What is the AODA?Ontarians with disabilities have experienced discrimination and other disadvantages, which the AODAacknowledges as context for mandating the development, implementation, and enforcement of accessibilitystandards. These standards have been mandated in order to identify, remove, and prevent barriers in the areasof customer service, built environments, employment, information and communications, and transportation.

Currently there are 5 standards that make up the AODA. These have been adopted into law and include:

1) The Customer Service Standard, enacted as:

Accessibility Standards for Customer Service (Regulation 429/07)

2) The 4 remaining standards:

Collectively enacted as the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR) (Regulation 191/11)The IASR Regulation combines the following 4 standards:

Information and CommunicationEmployment,Transportation,Accessibility of Public Spaces (formerly Built Environment)

The 5th standard in IASR, Accessibility of Public Spaces, was originally developed as the Built EnvironmentStandard and was later recast as the Accessibility of Public Spaces Standard.

These 5 standards target public and private sector organizations in Ontario. In case you were wondering Publicsector organizations include:

Legislative Assembly;provincial government boards;commissions, authorities, and agencies;municipalities;school boards;hospitals;colleges of applied arts and technology;universities;public transportation organizations (including municipally operated transportation services for personswith disabilities);non­profit organizations.

As we work our way through the course, I'd like you to spend some time reading the actual regulations thatcovers all 5 standards.

This week we'll focus on an overview of the AODA.

Starting Week 3 we'll cover the Customer Service Standard Regulation, and in the weeks that follow, we'llexplore the remaining 4 standards of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulations (IASR) .

The following video gives an overview of the AODA. Entitled An Accessible Ontario 2025, it shows variouscityscapes and people in a range of activities in the community that reflect the need for more accessible

customer services, information and communication, built environments and outdoor spaces, employmentpractices, and public transportation.

In addition, please listen/watch the following captioned audio from University of Guelph 2010 AccessibilityConference, entitled "Accessibility Standards for Customer Service Regulation", presented by the AccessibilityDirectorate of Ontario. This talk will give you a good sense of the underpinnings of the AODA.

For the following links are on my own website. You'll be prompted to enter a user name and password to accessthe content.

user name: studentpassword: AODA­Rye­15

Note that the text above is case­sensitive.

Captioned Audio ­ Requires Quicktime *** The audio isn't working properly (Saturday 7:30 PM). I hope tofix it soon.Transcript of talk Powerpoint of talk

What is the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario (ADO)?The ADO is the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario. It's the government organization responsible for overseeingthe implementation of the AODA, from the creation of the original committees that wrote the 5 standards prior tothe turning of these Standard documents into law, as well as outreach and public education, ongoing work onupdating the Standards, and compliance, current a really hot­topic issue.

You've already been to the ADO website ­ www.accesson.ca . This week, please begin to explore materials onthe site that are specific to Customer Service.

Once in the AccessOn web site, click on the Customer Service link in the menu to the left of the page to getstarted.

By the way, the ADO was originally under the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Two years ago, itrelocated to the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade, and Development

What’s a Barrier?The AODA defines a "barrier" as "anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in allaspects of society because of his or her disability, including a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, aninformation or communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a policy or a practice;('obstacle')" (AODA, 2005, Chapter 11).

Social Inclusion LensA simple approach to thinking about accessibility and social inclusion starts with the basic premise that, likeothers, people with disabilities want and should have access to valued situations to which most other citizenshave access, such as decent and affordable housing, employment, education, community leisure opportunities,the political process, and so on (Crawford, 2003; Cushing, 2003). Many of these valued situations are articulatedin the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. People with disabilities may also requiresupports, facilitators, or enablers to gain access to socially valued situations and, when in those situations, toparticipate as valued equals without encountering barriers that impede access and participation.

Socially Valued SituationsGiven the present state of information and data systems in Canada, the kinds of socially valued situations towhich people with disabilities seek access and the extent to which they have access can, up to a point, bedetermined by comparing them to the situation of people without disabilities. For example:

To what extent are people with disabilities presently attending school? How are they distributed by type ofeducational service arrangement (e.g., college, CEGEP, university)?For people beyond school­leaving age, what is their labour force status (e.g., how many are employed vs.unemployed or not in the labour force)? How does this compare with the labour force status of peoplewithout disabilities?For those with jobs, how do they distribute across occupational classifications (e.g., management vs.unskilled labour) and industrial sectors (e.g., finance vs. scientific vs. sales jobs)?To what extent are people with disabilities doing any leisure activities in the community? What aboutcultural or political activities?

Along the same lines, people with disabilities might also want out of unacceptable situations, such as deeppoverty; physically, sexually, or emotionally abusive relationships; and so forth.

Quality and Quantity of ParticipationOnce in a valued situation, the quality or quantity of participation may be observable as an outcome. Forinstance, one may be able to find answers to the following questions:

How many hours do employed people with disabilities work for pay in a given reference period? What aretheir average earnings for the reference period and how do these figures compare with the hours andearnings of their non­disabled counterparts?To what extent do people with disabilities experience difficulties changing jobs because of disability?To what extent are people underutilizing or optimally utilizing their skills on the job?How many and what kinds of educational certificates do people with disabilities possess? Typically, whatis the highest level of educational certification that people with disabilities receive and what percentage ofpeople with disabilities actually receive that level of certification? How do these findings compare withthose for people without disabilities?

Facilitators and Barriers to Access and ParticipationA range of "facilitators" or "enablers" can make it possible for individuals to gain access to valued situations.These would include design features of built environments, human assistance (e.g., an attendant), accessibletransportation, technological support for mobility or communication, proactive accessibility policies andpractices, and a range of other enabling supports for access. Such enablers are often called "disability supports"within the disability community (Roeher Institute, 2002), and these may "attach" to individuals in their personallives and spaces (e.g., a wheelchair) or attach to external environments for the benefit of people with disabilities,in general (e.g., accessible transportation, accessible entrance/egress features in built environments). Similarly,there may be barriers to gaining access to valued situations. These would include the lack ofsupports/facilitators/enablers, discriminatory practices (e.g., job refusal based on disability), and disincentives(e.g., loss of publicly funded drug plan if working at a job or business). Similarly, there may befacilitators/enablers of exit from unacceptable situations or barriers that make it difficult — if notimpossible — for people to escape.

Once in a valued situation (e.g., school, workplace), the person with a disability may need facilitators or enablers

in order participate as a valued equal. For example, s/he may need a tutor, an ergonomic workstation, ormedications for pain management in order to attend school or work. The person may encounter barriers to suchparticipation, such as the inability to obtain a tutor or ergonomic workstation, lack of insurance or other financialcoverage for expensive pain­management medications, or outright hostile treatment at school or work.

Some supports and barriers typically fall into the following broad categories that "attach" to individuals or peoplewith disabilities as a class, although a full list would be considerably longer:

Information – e.g., about activities, opportunities for participation, and availability of supportive servicesHuman – attitudinal (e.g., supportive attitude vs. indifference or hostility)Human – instrumental/practical (e.g., presence or absence of a sign language interpreter, tutor, jobcoach, etc.)Technological (e.g., presence or absence of aids and devices needed across a range of situations toaddress issues of hearing, speaking, seeing, learning, mobility, and agility, such as hearing aids, voice­synthesized computers, portable notetakers, wheelchairs, large­print display/media, ergonomicworkstations, etc.)Procedural (e.g., policy, practices, and practice guidelines that have a bearing on the presence orabsence of modified work duties, modified hours or days of work, extensions for assignments, additionaltime required for test taking, modified curriculum, additional time required to explain things, access tosupportive services, etc.)Built environmental (e.g., ramps, doorways, entrance/egress areas, elevators, washrooms, signage,parking, passage ways to/from parking)Transportation – that is accessible to facilitate movement between home, school, work, communityactivities, and so on;Pharmacological (e.g., medications for pain management or mood stabilization)Animal (e.g., seeing­eye dog).

To some extent, it is possible to gauge the extent to which people encounter enablers/facilitators – i.e., haveaccess to disability supports – and the extent to which they encounter barriers in their efforts to get into valuedsituations and, when in those situations, participate as valued equals. Surveys, exit interviews, and othermethods can be used to answer questions, such as:

To what extent have people with disabilities experienced discrimination when applying for jobs or jobpromotions? To what extent are workplaces turning away people who may have a disability, even thoughthey may be qualified for employment?To what extent do people with disabilities have the built environmental, transportation, technological,human, and other supports they require to participate in school, employment, or in recreation activities inthe community? To what extent are schools making available the curricular, tutorial, built environmental,and accessible e­resources or print­based materials for all learners?

The following illustration shows a simple way of thinking about issues of access to valued situations,participation as valued equals in those situations, and the facilitators/enablers/barriers that can have a bearingon people's access and participation.

Source: Crawford, C. (2012). Indicators for Monitoring the Situation of People with Disabilities – Final Report.Toronto: Institute for Research and Development on Inclusion and Society.

In conducting an analysis of accessibility and barriers in relation to a given socially valued situation, the followingkinds of matters can be explored:

The extent of access to that situation (e.g., rates of employment, unemployment, and labour force non­participation; occupational distribution; distribution across industrial sectors; percentage of people with agiven type of disability in a particular workplace, school setting, customer base; etc.)The extent or quality of participation in that situation (e.g., number of hours worked in the reference week;level of earned income; extent of skill utilization; period of employment; extent and nature of difficultiesexperienced in a particular workplace, school, or classroom setting or in a place of commerce)The extent of need for various supports in order to gain access to and participate in that situationThe extent of unmet need for supports in order to gain access to and participate in the situation

Here’s a link to the video It's Our Story, which shows the experience of barriers in the American context. Itshows various video sequences of people with disabilities in institutional and other segregated settings, close­upportrait shots of disability activists, and shots of disabled activists engaged in political struggles.

A Glimpse of the Present Extent of Selected Barriers inOntarioThe Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) of 2006 shows that discrimination against people withdisabilities 15 years and older — and the barriers and disadvantages they experience — have been

widespread. Unless stated otherwise, the findings in this discussion are based on custom retrievals of raw datafrom the adult component of PALS Master Data File.

In the area of goods and services for which the customer service standard has been developed, 64,000Ontarians believe they have been treated in a discriminatory way by a store, bank, or restaurant due todisability. Some 152,000 have quit school, gone to another school, or have moved to another community toattend school because of factors related to disability. About 545,000 people who are 20 years and older have noformal educational credentials. About 139,000 have not received the health or social services they have neededin the past year because they don’t know where to get the services, the services are not available in theircommunity, or because of various other reasons aside from cost and lack of insurance coverage.

In terms of the physical accessibility of buildings, structures and premises at work, school, or in communityleisure activities, 190,000 Ontarians with disabilities experience barriers.

On the employment front, about 481,000 working­age Ontarians (15 to 64 years) are not working: they areneither available nor looking for work, have dropped out of the active labour force, were never in the labourforce, or are involuntarily retired. About 196,000 have recently experienced disability­related discrimination in theworkplace, hiring process, or in terms of pay and benefits. Some 159,000 Ontarians with disabilities who havebeen active in the labour force in the past five years have lacked one or more of the human, technical,procedural, or other supports they require in order to work for pay at a job. Cases of discrimination inemployment on the basis of disability comprise the single largest case load before the Ontario Human RightsCommission (2010) and have been for many years. Cases of employment discrimination based on disability arealso — and have historically been — a major issue for statutory human rights agencies in other provinces andterritories and the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the federal level.

In terms of mobility and access to information, some 213,000 Ontarian adults with disabilities either do not haveaccessible public transportation or have difficulties using it; 748,000 have either never used the Internet or havenot used it in the past year. Inaccessibility of government and private sector websites persists (Nomensa, 2006).

Overall, most Ontarian adults with disabilities – 1.3 million people (75%) – have experienced at least one of thebarriers discussed above. The need to improve accessibility is becoming more pronounced in Ontario as thepopulation ages and the labour force shrinks. Between 2001 and 2006, the percentage of Ontarians with adisability grew from 13.5% to 15.4%, and more than half of this increase is directly attributable to an ageingpopulation (Statistics Canada, 2007). Disability tends to increase with age, with the highest incidence occurringamong individuals 45 and older. Exhibit 1 demonstrates the growth of disability by age in Ontario between 2001and 2006 (Martin Prosperity Institute et al., 2010). The figures shown on Exhibit 1 are likely conservativeestimates (Reitschlin & MacKenzie, 2004).

Source: Martin Prosperity Institute. (2010). Releasing constraints: the impacts of increased accessibility onOntario's economy. Toronto: Author. Retrieved October 21, 2013.

In addition to this growth in the number of individuals with a disability, Ontario also faces a shrinking labour forcedue to retirement, with a predicted shortage of over one million workers by the year 2030; as Ontario’s economycomes out of recession, the demand for educated and skilled workers will increase. Improving the accessibilityof education for individuals with a disability and, in particular, improving their skills to meet the demands of theemerging knowledge economy, can help overcome part of this labour shortage.

Estimating the potential economic impacts of increased accessibility in Ontario is difficult because statisticalsurveys produce conflicting rates of disability (Reitschlin & MacKenzie, 2004). However, a recent study by theMartin Prosperity Institute, the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, and the Adaptive TechnologyResource Centre (2010) has found that the labour force participation rate of individuals with a disability couldincrease anywhere from between 2% to 15%, thanks to improvements in accessibility. The report also finds thatthe increased productivity could increase the province’s per capita GDP anywhere from $49 to $653 as a resultof these changes. In fact, increasing employment among individuals with a disability could result in a totalincrease in employment income of up to $4.8 billion per year.

While the labour force participation rate of people with disabilities is lower than that of their counterparts withoutdisabilities (Statistics Canada, 2008b), the vast majority of people with disabilities have worked at a job orbusiness at some point in life and most became disabled sometime after completing their formal schooling. Theyrepresent a significant presence in the consumer economy. Based on recent income data available (StatisticsCanada, 2008a), their earned income in Ontario amounted to over $21 billion in 2005, and their total incomefrom all sources was over $54 billion. Only about $3 billion of the latter was from provincial government andquasi­government transfers and credits. That said, many thousands of Ontarians have had a disability sinceearly in life (Statistics Canada, 2007) and encounter numerous barriers to social and economic inclusion(Statistics Canada, 2008b, 2008c).

In order to benefit from the potential opportunities of increased accessibility, Ontario will need to demonstrate acommitment to AODA. Improved accessibility makes sense in Ontario, as the potential exists to realize bothsocial and economic gains. A large hidden market exists in Ontario for improved accessibility that is not currentlybeing served. For every day longer it takes to demonstrate a commitment to AODA, people who want to learncannot, people who want to work do not, and businesses that could serve these markets fail to act. In short,

Ontario is missing out on economic opportunities to become a leading jurisdiction, forfeiting valuablecontributions from its citizens and economic growth. Equipping organizations and people who are tasked withconcrete responsibilities for furthering accessibility is not only consistent with the law in Ontario but is alsoconsistent with the spirit of Ontarians’ broader commitments to human rights at home and abroad under theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Ontario Human Rights Code, the United Nations' Convention onthe Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and other international covenants and treaties.

Imagine if You will: How the Pieces of the AODAInterconnectHow do the various standards under the AODA relate to and interconnect with one another?

Imagine people who work for an organization that provides a service to the public, such as an insurancecompany. Some of these people have direct contact with the public, such as sales associates. Some, however,have little if any contact with the public, such as those in administration or who deal with the fine points offinance and organizational investments.

Ideally, according to the AODA, if the organization were to represent the diversity that occurs naturally in thecommunity, some of these employees would have disabilities. Some, for instance, may be blind or have lowvision; others may be deaf, deafened, or hard of hearing; others may be wheelchair users; some may havedifficulties with spoken communication; and others may be dealing with largely "hidden" disabilities, such asLearning Disabilities or mental illness. Most other employees, however, would not have any perceptible disability– yet.

Within this workplace, it is important for there to be good communication among employees. Failing that, theorganization is at risk of not being able to carry out its mission effectively. The accessibility of communication,then, is an issue for this workplace. Some employees may need to use sign language interpreters, some mayrequire amplified telephones, some may require large­print displays on their computers, others may requireBraille output devices, and some may require that the ways of communicating be very straightforward and inplain language.

Further still, some people – such as potential customers – who would like to avail themselves of the services theorganization provides may also have issues with communication. So the means of making information andcommunication accessible within the organization may also be needed in dealings between employees andcustomers. Further accessibility measures could include promotional materials printed in large fonts and high­contrast design so that text is clearly legible, as well as font magnifiers, captioning of graphic elements, plaintext, and other accessibility features on the organization’s website.

In order for some employees to get into and navigate the building from which services are provided, there mayneed to be accessibility features leading to and within the built environment, such as ramps, tactile signage inthe elevators, tactile way­finding signage in hallways and on doors to offices, automatic doorways, accessiblewashrooms, sufficiently wide doorways and turning areas, and counter and desk heights consistent with theneeds of wheelchair users. Customers may also need such accessibility features in order to get into andnavigate the built environment. The accessibility of the built environment, then, is an issue that has to beaddressed in the interests of both employees and customers of the organization.

In order to get to the workplace, some employees and customers may need public transportation services thatare accessible in terms of the design of terminals and other pick­up and drop­off areas, vehicle design,announcements of stops, and accessible in terms of cost, hours, and frequency of operation. Accessibletransportation, then, is an issue for employees and customers.

Assuming people can get to, enter, and navigate the place where they work or receive service, furtheraccessibility provision may need to be made. For employees these may include, for instance, modified workhours or days, flex time, modified work duties, a personal assistant on the job, ergonomic workstations, andadaptive peripherals for computers. Customers may need additional time to consider products and have accessto products that have been designed with a view to disability­specific needs.

Everyone in the organization, whether or not they have direct dealings with the public, will need some basicawareness of the kinds of needs that employees and customers with disabilities may be experiencing and thebasic skills needed to accommodate for those needs in a respectful and courteous way.

The basic point to be underscored here is that the accessibility standards set in play by the AODA are allinterrelated. On the one hand, each area of regulation requires its own attention to accessibility, and therequirements may be quite different depending on whether the focus is on customer service, employment,information and communication, built environments, or transportation. On the other hand, paying attention to anyone of these areas without appreciating that they are interconnected could result in an organization being onlypartly accessible or not accessible at all for some employees and customers.

FederalEach province and territory has human rights legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disabilityand other prohibited grounds (i.e., employment and access to services and housing). Most provinces andterritories have affirmative action programs to improve the access of people with disabilities to employment inthe civil service. All have building codes that contain measures to further the accessibility of built environments.The following provides a thumbnail sketch of accessibility measures at the federal level in Canada.

Employment EquityThe federal Employment Equity Act requires federally regulated private sector employers (including banks,major transportation, and communications industries), crown corporations, and selected contractors with thefederal government to develop employment equity programs that integrate persons with disabilities, women,visible minorities, and Aboriginal people. The Act also covers all federal departments and agencies where theTreasury Board is the employer. Under the Act, all federal employers are required by law to have anemployment equity plan and to report on that plan to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. For their part,other governments at all levels, including some municipal governments, have instituted non­legislatedemployment equity measures in the public sector workforce. In some instances, provincial/territorial andmunicipal governments have also required contractors to comply with employment equity principles andprograms.

Aside from the Employment Equity Act, there is no further federal (or provincial/territorial) legislative requirementthat the composition of Canadian workplaces be statistically representative of the workforce at large (i.e.,workplaces do not necessarily need to hire a proportion of people with disabilities that is consistent with thestatistical share of people with disabilities within the labour force as a whole).

Policy on the Duty to Accommodate Persons with Disabilitiesin the Federal Public ServiceThe goal of this policy is to ensure the full participation of persons with disabilities in the federal Public Servicewhether as candidates for employment or as employees. It is consistent with the requirements of the Charter,the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Employment Equity Act (Treasury Board Secretariat, 2002).

Accessibility, Accommodations, and Adaptive Computer

Technology ProgramThe federal Accessibility, Accommodations, and Adaptive Computer Technology (AAACT) Program aims to“assist in the integration into the workplace of employees with disabilities, injuries and ergonomic requirementswho require access to systems, programs, information, computers and computer resources.” The AAACTProgram currently provides federal government departments with a range of services for persons withdisabilities, injuries, and ergonomic requirements, as well as technicians, webmasters, application developers,project managers, and end­users who are concerned about accessibility issues. The AAACT program alsoprovides support to other Adaptive Computer Technology (ACT) Centres and other accessibility­ andaccommodations­related initiatives (Environment Canada, 2010).

Accessibility Standard for Real PropertyThe federal Treasury Board Policy on the Management of Real Property holds Deputy Heads responsible forproviding barrier­free access to, use of, and exit from real property in accordance with the Accessibility Standardfor Real Property. The standard establishes minimum requirements concerning entrances, passenger elevators,public spaces, federal work areas, interior doors and corridors, washrooms, public telephones, drinkingfountains, signage, visitor parking, seating spaces in auditoriums and similar assembly areas, listening systemsin classrooms, auditoriums, meeting rooms and theatres, routes to and from parking, and local public transitstops and drop­off areas within the limits of federal property to main entrances (Treasury Board Secretariat,2006).

Common Look and Feel for the Internet 2.0 The federal Common Look and Feel Standards for the Internet were developed to reflect modern practicesregarding the Web, changes in technology, issues raised by the Web community, and navigation and formatelements. A Standard on Web Accessibility came into effect in August 2011 and this replaces Part 2 of theCommon Look and Feel 2.0 Standards for the Internet. The new Accessibility Standard applies to departmentslisted in Schedules I, I.I, and II of the Financial Administration Act, unless excluded by specific acts, regulations,or Orders in Council (Treasury Board Secretariat, 2011).

Accessible TransportationTransport Canada has developed Codes of Practice for intercity bus transportation that crossesprovincial/territorial boundaries. It has also developed Codes of Practice for air, marine, and rail transportationand communication that falls within the federal jurisdiction, although none of these codes were available throughthe Transport Canada website when this module was written.

InternationalIt is beyond the scope of the present module and this course to provide a full picture of all the accessibilityinitiatives that are in place in Canada and internationally. On the international level, however, several initiativesin the United Nations, United States, European Union, United Kingdom, and Australia stand out for attention.

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities(UNCRPD)The UNCRPD builds on previous UN conventions and treaties that accord specific rights to people withdisabilities.

Table 2.1. Rights specified by the UNCRPD, arranged thematically

Theme Rights UNCRPD Reference

Mobility Liberty of movement/nationality

Personal mobility

Art. 18

Art. 20

Discrimination Proscribed in multiple contexts usingvarious wordings

Pervasive

Liberty and Security Prisons, large congregate facilitates,experience of violence

Art. 14, Art.16

Independent Living Choice, control of decisions, autonomy Art. 19a

Family Support Help from services, social support Art. 2

Quality of Social Participation Daily/domestic activities

Interpersonal relations

Health/habilitation/rehabilitation

Education and training

Work

Volunteering

Community/associational life

Recreation (sports, culture)

Transportation

Housing

Art. 19b

Art. 19b

Art. 25

Art. 24

Art. 27

Arts. 29, 30

Art. 29

Art. 30

Art. 9.1.a

Art. 28.1, Art.28.2.d

Here’s a link to a PowerPoint presentation on the CRPD. It takes the viewer through a point­form synopsis of themajor sections of the Convention.

European Disability Strategy Building on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU), the Treaty of Functioning of the EU,and the UNCRPD, the European Disability Strategy aims “to empower people with disabilities so that they canenjoy their full rights, and benefit fully from participating in society and in the European economy, notablythrough the Single market” (European Commission, 2010a). Eight major areas for action are accessibility,participation, equality, employment, education and training, social protection, health, and external action, i.e.,participation in cross­EU development initiatives. European Disability Action Plans at the cross­EU level arerenewed every few years and aim to have practical effects on high­level strategic commitments — the sameapplies to the specific Action Plans of EU member countries.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), United States The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law in 1990. It prohibits discrimination on the basis ofdisability in employment (Title I), in access to and benefits of public services (Title II), and in access to public

accommodations and services provided by "private entities" (e.g., hotels, restaurants, movie theaters) (Title III).Title IV of the Act amends the U.S. Communications Act to enable people with hearing and/or speechimpairments to communicate with others by telephone and to receive public service announcements by closed­captioning. Title V specifies a range of other "miscellaneous provisions" (The Roeher Institute, 1997).

Below are links to videos on the political struggles that led up to the ADA.

The Republocrats shows close­ups of disabled activists speaking and images of the political struggles in whichthey participated.

Climbing the Capitol Steps for ADA is a close­up of Jennifer Keelan sitting in her wheelchair while recountingher political activism as a child with a disability. She became quite renowned for crawling up the stairs to theCapitol building in Washington, DC, to protest the lack of accessibility in American society.

Here’s a link to a recent video about the Americans with Disabilities Act. It shows close­ups of disabled activistswho tell their story, interspersed with images of disabled people engaged in various activities in the community.

Commonwealth Disability Strategy (CDS), Australia The CDS was introduced in 1994 as a ten­year planning framework to help Australian Government agenciesmeet their obligations under the (Commonwealth) Disability Discrimination Act (1992). Under the Strategy,Commonwealth Government agencies have been obliged to remove barriers that prevent people with disabilitiesfrom having access to policies, programs, and services. Following a review of the CDS that culminated in 2006,the Australian Government recently announced its National Disability Strategy (NDS). The NDS provides anational framework to drive future reforms in the disability service system and mainstream systems for peoplewith disability, their families, and caregivers (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010). As quoted from the website ofthe Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2012), key areas of focus inthe NDS are:

Inclusive and accessible communities—the physical environment, including public transport; parks,buildings, and housing; digital information and communications technologies; and civic life, includingsocial, sporting, recreational, and cultural life.Rights protection, justice, and legislation—statutory protections, such as anti­discrimination measures,complaints mechanisms, advocacy, and the electoral and justice systems.Economic security—jobs, business opportunities, financial independence, adequate income support forthose not able to work, and housing.Personal and community support—inclusion and participation in the community, person­centred care andsupport provided by specialist disability and mainstream services; and informal care and support.Learning and skills—early childhood education and care, schools, higher education, and vocationaleducation; transitions from education to employment; and life­long learning.Health and well­being—health services, health promotion, and the interaction between health anddisability systems; and well­being and enjoyment of life.

Public Sector Disability Equality Duty, United KingdomThe UK’s Disability Equality Duty (DED) is based on the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, which required publicauthorities, including government departments, to consider how their policies and practices affect disabledpeople. The Equality Act 2010 introduces the Public Sector Equality Duty, which brings together the DED andother existing duties (i.e., race and gender). It also covers age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, pregnancyand maternity, and gender reassignment. The new duty came into force on 5 April 2011.

The Duty has three aims. When developing or implementing policy, it requires public bodies to have due regard

to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimization, and other conduct prohibited by the EqualityAct 2010; advance equality of opportunity between people from different groups; and foster good relationsbetween people from different groups. The duty also covers how a public authority acts as an employer,develops policies, designs and delivers services, and procures services (HM Government, Office for DisabilityIssues, 2010).

Predecessor to the AODA: The Ontarians withDisabilities ActPrior to the AODA, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA) came into effect in 2001. Its stated purpose was to“improve opportunities for persons with disabilities and to provide for their involvement in the identification,removal and prevention of barriers to their full participation in the life of the province.” The Act requireddesignated public authorities to conduct and report on their accessibility plans. The ODA was criticized for beingan ineffective piece of legislation that, in the words of three analysts who worked for ARCH: A Legal ResourceCentre for Persons with Disabilities, “may not, in the end, compel the dismantling of a single barrier in Ontario”(Gordon, Beatty, & Holder, 2002).

The AODA AllianceThe major driving force behind adopting the AODA has been the AODA Alliance. It began as the ODACommittee, which disbanded itself and reconstituted in its present form in 2005. The Alliance is a disabilityconsumer­advocacy group that works to support the full and effective implementation of accessibility standardsin Ontario (ODA Committee, 2005; AODA Alliance, n.d.). The Alliance regularly releases analyses ofdevelopments under the AODA on their website.

Here’s a link to an interview with David Lepofsky, Chair of the AODA Alliance, who is interviewed by StevePaitkin; David talks about the AODA and the AODA Alliance just before the Charles Beer Independent Reviewwas released. Only Beta­transcribed audio is available for this video.

AdvocacyMeet David Lepofsky and the AODA AllianceDavid Lepofsky is likely the best known AODA advocate and activist. David is a blind lawyer who chairs theAccessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. Searching the internet for information about David is arelatively easy task. David and the AODA Alliance have served as the major driving force behind adopting theAODA has been the AODA Alliance.

The Alliance began as the ODA Committee. (The ODA is the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the earlier, 2001legislative version of what became the AODO.) The Alliance is a disability consumer­advocacy group that worksto support the full and effective implementation of accessibility standards in Ontario. The Alliance regularlyreleases analyses of developments under the AODA on their website.

For an introduction to David, please watch Steve Paikin's interview David Lepofsky as David explains "thepromises provincial parties have made to benefit the disabled, and the barriers that some continue to face whenparticipating in the democratic process."

Also, please watch the following YouTube video from November 2014 as the AODA Alliance Celebrates the20th Anniversary Accessibility Campaign at Queens Park. This video provides quite a bit of rich background on

how the AODA evolved from the earlier 2001 legislation, Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA).

The Need for a More Inclusive Approach for Canadians withDisabilitiesHere’s a link to a talk by Jim Derksen of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, who speaks to the generalneed for a more inclusive approach to policy and programming for people with disabilities in Canada. He gavethis talk before Canada ratified the UNCRPD. The video shows a head shot of Jim speaking. Only Beta­transcribed audio is available for this video.

ListservsAs part of Making Ontario Accessible, please subscribe to two email lists if you haven't already. You'll receivethe current information about various AODA related activities.

1. The first email list is maintained by the AODA Alliance, David Lepofsky's Advocacy organization. To geton this list and receive occasion updates, send an email to aodafeedback@gmail.com.

2. Geof Collis sends out a weekly newsletter via email, called, appropriately enough, Accessibility News. Tosign up, send an email to info@accessibilitynews.ca and ask to be subscribed.

LinkedIn GroupsIf you are on LinkedIn, check out these two groups:

1. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Forum2. Every Day Accessibility

Discussion Board

Reminder

A quick reminder that weekly participation in the weekly Discussions is an important part of theonline course experience. If you haven't finished Week 1's Postings, please take a moment to catchup!

2.0 Posting Instructions ­ Read Me First

Please contribute at least 8 thoughtful posts for week 2.

Your posts must include responses to the 4 required "starter" questions that are labelled as suchbelow.

Your 4 remaining posts may include:

Responses to any of the other starter questions;Interactions with other students in any of the theads,Starting a new thread on a topic we haven't covered in the "Not Covered in the OtherThreads" thread.

Additional posts are welcomed!

2.1 Customer Service Awareness

Please list at least 5 things you were unaware of with regards to the Customer Service Standard,from your exploration of the actual Customer Service Regulations and the ADO website's section onCustomer Service.

2.2 Customer Service Talk *Required

In Lise Butler's audio talk, "Accessibility Standards for Customer Service Regulation", given at theUniversity of Guelph 2010 Accessibility Conference, she points out that the AODA is Standardsbased legislation rather than complaints based. What are your thoughts about this distinction?

2.3 Advocacy

Are you familiar with or know others who are involved with any advocacy groups related to theAODA? Have you contributed to any of the public AODA review processes? Please share yourexperiences.

2.4 International Initiatives *Required

Please list 3 to 5 things that stand out for you as you read about the following Internationalinitiatives:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Commonwealth Disability StrategyEuropean Disability StrategyPublic Sector Disability Equality Duty (UK)UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)European Disability Strategy

2.5 'Special Legislation' *Required

Some have argued that there are dangers in having "special" legislation for people with disabilities,and that it is preferable to instead embed disability in generic, mainstream human rights and otherlegislation.

One example of embedding disability legislation in something more mainstream is the government’sdecision to migrate most of the Built Environment Standard in Ontario’s Building Code (while leavingin its place, the less encompassing Accessibility of Public Spaces Standard).

Others have argued that the "generic" approach hasn’t worked and that targeted legislation andpolicy initiatives are necessary.

2.6 Not Covered in Other Threads!

Use this space to cover topics from this week’s lecture notes that have not been covered in otherthreads.

2.7 What are you noticing this week? *Required

What has caught your attention? Please share your insights and impressions. Please respond thisthis question after you've finished going through the module, as it's meant to be an opportunity toreflect on the week's readings, discussions, and activities.

Readings and Other ResourcesAODA Alliance. (2009). Brief of the AODA Alliance to the Charles Beer 2009 Independent Review of theimplementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Toronto: Author.

Beer, C. (February 2010). Charting a path forward: Report of the independent review of theAccessibility forOntarians with Disabilities Act. Toronto: Author. Retrieved October 22, 2013.

Ontario. Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, Chapter 32. Retrieved October 22, 2013.

Ontario. Accessibility Standard for Customer Service. Ontario Regulation 429/07.

Ontario. Integrated Accessibility Standards. Ontario Regulation 191/11.

Government of Ontario. (August 2010). Government of Ontario Response to Charles Beer Report. Toronto:Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved October 22, 2013.

United Nations. (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York: Author. Articles 1–9.

References, Background, and Technical ResourcesAODA Alliance. (n.d.). Welcome. Toronto: Author.

AODA Alliance. (June 3, 2010). AODA Alliance releases its detailed analysis of the Charles Beer IndependentReview report on the effectiveness of the government’s implementation of the AODA. Toronto: Author.

Beer, C. (February 2010). Charting a path forward: Report of the independent review of the Accessibility forOntarians with Disabilities Act. Toronto: Author.

Crawford, C. (2003).Towards a common approach to thinking about and measuring social inclusion. Toronto:L’Institut Roeher Institute.

Commonwealth Bank Group (Australia). (2010). Disability action plan.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2010). Commonwealth Disability Strategy.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2012). National Disability Strategy.

Cushing, P. (2003). Policy approaches to framing social inclusion and social exclusion: An overview. Toronto:L’Institut Roeher Institute.

Environment Canada. (2010). Accessibility, accommodations and adaptive computer technology program.

European Commission. (2010a). European Disability Strategy 2010–2020: A renewed commitment to a barrier­free Europe. Brussels: Author.

European Commission. (2010b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. European Disability Strategy2010–2020: A renewed commitment to a barrier­free Europe. Brussels: Author.

European Commission. (2010c). Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication fromthe Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee andthe Committee of the Regions. European Disability Strategy 2010–2020: A renewed commitment to a barrier­free Europe. Brussels: Author.

Gordon, P., Beatty, H, & Holder, B. (2002). An analysis of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001. Journal ofLaw and Policy, 17: 15–38.

HM Government. Office for Disability Issues. (2010). Public Sector Equality Duty.

Lepofsky, M.D. (2004). The long, arduous road to a barrier­free Ontario for people with disabilities: The historyof the Ontarians with Disabilities Act — The first chapter. National Journal of Constitutional Law, 16: 125–333.

Martin Prosperity Institute, the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity and the Adaptive TechnologyResource Centre. (2010). Releasing constraints: The impacts of increased accessibility on Ontario’s economy.Toronto: Authors.

Nomensa. (2006). United Nations Global Audit of Web Accessibility. London: Author.

ODA Committee. (March 23, 2005). Ontarians with Disabilities Act – ODA Committee. Toronto: Author.

Ontario. Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001. S.O. 2001, Chapter 32.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2011). Annual Report 2009–2010. Toronto: Author.

Rietschlin, J. & MacKenzie, A. (2004) Variation in disability rates in Statistics Canada national surveys: Buildingpolicy on a slippery foundation. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. No. 11­522­XIE.

Statistics Canada. (2007). Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006: Tables. Ottawa: Minister of Industry.Tables 3.7 and 3.7­1.

Statistics Canada. (2008a). Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006: Tables (Part V). Ottawa: Ministerof Industry.

Statistics Canada. (2008b). Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006: Tables (Part III). Ottawa: Ministerof Industry.

Statistics Canada. (2008c). Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006: Labour Force Experience ofPeople with Disabilities in Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Industry.

The Roeher Institute. (1997). The Americans with Disabilities Act Research Project. Toronto: Author.

The Roeher Institute. (2002). Moving ‘In Unison’ into action: Towards a policy strategy for improving access todisability supports. Toronto: L’Institut Roeher Institute.

Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada. (2002). Policy on the duty to accommodate persons with disabilities inthe federal public service.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2006). Accessibility Standard for Real Property.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2011a). Common Look and Feel for the Internet 2.0.

Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada. (2011b). Standard on Web Accessibility.