Legal news and trends for Canadian in-house counsel and c-suite executives
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50875
By Henry Dinsdale and Jeff Goodman Improving accessibility New regulations reflect feedback from Ontario businesses. T he Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act was enacted in 2005 with a man- date to develop, implement, and enforce standards aim- ing to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities. The AODA provides a framework under which committees that include people with disabilities, pri- vate-sector representatives, and govern- ment representatives develop "standards." The first of five standards to be released, the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service, targeted the improved access for consumers with disabilities to goods and services. We discussed the customer serv- ice standard in our April 2011 article, "Government relations: An important part of employers' human resources strat- egies," and emphasized the importance of participating in the consultation process for the remaining standards. In particu- lar, we encouraged employers to provide comments on a proposed draft of the integrated regulation either directly, or through organizations like the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. Private-sector stakeholders took up the torch and identi- fied concerns such as unrealistic timelines for compliance, vague requirements, costly expenditures on new technology, and the overall impact of compliance on small businesses. On June 3, 2011, the Ontario gov- ernment released the finalized integrated accessibility regulation, which addresses the broad areas of employment, transpor- tation and information and communica- tion, and comes just as the private sector is preparing for compliance with the cus- tomer service standard. The requirements of the regulation are more extensive than the customer service standard and will require businesses (with certain exceptions for small organizations) to develop, among other things, accessible web sites and other communications, numerous educational and training materials, accessible infra- structure, and multi-year accessibility plans to achieve AODA's objectives. Still, the integrated accessibility regulation does address several of the broader concerns raised by the private sector regarding the previous drafts; particularly the concerns that were raised by small- and medium- sized businesses. These modifications should be seen as a minor victory. Initially, each standard was intended to be a stand-alone regulation. Stakeholders complained the draft standards were writ- ten in isolation of each other and would lead to duplicative and contradictory requirements. In response, the integrated- accessibility regulation consolidates three standards and co-ordinates many of the definitions and timelines relied upon. This way, the standards are more streamlined than when originally proposed. Similarly, under the integrated-acces- sibility regulation, private organizations are categorized as either large (50 or more employees) or small (one to 49 employees). Under the customer service standard, large organizations are classified as those with 20 or more employees. Under both stand- ards, small organizations are exempt from certain requirements and have been given longer compliance deadlines. The higher employee threshold under the Integrated Accessibility Regulation addresses, in part, the concerns raised by Ontario business- es that the requirements were unrealis- tic for mid-sized employers with 20 to 50 employees. There is some suggestion that the government could harmonize the definitions under the customer service standard with the integrated accessibility regulation. Despite these and other concessions, the integrated accessibility regulation will require businesses to take active meas- ures to ensure they are compliant. The proposed regulation requires employers to go further, by formalizing a proactive approach to recruiting, employing, and servicing individuals with disabilities. For example, large organizations are required to develop (and update) multi-year acces- sibility plans, which outline the organiza- tion's strategies to prevent and remove barriers and meet its requirements under the integrated accessibility regulation. Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of the regulation, as compared to existing human rights law, is that large businesses are required to prove that they have imple- mented the required measures through reporting requirements. Businesses that fail to comply with the integrated accessi- bility regulation could face administrative monetary penalties of between $200 and $15,000 per day, depending on the nature of the business and gravity of the offence, up to a maximum of $50,000 for an indi- vidual or unincorporated association and $100,000 for a corporation. Compliance deadlines vary based on the duty and the nature and size of the organization: deadlines range from as early as July 1, 2011 for repairs to non- functioning accessibility equipment under the transportation standards, to 2021 for certain requirements under the informa- tion and communications standard, which includes significant investments in tech- nology. Thus, unlike the customer service standard, compliance is staggered over several years. Nevertheless, stakehold- ers are encouraged to continue to raise their concerns at every opportunity as the challenges of compliance with the AODA come to fruition and as the only outstand- ing standard — the built environment — is finalized. IH Henry Dinsdale and Jeff Goodman are labour and employment law partners with Heenan Blaikie LLP in Toronto. INHOUSE AUGUST 2011 • 7