Skip to content

Accessible Canada Act – the beginning of a new era in accessibility?

Jennifer Thompson

The Accessible Canada Act (“Act”) came into force on July 11, 2019, ushering in the start of a march towards a Canada without barriers for persons with disabilities. While the Act only applies to federally-regulated industries (including, for example, telecommunications, banking, interprovincial trucking, and transportation), the federal public service, Canadian Forces and Crown corporations, it is anticipated to have a wide ranging impact, both in terms of the anticipated improvements for persons with disabilities and the steps federally-regulated organizations will need to take in order to be compliant. Organizations that provide services or facilities to federally-regulated organizations should also take note of this legislation as they may need to support their federally-regulated client’s accessibility obligations under the Act.

Purpose of the Act

The aim of the Act is to identify and remove existing barriers that prevent “the full and equal participation in society” of persons with disabilities, and to prevent new barriers from being erected, in a range of prescribed areas including employment, the built environment, procurement of goods, services and facilities and transportation, to name but a few.

“Barrier” is defined extremely broadly and includes “anything physical, architectural, technological, or attitudinal, anything that is based on information or communications or anything that is the result of a policy or practice”, while “disability” encompasses any impairment, whether permanent, temporary or episodic in nature, expanding the scope and impact of the legislation.

What are the main obligations under the Act?

Those subject to the Act have three key ongoing obligations:

1. Accessibility Plans – Organizations must publish an accessibility plan considering their “policies, practices and services in relation to the identification and removal of barriers and the prevention of new barriers” in relation to the prescribed areas. The first plan is to be published within a year of a date to be fixed by regulations, with revised plans to be published every three years after. Notably, organizations are required to consult persons with disabilities in the preparation and updating of the plan.

2. Feedback Process – Organizations must establish a process for receiving and dealing with feedback about the implementation of the accessibility plan and any barriers encountered by employees or members of the public.

3. Progress Reports – Organizations must prepare and publish a progress report detailing the implementation of its accessibility plan. This should include any feedback received and how it has been taken into consideration. As with the accessibility plan, persons with disabilities must be consulted in the preparation of the report. It is expected that the regulations will mandate how often the progress reports will be required.

The practical impact of compliance on federally-regulated organizations, particularly those of a smaller size, will be significant. It should be noted that there will be varying obligations for certain industries such as transportation and telecommunications under the anticipated regulations, which may differ from the general obligations noted above.

How will the Act be enforced?

The Act provides that violations of the Act may lead to a warning notice and/or an administrative monetary penalty of up to $250,000 per violation. More details are expected to be included in the regulations. Alternatively, organizations may be permitted to enter into compliance agreements with the Accessibility Commissioner in lieu of a penalty, but this is not a guaranteed right. The Accessibility Commissioner will also have wide ranging powers to order production of documentation and to perform audits.

In addition, individuals will be able to bring complaints against federally-regulated organizations for “physical or psychological harm, property damage or economic loss” caused by failure to comply with the Act and regulations. The Accessibility Commissioner will be responsible for any investigation of the complaints and may choose to uphold or dismiss them. If upheld, the organization may be ordered to take corrective measures or may be ordered to pay compensation to the individual. Compensation may include up to $20,000 for pain and suffering.

Conclusion

While there are many details to be filled in by regulations (yet to be published in draft), the Act clearly demonstrates the intent to make significant changes to the ability of persons with disabilities to participate equally in society. Although the deadline for the first accessibility plans has not yet been set, organizations impacted by the Act should review their facilities, policies and procedures in light of the Act to see how these may need to be amended. Those who provide services and/or facilities to affected organizations should also consider changes they may need to make to support the organization and ensure future business.


This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top