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


 
 

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…

Read More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…

Read More

Solicitor-client privilege vs the Canada Revenue Agency: the SCC speaks

June 10, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…

Read More

Why can’t we be friends?: Lessons on corporate dissolution from Smith v. Hillier

May 30, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…

Read More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada dismisses appeals in punitive damages cases

May 26, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…

Read More

Client Update: Pension update: Countdown to Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans

May 17, 2016

On May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…

Read More

Pension Primer: Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) in Nova Scotia

April 22, 2016

By Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…

Read More

Client Update: Perrin v Blake reaffirms the law on contributory negligence and recovery of damages

April 14, 2016

In a case where there is a contributorily negligent plaintiff and two or more negligent defendants, can the plaintiff recover 100% of her damages from any of the defendants? The answer in Nova Scotia is…

Read More

Client Update: Interest arbitration changes for New Brunswick postponed for further study

April 11, 2016

On Friday, the Province of New Brunswick announced that it would not proceed at this time with the recently proposed changes to binding interest arbitration. The Province announced that a joint labour management committee will be struck to examine…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top