids, such as two wheelchairs, attempting to pass each other.

It is therefore recommended that

12. Section 80.8(1) and other parts of the draft regulation that specify widths of paths of travel should be amended to ensure that they can accommodate space for two mobility devices, such as two wheelchairs, to pass each other.

The draft regulation sets out requirements for the accessibility of signs on recreational trails.[Note: Section 80.8(1) of the draft regulation includes the following: "80.8(1)(8) 8. A recreational trail must have at its start signage that provides the following information: i. The length of the trail. ii. The type of surface of which the trail is constructed. iii. The average and the minimum trail width. iv. The average running slope and maximum cross slope. v.The location of amenities, where provided." The draft regulation also provides for signage accessibility requirements in s. 80.8(2) as follows "80.8(2) (2)The signage referred to in paragraph 8 of subsection (1) must have text that, (a) is high colour-contrasted with its background in order to assist with visual recognition; and (b)has the appearance of solid characters."]

It would be helpful to expand the requirements for the contents of the trail sign. The signage should indicate any other accessibility or permanent safety issues, and could also indicate whether it is a difficult trail.

It is therefore recommended that

13. Section 80.8(1)(8) of the draft regulation be amended, to require that signage on a recreational trail be required to alert the public to any accessibility or permanent safety issues on the trail, and the level of difficulty that the trail may present.

The draft regulation does not address the positioning of the signage. It would be helpful to require that the sign, wherever possible, not be placed on the trail in a way that presents an obstacle e.g. where it projects at head level or mid-body into the path, and could collide with a pedestrian with vision loss.

It is therefore recommended that:

14. Section 80.8(1)(8) of the draft regulation should be amended to require that unless impossible to do without undue hardship, signage should be positioned off the path of the recreational trail itself, so that it is not a physical obstacle to pedestrians, e.g. so a person with vision loss does not run the risk while walking on the path of colliding with the sign.

Section 80.8(8)(2) and (3) of the draft regulation requires required signs on recreational trails to include the following to make them accessible to persons with limited vision:

"(2) The signage referred to in paragraph 8 of subsection (1) must have text that,

(a) is high colour-contrasted with its background in order to assist with visual recognition; and (b) has the appearance of solid characters."

This is far too vague. It provides far too little guidance to obligated organizations. It does not ensure technical standards that are sufficient to meet the large and growing opulation of people with low vision. There should be more specific requirements to ensure that the contents of the sign are presented with letters that are large enough, a font that is clear enough, colour contrast that is distinctive enough, and lighting that is strong enough to maximize its readability.

If such specificity is not included here, it leaves it to each obligated organization to have to retain experts to advise on what they need to do. That unnecessarily shoots up the cost to those organizations of complying with this standard. It does not ensure consistency among different obligated organizations.

It is insufficient for the Government to later try to fill this gap with guides, or other supporting materials, to assist obligated organizations in trying to comply with this standard. Our three reasons for saying this here apply equally to each point in this draft regulation, where needed technical specifics are lacking.

First, we have learned that the Government takes far too long to produce such materials. In the case of the Integrated Accessibility Regulation, passed in June 2011, it took the Government over a full year to make such materials available.

Second, it takes the Government far too long to publicize such materials, when they are produced. At the time of writing this brief, the Government has done very, very little to publicizes its guide and on-line wizard for the 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation, almost two months after it first posted those guide materials on its website. We fear that most obligated organizations don't even know that those guide materials exist. Indeed, too many likely don't even know that the 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation exists.

Third, we have no way of ensuring now that the Government will include, in its future guide materials on this draft regulation, all the technical specifics that it now proposes to omit from the draft regulation itself. Finally, we have no way of ensuring that an obligated organization will comply with technical specifications in a Government guide, if they are not set out in the draft regulation itself. To be effectively enforceable, these need to be spelled out in the accessibility regulation.

The Government promised mandatory accessibility standards under the AODA. It opposed the former Harris Government, which had argued that voluntary accessibility requirements are sufficient. We commend the Government for including specific accessibility requirements in a number of places in this draft regulation. However, where technical specifics are missing, as in this instance, it is important that they be added to its provisions.

It is therefore recommended that

15. Section 80.8(8) of the draft regulation, and any other signage requirements to be imposed under this regulation, should be amended to provide that in any required signage:

a) lettering be in sans serif b) The size of fonts should harmonize with CSA's B65.1 viewing distance chart in clause 4.5.3.3: Viewing distance, 2.5 meters - font size 100 millimetre - example, external route sign viewed from street. Viewing distance, 2.3 meters - font size 75 millimetres - example, internal line transfer information. Viewing distance, 1.5 meters - font size 50 millimetres - example, route information on display map." c) Colour contrast/luminance of the lettering and the sign background should be 70%. d) The sign should be lit with 200 lux.

Section 80.8(3) of the draft regulation sets requirements for the accessibility of the information about a recreational trail provided through media other than signs, such as brochures or websites. [Note: Section 80.8(3) provides:"80.8(3) Where other media is used to provide information about a recreational trail, such as websites or brochures, the media must provide the same information as listed in paragraph 8 of subsection (1)."]

This could be helpful, if the alternative media, such as the organization's brochures or website are themselves made available in an accessible format. However, this provision does not require that. It also does not require the organization to let persons with disabilities know that such information is available through such alternative media.

It is therefore recommended that

16. Section 80.8(3) of the draft regulation should be amended to require that, where an organization provides recreational trail information, contained on signs on the trail, through other media such as the organization's websites or brochures, the organization must ensure that those alternative media are accessible to persons with disabilities, and should notify persons with disabilities of the availability of that information via those alternative media.

6. Technical Requirements for Beach Access Routes

Section 80.9 of the draft regulation sets technical accessibility requirements for beach access routes. However s. 80.9(1) totally and unjustifiably exempts all small organizations from any and all of these requirements, regardless of their resources, revenues and capacity to comply. [Note: Section 80.9(1) provides: "80.9 Obligated organizations, other than small organizations, shall ensure that new and redeveloped beach access route designs meet the following technical requirements: …"]

It is therefore recommended that

17. Section 80.9 of the draft regulation should be amended to remove the total exemption for all small organizations in any circumstance, regardless of their resources, revenues and capacity to comply.

Section 80.9(1) of the draft regulation provides that a beach access route has to be wide enough for passage and turning of people using mobility aids. That is an important need. However, this provision does not provide a minimum required width for that purpose. It only vaguely says that the path must be wide enough to let a person with a mobility aid access the land portion of a beach where recreation normally occurs, and to turn around. [Note:Section 80.9(1) provides: "1.The beach access route must have a sufficiently clear width to permit people using mobility aids i. to access the land portion of a beach where recreation normally occurs, and ii. to turn around."]

This substantially reduces the effectiveness of the standard. The whole aim here is to let organizations know how wide to make their paths. It will make enforcement more subjective and difficult.

The Government has been developing this standard for at least four years. We hope and trust that its technical advisors could enable it to set a specific minimum.

It is therefore recommended that

18. Section 80.9(1) of the draft regulation should be amended to specify the minimum width required on a beach access trail, to ensure that people with mobility devices can pass along and turn around on it.

Section 80.10(1) of the draft regulation exempts all small organizations from meeting any technical requirements for new and redeveloped Recreational Trails and Beach Access recreational trails and beach access routes, for boardwalks and ramps, no matter how readily they could meet these requirements. [Note: Section 80.10(1) provides in material part: "80.10 Obligated organizations, other than small organizations, shall ensure that new and redeveloped recreational trails and beach access routes meet the technical requirements set out in this Part in respect of boardwalks and ramps."]

It is therefore recommended that

19. Section 80.10(1) of the draft regulation should be amended to remove the total exemption from the common to Recreational Trails and Beach Access recreational trails and beach access routes, for boardwalks and ramps for any small organization, regardless of its resources, revenues or capacity to comply.

7. Exceptions to the Requirements for Recreational Trails and Beach Access Routes

Sections 80.13 and 80.14 of the draft regulation provide sweeping, excessive and entirely inappropriate exceptions to the accessibility requirements for recreational trails or beach access routes. [Note: Sections 80.13 and 80.14 provide: "80.13 Where an exception is provided to a requirement that applies to a recreational trail or a beach access route, the exception applies solely, (a) to the particular requirement for which the exception is allowed and not to any other requirement that applies to the recreational trail or beach access route; and (b)to the portion of the recreational trail or beach access route for which it is claimed and not to the recreational trail or beach access route in its entirety. Exceptions, general 80.14 Exceptions to the requirements that apply to recreational trails and beach access routes are permitted where obligated organizations, other than small organizations, can demonstrate one or more of the following: 1. The requirements or some of them would erode the heritage attributes, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act, of a property, i. listed in a municipal register as being of cultural heritage under section 27 of that Act, ii. designated by a municipality as being a property of cultural heritage value or interest under section 29 of that Act, iii. included in a heritage conservation district designated by a municipality under section 41 of that Act, iv. designated by the Minister of Culture under section 34.5 of that Act as a property of cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance, or v. designated as having national historic significance by the Minister of the Environment for Canada on the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. 2. The requirements or some of them would affect natural habitats for extirpated, endangered or threatened species as classified under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. 3. It is not practicable to comply with the requirements or some of them because existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features, such as where surrounding rocks bordering the recreational trail or beach access route impede achieving the required clear width or where the clear height of the recreational trail or beach access route requirements would result in permanently damaging vegetation growth."]

First, these exceptions are clearly more lenient than the "undue hardship" standard that an organization must meet under the Human Rights Code and, in the case of a public sector organization, the Charter of Rights as well. Section 80.14(3) creates an exemption where

"(i)t is not practicable to comply with the requirements or some of them because existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features, such as where surrounding rocks bordering the recreational trail or beach access route impede achieving the required clear width or where the clear height of the recreational trail or beach access route requirements would result in permanently damaging vegetation growth."

If the organization cannot meet the undue hardship standard, then it remains exposed to a human rights complaint, and, in the case of a public sector organization, a claim as well under the Charter of Rights. This will create the need for more litigation and more uncertainty for obligated organizations. The AODA was supposed to achieve the opposite result.

Because this regulation only deals with new construction or redevelopment, the undue hardship test will be even harder for an obligated organization to meet under the Human Rights Code or the Charter of Rights. It is very hard for an organization to show that preventing a new barrier would cause that organization undue hardship.

Second, these provisions give far too wide an exemption for heritage properties. Section 80.14(1) gives a blanket exemption from any of these accessibility requirements that "would erode the heritage attributes, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act, of a property" that is listed in a municipal register as being of cultural heritage under section 27 of that Act, or that is designated by a municipality as being a property of cultural heritage value or interest under section 29 of that Act, or that is included in a heritage conservation district designated by a municipality under section 41 of that Act, or that is designated by the Minister of Culture under section 34.5 of that Act as a property of cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance, or that is designated as having national historic significance by the Minister of the Environment for Canada on the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

The regulation gives carte blanche to an organization to disobey an accessibility requirement merely if it would erode the heritage attributes of that property. "Erode" could be found to occur if there is even a minor departure. Any "heritage attributes" could trigger this exemption, no matter how tiny or inconsequential. The exemption does not require the organization to institute alternative accessibility measures to achieve the same accessibility result as would follow from compliance with the technical requirements about which the organization is concerned.

It is important that decisions about providing accessibility for persons with disabilities not be delegated to heritage officials. We are deeply concerned that such "heritage" considerations are easily and unfairly overblown. They should not trump accessibility for persons with disabilities.

As one example, in recent years, there was unwarranted and inappropriate push-back against making the front door accessible for the historic Osgood Hall courthouse in downtown Toronto. Municipal heritage officials and others claimed that this would erode the heritage features of that building. Commendably, the Ontario Government rejected those claims. It decided to make accessibility the primary consideration. The result was an excellent new accessible walkway to the front door of the historic Osgoode Hall courthouse, that replaced the supposedly "historic" steps. Had the views of municipal heritage officials and others objectors been heeded, persons with disabilities would not have secured full, ready and equal access to that important and historic building through its front door. The new ramp is now a benefit for persons with disabilities, as well as for lawyers, judges and others who come to court with large bags of court materials on wheels.

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

Third, section 80.14(2) creates far too broad an exemption for protecting the natural habitat by giving an organization carte blanche to disregard these accessibility requirements where they "would affect natural habitats for extirpated, endangered or threatened species as classified under the Endangered Species Act, 2007." The impact on the natural habitat need not be significant, nor need the organization find alternative ways to protect that habitat. It is difficult to see why that habitat won't be endangered by people walking through it, and yet they will be adversely affected by persons with disabilities having an accessible way to also travel on a path through it.

It is therefore recommended that

20. Section 14's exceptions and exemptions from the recreational trail and beach access path accessibility requirements of the draft regulation should be replaced with a requirement that would allow for an exception only where the organization can show that there is no way to comply with those requirements or to otherwise achieve full accessibility without undue hardship to that organization. The exemptions should not give undue primacy to heritage considerations over accessibility.

8. Outdoor Public Use Eating Areas

Section 80.15 of the draft regulation delineates accessibility requirements for public use outdoor eating areas, such as those in public parks, at hospitals and universities. [Note: It is important that these examples not unduly limit the range of the public outdoor areas where they can apply.

It is therefore recommended that

21. Section 80.15 of the draft regulation should be amended so that the examples of public outdoor eating tables at universities, public parks and hospitals do not restrict the range of outdoor public eating areas to which the applicable requirements apply.

Section 80.16 of the draft regulation improperly exempts all small organizations from requirements in this area, regardless of their total resources, revenues, or capacity to comply. [Note: Section 80.15 provides: "80.15 The requirements in section 80.23 apply to outdoor public use eating areas that consist of tables that are found in public areas, such as in public parks, on hospital grounds and on university campuses."]

It is therefore recommended that

22. Section 80.16 of the draft regulation should be amended to remove the total exemption of all small organizations from requirements regarding outdoor public eating areas, regardless of an organization's resources, revenues and capacity to comply.

Section 80.16(1) of the draft regulation only requires that 20 percent of the outdoor tables be accessible. [Note: Section 80.16(1) provides: "1. A minimum of 20 per cent of the tables that are provided must be accessible to people using mobility aids by having knee and toe clearance underneath the table; in no case, shall there be fewer than one table in an outdoor public use eating area that meets this requirement."] Absent a showing that the organization has limited space, or that the cost of accessible tables would impose an undue hardship, this appears too limited.

It is therefore recommended that

23. Section 80.16(1) of the draft regulation should be amended to require that 40% of tables at an outdoor public eating area covered by this regulation meet the regulation's accessibility requirements, unless the organization can show that providing more than 20% would cause it an undue hardship, having regard to the available space and cost.

This regulation does not require any signage indicating that certain tables are accessible, and giving persons with disabilities priority access to them. It is likely that many people without disabilities and indeed, persons with disabilities, won't know about this absent signage telling them about it.

It is therefore recommended that

24. Section 80.16 of the draft regulation should be amended to add a requirement that signage be provided in an accessible format, meeting technical specifications in these recommendations for signage, indicating which tables are accessible in an outdoor public eating area, and indicating that persons with disabilities have priority access to those tables.

9. Outdoor Play Spaces

Section 80.18 of the draft regulation gives an unjustified blanket exemption to play areas on the property of any small organization, regardless of a small organization's resources, revenues and capacity to incorporate accessibility into the design of the play space. [Note: Section 80.18 provides:"80.18 Obligated organizations, other than small organizations, shall incorporate accessibility features for children and caregivers with various disabilities into the design of outdoor play spaces when developing new or redeveloping existing play spaces."]

It is therefore recommended that

25. Section 80.18 of the draft regulation should be amended to remove the blanket exemption for any small organization from complying with play space accessibility requirements, regardless of that organization's resources, revenues, and capacity to incorporate accessibility into the design of a new or redeveloped play space.

Section 80.19 of the draft regulation includes a helpful provision requiring public consultations on the accessibility needs of persons with disabilities in a play space. [Note: Section 80.19 provides: "80.19 When developing new or redeveloping existing outdoor play spaces, obligated organizations, other than small organizations, shall consult on the needs of children and caregivers with disabilities and shall do so in the following manner: 1. The Government of Ontario, the Legislative Assembly, designated public sector organizations, other than municipalities, and large organizations must consult with the public and persons with disabilities. 2. Municipalities must consult with their municipal accessibility advisory committees, where one has been established in accordance with subsection 29 (1) or (2) of the Act, the public and persons with disabilities." ] However, it needs to be clarified along the same lines recommended above for public consultations on accessibility needs for recreational trails and beach access paths.

It is therefore recommended that

26. Section 80.19 of the draft regulation should be amended to

a) Expand its requirements to small organizations where suitable, and b) Spell out steps that an organization must take to ensure that their consultation reaches Ontario's diverse population of persons with disabilities, and should make it clear that posting an invitation for input on the organization's website is not, standing alone, sufficient.

This part of the draft regulation does not impose any accessibility requirements beyond a duty to consult on the needs of persons with disabilities. This falls far short of the needs of persons with disabilities. There has been sufficient work in Ontario and elsewhere, including the U.S., in the area of accessible play areas for children with disabilities, to enable the Government to implement some detailed technical standards in this area.

Each organization should not have to re-invent the wheel. An accessibility standard under the AODA is supposed to set a standard i.e. set actual accessibility requirements, and not simply require an organization to consult. Under this provision, an organization can consult and then ignore all the advice that persons with disabilities give, resulting in an inaccessible play area that could have been designed to include helpful and meaningful accessibility features.

There are examples of standards on which Ontario can draw for setting a meaningful accessibility standard in this area. We refer the Government, for example, to readily available resources:

Accessible Play Areas Guidelines: www.access-board.gov/play/guide/guide.pdf

It is therefore recommended that

27. Section 80.19 of the draft regulation should be amended to impose detailed technical accessibility requirements for play spaces, beyond a duty to consult with persons with disabilities on accessibility.

10. Exterior Paths of Travel

Section 80.21 of the draft regulation includes outdoor walkways "designed for pedestrian travel that serve a functional purpose" and "are not intended to provide a recreational experience." [Note: Section 80.20(1) provides: "80.20 (1)This Part applies to exterior paths of travel that are outdoor sidewalks or walkways designed for pedestrian travel that serve a functional purpose and are not intended to provide a recreational experience."] This is unclear and confusing. Many may not know what a "functional purpose" is. It is not evident who must intend that the walkway not serve a recreational purpose. We see no evident reason why a recreational walkway should be exempt.

It is therefore recommended that

28. Section 80.20(1) of the draft regulation should be amended to clarify or remove the terms "functional purpose" and "recreational experience" and to identify whose intent determines the classification of the walkway.

Section 80.22 of the draft regulation creates an unjustified exemption from technical accessibility requirements for new or redeveloped exterior routes of travel, for all small organizations, regardless of the organization's resources, revenues or capacity to comply. [Note: Section 80.22 provides: "80.22 When developing new or redeveloping existing exterior paths of travel obligated…"] For example, it could not be a hardship, much less an undue one, for any small organization whatsoever to ensure that such routes have a firm, stable and slip-resistant surface.

It is therefore recommended that

29. Section 80.22 of the draft regulation should be amended to remove the blanket exemption for all small organizations, regardless of their resources, revenues or capacity to comply, from technical accessibility requirements for new or redeveloped exterior routes of travel.

11. Exterior Paths of Travel, Stairs

For external stairs on external paths of travel, section 80.24(6) and (7) of the draft regulation impose colour contrast and tactile walking surface indicator requirements. [Note: Section 80.24 provides in material part as follows: "80.24 Where stairs are provided on exterior paths of travel, they must meet the following requirements: … 6. Stairs must have high colour contrast markings that extend the full tread width of the leading edge of each step. 7. Stairs must be equipped with tactile walking surface indicators that are built in or applied to the walking surface and that warn individuals who are visibly impaired of hazards, such as a change in elevation. The tactile walking surfaces must, i.be located at the top of all flights of stairs, and ii. extend the full tread width to a minimum depth of 610 mm commencing one tread depth from the edge of the top step.] It is good that section 80.24(5) of the draft regulation seeks to require adequate colour contrasting on stairs. This is very important to everyone, and especially people with low vision. However, the requirement is not sufficiently specific to ensure that all needed measures are implemented.

Section 80.24(5) of the draft regulation provides in material part:

"Stairs must have high colour contrast markings that extend the full tread width of the leading edge of each step"

It is therefore recommended that

30. Section 80.24(5) of the draft regulation should be amended to require that the nosing of stairs have a colour contrast of 70% and a minimum width of the colour demarcation of 50 mm.

Section 80.24(7) of the draft regulation refers incorrectly to "individuals who are visibly impaired."

It is therefore recommended that

31. Section 80.24(7) of the draft regulation should be amended to replace the term "visibly impaired" with the term "vision impaired."

Sections 80.25 and 80.26 of the draft regulation impose requirements on the dimensions of curb cuts, including a requirement for tactile walking surface indicators. [Note: Sections 80.25 and 80.26 provide: 80.25(1) Where curb ramps are provided on exterior paths of travel, they must align with the direction of travel and meet the following requirements: 1. Curb ramps must have a minimum clear width of 1,200 mm, exclusive of any flared sides. 2. The running slope of curb ramps must, i. be 1:8 to 1:10, where elevation is less than 75 mm, and ii. be 1:10 to 1:12, where elevation is greater than 75 mm and less than 200 mm. 3. The maximum cross slope of curb ramps must be no more than 1:50. 4. The maximum slope on the flared side of a curb ramp must be no more than 1:10. 5. Where curb ramps are provided at pedestrian crossings, they must have tactile walking surface indicators that, i. are located at the bottom of the curb ramp, ii. are set back between 150 mm and 200 mm from the curb edge, iii. extend the full width of the curb ramp, and iv. are a minimum of 610 mm in depth. (2) For the purposes of this section, curb ramps are ramps that are cut through a curb or that are built up to a curb. Exterior paths of travel, depressed curbs 80.26(1)Where depressed curbs are provided on exterior paths of travel, they must meet the following requirements: 1. Depressed curbs must have a maximum running slope of 1:20. 2. Depressed curbs must be aligned with the direction of travel. 3. Where depressed curbs are provided at pedestrian crossings, they must have tactile walking surface indicators that, i. are located at the bottom portion of the depressed curb that is flush with the roadway, ii. are set back between 150 mm and 200 mm from the curb edge, and iii. are a minimum of 610 mm in depth. (3) For the purposes of this section, depressed curbs are seamless gradual slopes at transitions between sidewalks and walkways and highways, and are usually found at intersections."] These provisions do not require curb cuts to be shaped with a corner, or anything that approximates a right-angled corner. They are too often rounded or curved. A blind person is trained to "square off" with a sidewalk's edge, so that they cam aim themselves to walk directly across the road, without accidentally veering into oncoming traffic. Curved curb cuts are a serious impediment to this and can thus present a safety hazard. A curb cut need not be rounded to enable it to facilitate easy access onto the curb for a person using a mobility device or who otherwise cannot walk up a step.

It is therefore recommended that

32. Sections 80.25 and 80.26 of the draft regulation should be amended to require that curb cuts at intersections be shaped to as much as possible approximate a right angle, to enable pedestrians with vision loss to effectively square off against the edge of the curb when crossing a street at an intersection or crosswalk.

It is helpful that the draft regulation seeks to require a tactile walking surface indicator at curb cuts. However, these provisions need to be substantially strengthened to make them effective.

For example, we understand that some municipalities may use grooves cut in the sidewalk to serve as a tactile walking surface indicator. A groove cut in the sidewalk is useless for that purpose. It may not be detectable by a white cane or under one's shoes. It can easily feel like a simple crack on the sidewalk which doesn't inform the pedestrian about safe routes of travel. It would be hard for a person to know from the touch of a cane or under the shoe whether the groove is meant as a tactile walking surface indicator, or is just a crack in the sidewalk.

The slightest amount of snow, ice or dirt can fill or cover the groove. Seizing up or shifting of the sidewalk over time can have the same detrimental effect.

Instead of a groove, the tactile walking surface indicator should include raised bumps that are easily detected by a white cane or under foot. This need not pose any risk to any other pedestrian. Tactile walking surface indicators also need to be colour contrasted with the surrounding ground surface, so that they are easily seen by people with low vision.

It is therefore recommended that.

33. Section 80.1 of the draft regulation should be amended to include the following definition of tactile walking surface indicators

"Tactile walking surface indicators" are detectable truncated domes that colour contrast with the surrounding surfaces. They are detectable under the foot and with a cane. The height of the truncated domes should be 4 mm to 5 mm. The top diameter and corresponding spacing of truncated domes should be:

Top Diameter mm Spacing mm

12	             42 to 61
15	             45 to 63
18	             48 to 65
20	             50 to 68
25	             55 to 70

12. Exterior Paths of Travel, Accessible Pedestrian Signals

It is helpful that section 80.27 of the draft regulation requires that new traffic lights, or any replacement traffic lights must have an audible pedestrian signal (APS). The APS can be very helpful in assisting people with low vision or who are totally blind, to cross streets at crossings regulated by traffic lights.

It is, however, very counterproductive, and entirely unjustified that this section requires these APS devices to be "push button" audible pedestrian signals. [Note: Section 80.27 provides: "80.27(1) Where new pedestrian signals are being installed at pedestrian street crossings or existing pedestrian signals are being replaced, they must be pushbutton-integrated accessible pedestrian signals. (2) Pushbutton-integrated accessible pedestrian signals must meet the following requirements:1. They must have a locator tone that is distinct from a walk indicator tone. 2. They must be installed within 1,500 mm of the edge of the curb. 3. They must be mounted at a maximum of 1,100 mm above ground level. 4. They must have tactile arrows that align with the direction of crossing. 5. They must include both audible and vibro-tactile walk indicators. (3) Where two pushbutton assemblies are installed on the same corner, they must be a minimum of 3,000 mm apart. (4) Where the requirements in subsection (3) cannot be met because of site constraints or existing infrastructure, two pushbutton assemblies can be installed on a single post, and when this occurs, a verbal announcement must clearly state which crossing is active."] A person with vision loss will not get the benefit of the audible indication of the safe traffic direction unless they walk over to and find the traffic pole, reach all around it until they find the button, and push it. We are concerned that many people with vision loss will not do this. They may have a guide dog harness or cane in one hand, and may be carrying other objects like a shopping bag or briefcase in the other. In cold weather, they may not wish to remove their gloves to try to find the button. For those many people, often seniors, who are still adjusting to vision loss, this added activity may be challenging. Many may not know that they must find a button to operate them. Indeed, many experienced blind travellers may also not know they must push a button to operate them.

It is not enough for a municipality to post on its website some instructions on how to use these APS buttons. Many persons with disabilities, including many with vision loss who could benefit from APS devices are not on line, or won't know to check a municipality's website in case there is a posting somewhere on how to operate an APS device.

Some, if not many people with vision loss, try to steer clear of poles, like traffic poles, when walking along a sidewalk. This is so for many reasons. Included among these is that some members of the public unfortunately choose to lock their bicycle to poles on public sidewalks. These are a hazard. This will only make even more people with vision loss reluctant to try to navigate to a pole, to try to find the button to trigger an APS.

If many do not use these APS devices because of this push button requirement, we are concerned that municipalities will complain that they spent money on this technology to no practical avail.

It is not necessary to have a push button trigger requirement on an APS. There are instances of APS devices in Toronto that do not require the push button to trigger them. Similarly, at least in the mid-2000's there were many APS in Australia that worked automatically, and not by a triggering mechanism.

If there is a concern about the sound that these devices produce, this can be addressed by reducing their volume, regulating the tone that they produce. To address noise concerns, if any, in the case of residential areas, it might be possible to require the push-button feature to be used to trigger the audible traffic signal late at night but not during the day or evening. Instead, these could be equipped to be triggered by proximity sensors.

We understand that these APS devices can be equipped to vary the level of their signal depending on traffic noise. If there is a lot of traffic noise, they get louder. If there is less traffic noise, their traffic audio prompt is softer.

It is therefore recommended that

34. Section 80.27 of the draft regulation should be amended to remove the requirement that audible pedestrian signals be push-button operated. It should instead require that audible pedestrian signals not be push-button operated except possibly in the nighttime areas of residential intersections, where no other technical solution to noise considerations can be found.

13. Exterior Paths of Travel, Rest Areas

Section 80.28 of the draft regulation provides a problematic exemption for all small organizations, regardless of their resources or capacity, from the provision to consult on the placement of rest areas on exterior paths of travel. [Note: Section 80.28 provides in material part: "80.28 When developing new or redeveloping exterior paths of travel, obligated organizations, other than small organizations, shall consult on the design and placement of rest areas along the path of travel and shall do so in the following manner:…"]

It is therefore recommended that

35. Section 80.28 of the draft regulation should be amended to remove the blanket exemption for all small organizations, regardless of their resources, revenues or capacity, from consulting regarding rest areas on exterior paths of travel.

Section 80.28 of the draft regulation provides for a duty to consult with the public including persons with disabilities on the location of rest areas on exterior paths of travel. It suffers from the same lack of specific requirements as are identified earlier in this brief for other public consultations. [Note: Section 80.28 provides in material part regarding consultations on location of rest areas on exterior paths of travel: "1. The Government of Ontario, the Legislative Assembly, designated public sector organizations, other than municipalities, and large organizations must consult with the public and persons with disabilities. 2. Municipalities must consult with their municipal accessibility advisory committees, where one has been established in accordance with subsection 29 (1) or (2) of the Act, the public and persons with disabilities."]

It is therefore recommended that

36. Section 80.28 of the draft regulation should be amended to spell out steps that an organization must take to ensure that their consultation on location of rest areas on exterior paths of travel reaches Ontario's diverse population of persons with disabilities, and should make it clear that posting an invitation for input on the organization's website is not, standing alone, sufficient.

Section 80.30 of the draft regulation incorrectly provides for exemptions from accessibility requirements which fall short of the undue hardship standard in the Ontario Human Rights Code, and, for public sector organizations, in the Charter of Rights. It also gives undue emphasis to heritage considerations, akin to those addressed earlier in this brief. [Note: Section 80.30 provides: "80.30 Exceptions to the requirements that apply to exterior paths of travel are permitted where obligated organizations, other than small organizations, can demonstrate one or more of the following: 1. It is not practicable to comply with the requirements or some of them because existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features, such as where increasing the width of the exterior path would narrow the width of the adjacent highway or locating an accessible pedestrian signal poles within 1,500 mm of curb edge is not feasible because of existing underground utilities. 2. The requirements of this Part or some of them would erode the heritage attributes, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act, of a property, i. listed in a municipal register as being of cultural heritage under section 27 of that Act, ii. designated by a municipality as being a property of cultural heritage value or interest under section 29 of that Act, iii. included in a heritage conservation district designated by a municipality under section 41 of that Act, iv. designated by the Minister of Culture under section 34.5 of that Act as a property of cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance, or v. designated as having national historic significance by the Minister of the Environment for Canada on the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada."]

It is therefore recommended that

37. Section 80.30 of the draft regulation should be amended to

a) limit exeptions from exterior path of travel accessibility requirements to situations where an organization can show that compliance with a specific requirement would impose undue hardship, and where the organization will otherwise achieve comparable accessibility.

b) give clear primacy to accessibility over heritage considerations, so that heritage considerations are respected where possible when designing accessibility features, but recognizing that where a clash is inevitable, the primacy goes to accessibility.

14. Accessible Parking

It is not clear to us that the exemptions that section 80.32(1) of the draft regulation grants from compliance with accessible parking requirements for off-street parking are all necessary and justified.[Note:Section 80.32(1) provides: "80.32(1) The requirements in respect of off-street parking facilities do not apply to off-street parking facilities that are used exclusively for one of the following: 1. Parking for employees. 2. Parking for buses. 3. Parking for delivery vehicles. 4. Parking for law enforcement vehicles. 5. Parking for medical transportation vehicles, such as ambulances. 6. Parking used as a parking lot for impounded vehicles. (2) The requirements in respect of off-street parking facilities do not apply to those off-street parking facilities that are not located on a barrier-free path of travel, regulated under Ontario Regulation 350/06 (Building Code) made under the Building Code Act, 1992 where obligated organizations have multiple off-street parking facilities on a single site that serve a building or facility." ] The Government needs to better explain this exemption or cut it back.

It is therefore recommended that

38. The exemptions in s. 80.32(1) of the draft regulation from the accessibility requirements for off-street parking need to be justified by the Government, or curtailed.

Section 80.35 of the draft regulation sets the percentages of accessible parking spots that are required in new and redeveloped off-street parking facilities. [Note:Section 80.35 of the draft regulation provides: "80.35(1) Off-street parking facilities must have a minimum number and type of accessible parking spaces, in accordance with the following requirements: 1. One accessible parking space, which meets the requirements of a Type A parking space, where there are 25 parking spaces or fewer 2. Four per cent of the total number of parking spaces must be accessible parking spaces where there are between 26 and 500 parking spaces in accordance with the following ratio, rounding up to the nearest whole number: i. Where an even number of accessible parking spaces are provided in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph, an equal number of parking spaces that meet the requirements of a Type A parking space and a Type B parking space must be provided. ii. Where an odd number of accessible parking spaces are provided in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph, the number of parking spaces must be divided equally between parking spaces that meet the requirements of a Type A parking space and a Type B parking space, but the additional parking space, the odd-numbered space, must be a Type B parking space.3. Twenty accessible parking spaces, and an additional two per cent of parking spaces for spaces in addition to 500, must be accessible parking spaces where more than 500 parking spaces are provided in accordance to the following ratio, rounded up to the nearest whole number: i. Where an even number of accessible parking spaces are provided in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph, an equal number of parking spaces that meet the requirements of a Type A parking space and a Type B parking space must be provided. ii. Where an odd number of accessible parking spaces are provided in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph, the number of parking spaces must be divided equally between parking spaces that meet the requirements of a Type A parking space and a Type B parking space, but the additional parking space, the odd-numbered space, must be a Type B parking space. (2) If an obligated organization provides more than one off-street parking facility at a site, the obligated organization must calculate the number and type of accessible parking spaces according to the number and type of parking spaces required for each off-street parking facility. (3) In determining the location of accessible parking spaces that must be provided where there is more than one off-street parking facility at a site, an obligated organization may distribute them among the off-street parking facilities in a manner that provides substantially equivalent or greater accessibility in terms of distance from an accessible entrance or user convenience. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the following factors may be considered in determining user convenience: 1. Protection from the weather. 2. Security. 3. Lighting. 4. Comparative maintenance…"] We believe that there is a constructive way to increase these requirements, without creating undue problems for people without disabilities who are also looking for a parking spot.

We propose that an additional new class of accessible parking spot be mandated, that might be called "optional accessible parking spot." The draft regulation could provide that people without disabilities should try to leave them available for persons with disabilities, where there are other parking spots readily available in the lot. However, where the lot is substantially full, it will be permissible for people without disabilities to park in those accessible spots without facing a penalty.

We recognize that this may be hard to police. However, it could provide more opportunities for persons with disabilities who need accessible spots. It could also enable an expansion of the available mandatory spots over time, as the proportion of persons with disabilities in society grows. These added spots would be in addition to those that the draft regulation mandates for persons with disabilities.

It is therefore recommended that

39. Section 80.35 should be amended to add a requirement for another category of accessible parking spots to be required, which are to be available for persons with disabilities, but which are also available for people without disabilities when the lot is substantially full. The regulation should specify the percentage of spots in this new class, in addition to (and not taking away from) the percentages of accessible parking spots now mandated in the draft regulation.

Section 80.37 of the draft regulation requires municipalities and certain other public sector organizations to consult on the number and location of accessible on-street parking spots to provide. [Note: Section 80.308 provides: "80.37(1) Where a designated public sector organization, other than a municipality, develops new or redevelops existing on-street parking spaces, it must consult on the need, location and design of accessible on-street parking spaces with the public and persons with disabilities.(2) Where a municipality develops new or redevelops existing on-street parking spaces, it must consult on the need, location and design of accessible on-street parking spaces and it must consult with its municipal accessibility advisory committee, where one has been established in accordance with subsection 29 (1) or (2) of the Act, the public and persons with disabilities. (3) In this section and despite section 2, “designated public sector organization” means every municipality and every person or organization described in Schedule 1 to this Regulation, but not every person or organization listed in Column 1 of Table 1 of Ontario Regulation 146/10 (Public Bodies and Commission Public Bodies — Definitions) made under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006."] This provision needs the same specifics added to it, on how to conduct that consultation, as is the case addressed earlier in this brief for other public consultation requirements in the draft regulation.

This provision also falls far short of what is needed because it sets no actual requirements to provide accessible on-street parking spots, to any level. It does not provide any criteria for assessing the need for such spots.

It is therefore recommended that

40. Section 80.37 of the draft regulation should be amended to impose substantive requirements on the level of accessible on-street parking to be provided, and setting criteria to govern this, e g. higher need in high use areas, near public transit stations, or near important urban locations (like government offices).

15. Obtaining Services

Sections 80.38 to 80.41 of the draft regulation impose helpful requirements for new and redeveloped service areas for the public, both inside and outside buildings.

The requirements for accessible service counters and fixed queuing guides applies to new counters and new fixed queuing guides, but not redeveloped counters or fixed queuing guides, according to section 80.38(1) of the draft regulation. [Note: Section 80.38(1) provides in material part: "80.38(1) All obligated organizations, including small organizations, shall ensure that the following meet the requirements set out in this Part: 1. All new means of obtaining services in respect of service counters and fixed queuing guides."] It should also apply to redeveloped public service counters.

It is therefore recommended that

41. Section 80.38(1) of the draft regulation should be amended to require that redeveloped public service counters and fixed queuing guides, and not just new public service counters, meet this regulation's accessibility requirements.

A major concern with these provisions is that they do not provide enough detailed specific technical requirements. Organizations again will have to guess or repeatedly re-invent the wheel. That unnecessarily shifts an avoidable added research cost to those obligated organizations. It unfairly leaves persons with disabilities uncertain about what they can complain about and seek enforcement of under this standard.

Section 80.39(2) of the draft regulation does not provide technical specifications for an accessible public service counter. It only uses vague language that could be open to dispute. [Note: Section 80.39(2) provides: "(2) The service counter that accommodates mobility aids must meet the following requirements: 1. The countertop height must be such that it is usable by a person seated in a mobility aid. 2. There must be sufficient knee clearance for a person seated in a mobility aid, where a forward approach to the counter is required. 3. The floor space in front of the counter must be sufficiently clear so as to accommodate a mobility aid."] The same is so in s. 80.40 for fixed queuing guides. [Note: Section 80.40 provides: "80.40 When installing new fixed queuing guides, the following requirements must be met: 1. The fixed queuing guides must have sufficient width to allow for the passage of mobility aids. 2. The fixed queuing guides must have sufficiently clear floor area to permit mobility aids to turn where queuing lines change direction. 3. The fixed queuing guides must be cane detectable by persons who are blind or who have low vision."]

It is therefore recommended that

42. Sections 80.39(2) and 80.40 of the draft regulation should be amended to provide technical specifications for accessibility requirements for accessible public service counters and queuing lines.

Section 80.41 of the draft regulation requires that three percent of any waiting area be accessible seating. That does not require accessible furniture. It requires the capacity to accommodate mobility devices in three percent of the seating. [Note: Section 80.41 provides: 80.41 (1) When providing a new or redeveloping an existing waiting area, where the seating is fixed to the floor, three per cent of the new seating must be accessible, but in no case shall there be fewer than one accessible seating space.(2) For the purposes of this section, accessible seating is not a seat but a space in the seating area where an individual in a mobility aid can wait."]

Far more than three percent of the public has mobility disabilities. Since this provision only requires that there be space for them, not differently-designed furniture, it should be readily possible to accommodate more than three percent. Moreover, this standard has a one-size-fits-all requirement. Certain service providers, sunch as hospitals and other health care facilities, courts and the like should be able to provide more than three percent.

It is therefore recommended that

43. Section 80.41 of the draft regulation should be amended to:

a) require that more than 3% of seating in new or redeveloped waiting areas be available for mobility devices of persons with disabilities, and b) set even higher levels for important services such as hospitals, other health care facilities and offices, courts, social assistance offices and other important public services.

16. Maintenance

Section 80.42 of the draft regulation requires organizations, apart from small organizations, to include in their multi-year accessibility plans, procedures for preventative and emergency maintenance of the accessible elements in public spaces, and procedures for dealing with temporary disruptions when accessible elements are not in working order. [Note: Section 80.42 provides: "80.42 Obligated organizations, other than small organizations, shall ensure that their multi-year accessibility plans include the following: 1. Procedures for preventative and emergency maintenance of the accessible elements in public spaces as required under this Part. 2. Procedures for dealing with temporary disruptions when accessible elements required under this Part are not in working order."] It does not require any notification of the public on these, nor any public accountability for promptly fixing any problems.

It is therefore recommended that

44. Section 80.42 of the draft regulation should be amended to require each organization to which it applies to:

a) Keep up-to-date information on its website, if any, on its emergency procedures, on any disruption of the accessibility of its public spaces as governed by this regulation, and of the time it took to repair or rectify any such accessibility problems.

b) require the organization to designate an official within that organization with lead responsibility for ensuring that accessibility features are effectively maintained.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PUBLIC SPACES ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES THAT THE DRAFT REGULATION DOES NOT ADDRESS

There are several important public spaces accessibility issues that the draft regulation does not address at all. It is important for these to be effectively addressed.

17. Snow Removal

Snow can create a significant accessibility barrier in public spaces for persons with disabilities. This can include people with mobility limitations whose path can be blocked by significant quantities of snow. It also includes people with vision loss, for whom piles of snow can obstruct important landmarks by which they navigate with a white cane or dog guide.

Of course, an accessibility standard cannot prevent snow from falling and accumulating. However, it can address what people do with the snow on their property.

Municipal officials should not pile up snow in important routes of access to public places or to a person's own home, as they shovel the streets. For them to do so is to use public money to create new barriers against persons with disabilities. Similarly, organizations clearing snow on their properties should ensure that they do not thereby block access to routes of entry or exit to their public spaces, such as a building or a public sidewalk.

It is therefore recommended that

45. The draft regulation should be amended to impose requirements to ensure that snow removal activities by public and private sector organizations do not create new barriers against persons with disabilities in public spaces, or in gaining access to their own residence.

18. Accessible Roundabouts

Some municipalities are implementing "roundabouts" rather than traditional intersections in some locations. These can present serious accessibility barriers for people with different disabilities. As just one example, they can be much harder to navigate for persons with vision loss. Beyond the needs of persons with disabilities, they can present added challenges for children, whether or not they have a disability.

A number of community organizations concerned with the rights of persons with vision loss have prepared a very good June 2012 Position Paper on the accessibility problems that roundabouts present. It makes constructive recommendations of some ways to address these. We endorse that Position Paper, which is set out as Appendix 2 of this brief.

It is therefore recommended that

46. The draft regulation should be amended to set technical standards for roundabouts to ensure that they are barrier free for persons with disabilities, including but not limited to those set out in Appendix 2 of this brief, and:

a) Prohibiting the establishment of any roundabout before a full consultation is conducted with persons with disabilities in the community, including, but not limited to, the community's municipal accessibility advisory committee; b) Prohibiting the establishment of a roundabout until and unless a majority of the municipal council votes in a separate on-the-record vote solely on this issue, that it is necessary to implement a roundabout, rather than more accessible traffic controls such as a traditional intersection, and that the roundabout is designed to be safe for the public, including for persons with disabilities, and c) requiring that all residents and businesses within 2 kilometers of the roundabout be surveyed on the need for the roundabout, with the results of the survey to be made public before the municipal council votes whether to approve the roundabout.

19. Tactile Walking Surface Indicators in Major High-Traffic Public Spaces

It is important to require that tactile walking surface indicators, as defined earlier in this brief, be required in major high-traffic public spaces, such as

a) Major public squares like outside a city hall b) Major lobbies and wide high-traffic halls of public transit stations, such as Toronto's Union Station c) Major lobbies and major, open walking areas of courts, major government office buildings, public hospitals, schools, colleges and universities.

We earlier proposed such requirements in major public transit stations, when the Transportation Accessibility Standard was under development. We understand that that was deferred to the development of the Built Environment Accessibility Standard. As such, the time has come to finally address this need.

It is therefore recommended that

47. The draft regulation should be amended to require that public sector organizations and large private sector organizations be required to implement tactile walking surface indicators in major open lobbies, walkways, hallways, and outside public squares, and in high-traffic areas that are regularly used by the public, e.g. in public transit stations, hospitals, colleges, universities, schools, courts, other major government and municipal buildings, and shopping centres.

20. Islands in the Middle of Street Crossings

Street crossings should provide a direct route from one side of the street to another without a raised island in the middle. People with vision loss may otherwise assume that they have reached the other side of a street when they have in fact reached an island.

An exception can be made for very wide street crossings (e.g., crossings where there are six or more car lanes). An island can be permitted to provide a safe place to stop before continuing to cross.

It is therefore recommended that

48. The draft regulation should be amended to provide that

a) An island should not be created in the middle of a street at the crossing point e.g. an intersection or crosswalk, where there is less than six lanes of traffic across, absent compelling circumstances b) Blended curbs should provide access to the island from both sides with a flat surface in the middle at least 610mm wide. c) When an island is level with the road surface, the walkway through the island should begin and end with a tactile walking surface indicator that is the width of the walkway, at least 610mm deep, and colour contrasted with the rest of the walkway.

21. Construction in the Area of Public Paths and Sidewalks

People with disabilities too often encounter difficulties making their way along a public sidewalk or other public walkway when it is obstructed by temporary construction activity. It is important that any construction work done on or near a public sidewalk or public walkway ensure that there is a clear, unobstructed route of travel that persons with disabilities can readily traverse.

For people using mobility devices, this means a route that has no physical barriers. For persons with vision loss, it also means a route that does not direct the pedestrian into traffic, and which is easy to follow using a guide dog, white cane, or limited guiding vision.

A notorious example that attracted media coverage several years ago occurred where repair or construction work at a major downtown Toronto intersection involved construction workers leaving boards on the sidewalk that directed pedestrians right into the middle of a busy intersection. Calls to city councillors yielded no help. Corrective action was only taken after a call was made to a Toronto newspaper.

It is therefore recommended that

49. The draft regulation should be amended to require that when any construction work is undertaken on any new or existing sidewalk or other public walkway, the following shall take place:

a) A clear, safe and accessible path of travel will be maintained for all persons, including persons with disabilities, with particular regard to the meed for accessibility for persons with mobility disabilities and persons with vision loss. It must will not route pedestrians into the path of vehicular traffic. b) Each municipality, and all other public sector organizations, shall develop, maintain and monitor policies to ensure that any construction site on or near a sidewalk or other path of public travel complies with this provision, including the designation of a public official within that organization for lead responsibility to ensure such compliance.

22. Power Lifts In Public Spaces

We generally want this draft regulation to govern existing barriers even where there is no redevelopment underway. Despite the fact that this draft regulation was said only to deal with new developments and redevelopments, it is important at the very least to identify an important and simple step that can be taken to make public spaces more accessible, even in properties that are neither new nor under redevelopment.

Where an organization has a powered lift to enable persons with disabilities to ascend stairs in a public space, such as in front of a building, it is important to ensure that a key is not required to use that lift. Many persons with disabilities report difficulties finding someone with the key in a timely fashion.

It is therefore recommended that

50. The draft regulation should be amended to require that where a power lift has been provided by an organization to enable persons with disabilities to have access to public spaces, these should not require a key for a member of the public to operate it, including in the case of existing properties where no redevelopment is underway.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SUNDRY PROVISIONS IN THE DRAFT REGULATION THAT DO NOT CONCERN BUILT ENVIRONMENT IN PUBLIC SPACES

23. Accessibility Reports

Section 14 of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires organizations bound by an accessibility standard under the AODA to file accessibility reports with the Ontario Government annually, unless the director under the AODA directs a different timing for filing them. [Note: Sections 14 to 16 of the AODA provide: " 14. (1) A person or organization to whom an accessibility standard applies shall file an accessibility report with a director annually or at such other times as the director may specify. 2005, c. 11, s. 14 (1). Report available to public (2) A person or organization shall make an accessibility report filed under subsection (1) available to the public. 2005, c. 11, s. 14 (2). Form (3) An accessibility report shall be in the form approved by the Minister and the Minister may require that the report or a part of the report be provided electronically in a format approved by the Minister. 2005, c. 11, s. 14 (3). Content (4) An accessibility report shall contain such information as may be prescribed. 2005, c. 11, s. 14 (4). Certification of accessibility report 15. (1) An accessibility report shall include a statement certifying that all the information required to be provided in the report under this Act has been provided and that the information is accurate and the statement shall be signed, (a) if the person preparing the report is an individual, by the individual; and (b) in all other cases, by a director, a senior officer or other responsible person with authority to bind the organization. 2005, c. 11, s. 15 (1). Electronic signature

(2) If an accessibility report is filed in an electronic format approved by the Minister, the requirement that a person sign the report under subsection (1) shall be met if he or she provides an electronic signature. 2005, c. 11, s. 15 (2). Definition
(3) In subsection (2), “electronic signature” means a personal identification number (PIN), password, biometric information or any other electronic information that a person creates or adopts to be used in the place of his or her signature to authenticate his or her identity and that is in, attached to or associated with an accessibility report. 2005, c. 11, s. 15 (3). Review of director
16. A director may review an accessibility report filed under section 14 to determine whether it complies with the regulations and whether the person or organization who submitted the report has complied with all applicable accessibility standards. 2005, c. 11, s. 16.] Section 80.1 of the draft regulation would defer the first filing dates for organizations as follows:

Ontario Government: first filing end of 2013 and annually after that.

Designated public sector organizations: first filing end of 2013, and once every two years after that. Large organizations (i.e. large private sector organizations): first filing end of 2014 and once every three years after that. [Note: Section 80.1 of the draft regulation provides: "86.1(1) Subject to subsection 33 (3) of the Act, organizations shall file an accessibility report with a director according to the following schedule: 1. Annually, in the case of the Government of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly. 2. Every two years, in the case of designated public sector organizations. 3. Every three years, in the case of large organizations. (2) The reporting schedule referred to in subsection (1) begins to apply as of January 1, 2013 with the first report being due, (a) as of December 31, 2013, in the case of the Government of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly; (b) as of December 31, 2013, in the case of designated public sector organizations; and (c) as of December 31, 2014, in the case of large organizations."]

The McGuinty Government has already fallen very far short of its 14-year-old, oft-repeated pledge, renewed in the October 2011 Ontario election, to effectively enforce the AODA. The AODA's requirement of annual accessibility reports is dramatically delayed and diluted by this draft regulation. That flies in the face of the Premier's promise of effective enforcement of the AODA.

This draft regulation does not ever require any small private sector organizations to file accessibility reports. That cuts out the vast majority of the private sector.

It is therefore recommended that

51. Section 80.1 of the draft regulation should be amended to require all public sector organizations and all large private sector organizations to annually file accessibility reports required under the AODA commencing as follows:

a) Ontario Government and Legislature December 31, 2012 b) All other public sector organizations by June 30, 2013, and c) Large private sector organizations by December 31, 2013.

52. Section 80.1 of the draft regulation should be amended to require all small organizations with more than 25 employees to file accessibility reports by December 31, 2014.

24. Proposed Amendments to Accessibility Requirements in Existing 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation Unrelated to Built Environment Accessibility

Sections 2 to 11 of the draft regulation propose to alter provisions of the 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation that are not specifically related to the built environment. It is our view that the Government cannot amend the accessibility requirements in the 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation without first submitting them to a Standards Development Committee mandated in the AODA. The Government did not do this.

We detailed our concerns about this in our August 29, 2012 letter to Community and Social Services Minister John Milloy, set out in Appendix 1 of this brief, and publicly available at http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/08292012.asp and set out at the end of this brief.

It appears that some of these proposed changes to the 2011 IAR may originate from certain obligated sector organizations, such as the public transit sector, asking the Government to make amendments to the 2011 IAR. We were never invited to give the Government a comprehensive list of changes to the IAR that we might wish.

For our part, we do not want the 2011 IAR re-opened at all at this time. If, however, the Government is going to re-open it, then persons with disabilities should have a full chance to table their own proposed amendments to it. We have not developed such a list, since that is a substantial amount of work. We only want to undertake that work if the Government truly plans to re-open the 2011 IAR. Amendments which we proposed in 2011, during the final round of discussions leading to its 2011 enactment, are available in our March 11, 2011 brief to the Government on the final draft Integrated Accessibility Regulation. [Note:The AODA Alliance's March 11, 2011 brief to the McGuinty Government on the final draft Integrated Accessibility Regulation is publicly available at http://www.aodaalliance.org/docs/0311%20-BRIEF%20OF%20THE%20AODA%20ALLIANCE%20FEBRUARY%201%202011.doc ] The Ontario Human Rights Commission endorsed that brief. [Note: See http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/03212011.asp ]

It is therefore recommended that

53. Sections 2 to 11 of the draft regulation should not be enacted until and unless they are first submitted to a Standards Development Committee created under the AODA, and until the disability community has had its own chance to table a comprehensive list of proposed amendments to the 2011 Integrated Accessibility Regulation.

We wish to submit more detailed comments on these proposed amendments to the 2011 IAR when they are properly placed before a Standards Development Committee, such as the new single body that the Government plans to designate to develop all future accessibility standards under the AODA. However, we here offer three preliminary comments:

First, many of these amendments are probably unintelligible to many if not most who might wish to comment on them. The Government should release a thorough explaination for why these are needed, and what they seek to achieve. The Government's August 15, 2012 web posting is far too vague.

Second, as we pointed out in our August 29, 2012 letter to Community and Social Services Minister John Milloy, the proposed amendment to the 2011 provisions regarding libraries of educational organizations cuts back on the rights of persons with disabilities guaranteed in the 2011 IAR. It thus violates Premier McGuinty's August 19, 2012 letter to us, promising not to cut back on any gains in the AODA or regulations enacted under it.

Third, one of these proposed amendments to the 2011 IAR seems plainly unnecessary. Section 7 of the draft regulation would replace the new term "priority seating" in the public transit provisions of the 2011 IAR for the current term "courtesy seating." [Note:Section 7 of the draft regulation provides: "Subsections 49 (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Regulation are amended by striking out “courtesy seating” wherever it appears and substituting in each case “priority seating."] We do not believe this amendment is need for public transit authorities to be able to use the term "priority seating" to describe their courtesy seating. In any event, the public transit sector was at the table throughout the development of the Integrated Accessibility Regulation's public transit provisions. The terminology used in it could not have caught them by surprise.