A Canadian Roadmap for Accessibility Standards

  • Lau, S-T., Nirmalanathan, K., Khan, M., Gauthier, C., Maisel, J., Novak, A. (2020). A Canadian Roadmap for Accessibility Standards, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, ON.

Executive Summary

Accessibility standards have been in place for many years in Canada with a goal of creating equitable, barrier-free access to communities, workplaces, and services for people with disabilities. Nationally, some provinces and cities have adopted or adapted national standards, or have implemented their own standards. Provincially, Ontario was one of the first jurisdictions in the world to enact legislation (in 2005, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)) that set specific enforceable goals for accessibility. Manitoba (2013) and Nova Scotia (2017) followed suit. Very recently, the Accessible Canada Act (ACA) passed through legislation, with the goal of creating communities, workplaces, and services that enable all persons, including persons with disabilities, to participate fully in society without barriers. These various legislations have resulted in many cities and provinces adopting accessibility standards, which vary from province to province and city to city. Given the growing range of standards and frameworks currently employed across Canada, there is a need to evaluate where gaps in accessibility standards currently exist and identify priority areas that should be addressed.

The focus of this report was to develop a “Roadmap for Accessibility Standards” by identifying priority areas where improved or new accessibility standards are needed. This larger goal was accomplished using a multifaceted approach. This report presents the results of (1) an environmental scan that identified the voluntary and mandatory accessibility legislation, standards, or guidelines currently employed across Canada, (2) a literature review that summarized current barriers to accessibility that Canadians are facing, and (3) an opportunity analysis that determined key priority areas for future standards development.

Based on the research findings, three key opportunities for future standards development were identified, which related to:

  • Emergency services and response;
  • Recreational and green spaces; and,
  • Wayfinding and navigation systems.

The opportunity analysis presented in this report (see Section 3.0) provides an important step towards consolidating current standards employed across Canada and mapping these standards to barriers that Canadians are facing. In cases where current standards may offer solutions to identified barriers, future work should focus on determining whether these standards adequately meet the needs of the user, and if not, updates should be made to remove barriers and increase inclusivity. The identified opportunities (see Section 3.4), however, represent areas where new standards development has the potential to make a significant contribution to the removal of current barriers or the prevention of future barriers.


List of Abbreviations and Symbols

AB – Alberta ACA – Accessible Canada Act AODA – Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 ATPDR – Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations BC – British Columbia CRTC – Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission CAN – Designation for a National Standard of Canada CSA – Canadian Standards Association (also known as CSA Group) CTA – Canadian Transportation Agency IASR – Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (also known as Ontario Regulation 191/11) IP – Internet Protocol ISP – Internet service provider KITE-UHN – The KITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network MB – Manitoba NB – New Brunswick NC – Northern Community NBCC – National Building Code of Canada NL – Newfoundland and Labrador NS – Nova Scotia NT – Northwest Territories NU – Nunavut ON – Ontario PEI – Prince Edward Island QC – Québec SK – Saskatchewan TTY – Teletypewriter W3C – World Wide Web Consortium WCAG – Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (developed by W3C) YT – Yukon Territories


1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Current Accessibility Landscape in Canada
Accessibility refers to the design and construction of environments, services, and products such that individuals experiencing disability can engage with them without experiencing barriers, enabling full participation in society [1]. According to the most recent Canadian Survey on Disability, an estimated 1 in 5 Canadians over the age of 15 years have at least one disability that limits their activities of daily living [2]. The prevalence of disability increases with age, with the proportion reaching 32% of persons aged 65 to 74 years and up to 47.4% for Canadians over the age of 75 years [2]. The proportion of older adults in Canada is growing, with recent projections estimating that between 21.4% and 29.5% of the population will be 65 years old or older by 2068 [3]. As the number of individuals in this age cohort increases, the number of individuals that will be living with a disability is expected to increase.

Improvements to accessibility come about through the enactment of new legislation; the development of new, and changes to existing standards and policies; and advocacy and initiatives led by individuals with lived experiences, community organizations, and government. Over the past two decades, several significant milestones in accessibility policy and legislation have taken place. In 2005, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) was the first provincial/territorial legislation on accessibility, leading to the development of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulations (IASR) in 2011 [4, 5]. Following this, other provinces enacted accessibility legislation, with Manitoba in 2013 and Nova Scotia in 2017 [6, 7]. In 2010, Canada also became a signatory of the United Nations Convention for Rights of Persons with Disabilities [8]. The most recent landmark has been the creation of Canadian federal legislation on accessibility, the Accessible Canada Act (ACA), which received Royal Assent in 2019 [9]. In addition to these developments at the national and provincial/territorial levels, many cities and communities across Canada have created and implemented bylaws, policies, and guidelines to address the barriers to accessibility that Canadians face in their daily lives. The advancements in policy and standards translate to provisions that affect key aspects of daily life for people with disabilities, which include domains such as customer service and program delivery, employment, transportation, physical environment, and information and communication.

The development of various accessibility-related regulatory frameworks and standards across Canada is vital for ensuring full participation and inclusion of Canadians with disabilities. However, there is a risk that gaps may still exist given the potential variability in advancements across the country, among provinces and territories, and among municipalities. Because of this variability and considering the existing and projected increase in the number of individuals who live with or will have a disability, it is necessary to assess the current accessibility landscape. This will help to identify where gaps in current standards exist and to determine whether improved and/or new accessibility standards are needed to meet the needs of Canadians with disabilities.

1.2 Project Objectives and Approach
The objective of this project was to identify the barriers to accessibility that Canadians experience, compare whether and how these barriers are addressed in existing standards, and inform future standards development efforts. This larger goal was accomplished using a multifaceted approach. First, the voluntary and mandatory accessibility legislation, standards, or guidelines currently employed across Canada were identified through an environmental scan. Current barriers to accessibility faced by Canadians were then summarized using a rapid literature review process. These barriers were mapped to the findings from the environmental scan to determine whether solutions are offered by the current accessibility standards or where opportunities for future standard development exist.


2.0 Environmental Scan of Current Accessibility Legislation, Standards, and Guidelines Employed across Canada

2.1 Overview
There are an increasing number of accessibility standards and guidelines being employed across Canada as federal-level and provincial-specific legislation is enacted. To provide a current and up-to-date resource given the many available documents, an environmental scan of the existing national, provincial, and municipal-level standards and guidelines was carried out.

To conduct the environmental scan, accessibility legislation, standards, and guidelines currently employed across Canada were identified through a grey literature search using previously defined methods [10, 11, 12, 13]. A grey literature search allowed for the data to be systematically extracted from non-academic sources, including the following:

  • Relevant government (e.g., LEGISinfo), policy, legal (e.g., Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII)), and disability policy and research organization websites (e.g., Canadian Disability Policy Alliance);
  • Documents cited in published reports on accessibility and disability; and,
  • Organizations overseeing relevant priority areas of accessibility (such as the agencies overseeing various modes of transportation (e.g., Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA); public transit operators; excluding national or local airlines or airports), or telecommunications and broadcasting (e.g., Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)).

Searches using Google Search Engine included permutations of search terms within the following categories:

  • Topic: “accessibility” and “accessible”;
  • Document type: “standard”, “guide”, “regulation”, “policy”, “code”, or “guideline”;
  • Priority area (as defined below in Section 2.2); and
  • Jurisdiction: “national” and “Canada”, name of province/territory, name of municipality/community.

All searches were conducted in English, in the fall of 2019. Additional French-language searches were performed for Québec-related documents. Publicly available legislative documents, regulations, standards, and guidelines found through the grey literature search were summarized according to those available at the (1) national level, (2) provincial/territorial level, and (3) municipal/community level. Considering the latter, only the top five most populous municipalities/communities (or those with a population greater than 50,000) in each province/territory were considered in the environmental scan [14]. However, to ensure representation of communities within Northern Canada, the top three most populous Northern communitiesfootnote 1 (NC) in each province/territory were also separately identified and included [14, 15]. There were 101 municipalities and communities included in this scan. The number of municipalities/communities included for each geographical region were as follows: 13 in Atlantic Canada, 15 in Québec, 29 in Ontario, 20 in the Prairie provinces, 12 in British Columbia, and 12 in the Territories.

Once a document was deemed relevant to include in the environmental scan, it was further categorized according to a “priority area” of accessibility as briefly defined here:

  1. Built Environment: Ensures the physical environment allows persons with disabilities to move freely around building and public spaces (indoor and outdoor) [5, 16].
  2. Customer Service, Program Delivery, and Procurement of Goods, Services, and Facilities: Ensures that persons with disabilities can use goods, services, and facilities, while receiving services that are accessible to all [5].
  3. Employment: Ensures that organizations and companies create accessible employment opportunities and workplaces so that all members, including persons with disabilities, can participate [5, 17].
  4. Information and Communications Standards and Technology: Ensures that the sharing and exchange of information in any format is accessible [5].
  5. Transportation: Ensures that there are barrier-free transportation networks, including all modes of transportation (air, rail, ferry, and bus) [5, 18].

Documents that contained content that fell outside of the definition of the priority areas listed above were categorized as “Other”. Documents pertaining to human rights or financial support were not included in the final sample as these topics fall outside of the scope of accessibility standards. Canadian policies on disability rights and financial support have been reviewed in a comprehensive report published by the Canadian Disability Policy Alliance in December of 2017 [19]. Finally, if a document was found to apply to more than one priority area, the organization/department that published or was overseeing that standard was used to categorize the document in a priority area. For example, if bathroom facility guidelines on trains were found in a transportation guideline, this document would be categorized under the transportation priority area rather than built environment.

In total, 273 unique documents were identified, which could apply to more than one priority area. A complete list of all documents for each priority area of accessibility can be found in Appendixes A to F. Detailed findings from the environmental scan are summarized in Section 2.2footnote 2.

2.2 Environmental Scan: Findings
To date, accessibility legislation is present at the federal level in the form of the ACA and in the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba , and Nova Scotia [4, 7, 18]. The proposed British Columbia Accessibility Act is currently being reviewed, with the first reading having been completed in 2019 [20]. As illustrated in Figure 1, the priority areas of accessibility for which standards have been or will be developed are similar among the three provinces and between levels of government.


Figure 1: This map of Canada illustrates which provinces and territories currently have or are developing accessibility legislation. The priority areas in which standards have or will be developed at the federal level and in provinces (which have enacted accessibility legislation) are listed. A single asterisk (*) is used to denote standards that are currently in development and two asterisks (**) denote areas in which standards will be developed in the near future. This map of Canada illustrates which provinces and territories currently have or are developing accessibility legislation.

This map of Canada illustrates which provinces and territories currently have or are developing accessibility legislation. The priority areas in which standards have or will be developed at the federal level and in provinces (which have enacted accessibility legislation) are listed. A single asterisk (*) is used to denote standards that are currently in development and two asterisks (**) denote areas in which standards will be developed in the future. Long description: Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia (shown in orange) are the only provinces among the provinces/territories that have their own accessibility legislation. British Columbia (shown in orange and gray stripes) is currently developing their own accessibility act. This drawing also summarizes the priority areas in which accessibility standards have been, are being, or will be developed by the Governments of Canada, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. The Government of Canada will develop standards in 7 priority areas. They are: Built Environment, Service Design and Delivery, Procurement, Employment, Information and Communication Technology, Communication, and Transportation. In Manitoba, accessibility standards for Customer Service and Employment – two of the five priority areas being prioritized by this province – have been developed. Standards in the areas of the Built Environment, Information and Communication, and Transportation will be developed in the future. The province of Ontario currently has standards that cover the following areas: Design of Public Spaces, Customer Service, Employment, Information and Communication, and Transportation. Standards for Education and Health Care are currently being developed. Finally, the province of Nova Scotia has prioritized six areas for standards development. Standards for the Built Environment and Education are in development and there are plans to create standards for Employment, Information and Communication, and Transportation.


Findings from the environmental scan are summarized according to the priority area of accessibility. The subsection for each priority area provides a high-level summary of the general contents covered within the available documents at the national and provincial/territorial levels. Due to the variability and specificity of the documents at the municipal level of government, contents of these documents were only considered in the context of opportunities (see Section 3.0). For comprehensiveness of the environmental scan, however, the municipal-level documents are included in the Appendixes and categorized by priority area. It should be noted that only publicly available documents (including accessibility legislation, standards, or guidelines) were included in this scan. This may underrepresent initiatives undertaken by certain municipalities or regions as documents identified may not have met inclusion criteria or were not publicly available. Furthermore, it was not possible to verify and determine the extent to which accessibility provisions outlined in these documents have been adopted, as some guidelines are voluntary and it is up to the organization to adopt it and to determine the extent of the adoption.

A summary of the findings from the environmental scan for each priority area are provided in Sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.5.

2.2.1 The Built Environment
A total of 89 documents – the second greatest number among the priority areas – were identified for the built environment (for a complete list of documents, see Appendix A).

2.2.1.1 The Built Environment: National-Level Documents
At the federal level, standards related to the Built Environment reference the CSA Accessible Design for the Built Environment standard (CAN/CSA B651-18), which is a National Standard of Canada (CAN)footnote 3 and is referenced by the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) [16, 21]. The NBCC is a model code such that individual provinces and territories can adopt the NBCC in its entirety or adopt and adapt selected provisions within the NBCC. Accessibility provisions in the NBCC 2015 and CAN/CSA B651-18 include the requirements for the design and construction of the following [16, 21]:

  • Barrier-free access to buildings;
  • Building entrances and exits;
  • Circulation/routes within and outside of buildings;
  • Barrier-free facilities for drinking, toileting, and bathing;
  • Wayfinding and signage; and,
  • Interior and exterior building elements such as doors, counters, ramps, stairs, handrails.

Additional provisions unique to CAN/CSA B651-18 include [16]:

  • Outdoor pedestrian infrastructure;
  • More extensive provisions for emergencies and evacuations;
  • Transportation infrastructure (e.g., transit stops, transit shelter);
  • Aspects of recreation spaces; and
  • Customer service features (e.g., ticketing, information kiosks) and communication technologies (e.g., telephone booths).

In addition to the NBCC, the Government of Canada also has an accessibility standard that applies to federal real property [22].

2.2.1.2 The Built Environment: Provincial and Territorial-Level Documents
Provincial and territorial building codes list the minimum built environment requirements that public and private infrastructure must meet within a given jurisdiction. Four provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec) publish their own building codes [23, 24, 25, 26]. Specific accessibility-related provisions within these individual codes that differ from NBCC 2015 include:

  • Additional multi-modal provisions (e.g., tactile signage in addition to visual signage);
  • Security systems with audible and visual components [23];
  • Provision of designated parking stalls for use by individuals with physical disabilities [23, 25]; and,
  • Accessibility provisions for sleeping rooms and bed spaces [24].

Several unique features (beyond requirements for buildings) of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulations’ (IASR) Design of Public Spaces Standard include accessibility provisions related to recreational spaces, outdoor public eating areas, and play areas. All other provinces/territories adopt or adapt the NBCC and accessibility provisions within in its entirety or with amendments [27]. While the province of Saskatchewan has adopted NBCC 2015 and does publish its own building code, the provincial government has also developed a guide on barrier-free design [28]. Other provincial government organizations, such as BC Housing, which manages subsidized housing in British Columbia, also have their own design guidelines [29].

At the municipal level, provisions may also go beyond the minimum requirements in the provincial/territorial building code. Across the 101 municipalities included in this environmental scan, 68 documents pertaining to the built environment were found.

2.2.2 Customer Service, Program Delivery, and Procurement of Goods, Services, and Facilities
Thirty-six documents were found in the area of customer service, program delivery, and procurement of goods, services, and facilities (see Appendix B).

2.2.2.1 Customer Service, Program Delivery, and Procurement of Goods, Services, and Facilities: National-Level Documents
At the present time, the B480-02 Customer Service Standard for People with Disabilities, developed by CSA Group with support from the Government of Ontario, is the only national accessibility standard for customer service [30]. The CSA B480-02 standard includes accessibility requirements to do with management and leadership, provision of resources, service planning and delivery, and responsibilities of staff and associates [30].

2.2.2.2 Customer Service, Program Delivery, and Procurement of Goods, Services, and Facilities: Provincial and Territorial-Level Documents
At the provincial level, only the governments of Manitoba and Ontario have developed standards in the area of customer service and program delivery [5, 31, 32]. Standards in this priority area typically apply to any organization that provides goods, services, or facilities [5]. Provisions that are common to these two standards include the following:

  • Ensuring that service animals, such as guide dogs, and support persons are permitted to accompany persons with disabilities into a given space;
  • Training for service providers and staff on how to interact with persons with disabilities (including information about assistive devices) and/or how to provide accommodation or assist an individual with disabilities (e.g., bus driver assisting an individual using a wheelchair when boarding the bus); and,
  • Availability of information in accessible formats [5, 31].

Several provisions unique to the standard on customer service and program delivery in Manitoba include accessible built environment; compliance of organization to the accessibility policies and practices; and accessibility of public events held by an organization [31].

Additional provincial standards or guidelines in the area of customer service and program delivery include a guide for accessibility and adaptation of government services in Québec [33]. This document includes provisions that are specific to the built environment of government buildings and to communications and training of staff that work in government services.

Documents related to customer service, program delivery, and procurement of goods and services were not identified for the municipalities in Atlantic Canada or in Québec. However, documents in this topic area were located for most included municipalities within Ontario (i.e., a total of 25 documents found across 29 municipalities included within Ontario specifically), which was anticipated given that Ontario municipalities must adhere to the requirements in the Customer Service Standard within IASR. Documents related to accessible customer service were identified for three municipalities across the Prairie provinces and British Columbia.

2.2.3 Employment
Twenty-six documents were identified in the area of employment (see Appendix C).

2.2.3.1 Employment: National-Level Documents
At the federal level, the Government of Canada’s Policy on the Duty to Accommodate Persons with Disabilities in the Federal Public Service has in place accessibility standards related to employment in the federal public service [34]. This policy includes the following accessibility requirements:

  • The interview and selection process of job candidates and new employees with disabilities;
  • The roles and actions of the Treasury Board Secretariat and deputy heads; and,
  • The roles of employees in communicating disability-related needs with the employer and in development of plans for accommodation [34].

Since this environmental scan was completed, CSA Group has also published the CSA Z1011-2020 Work Disability Management System, which provides best practices for organizations [35].

2.2.3.2 Employment: Provincial- and Territorial-Level Documents
At a provincial level, provisions in accessibility regulations exist at all stages of employment, including:

  • During the recruitment process (e.g., informing job applicants that reasonable accommodations are available during the interview process);
  • Once an individual has been hired (e.g., accommodations to training procedures; informing employees of support available);
  • Collection of individualized workplace emergency response information;
  • Return-to-work policies for individuals who are absent from work for disability-related reasons; and,
  • Provisions for career development/advancement [5, 17].

With the exception of Manitoba and Ontariofootnote 4, no other provincial standards identified for the priority area of employment were found to apply to both private and public sector organizations. For instance, the Government of Québec has an act dedicated to equal employment of individuals with disabilities in public service [36]. At the municipal level, employment-related documents were found for most municipalities across Ontario (20 documents across 29 municipalities included within Ontario), while one document pertaining to employment equity specifically was found for British Columbia. Employment-related documents were not identified for any other municipalities during the online search.

2.2.4 Information and Communications Standards and Technology
Ninety-seven documents – the greatest number of documents – were identified in the area of information and communication standards and technology. This area includes accessibility of information exchanged in any format (e.g., written, audio, visual, digital) and in any medium (i.e., in-person, print, digital, using technology) [5, 37]. Documents in this area encompass a broad spectrum of topics, including:

  • Telecommunications (e.g., wireless mobility, the Internet) [38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43];
  • Broadcasting (i.e., television and radio) [38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52];
  • Accessibility of online platforms (e.g., websites, mobile apps ) [53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67]; and,
  • Digital and print documents [5, 59, 68, 69, 70].

2.2.4.1 Information and Communications Standards and Technology: National-Level Documents
At the national level, the CRTC develops and oversees the implementation of regulatory policies to do with accessibility for broadcasting and television service providers, internet service providers (ISP) and telecommunications service providers [38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 71, 72]. Accessibility provisions in these policies include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Accommodations in the form of trial periods with products [40, 50];
  • Provision of text-based services [38, 39, 41, 72];
  • Provision of documents or information in sign language or plain language [38, 39, 45, 46, 47];
  • Provision of Internet Protocol/Teletypewriter (IP/TTY) Relay Service [38, 39, 41, 71];
  • Implementation of a customer service and complaint system for ISP, telecom, and broadcasting [48, 50]; and,
  • Provision of closed captioning and described video for Canadian English and French television programming services [38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52].

When considering web accessibility, the most commonly used guidelines are the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The WCAG includes recommendations on a variety of elements, including alt text, captioning, sign language, site navigation, and text size [56, 57]. The WCAG guidelines can also be applied to web content and applications on mobile devices (i.e., smart phones) [73]. The most recent version of WCAG, version 2.1, was published in 2018 [57]. The Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada also has standards related to web accessibility, usability of government websites available to the public, and standards about the formatting and layout for any emails sent from Government of Canada email addresses [53, 54, 55, 74]. Several accessibility provisions in these standards follow WCAG 2.0.

2.2.4.2 Information and Communications Standards and Technology: Provincial and Territorial-Level Documents
At the provincial and territorial levels, most provinces and territories (Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Québec, and Saskatchewan) have web accessibility policies that follow either WCAG 2.0 or WCAG 2.1 [58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 75]. For instance, in Ontario, by 2021, content on the Internet and intranet will be required to adhere to WCAG 2.0 Level AA guidelines [5]. Other provinces have created web accessibility policies applicable only to government web pages (the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, and Prince Edward Island) [58, 61, 62]. Similar to the documents at the provincial level, municipalities that cite web accessibility recommendations will reference a version of the WCAG.

While the vast majority of documents found within the information communication and technology priority area pertain to web accessibility, only a handful of government documents reference or incorporate standards and best practices beyond web accessibility. For instance, provincial/territorial documents in Ontario, Québec, and Newfoundland and Labrador reference best practices on how to create accessible documents and applications, including those developed by software companies (e.g., for Microsoft Office Suite, for Adobe Creative Suite), by Canadian initiatives like the Ontario College of Art and Design (OCAD) University’s Accessible Digital Office Document Project, and organizations such as the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) Foundation’s Clear Print Accessibility Guidelines [59, 68, 70, 76, 77]. Other types of standards include Ontario’s IASR and Newfoundland and Labrador’s Accessible Communications Policy, which include provisions such as alternative formats of documentation and captioning; Québec has provincial standards outlining the scope and conditions of conformity for adaptive communication measures that government departments and organizations outside the government must take to achieve accessibility [5, 59, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69].

2.2.5 Transportation
Seventy documents related to transportation were identified, making it the priority area with the third greatest in number of documents found within the environmental scan. Documents in this area encompass not only customer service and service delivery related to transportation but also the design of transportation vehicles and transit/passenger terminals. See Appendix E for a full list of transportation-related documents.

2.2.5.1 Transportation: National-Level Documents
Nationally, documents published by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) and Transport Canada relate to federally-regulated transportation [78, 79]. The CTA has adopted CAN/CSA-B651.2-07 Accessible Design for Self-Service Interactive Devices for all federally-regulated transportation providers [78, 80]. Two CSA standards, the Accessible Design for the Built Environment and the Elevator Requirements for Persons with Disabilities in Jurisdictions Enforcing NBCC have also been adopted by the CTA for use in passenger terminals [16, 78, 81]. Finally, CSA Group has published three standards on accessibility and transportation. The first is CSA D409-16 Motor Vehicles for the Transportation of Persons with Physical Disabilities standard, which provides technical specifications on the design and construction of motor vehicles and lift systems and ramps that persons with physical disabilities use for boarding and alighting [82]. This standard also specifies how to safely secure mobility aids, such as wheeled mobility devices, in the vehicle. Note that this standard does not apply to passenger cars, transit buses, or over-the-road buses (i.e., motorcoaches) [82]. The second and third standards address transit buses and over-the-road bus transportation: CSA D435-16 Accessible Transit Buses and CSA D436-16 Accessible Over-the-Road Buses [83, 84]. The Accessible Transit Buses standard specifies the design and construction of elements of the body of the bus (e.g., steps, entrance, emergency exit), and mobility aid space requirements (e.g., design of folding seats, securement of mobility aids, vehicle lifts, and service ramps) [83]. While the D435-16 standard applies to cross-city buses, the D436-16 standard applies to over-the-road buses, commonly known as motorcoaches, that (can) travel on highways to transport seated passengers [84].

Recently, the Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (ATPDR) were created and most provisions came into force on June 25, 2020 [85]. Some remaining provisions will be implemented in early 2021, while others will be gradually implemented over the next two years [86]. ATPDR consolidates and replaces older accessibility standardsfootnote 5 as part of the CTA’s Regulatory Modernization Initiative [87]. These regulations include mandatory requirements for Carriers, Terminal Operators, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, and Canadian Border Service Agency relating to elements [88] such as:

  • Accessible documentation (paper and electronic);
  • Web accessibility; and,
  • Customer service training on how to interact with persons with disabilities.

The ATPDR also includes mandatory requirements for air, rail, marine, and bus carriers for elements such as assistance with boarding, step box, web content related to accessibility measures, and accessible formats of important documents (e.g., use of Braille, large fonts, colour contrast).

With respect to the accessibility of buses, accessibility provisions for Transport Canada’s Intercity Bus Code of Practice [79] include:

  • Signage requirements;
  • Web accessibility;
  • Handling assistive devices and aids; and,
  • Employee training in physical assistance, complaint process, alternative documentation formats, and accessibility assistance with ticket purchasing and boarding/disembarking [79].

2.2.5.2 Transportation: Provincial and Territorial-Level Documents
Within transportation, the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec have published documents related to mandatory requirements for conventional transportation and specialized service providers [5, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94]. This includes accommodations on ticketing/fees and service planning, customer service (including employee training, providing accommodations, safe boarding and deboarding, mobility aid handling), emergency planning, accessible vehicle design, accessible transit stop design, and vehicle operation and condition of the vehicle [5, 89, 91, 94]. Québec has also created a document specifically for the provision of accessible taxi services that includes conditions to offer accompaniment services [94]. In British Columbia, accessibility and universal design features are incorporated in the design of transit infrastructure overseen by BC Transit [95]. Similarly, GO Transit – which provides bus and train services throughout Southern Ontario – considers accessibility in the design of its infrastructure, including lighting conditions that consider the needs of individuals with disabilities and older adults, and the provision of induction (hearing) loop systems for individuals that use assistive hearing devices [96, 97, 98] (see also Appendix F).

At the municipal level, some municipalities have standards/guidelines for some aspects of transportation published by regional transit authorities or operators of modes of transportation, including buses, trains, light rail transit, subways, and streetcars. Across the 101 municipalities included in this environmental scan, 41 standards or guidelines related to transportation were found.


3.0 Barriers, Challenges, and Opportunities for Standards Development

3.1 Overview
In parallel with conducting the environmental scan of current practice related to accessibility standards, it was also necessary to gain a detailed understanding of the current barriers to accessibility that individuals experience across Canada. Types of barriers considered within this report included barriers that are physical or architectural, systemic or organizational, technological or technical, and communication-related. Once identified, the barriers were mapped to existing standards, which allowed for the identification of opportunities for standards development.

To identify barriers experienced by persons with disabilities across the multiple domains of accessibility, a grey literature review was conducted. Surveys or reports related to public and stakeholder consultations on accessibility, published by (or publicly available through) government organizations, relevant disability organizations, and national and selected provincial transit agencies/operators were included in the literature review (see Appendixes G and H). An internal national survey conducted by KITE-UHN [99], which asked individuals with lived experiences with disability to identify and describe barriers they faced within each priority area, was also included. The documents were published between 2015 and 2020 to best capture information about current barriers in the context of the policies/standards that are presently available across Canada. Committee meeting minutes or transcripts (at any level of government, including Hansards), rescinded standards, online blogs, accessibility plans, or letters were excluded from this literature review.

Searches using Google Search Engine or the search engine within an organization’s website were performed using permutations generated for each priority area as outlined for the environmental scan, with the addition of education and health carefootnote 6 , and included:

  • Topic: “accessibility”, “disability”, “barriers”, “issues”;
  • Document type: “report”, “stakeholder consultation”, “public consultation”, “survey”, “review”, “submission”, “summary”;
  • Disability typefootnote 7: “pain-related”, “flexibility”, “mobility”, “mental health”, “seeing”/”vision”, “hearing”, “dexterity”, “learning”, “memory”, “developmental”, “speech”/”communication”, “invisible”; and,
  • Geographical location: “national” and “Canada”, name of province, territory, municipality, or community.

All searches were performed in English using similar methods to those included in the environmental scan. Searches for documents published by organizations in Québec were also performed in French. In total, 8,552 search results were screened to produce a final sample of 48 documents. Six of the 48 documents were written in French. Half of the documents provided national-level information and the remainder provided information about a specific province or territory. A summary of the reported barriers, including examples, are presented in Section 3.2 according to the priority area of accessibility. A discussion of the barriers as they map to existing standards is presented in Section 3.3.

3.2 Summary of Identified Barriers Across Areas of Accessibility
Although the populations of interest and methods for each document included within this literature review varied, several key or consistently identified barriers emerged for each priority area of accessibility. Two additional sectors – emergency services and health care – are also included in this section, as barriers specific to these areas were identified in the rapid review.

3.2.1 Barriers in the Built Environment
Six common themes emerged when considering reported barriers related to the built environment. These included barriers to accessibility in all types of physical environments, such as outdoor spaces or exterior to buildings, interior spaces, and points of transition between outdoor and indoor spaces (i.e., entrances and exits). Challenges with navigating and moving in the built environment were also highlighted in the rapid review documents.

  • Issues related to access of public buildings/facilities: Inaccessible entrances and exits of public buildings, private establishments (such as stores), and schools were commonly identified as barriers within the built environment. Reported causes for this barrier were related to the placement of push buttons for powered doors, doors that are too heavy, or do not open automatically, or wheelchair accessible doors/ramps that are either absent or not placed in appropriate locations for use [100, 101, 102]. In line with these barriers, several documents also discussed responses by individuals suggesting that, in general, minimum building codes should align with accessibility standards to improve accessibility for many aspects of the built environment (such as stairs, building entrances/exits) [99, 103, 104, 105].
  • Inaccessible washrooms in public spaces: Access to washrooms was frequently identified as a barrier within the built environment by people with various types of disabilities. This may be a result of an accessible washroom being altogether absent, or because the accessible washroom that was available was ineffectively designed [100, 101, 106, 107, 108, 109].
  • Parking-related access issues: The lack of, or insufficient number of accessible parking spaces, and location of parking relative to building entrances were commonly reported as barriers. The available width of parking spots for vehicles with side-loading of wheelchairs was also a noted barrier [99, 100, 101, 106, 110, 111, 112, 113].
  • Lack of availability and appropriate design of recreation or green spaces to improve accessibility: Green or recreational spaces were reported as a general barrier to accessibility, particularly for individuals using wheelchairs [101, 107, 111, 114]. Specific to playgrounds in schools and in park facilities, the surfaces used (such as wood chips) led to access limitations for users of mobility devices or there was limited availability of wheelchair-accessible playground equipment [100]. In national parks, accommodations for wheelchairs was also a highlighted issue [107]. Barriers with accessibility in recreational spaces also included fitness programs and recreational/community centres, including the maintenance of recreational spaces [103, 111].
  • Challenges related to inaccessible pedestrian paths of travel: Obstructed or uneven sidewalks, the use of interlocking bricks, or general lack of maintenance of sidewalks (including winter maintenance) were commonly reported barriers leading to inaccessible pedestrian walkways for older adults and people with various disabilities [100, 102, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115]. Insufficient street lighting was also a highlighted barrier, limiting safe use of pedestrian paths of travel [115].
  • Challenges with wayfinding and signage: Within the built environment, the lack of wayfinding systems and accessible signage were commonly identified barriers for people with vision loss, but were also noted for people with various types of disabilities [100, 103, 104, 105, 109, 116, 117]. Specific barriers discussed included a lack of, or incorrect braille on signage and elevators, or absence of signage in alternative formats, which resulted in wayfinding-related issues within the built environment [100, 103, 109, 116].

3.2.2 Barriers in Customer Service, Program Delivery, and Procurement of Goods, Services, and Facilities
Three themes emerged when considering reported barriers related to customer service, program delivery, and procurement of goods, services, and facilities.

  • Insufficient education and training of employers or employees resulting in barriers to access: Common barriers related to education and training of customer service representatives within the customer service and program delivery domain included a lack of knowledge regarding available supports within organizations, insufficient response to accommodations requests, or the denial of entry or services when accompanied by a service animal [99, 100, 118, 119, 120, 121].
  • Issues related to communication and access to information: The lack of multi-modal methods of information/communication was a highlighted barrier within customer service and program delivery [118, 119]. Increased use by businesses of touchscreen or automated check-out technologies was a cited barrier for people with various disabilities, particularly when alternative formats were not available [99, 122].
  • Challenges within the built environment: Several aspects of the built environment posed barriers, specifically related to customer service and program delivery. These included bank machines and customer service counters that were not wheelchair accessible and, in general, inaccessible buildings/facilities or hotel rooms/lodging [99, 100, 108].

3.2.3 Barriers in Employment
Four themes emerged when considering barriers related to employment.

  1. Challenges with the availability of meaningful job opportunities: The availability of meaningful job opportunities for people with disabilities was frequently identified as a general barrier to employment [103, 105, 106, 109, 123, 124, 125]. Specifically, reported barriers limiting meaningful job opportunities for people with disabilities included insufficient access to opportunities for self-employment, lack of outreach from employers to people with disabilities when recruiting for jobs, or lack of opportunities for career advancement within current job positions [100, 106, 123, 125, 126].
  2. Issues related to workplace accommodations and initial and ongoing support on-the-job: Provision of appropriate workplace accommodations was frequently reported as a general barrier to employment [100, 127, 128]. For the employee, specific issues related to workplace accommodations included limited flexibility in work schedule/arrangements, limited flexibility to modify tasks, and lack of ongoing support or training following a usual probationary period for new hires [102, 103, 125, 127]. From the perspective of the employer, perceived high costs to provide accommodations (including the cost of accessible technology and equipment) were also noted barriers to employment for people with disabilities [124, 129]. Finally, employers’ lack of knowledge about supports for employees with disabilities was noted as a barrier within the employment domain [130].
  3. Challenges within the built environment: Reported barriers within the employment domain related to the built environment included inaccessible entrances and exits of buildings and inaccessible workspaces [99, 103, 131].
  4. Access challenges for employment-related transportation: Unreliable or inaccessible transportation (including both vehicles and transit stops) were common barriers within employment [99, 105, 114, 123, 131, 133].

In addition to these barrier-related themes, attitudinal barriers were also cited frequently in documents that discussed accessibility in employment [99, 105, 108, 123, 134, 135].

3.2.4 Barriers in Education
Reports contained within our rapid review described education-related barriers to accessibility that ranged from those occurring in early childhood education to post-secondary education and training. Despite the broad range of educational levels considered, five common themes emerged when considering barriers related to education.

  • Lack of sufficient funding, resources, and services: Within the education sector, several barriers were noted relating to funding and access to services/resources, including the following: challenges due to increased class sizes or fewer educational assistants, resulting in teachers who are unable to adequately accommodate the needs of all students, insufficient services for students with mental health needs and learning disabilities, and limited availability of assistive technologies within the classroom [123, 136, 137, 138].
  • Issues related to communication and access to information: Difficulty in obtaining materials in appropriate, alternative formats was frequently identified as a challenge for people with hearing or vision loss within the classroom. Specifically, a lack of access to sign language, a lack of closed captioning in classrooms, or the lack of materials in alternative formats such as Braille were highlighted as common communication- and information-related barriers within education [138, 139, 140].
  • Policy or procedure-related issues: Delays in obtaining accommodations, due likely in part to challenges with obtaining required medical documentation, were noted barriers within education [136, 138, 141]. Difficulties with the development of meaningful individualized education plans were highlighted as a procedural or policy-related barrier, as was the absence of supports when students transition from one educational level to another (or from the education system to the workforce) [110, 123, 138, 141]. Finally, the exclusion and segregation of students with disabilities in programs, events, or classrooms was a frequently reported barrier within education [123, 138, 139, 141].
  • Challenges within the built environment: Many challenges within the built environment were identified in the education sector. Barriers included inaccessible washrooms, lack of accessible parking spaces, and physical education equipment that is not accessible for children with disabilities [100]. Issues with overcrowding in classrooms and lighting, which affects individuals with sensory processing difficulties, were also identified barriers [138]. Specific to universities and post-secondary settings, a lack of accessible study space was a cited issue [100].
  • Access challenges for education-related transportation: A lack of flexibility with access to specialized transportation systems and to transportation to and from school were particular barriers in rural and First Nation communities when considering transportation within the education sector [110, 123, 138]. Buses that are not wheelchair accessible and steps onto school buses being too high were also highlighted barriers [138].

3.2.5 Barriers in Information and Communications Standards and Technology
Three thematic areas were identified relating to the barriers reported within information and communications standards and technology.

  • Challenges with the location or availability of accessible information on websites or other technological platforms: The ability to locate information on websites was a commonly reported barrier for people with disabilities within the area of information and communication standards [99, 109, 122, 142]. General website navigation was also highlighted as challenging for individuals with visual disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and older adults [109, 142].
  • Lack of access to multi-modal communication/information formats: Provision of information in a singular format (without accessible alternative formats available) was a frequently cited barrier within the domain of information and communication accessibility; this included challenges with accessing braille or sign language [103, 109, 143]. The absence of, or inadequate provision of, descriptive videos and closed captioning was another challenge to accessing information [99, 103].
  • Increased use of touchscreen or self-service technologies resulting in barriers to access: Although the detailed reasons were not immediately evident through the literature review results, the increased use of touchscreen and self-service technologies, in general, across several domains (such as customer service or transportation) were reported barriers to accessibility [99, 108, 122].

3.2.6 Barriers in Transportation
Six themes emerged when considering the reported barriers within transportation.

  • Lack of access to, and reliability of, accessible transportation services: A general lack of access within various modes of public transportation (including airplanes, light rail transit, buses, and paratransit services) was a frequently identified barrier, including rural and First Nations communities [99, 107, 108, 110, 130]. More specifically, the prohibitive cost of transportation services, restricted hours of operation (or general availability of paratransit services), and inconsistency in pick-up/drop off locations and time for paratransit services were commonly reported as barriers to transportation access [107, 115, 116, 117, 123, 126, 144]. Considering paratransit services, the requirement for making advanced bookings limits the use of this service by persons with disabilities, as does the lack of accessible vehicles or trained drivers with alternative ride-hailing services [99, 115, 138].
  • Inaccessible public alerts and announcements: Within transportation, inaccessible public alerts and announcements led to barriers. Specifically, service or transit stops with voice-only alerts (regardless of the mode of transportation) limited access for people with hearing disabilities, as did announcements at airports and pilot announcements within aircrafts [117, 145].
  • Increased use of touchscreen or self-service technologies resulting in barriers to access: Within transportation, the automation of transit stations (without station attendants) were reported barriers to accessibility for people with various disabilities [99, 117]. The incompatibility of online booking systems with assistive reading technologies (e.g., screen readers) was also reported as a barrier for people with vision loss [121].
  • Challenges within the built environment: Within the area of transportation, many barriers relating to the built environment were identified. Reported barriers included the design of bus shelters and bus stops, where the absence of benches or shelters and the presence of curbs at the entry and exit points were highlighted [99, 123]. Vehicles, rail cars, and airplanes with inaccessible seating; bus seating designed to accommodate manual but not powered wheeled devices (or having inadequate space for service animals); and the presence of stairs/steps when entering vehicles/rail cars or the absence of ramps were specifically identified challenges within the built environment of transport vehicles [99, 108, 117].
  • Challenges with wayfinding and signage: Limitations associated with signage in multi-modal accessible formats, with inconsistent and unclear wayfinding systems or lack of continuous paths of travel between transit terminals/stations, were noted wayfinding-related barriers within the transportation domain [99, 103, 116, 117, 121].
  • Insufficient education and training for the service providers: Difficulties associated with assistance from the service provider when transitioning from one transit system to another (when systems are connected in proximity) resulted in barriers under the theme of education and training for transit service providers [117]. Bus drivers without sufficient knowledge to safely assist individuals using wheelchairs or the lack of general assistance for persons with disabilities by service operators were reported barriers to access within the transportation domain [99, 144, 146].

3.2.7 Barriers in Emergency Services and Emergency Response
Emergency services and emergency response emerged from the rapid literature review as a separate area of consideration, with three themes identified when considering associated barriers:

  • Issues related to communication and access to information (in general): The provision of information in multi-modal formats (such as closed captioning, sign language) was noted as insufficient, leading to barriers to access that were specific to emergency services and responses; this challenge applied not only during the emergency but also before and after [99, 147].
  • Issues related to communication and access to information (pertaining to 9-1-1 specifically): Emergency 9-1-1 operators without proper training in using assistive technologies such as video-relay services were often reported as a barrier for people with disabilities who rely on such services [99, 147].
  • Lack of inclusive and accessible emergency evacuation plans: The general absence of evacuation plans that include people with disabilities was a reported barrier when considering the domain of emergency services and responses [105].

3.2.8 Barriers in Health Care
Within the health care sector, three barrier-related themes were identified.

  • Challenges related to health care access: Challenges with general access to health care services for people with disabilities was frequently highlighted as a barrier, which included access to home care services [100, 102, 126, 148].
  • Issues related to communication and access to information within the health care setting: Miscommunication (particularly between a deafblind intervener and health care professionals), health care providers without knowledge of sign language, or health care providers who defer decision-making to family or others were reported communication-related barriers within the health care sector [125, 149]. Lack of health information provided in accessible and multi-modal formats was also a barrier related to communication within the health care setting [40].
  • Challenges within the built environment or relating to physical inaccessibility of the health care setting: Within the health care setting specifically, reported built environment barriers included inaccessible equipment (such as examination tables, diagnostic/treatment equipment) [100, 104]. Wayfinding issues were also identified within the hospital setting, including inadequate signage, leading to barriers for people with disabilities [104].

Note: Attitudinal barriers were reported for most priority areas of accessibility but were not explicitly described, as discussion related to these types of barriers was beyond the scope of this review [122, 123, 127, 130, 133, 134, 136, 138, 141].

3.3 Barriers Addressed through Existing Regulations, Standards, and Guidelines

Many of the barriers identified through the literature review – across the priority areas – have the potential to be addressed through current standards (listed in Section 2.2). Those barriers whose priority areas may be addressed in these standards would not require new standards. For example, national and provincial/territorial codes and standards across all levels of government (see Section 2.2.1) have provisions that address identified barriers within the built environment related to elements such as accessible parking, inaccessible entrances and exits of public buildings, retail stores or schools, sidewalk design, or street lighting on pedestrian pathways [16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154]. Provincial-level documents provide standards related to training of service providers to provide accommodations for people with disabilities, which if followed, may address commonly reported barriers within the domains of transportation and within customer service, program delivery, and procurement of goods, services, and facilities (see Section 2.2.2) [5, 30, 31]. Within employment, many of the reported barriers (such as appropriate workplace accommodations or ongoing supports) are also mentioned to some extent through existing provisions in the federal public sector, or in both private and public sectors within select provinces only (see Section 2.2.3) [5, 17]. Considering the latter, the limited availability of accessible employment standards across all businesses in Canada (both private and public sectors) may shed light on the ongoing challenges within this particular domain. In general, however, when an identified barrier is likely addressed through existing standards, the challenge then remains to understand the nature and context of the continued presence of barriers.

A barrier may be present because (a) the current standard does not adequately meet the needs of people with disabilities or (b) the provisions of an existing standard have not been adopted (e.g., because many standards are voluntary rather than legally required) or have not been implemented correctly thus resulting in the ongoing barrier. A lack of specificity within the reviewed publications about the context and characteristics of a barrier hinder the ability to elucidate the cause of the problem. This may be the case, for example, when considering inaccessible washrooms in public buildings and schools, which were frequently cited as barriers. More detailed and specific information about which characteristics in a given washroom facility were problematic would be needed in order to determine why this barrier exists despite the available standards for the design of accessible washrooms. Washrooms contain many design features that include, but are not limited to, toilets, grab bars, sinks, and entrances to a washroom stall. Each of these design components has its own technical characteristic (e.g., height, angle, position relative to other components) that may be the “cause” of the problem for a user. This is also exemplified by the barrier of inaccessible websites. For instance, many elements of a website such as the layout, use of colours and colour contrast, media (e.g., videos, audio), and input fields such as textboxes can pose a challenge in terms of accessibility.

Much like the example of inaccessible washrooms, more detailed information about the user’s interaction with specific elements of a website is needed to elucidate the cause of the problem. The absence of detailed information regarding the identified barriers was a limitation of many of the documents included in the literature review of this report. The documents were largely surveys conducted to understand general barriers to accessibility rather than the details pertaining to the identified barrier. This limited the ability to determine the relationship between the barrier and the existing standards. A more detailed understanding of when the barrier is seen and where/if (as related to the specific barrier) the standard is applied can begin to shed light on why the barrier exists. Regardless of the reason, however, it is clear that given the many ongoing barriers that Canadians face, there is considerable room for improvement within the current framework to be more inclusive and improve accessibility across all domains.

3.3.1 Systemic or Policy-Level Changes
It is also important to note that while accessibility standards are an important tool, systemic or policy-level changes are required for many of the key challenges identified by people with disabilities. For example, the building code not aligning with accessibility standards was an identified concern considering many aspects of the built environment. To address this barrier, changes at a policy level would be required. Other identified barriers would also likely demand systemic- or policy-level changes. Examples include inadequate maintenance of pedestrian facilities, a lack of proper training of employers or customer service representatives regarding accessible supports, or delays/absence of accommodations (whether in education or employment). In a similar vein, the need for increased funding for system-wide accessible services or resources (which was a commonly identified barrier across many areas of accessibility) or improved access to transportation services would also require policy or system-level changes.

3.3.2 Attitudinal Barriers
Finally, attitudinal barriers were also widely reported for every area of accessibility, where societal level changes would be needed but have the potential to be addressed through education and training. While discussion related to the policy or systemic-level solutions is beyond the scope of this report, it is important to understand and evaluate all of the ongoing challenges faced by Canadians with disabilities, even where standards development may not necessarily serve as the solution, but may be used alongside other policies to affect positive change.

3.4 Identifying Opportunities for Standards Development
As indicated, there is the potential to address many of the identified barriers through existing standards or through policy-level changes beyond standard development. However, a few standard development opportunities have emerged from the literature review approach taken within this report. These opportunities were identified for broad areas that are largely unaddressed by existing standards or where there is a distinct opportunity to provide a dedicated and consolidated resource to address ongoing barriers within a particular area of accessibility. This approach includes standards related to the following:

  • Emergency services and emergency response;
  • Recreational and green spaces; and
  • Wayfinding and navigation systems.

Emergency services and emergency response: People with disabilities face barriers to accessibility in all areas of their daily lives. With changes to the accessibility infrastructure and policies still readily needed, people with disabilities may have fewer alternative accessible options from which to choose – for example, transportation, communication, or aspects of the built environment. The severity and number of challenges faced may be exacerbated in an emergency situation. This underscores the importance of ensuring that emergency situations and responses are fully accessible.

Individual clauses pertaining to accessibility in emergencies are included within existing standards, particularly in Ontario where IASR provides standards within information and communication (see Part II Section 13 of IASR; e.g., emergency procedures, plans, and public information), employment (see Part III Section 27 of IASR; e.g., workplace emergency response information), and transportation (see Part IV Section 37 of IASR; e.g., emergency preparedness and response policies) [5]. Similar to the IASR in Ontario, provisions for workplace emergency response and workplace assistance are also part of the Accessible Employment Standard Regulation in Manitoba (see Section 12(2) and Sections 15 and 16 in this standard regulation; [17]). Guides on emergency preparedness for persons with disabilities have also been developed by the Government of Ontario, Public Safety Canada, and Disability Alliance BC [155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160]. Emergency preparedness guides for organizations have also been developed by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Coalition of Persons with Disabilities, and Disability Alliance BC [161, 162, 163, 164, 165]. The guides for individuals describe a checklist in preparing emergency kits, conducting drills inclusive to those with disabilities, and adapting emergency plans to accommodate for those disabilities [155, 156, 157, 158, 159]. For organizations, guide documents recommend how to provide accessible emergency evacuation and planning, the resources that should be available during evacuation, and considerations on how to make emergency lodgings and communication accessible during a disaster [161, 162, 163, 164, 165].

Despite current standards or guides that address some aspects or areas of emergency responses, several barriers still emerged from the literature review – particularly with respect to accessible communication – which suggests emergency response as an area of accessibility where improved standard development opportunities may further assist with removing or preventing barriers. A national, consolidated standard may better meet the specific needs associated with emergency response services and policies to improve implementation. Requirements may include that the dissemination of emergency-related information be multi-modal and fully accessible for all dissemination mediums. Communication support and emergency management operations should also meet criteria to ensure that the use of relay services or other technologies do not lead to communication barriers, a frequently identified barrier.

Recreational and green spaces: Availability of accessible indoor and outdoor recreational and green spaces for people with disabilities across the lifespan can positively influence healthy well-being [166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171]. Despite this benefit, barriers exist when considering the accessibility of indoor and outdoor recreational spaces – for example, inaccessible physical education equipment in schools, limited considerations for users of mobility devices and aids in parks, and inaccessible fitness programs and recreational centres.

Collectively, there are individual components of recreational and green spaces that are discussed within various national, provincial, and municipal standards. For example, CAN/CSA B651-18 provides details about trails and beach access routes [16]. While there is an existing CAN/CSA standard for the design of children’s play spaces and equipment (CAN/CSA-Z614-14), it is not a standard that is solely dedicated to accessibility [172]. Although it was not included in the initial environmental scan search criteria, a secondary and specific search of parks in Canada identified a Parks Canada document, published in 1994, that provides design guidelines for accessible outdoor recreational facilities within national parks. At the provincial level, Ontario’s IASR defines standards on outdoor recreational areas (including aspects such as trails, beaches, parking, obtaining services, and play spaces), and the Government of Manitoba’s proposed standard for public spaces includes provisions for accessible sports facilities, docks and boating areas, and beach and recreational trails. Several guidelines and roadmaps related to recreational spaces, including design of equipment and physical infrastructure, have been developed by disability organizations, municipalities, the National Capital Commission, and the Ontario Land Trust Alliance [173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180].

Although there are fragmented guidelines relating to various aspects of recreational and green spaces, a comprehensive national standard dedicated to green spaces and indoor/outdoor recreational and play spaces was not identified. In addition, the current guidelines and standards that have been identified consider the barriers to access experienced only by persons with vision loss and a physical disability. To be fully inclusive, a consolidated standard should be developed that addresses not only visual and physical accessibility to these spaces but also other sensory and cognitive needs of individuals who use these spaces. A consolidated national standard would serve to (1) provide recommendations for federally regulated and provincially or territorially regulated spaces (e.g., national parks), (2) harmonize innovative guidelines that already exist in municipal standards, and (3) ensure that spaces address all types of disabilities.

Wayfinding and navigation systems: Wayfinding refers to information systems that guide people through physical environments and enhance their understanding and experience of the space. Wayfinding activities include spatial orientation, navigation, and destination identification. For individuals experiencing vision loss or other disabilities, these components are important to consider for successful navigation of buildings, facilities, and pedestrian spaces [181]. Through our review, barriers related to aspects of wayfinding were identified in complex environments such as within transportation facilities, health care settings, and public pedestrian spaces. These barriers included, for example, inconsistent and unclear signage and lack of continuous paths of travel.

Across the country, standards or best practices related to aspects of wayfinding exist, such as within CAN/CSA B651-18, national and provincial building codes, Ontario’s IASR, or directly from disability organizations such as the CNIB Foundation and DeafBlind Ontario Services [5, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 150, 151, 154, 182, 183, 184, 185]. While traditional wayfinding aspects (such as signage requirements or design of self-service kiosks) are importantly covered through these more prescriptive codes or standards, there is a new challenge and opportunity given the emerging and dynamic development of wayfinding technologies [80, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191]. These wayfinding or navigation technologies offer a unique solution for removing barriers for people with disabilities, with an ability to refine the support specific to the user population (e.g., specific for persons with vision loss, persons using mobility devices such as wheelchairs, or persons with intellectual or cognitive disabilities [191, 192, 193, 194]). Innovations, such as the use of smartphones or adaptations of assistive devices and aids, can collect and convey location and navigation information to assist with guidance through various areas such as transit systems, buildings, or outdoor spaces [194, 195, 196, 197]. These technologies provide a valuable person-centred or individualized solution when more traditional accessibility standards related to wayfinding are absent. As society moves towards greater adoption of such devices, consideration of accessibility standards pertaining to wayfinding technologies becomes evident. However, since technology development is fast-paced, dynamic, and can be more easily adapted to the needs of the user, prescriptive standardization of wayfinding technologies themselves may not appear feasible. With this in mind, considerations of aspects of wayfinding or navigation technology systems could ensure that the availability and consideration of minimum criteria are included within available technologies. It is also important to note that although there are potential solutions when considering technology, technological barriers (in general) continue to be an issue for persons with sight loss as well as for persons with disabilities more broadly. For example, while the person with sight loss can use a smartphone device connected to navigational beacons via Bluetooth, the person using a mobile device continues to encounter barriers. Barriers may exist when smartphones do not have accessibility features or when apps are inaccessible. While this is an important focus for future wayfinding and navigation system standards, the scope of standardization of technology has the potential to be broadened.


4.0 Conclusion

Across Canada, accessibility standards are developed and adopted with the shared goal of ensuring that persons presently living with disability, and individuals who may experience disability in the future, can fully participate in Canadian society. Standards development plays a critical role in addressing barriers to accessibility by setting a unified, minimum requirement that can address all areas of accessibility. The dynamic nature of the Canadian accessibility landscape presents both a unique challenge and an opportunity for future standards development, given the variability among the standards and their application, and underscores the importance of standards that have the potential to harmonize accessibility provisions across Canada.

The goal of this report was to (1) capture the current landscape of legislation and standards employed across Canada, (2) determine barriers people with disabilities are experiencing, and (3) map identified barriers to opportunities for future standards development. Results from the environmental scan provide a current resource of the national, provincial/territorial, and municipal-level regulations, standards, and guidelines that are currently employed to address the multiple areas of accessibility. The three accessibility areas for which the greatest number of existing guidance/standard documents identified were the built environment, information and communications standards and technology, and transportation. When the current regulations, standards, and guidelines were mapped to the barriers identified through the literature review process, key opportunities for future standards development were identified, related to:

  • Emergency services and emergency response;
  • Recreational and green spaces; and,
  • Wayfinding and navigation systems.

Given the large number of individual standards and guidelines found across Canada, detailed analyses of the similarities and differences contained within the various documents should be undertaken. This is particularly important for informing the development of national-level standards to address ongoing barriers. While not part of the scope of the work within this report, innovative or best-practice recommendations put forth by researchers and disability organizations may also serve to remove existing barriers to accessibility. Identification of these initiatives in the context of standards development should be a focus of future work.

Accessibility standards will continue to play an important and necessary role in building a barrier-free Canada. It is critical to understand the current landscape of standards development in parallel with ongoing barriers that people with disabilities encounter. This will ensure that current or new standards meet the needs of everyone, enabling equitable and full participation in Canadian society.


References

  1. Accessibility Services Canada, “Definitions.” Accessed: Jun. 2, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://accessibilitycanada.ca/aoda/definitions/
  2. Statistics Canada, “A Demographic, Employment and Income Profile of Canadians with Disabilities Aged 15 Years and Over, 2017,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2018002-eng.htm
  3. Statistics Canada, “Population Projections: Canada, Provinces and Territories, 2018 to 2068,” Sept. 17, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/190917/dq190917b-eng.htm  
  4. Government of Ontario, “Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11,” 2005. [Online]. Available: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05a11
  5. Government of Ontario, “O. Reg. 191/11: Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation,” Jul. 27, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/110191
  6. Government of Manitoba, “The Accessibility for Manitobans Act, C.C.S.M. c. A1.7.” Accessed: Apri. 16, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/_pdf.php?cap=a1.7
  7. Government of Nova Scotia, “Accessibility Act, Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2017,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/statutes/accessibility.pdf
  8. Employment and Social Development Canada, “Making an Accessible Canada for Persons with Disabilities,” Jan. 31, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/accessible-people-disabilities.html
  9. Government of Canada, “Accessible Canada Act (S.C. 2019, c. 10),” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-0.6/
  10. K. Godin, J. Stapleton, S. I. Kirkpatrick, R. M. Hanning, and S. T. Leatherdale, “Applying Systematic Review Search Methods to the Grey Literature: A Case Study Examining Guidelines for School-Based Breakfast Programs in Canada,” Syst. Rev., vol. 4, p. 138, 2015.
  11. R. M. N. Parker, L. Boulos, S. Visintini, K. Ritchie, and J. Hayden, “Environmental Scan and Evaluation of Best Practices for Online Systematic Review Resources,” J. Med. Libr. Assoc., vol. 162, no. 2, p. 208-218, 2018.
  12. J. Stapleton, K. Fuller, and E. Lenton, “How to Find & Document Grey Literature – Template,” Aug. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/ld.php?content_id=34461131
  13. University of Toronto Libraries, “Translational Research. Research Guides.” Accessed: Sept. 17, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/c.php?g=636304&p=4451916
  14. Statistics Canada, “Population and Dwelling Count Highlight Tables, 2016 Census,” Jan. 7, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/hlt-fst/pd-pl/List-prov-terr.cfm?Lang=Eng&T=302&S=86&O=A
  15. Natural Resources Canada, “Northern Canada,” Jan. 1, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/ed9208a8-54dd-516a-9e63-68bc0be258f7
  16. Canadian Standards Association, “CAN/CSA B651-18 Accessible Design for the Built Environment,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://store.csagroup.org/ccrz__ProductDetails?viewState=DetailView&cartID=&portalUser=&store=&cclcl=en_US&sku=B651-18
  17. Government of Manitoba, “Accessible Employment Standard Regulation,” Apr. 2019. [Online]. Available: http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/current/_pdf-regs.php?reg=70/2019
  18. Government of Manitoba, “Introducing The Accessibility for Manitobans Act.” Accessed: Dec. 9, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.mb.ca/dio/pdf/introducing_accessibility_for_manitobans_act.pdf
  19. M. A. McColl, A. Jaiswal, S. Jones, L. Roberts, and C. Murphy, “A Review of Disability Policy in Canada (3rd. edition),” Dec. 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.disabilitypolicyalliance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/A-Review-of-Disability-Policy-in-Canada-3rd-edition-Final-1-1.pdf
  20. Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, “Bill M 219 - 2018: British Columbia Accessibility Act, 2018,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/41st-parliament/3rd-session/bills/first-reading/m219-1
  21. Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, “National Building Code of Canada 2015,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://nrc.canada.ca/en/certifications-evaluations-standards/codes-canada/codes-canada-publications/national-building-code-canada-2015
  22. Government of Canada, “Accessibility Standard for Real Property,” Apr. 11, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12044#
  23. Government of Alberta, “National Building Code 2019 – Alberta Edition,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://shop-magasin.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/nrcb2c/app/displayApp/(cpgnum=1&layout=7.01-7_1_71_63_73_6_9_3&uiarea=3&carea=0000000107&cpgsize=0)/.do?rf=y
  24. Government of British Columbia, “British Columbia Building Code 2018,” 2018. [Online]. Available: http://free.bcpublications.ca/civix/content/public/bcbc2018/?xsl=/templates/browse.xsl
  25. Government of Ontario, “Ontario Regulation 332/12 Building Code, e-Laws Current Date 2019-07-01,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/120332
  26. Government of Québec, “Construction Code, Updated to 2020-03-01.” Accessed: May 31, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cr/B-1.1, r. 2
  27. National Research Council Canada, “Model Code Adoption across Canada,” May 19, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://nrc.canada.ca/en/certifications-evaluations-standards/codes-canada/model-code-adoption-across-canada
  28. Government of Saskatchewan, “Building Design Guide - Barrier-Free Design,” Apr. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://publications.saskatchewan.ca/#/products/100682
  29. BC Housing, “BC Housing Design Guidelines and Constructions Standards,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.bchousing.org/publications/BCH-Design-Guidelines-Construction-Standards.pdf
  30. Canadian Standards Association, “CSA B480-02 Customer Service Standard for People with Disabilities (Developed in Partnership with the Government of Ontario),” 2002 (R2018). [Online]. Available: https://store.csagroup.org/ccrz__ProductDetails?viewState=DetailView&cartID=&sku=B480-02&isCSRFlow=true&portalUser=&store=&cclcl=en_US
  31. Government of Manitoba, “Customer Service Standard Regulation,” Oct. 19, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/current/_pdf-regs.php?reg=171/2015
  32. Government of Manitoba, “Manitoba Government Accessible Standards Policy,” Feb. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.mb.ca/asset_library/en/accessibility/accessible_customer_service_policy.pdf
  33. Government of Québec, “Guide d’accessibilité et d’adaptation des services gouvernementaux,” 2005. [Online]. Available: http://www.santecom.qc.ca/bibliothequevirtuelle/hyperion/a37128.pdf
  34. Government of Canada, “Policy on the Duty to Accommodate Persons with Disabilities with the Federal Public Service,” Jun. 3, 2002. [Online]. Available: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12541§ion=html
  35. Canadian Standards Association, “CSA Z1011-2020 Work Disability Management System,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://store.csagroup.org/ccrz__ProductDetails?viewState=DetailView&cartID=&portalUser=&store=&cclcl=en_US&sku=CSA%20Z1011%3A20
  36. Government of Québec, “Loi sur l’accès à l’égalité en emploi dans des organismes publics,” Feb. 1,  2020. [Online]. Available: http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/pdf/cs/A-2.01.pdf
  37. AccessForward, “Information and Communications Standard Module.” Accessed: Dec. 6, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://accessforward.ca/newado/icsmodule/
  38. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2009-430 Accessibility of Telecommunications and Broadcasting Services,” Jul. 21, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-430.htm
  39. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2009-430-1 Accessibility of Telecommunications and Broadcasting Services – Correction,” Dec. 17, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-430-1.htm
  40. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2013-271 The Wireless Code,” Jun. 3, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2013/2013-271.htm
  41. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2018-466 Review of the Regulatory Framework for Text-Based Message Relay Services,” Dec. 14, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2018/2018-466.htm
  42. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2019-269 The Internet Code,” Jul. 31, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2019/2019-269.htm
  43. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2019-269-1 The Internet Code – Correction,” Aug. 9, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2019/2019-269-1.htm
  44. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2007-54 A New Policy with Respect to Closed Captioning,” May 17, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2007/pb2007-54.htm
  45. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2011-741 Quality Standards for French-Language Closed Captioning,” Dec. 2, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-741.htm
  46. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2011-741-1 Enforcement, Monitoring and the Future Mandate of the French-Language Closed Captioning Working Group,” Feb. 21, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-741-1.htm
  47. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2012-362 Quality Standards for English-Language Closed Captioning,” Jul. 5, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2012/2012-362.htm
  48. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2015-104 Navigating the Road Ahead - Making Informed Choices about Television Providers and Improving Accessibility to Television Programming,” Mar. 26, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2015/2015-104.htm
  49. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2015-514 Amendments to the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations to Implement Determinations in the Let's Talk TV Proceeding,” Nov. 19, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2015/2015-514.htm
  50. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2016-1 The Television Service Provider Code,” Jan. 7, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2016/2016-1.htm
  51. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2019-308 English-Language Closed-Captioning Mandatory Quality Standards Relating to the Accuracy Rate for Live Television Programming,” Aug. 30, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2019/2019-308.htm
  52. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2019-308-1 English-Language Closed-Captioning Mandatory Quality Standards Relating to the Accuracy Rate for live Television Programming - Correction,” Sept. 20, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2019/2019-308-1.htm
  53. Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada, Government of Canada, “Standard on Web Accessibility,” Mar. 31, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=23601
  54. Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada, Government of Canada, “Standard on Web Usability,”  Mar. 31, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=24227§ion=html
  55. Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada, Government of Canada, “Standard on Optimizing Websites and Applications for Mobile Devices,” Apr. 1, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=27088§ion=html#appC
  56. World Wide Web Consortium, “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0,” Dec. 11, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#contentdef
  57. World Wide Web Consortium, “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1,” Jun. 5, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/
  58. Government of Northwest Territories, “Accessibility,” Sept. 14, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.nt.ca/accessibility
  59. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, “Accessible Communications Policy,” [Online]. Available: https://www.cssd.gov.nl.ca/disabilities/pdf/Accessible_Communications_Policy.pdf
  60. Government of Ontario, “How to Make Websites Accessible,” Oct. 22, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.ontario.ca/page/how-make-websites-accessible
  61. Government of Prince Edward Island, “Website Accessibility Policy,” May 16, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/executive-council-office/website-accessibility-policy
  62. Government of Saskatchewan, “Web Accessibility.” Accessed: Aug. 23, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.saskatchewan.ca/government/visual-identity-and-protocol/digital-standards-and-framework/usability-and-accessibility/web-accessibility
  63. Government of Québec, “Standard sur l’accessibilité des sites Web (SGQRI 008-01),” Version 1.0, Jul. 20, 2012.  [Online]. Available: https://www.tresor.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/PDF/ressources_informationnelles/AccessibiliteWeb/access_web_ve.pdf
  64. Government of Québec, “Standard sur l’accessibilité des sites Web (SGQRI 008 2.0),” Version 2.0. Accessed: Mar. 13, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.tresor.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/PDF/ressources_informationnelles/AccessibiliteWeb/standard-access-web.pdf
  65. Government of Québec, “Version commentée du Standard sur l'accessibilité du multimédia dans un site Web (SGQRI 008-03),” Version 3.0, Jul. 20,  2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.tresor.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/PDF/ressources_informationnelles/AccessibiliteWeb/access_multimedia_ve.pdf
  66. Government of Québec, “Accessibilité,” Mar. 13, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.quebec.ca/accessibilite/
  67. Treasury Board Secretariat, Government of Québec, “Web Accessibility."  Accessed: Jul 16, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.tresor.gouv.qc.ca/ressources-informationnelles/architecture-dentreprise-gouvernementale/standards-et-normes/accessibilite-du-web/?L=0
  68. Accessibility Services Canada, “Accessible Document Best Practices.” Accessed: Jun. 2, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://accessibilitycanada.ca/store/tips-accessible-documents/
  69. Government of Québec, “L'accès aux documents et aux services offerts au public pour les personnes handicapées,” 2007. [Online]. Available: https://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/msss/fichiers/2006/06-824-02.pdf
  70. N. Grenier, “Principes d’accessibilité avec Adobe InDesign (Régis des rentes du Québec),” Mar. 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.tresor.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/PDF/ressources_informationnelles/AccessibiliteWeb/principes_accessibilite_indesign.pdf
  71. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2017-11 Application of Regulatory Obligations Directly to Non-Carriers Offering and Providing Telecommunications Services,” Jan. 17, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2017/2017-11.htm
  72. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2017-182 Next-Generation 9-1-1 – Modernizing 9-1-1 Networks to Meeting the Public Safety Needs of Canadians,” Jun. 1, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2017/2017-182.htm
  73. World Wide Web Consortium, “Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and Other W3C/WAI Guidelines Apply to Mobile. W3C First Public Working Draft 26 February 2015,” Feb. 26, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-accessibility-mapping/
  74. Treasury Secretariat Board of Canada, Government of Canada, “Standard on Email Management,” Jul. 27, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=27600§ion=html
  75. Government of Manitoba, “Manitoba Government Accessibility Plan: 2019 and 2020,” Sept. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.mb.ca/csc/publications/accessgovsvc/pdf/mgap-pub_doc_en.pdf
  76. Inclusive Design Research Centre, OCAD University, “Accessibility of Office Documents and Office Applications,” 2010. [Online]. Available: https://adod.idrc.ocadu.ca/
  77. CNIB Foundation, “Clear Print Accessibility Guidelines,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://cnib.ca/sites/default/files/2018-07/CNIB%20Clear%20Print%20Guide.pdf
  78. Canadian Transportation Agency, “Accessibility,” Sept. 3, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/accessibility
  79. Transport Canada, “Intercity Bus Code of Practice,” Jan. 23, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/acc-accf-accessintercitybuscode-711.htm
  80. Canadian Standards Association, “CAN/CSA-B651.2-07 Accessible Design for Self-Service Interactive Devices,” Jan. 2007. [Online]. Available: https://store.csagroup.org/ccrz__ProductDetails?viewState=DetailView&cartID=&portalUser=&store=&cclcl=en_US&sku=CAN%2FCSA-B651.2-07
  81. American Society of Mechanical Engineers and Canadian Standards Association, “ASME A17.1-2016/CSA B44-16 Nonmandatory Appendix E Elevator Requirements for Persons with Physical Disabilities in Jurisdictions Enforcing NBCC,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.csagroup.org/wp-content/uploads/B44-Appendix-E_English.pdf
  82. Canadian Standards Association, “CSA D409-16 Motor Vehicles for the Transportation of Persons with Physical Disabilities,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://store.csagroup.org/ccrz__ProductDetails?viewState=DetailView&cartID=&portalUser=&store=&cclcl=en_US&sku=D409-16
  83. Canadian Standards Association, “CSA D435-16 Accessible Transit Buses,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://store.csagroup.org/ccrz__ProductDetails?viewState=DetailView&cartID=&portalUser=&store=&cclcl=en_US&sku=D435-16
  84. Canadian Standards Association, “CSA D436-16 Accessible Over-the-Road Buses,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://store.csagroup.org/ccrz__ProductDetails?viewState=DetailView&cartID=&portalUser=&store=&cclcl=en_US&sku=D436-16
  85. Government of Canada, “Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations SOR/2019-244,” Jun. 25, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2019-244/page-1.html
  86. Canadian Transportation Agency, “New Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations Now in Force,” Jun. 25, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/node/569392
  87. Canadian Transportation Agency, “Regulatory Modernization Initiative,” Jul. 30, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/regulatory-modernization-initiative
  88. Canadian Transportation Agency, “Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations SOR/2019-244,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2019-244/page-1.html
  89. Government of British Columbia, “Passenger Transportation Regulation B.C. Reg. 266/2004,” Sept. 20, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/266_2004 
  90. Government of Québec, “La politique d'admissibilité au transport adapté,” 1998. [Online]. Available: https://www.transports.gouv.qc.ca/fr/aide-finan/transportadapte/Documents/pol_admissibilite_transport_adapte.pdf
  91. Government of Québec, “Loi sur le réseau de transport métropolitain,” 2019. [Online]. Available: http://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/R-25.01
  92. Government of Québec, “Loi concernant les services de transport par taxi, RLRQ c S-6.01,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/legis/lois/rlrq-c-s-6.01/derniere/rlrq-c-s-6.01.html
  93. Government of Québec, “Guide en matière de stationnement pour personnes handicapées à l’intention des municipalités,” Mar. 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.ophq.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/centre_documentaire/Guides/Guide_en_matiere_de_stationnement_pour_personnes_handicapees_a_l_intention_des_municipalites_20130913_Acc.pdf
  94. Government of Québec, “Loi concernant les services de transport par taxi,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/legis/lois/rlrq-c-s-6.01/derniere/rlrq-c-s-6.01.html
  95. BC Transit, “BC Transit Infrastructure Design Guidelines,” Nov. 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.bctransit.com/documents/1507213417526
  96. Metrolinx, “GO Design Requirements Manual,” Mar. 2019. [Online]. Available: http://www.gosite.ca/engineering_public/DRM_Manual.pdf
  97. Metrolinx, “GO Transit Accessibility Guide Accessibility Services for Customers,” Nov. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.gotransit.com/static_files/gotransit/assets/pdf/AdvisoryCommitteeDocuments/GO-Transit-Accessibility-Guide-Nov-2017.pdf
  98. Metrolinx, “Presto System – Accessibility Framework,” May 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.prestocard.ca/~/media/Files/Accessibility/PRESTO_Accessibility_Framework_Final_May2010_EN.ashx?la=en
  99. S.-T. Lau, M. Khan, C. Gauthier, K. Nirmalanathan, and A. C. Novak, "KITE-UHN Survey on Accessibility in Canada," unpublished.
  100. D. C. Onley, “Listening to Ontarians with Disabilities, Report of the Third Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://files.ontario.ca/seniors-accessibility-third-review-of-aoda-en-2019.pdf
  101. Angus Reid Institute and Rick Hansen Foundation, “Accessibility: A Source of Future Anxiety and a Significant Consideration for Canadian Consumers Today,” Jan. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.rickhansen.com/sites/default/files/downloads/ari-research-jan-2019eng-final-accessible_1.pdf
  102. Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, “Accessible Legislation: What Does an Accessible Canada Mean to You?” Accessed: Mar. 29, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://mssociety.ca/library/document/qh6sRd50k3YXlLf2JIHN7zwTEyB8majV/original.pdf
  103. Alliance for an Inclusive and Accessible Canada, “Consulting Canadians about the New Federal Accessibility Law,” Apr. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://sci-can.ca/sites/default/files/attach/Alliance Final Summary Report .pdf
  104. BC Spinal Cord Injury Community Network, “What Does an Accessible BC Look Like to You? BC SCI Network Accessibility Legislation Consultation Report,” Nov. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://sci-bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bc-sci-network-bcal-consultation-281119.pdf
  105. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, “What We Heard, Accessibility Legislation,” Dec. 3, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.engagenl.ca/sites/default/files/what_we_heard_-_dpo_final_december_3_2019.pdf
  106. Employment and Social Development Canada, “Government of Canada 2019 Pilot Public Opinion Research Survey on Accessibility,” Oct. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/employment_social_development_canada/2019/012-18-e/report.pdf
  107. Spinal Cord Injury Canada and Canadian Access and Inclusion Project (CAIP), “CAIP Lawyers' Panel Legislation Recommendations Part 1,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://sci-can.ca/sites/default/files/attach/CAIP%20Lawyers%20Panel%20Legislation%20Recommendations%20Final.pdf
  108. Spinal Cord Injury Canada and Canadian Access Inclusion Project, “Appendix II: Record of All CAIP Consultation Input,” Mar. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://sci-can.ca/sites/default/files/attach/CAIP%20Progress%20Report%20March%202017%20Appendix%20II%20Version%202.pdf
  109. Government of British Columbia, “Summary Report Accessibility Legislation Consultation,” Feb. 6, 2020. [Online]. Available:  https://disabilityalliancebc.org/summary-report-accessibility-legislation-consultations/
  110. Spinal Cord Injury Canada and Canadian Access and Inclusion Project, “Progress Report,” Mar. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://sci-can.ca/sites/default/files/attach/CAIP%20Progress%20Report%20March%202017%20Final%20with%20Links.pdf
  111. Office des personnes handicapées du Québec, “Les déplacements des personnes handicapées - l’accès aux transports et l’accessibilité des bâtiments et des lieux publics pour un véritable exercice du droit à l’égalité,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.ophq.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/centre_documentaire/Etudes__analyses_et_rapports/OPHQ_Rapport_Deplacement_EPF_WEB.pdf
  112. N. Boucher, I. Dumont, P. Fougeyrollas, J. Ruel, A. C. Moreau, and A. Duplessis, “Perspective d'analyse comparée des effets des plans d’action à l’égard des personnes handicapées sur les territoires des villes de Sherbrooke, de Trois Rivières, Victoriaville et de Cowansville,” 2018. [Online]. Available: http://w3.uqo.ca/litteratie/documents/RappFin.Boucheretal2018.pdf
  113. N. Zepeda, G. Dufour, J. Labbé, and R. Massé, “Améliorer l’accessibilité piétonne aux établissements de santé de Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve Rapport du projet autour du CLSC Hochelaga-Maisonneuve,” Apr. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://cremtl.org/sites/default/files/upload/documents/publications/2019-07-22_3clsc_rapportmercierest-web.pdf
  114. British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, “National Indigenous Federal Accessibility Legislation Consultation Part 1,” 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.bcands.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCANDS-January-March-2017-Accessibility-Consultation-Report.pdf
  115. Office of the Seniors Advocate, “Seniors Transportation: Affordable, Appropriate and Available,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.seniorsadvocatebc.ca/app/uploads/sites/4/2018/05/Seniors-Transportation-Report.pdf
  116. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, “Achieving Accessible Public Transportation: A Systemic Approach for Saskatchewan,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://pub-saskatoon.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=110140
  117. Metrolinx, “2018 Metrolinx Accessibility Public Meeting Feedback Summary,” 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/aboutus/accessibility/Metrolinx-Public-Meeting-Feedback-Summary-2018.pdf
  118. Government of Northwest Territories, “Report on the 2017 Disability Programs Review: Public Engagement Questionnaire,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.hss.gov.nt.ca/sites/hss/files/resources/2017-disability-programs-review-questionnaire-findings.pdf
  119. Communication Disability Access Canada, “Public Consultation on Federal Accessibility Legislation. Input from Canadians who have Speech, Language and Communication Disabilities,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.cdacanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_Community_Consultation_for_Federal_Accessibility_Legislation_Digital_2.pdf
  120. CNIB Foundation, “CNIB Survey Analysis and Recommendations: The Accessible Canada Act,” October 2018. [Online]. Available: https://cnib.ca/sites/default/files/2018-10/CNIB Survey Analysis and Recommendations FINAL EN_0.docx
  121. Canadian Transportation Agency, “A What We Heard Summary Report on Accessible Transportation,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/a-what-we-heard-summary-report-accessible-transportation#toc-4.1
  122. Employment and Social Development Canada, “Accessible Canada – Creating New Federal Accessibility Legislation: What We Learned from Canadians,” May 29, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/accessible-people-disabilities/reports/consultations-what-we-learned.html
  123. Goss Gilroy Inc., “Report on the Gaps Analysis on Employment and Training Services Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.nl.ca/aesl/files/Gap-Analysis-Report.pdf
  124. Government of Nova Scotia, “What We Heard: Accessibility in Nova Scotia.” Accessed: Mar. 26, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://novascotia.ca/accessibility/consultation/what-we-heard-accessibility-in-Nova-Scotia.pdf
  125. DeafBlind Ontario Services, “Stakeholder Consultation Program,” Aug. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://deafblindontario.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019_Stakeholders_Consultation_Report_FINAL-s_1022047.pdf
  126. Canadian Association for Community Living and People First of Canada, “A Path to Coordinated Federal Leadership and Investment in Accessibility, Inclusion and Poverty Reduction for Canadians with an Intellectual Disability,” Jun. 2, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://irisinstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/07/CACL-and-PFC-Brief-Accessibility-and-Poverty-Reduction-Final-02-June-2017.pdf
  127. A. Furrie and Employment and Social Development Canada, “People with Episodic Health Conditions Speak Out About...” Accessed: Mar. 29, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.ccrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Episodic-Survey-Final-Report.pdf
  128. DisAbled Women's Network of Canada, “More than a Footnote: A Research Report on Women and Girls with Disabilities in Canada,” Feb. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://dawncanada.net/media/uploads/page_data/page-64/more_than_a_footnote_research_report.pdf
  129. Information and Communications Technology Council, “Enabling Change: Removing Barriers and Supporting Meaningful Employment Disabilities in Information and Communications Technology (ICT),” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.ictc-ctic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ICTC_EnAbling-Change-Report_2018.pdf
  130. Alberta Works, “Recruiting and Employing Persons with Disabilities Results from the 2014 Calgary & Area Employer Survey,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/334461f7-3f2f-48f8-a2b4-eb9d77dc9191/resource/b1c91ff6-80f5-44a3-afa0-d4ae32529671/download/7103610-recruiting-employing-persons-with-disabilities-2014-employer-survey-results.pdf
  131. K. D. Gordon,  and the Canadian Council of the Blind, “A Needs Report on Accessible Technology: A Discussion on Accessible, Assistive Devices in Canada's Vision Loss Community,” Nov. 12, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://ccbnational.net/shaggy/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/CCB-Supplementary-Report-Accessible-Technology.pdf
  132. P. Chanoux, and the Comité consultatif personnes handicapées, “L’accompagnement des milieux de travail en matière d’intégration, de réintégration et de maintien en emploi des personnes handicapées,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://ccpersonneshandicapees.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/AVIS-CCPH-Accompagnement-des-MT-Mai-2019.pdf
  133. First Nations of Québec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission, “Portrait of First Nations in Québec Living with Disabilities or Having Special Needs,” 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.cssspnql.com/docs/default-source/centre-de-documentation/rapport-personnes-handicap%C3%A9es-eng.pdf?sfvrsn=2
  134. D. Russell, C. Chovaz, and P. Boudreault,  and the Canadian Association of the Deaf – Association des Sourds du Canada, “Administration of Justice: The Experiences of Deaf, Deafblind, and Deaf People with Additional Disabilities in Accessing the Justice System,” Apr. 25, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://cad.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/CAD-Report-Final-April-26-2018.pdf
  135. SafetyNet Centre for Occupational Health and Safety and the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities – Newfoundland and Labrador, “Disability Support Services in Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada: Impact on Labour Market Participation for Individuals with Disabilities,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.mun.ca/safetynet/projects/CRWDP/Disability_Support_Services_-_Report.pdf
  136. Canadian Human Rights Commission, “Left Out: Challenges Faced by Persons with Disabilities in Canada's Schools,” 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/file/14904/download?token=ZlyFcWmB
  137. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, “A Systemic Study into the Rights of Students with Special Needs and Organization of Educational Services within the Québec School System,” Apr. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdpdj.qc.ca/Publications/etude_inclusion_EHDAA_synthese_EN.pdf
  138. Education Solutions Manitoba, “A Window into the Accessibility of Manitoba’s Education,” Feb. 22, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://inclusiveeducation.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/02/Equity-in-Education-final-20180220.pdf
  139. Canadian Civil Society Parallel Report Group, “Parallel Report for Canada,” Feb. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://cacl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/INT_CRPD_CSS_CAN_26744_E_Parallel_Report.pdf
  140. Voice of Albertans with Disabilities, “Accessibility in Alberta: A Survey of Municipalities.” Accessed: Mar. 29, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://vadsociety.ca/pdf/report-final--2019-accessibility-in-municipalities-in-alberta-1558970390.pdf
  141. ARCH Disability Law Centre, “Submission – ARCH's Submission to the Ontario Human Rights Commission on Its Review of the 'Guidelines on Accessible Education',” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://archdisabilitylaw.ca/resource/brief-to-the-ontario-human-rights-commission-on-its-review-of-the-guidelines-on-accessible-education/
  142. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “Mobility Accessibility Research Study,” Feb. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/19mobil.htm#1.3
  143. Canadian Association of the Deaf-Association des Sourds du Canada and the Deaf Wireless Canada Consultative Committee, “An Accessible Internet Code for Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and Hard of Hearing Canadians,” Mar. 4, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://www.deafwireless.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CAD-ASC-et-al-An-Accessible-Internet-Code-Survey-Analysis-TNC-2018-422_FINAL.pdf
  144. Office of the Seniors Advocate, “Moving in the Right Direction, HandyDART Survey Results,” Feb. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.seniorsadvocatebc.ca/app/uploads/sites/4/2017/02/Office-of-the-Seniors-Advocate-HandyDartSurveyResults_Feb2017-1.pdf
  145. Canadian Hard of Hearing Association (PEI Chapter), “Federal Accessibility Legislation Consultation,” Dec. 8, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://theauralreport.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/fal-submission-dec-8-2016.pdf
  146. Office of the Seniors Advocate, “HandyDART Survey Responses,” Apr. 2, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.seniorsadvocatebc.ca/app/uploads/sites/4/2017/02/Office-of-the-Seniors-Advocate-HandyDARTSurveyResponses2017.pdf
  147. D. Russell, J. McLaughlin, and R. Demko, “Barrier-Free Emergency Communication Access and Alerting System Research Report,” Mar. 27, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.chs.ca/sites/default/files/barrier-free_emergency_communication_access_and_alerting_system_research_report.pdf
  148. British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, “National Indigenous Federal Accessibility Legislation Consultation Part 2,” Mar. 2017–Mar. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.bcands.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCANDS-March-2017-to-2018-Accessibility-Consultation-Report.pdf
  149. Communication Disability Access Canada, “Accessible Communication Guidelines for Making Services Accessible for People Who Have Disabilities that Affect Their Communication,” Dec. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.cdacanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Guidelines-for-Communication-Access-1.pdf
  150. Government of Manitoba, “Manitoba Building Code, Man Reg 31/2011, Current to 2019-12-24.” Accessed: Jan. 6, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/laws/regu/man-reg-31-2011/latest/man-reg-31-2011.html
  151. Government of New Brunswick, “Barrier-Free Design Building Code Regulation, NB Reg 2011-61, Current to 2016-09-07.” Accessed: Jun. 1, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/laws/regu/nb-reg-2011-61/latest/nb-reg-2011-61.html
  152. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, “Buildings Accessibility Regulations, Regulations Consolidated to 2018-11-15.” Accessed: Jun. 1, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.assembly.nl.ca/legislation/sr/regulations/rc961140.htm#targetText=CNLR%201140%2F96%20%2D%20Buildings%20Accessibility%20Regulations%20under%20the%20Buildings%20Accessibility%20Act&targetText=Under%20the%20authority%20of%20section,Council%20make
  153. Government of Nunavut, “Consolidation of Building Code Regulations R-009-2018.” Accessed: Jun. 1, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.nunavutlegislation.ca/en/download/file/fid/11738
  154. Government of Prince Edward Island, “Provincial Building Code Act Barrier-Free Design Regulations, PEI Reg EC 139/95.” Accessed: Jan. 13, 2020.  [Online]. Available: https://www.canlii.org/en/pe/laws/regu/pei-reg-ec139-95/latest/pei-reg-ec139-95.html
  155. Government of Ontario, “Emergency Preparedness Guide for People with Disabilities and Special Needs,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.emergencymanagementontario.ca/sites/default/files/content/emo/docs/Disability Guide - english_PDFUA.pdf
  156. Government of Canada, Public Safety Canada, “Emergency Preparedness Guide for People with Disabilities and Special Needs,” 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.getprepared.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/pplwthdsblts/pplwthdsblts-eng.pdf
  157. Disability Alliance BC, “A Functional Needs Framework for Every Community -- CMIST Personal Emergency Planning,” Feb. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://disabilityalliancebc.org/cmistpersonalplan/
  158. Disability Alliance BC, “A Functional Needs Framework for Every Community – Including People with Disabilities in Emergency Exercises,” Feb. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://disabilityalliancebc.org/includepwdtraining/
  159. Disability Alliance BC, “A Functional Needs Framework for Every Community – Getting Everybody Out.” Accessed: Aug. 24, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://disabilityalliancebc.org/gettingeverybodyout/
  160. Disability Alliance BC, “A Functional Needs Framework for Every Community – Responding to Evacuees with Mental Illness,” Feb. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://disabilityalliancebc.org/respondingmentalillness/
  161. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, “Planning for Safety – Evacuating People Who Need Assistance in an Emergency – A Guide for Building Managers and Occupants,” 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/esdc-edsc/migration/documents/eng/disability/arc/planning_safety.pdf
  162. Coalition of Persons with Disabilities, “Shared Responsibility – An Inclusive Emergency Planning Guide – A Resource for First Responders and Community Leaders,” Mar. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://codnl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/FINAL-Guide-to-Emergency-Planning-March-9.pdf
  163. Disability Alliance BC, “Setting Up Accessible Reception Centres and Group Lodging in BC.” Accessed: Aug. 24, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://disabilityalliancebc.org/setupaccrectrs/
  164. Disability Alliance BC, “Extra Items for Emergency Social Services to Have on Hand,” Feb. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://disabilityalliancebc.org/extraitemsonhand/
  165. Disability Alliance BC, “Making Sure People with Communication Disabilities Get the Message – A Checklist for Emergency Public Information Officers,” Feb. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://disabilityalliancebc.org/makingsurecomm/
  166. A. Calder, G. Sole, and H. Mulligan, “The Accessibility of Fitness Centers for People with Disabilities: A Systematic Review,” Disabil. Health J., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 525-536, 2018.
  167. T. L. Stanton-Chapman and E. L. Schmidt, “Building Playgrounds for Children of All Abilities: Legal Requirements and Professional Recommendations,” Early Child. Educ. J., vol. 47, pp. 509-517, 2019.
  168. D. Labbé, W. C. Miller, and R. Ng, “Participating More, Participating Better: Health Benefits of Adaptive Leisure for People with Disabilities,” Disabil. Health J., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 287-295, 2019.
  169. J. H. Rimmer, M. D. Chen, and K. Hsieh, “A Conceptual Model for Identifying, Preventing, and Managing Secondary Conditions in People with Disabilities,” Phys. Ther., vol. 91, no. 12, pp. 1728-1739, 2011.
  170. M. C. Santiago and C. P. Coyle, “Leisure-Time Physical Activity and Secondary Conditions in Women with Physical Disabilities,” Disabil. Rehabil., vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 485-494, 2004.
  171. H. P. van der Ploeg, A. J. van der Beek, L. H. V. van der Woude, and W. van Mechelen, “Physical Activity for People with a Disability: A Conceptual Model,” Sports Med., vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 639-649, 2004.
  172. Canadian Standards Association, “CAN/CSA-Z614014 Children's Playspaces and Equipment,” Mar. 1, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://store.csagroup.org/ccrz__ProductDetails?viewState=DetailView&cartID=&portalUser=&store=&cclcl=en_US&sku=2701953
  173. Parks Canada, “Design Guidelines for Outdoor Accessible Outdoor Recreation Facilities,” 1994. [Online]. Available: http://www.publications.gc.ca/site/eng/41396/publication.html
  174. Rick Hansen Foundation, “Universal Design Recommendations for Accessible Water Parks.” Accessed: Apr. 16, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.rickhansen.com/sites/default/files/downloads/acp-862-universal-design-recommendationsaccessible-water-parks.pdf
  175. Rick Hansen Foundation, “Universal Recommendations for Accessible Playground.” Accessed: Apr. 16, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.rickhansen.com/sites/default/files/downloads/acp-862-universal-design-recommendationsaccessible-playgrounds.pdf
  176. Rick Hansen Foundation, “University Design Recommendations for Accessible Trails.” Accessed: Apr. 16, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.rickhansen.com/sites/default/files/downloads/acp-862-universal-design-recommendationsaccessible-trails.pdf
  177. City of Burnaby and Burnaby Access Advisory Committee, “Burnaby Access Guidebook 2018,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://gis.burnaby.ca/storymaps/_accessibilityguidebook/index.html
  178. Parks Victoria, “Park Accessibility Evaluation Manual,” Apr. 2013. [Online]. Available: https://travability.travel/blog-node/park-accessibility-evaluation-manual
  179. National Capital Commission, “Best Practices Guide to the Accessible Design of the National Capital Commission's Outdoor Spaces,” 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.csla-aapc.ca/awards-atlas/best-practices-guide-accessible-design-national-capital-commissions-outdoor-spaces
  180. Sterling Frazer Associates and the Ontario Land Trust Alliance, “A Roadmap to Accessibility Part II: Public Spaces,” Jun. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://olta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Part-II_Public-Spaces.pdf
  181. M. Prescott, D. Labbé, W. C. Miller, J. Borisoff, R. Feick, and W. B. Mortenson, “Factors that Affect the Ability of People with Disabilities to Walk or Wheel to Destinations in Their Community: A Scoping Review,” Transp. Rev., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 646-669, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1748139
  182. Government of Nova Scotia, “Nova Scotia Building Code Regulations N.S. Reg 179/2019.” Accessed: Jun. 1, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://novascotia.ca/just/regulations/regs/bcregs.htm#text
  183. Government of Prince Edward Island, “Building Codes Act Building Codes Regulations, Current to 2020-04-05.” Accessed: May 31, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/sites/default/files/legislation/b05-1-1-building_code_act_building_code_regulations.pdf
  184. CNIB Foundation, “Clear Our Path.” Accessed: Apr. 16, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://www.clearingourpath.ca/
  185. DeafBlind Ontario Services, “Accessibility Guidelines for Sensory Loss, 2nd Edition,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://deafblindontario.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/AccessibilityGuideForSensoryLoss11Jun2015Final_FINAL-s.pdf
  186. S. DiPetrillo et al., “Improving Pathways to Fixed-Route Transit: Transit Agency Practices to Expand Access for All Users,” Transp. Res. Rec., vol. 2672, no. 8, pp. 578-587, 2018.
  187. S. J. Bosch and A. Gharaveis, “Flying Solo: A Review of the Literature on Wayfinding for Older Adults Experiencing Visual or Cognitive Decline,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 58, pp. 327-333, 2017.
  188. K. Hara et al., “Improving Public Transit Accessibility for Blind Riders,” ACM Trans. Access. Comput., vol. 6, no. 2, Article 5, 2015.
  189. R. Beyerle and J. E. Dupree, “Bridging the Gap: Increasing Transportation Access Through Training and Technology,” in Community Wayfinding: Pathways to Understanding, R. H. Hunter, L. A. Anderson, and B. L. Belza, Eds., New York: Springer Publishing, 2016, pp. 195-211.
  190. R. M. Rice, A. O. Aburizaiza, M. T. Rice, and H. Qin, “Position Validation in Crowdsourced Accessibility Mapping,” Cartographica, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 55-66, 2016.
  191. M. Hashemi and H. A. Karimi, “Collaborative Personalized Multi‐Criteria Wayfinding for Wheelchair Users in Outdoors,” Trans. GIS, vol. 21, no. 4, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12230.
  192. D. H. Bauer, J. Frenzel, R. W. Wall, and T. G. Frazier, “A Framework for Improved Safety and Accessibility Through Pedestrian Guidance and Navigation: Final Project Report,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/43557
  193. U.S. Department of Transportation, “SMART Wayfinding System: System and Subsystem Requirements: Leveraging Innovative Technology to Develop the SMART Wayfinding Standard to Facilitate Independent Use of Public Transit by Individuals with Cognitive Disabilities,” Aug. 31, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/43629
  194. S. M. Anderson, T. H. Riehle, P. A. Lichter, A. W. Brown, and D. Panescu, “Smartphone-Based System to Improve Transportation Access for the Cognitively Impaired,” in Proceedings of the 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7320191
  195. M. Murata, D. Ahmetovic, D. Sato, H. Takagi, K. M. Kitani, and C. Asakawa, “Smartphone-Based Localization for Blind Navigation in Building-Scale Indoor Environments,” Pervasive Mob. Comput.,, vol. 57, pp. 14-32, 2019.
  196. J. M. Batterman, V. F. Martin, D. Yeung, and B. N. Walker, “Connected Cane: Tactile Button Input for Controlling Gestures of iOS Voiceover Embedded in a White Cane,” Assist. Technol., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 91-99, 2018.
  197. AbleLink Smart Living Technologies, LLC and the U.S. Department of Transportation, “SMART Wayfinding System: System and Subsystem Requirements [Leveraging Innovative Technology to Develop the SMART Wayfinding Standard to Facilitate Independent Use of Public Transit by Individuals with Cognitive Disabilities],” Jan. 8, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/43629
  198. Statistics Canada, “Canadian Survey on Disability, 2017: Concepts and Methods Guide,” Nov. 28,  2018. [Online]. Available: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/89-654-X2018001
  199. Canadian Association of Broadcasters, “Closed Captioning Standards and Protocol for Canadian English Language Television Programming Services,” Jul. 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.cab-acr.ca/english/social/captioning/cc_standards.pdf
  200. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, “CRTC 2019-308 English-Language Closed Captioning Mandatory Quality Standards Relating to the Accuracy Rate for Live Television Programming,” Aug. 30, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2019/2019-308.htm
  201. Standards Council of Canada, “National Standard of Canada.” Accessed: Jun. 1, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.scc.ca/en/agl-nsc
  202. The Accessibility for Manitobans Act Advisory Council, “The Accessibility for Manitobans Act (AMA). Discussion Paper on a Proposed Accessibility Standard for the Design of Public Spaces,” Dec. 11, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://accessibilitymb.ca/pdf/dops_proposed_standard.pdf?utm_source=SBE_D83334F6-C41B-42DA-91CB-A1DAEBC0B6F7&utm_medium=SBE_Email&utm_campaign=SBE_December_2019
  203. Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, “Proposed Changes by Subject – National Building Code 2015,” Jan. 28, 2020.
  204. Metrolinx, “Mobility Hub Guidelines,” Feb. 18, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20110218/MobilityHubGuidelines_optimized.pdf

Appendixes

Appendix A – Built Environment: Accessibility Regulations, Standards, and Guidelines
Note : No documents were identified for the municipalities and communities in Atlantic Canada and the Territories.
A-1 National-Level Documents

A-2 Provincial- and Territorial-Level Documents
Alberta

British Columbia

Manitobafootnote 9

New Brunswick

Newfoundland and Labrador

Northwest Territories

Nova Scotiafootnote 10

Nunavut

Ontario

Prince Edward Island

Québec

Saskatchewan

Yukon

A-3 Québec: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Gatineau, QC

Laval, QC

Longueil, QC

Montreal, QC

Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC

Québec (City), QC

Note : No documents were identified for the following nine municipalities and communities in Québec: Chibougamau, Dolbeau-Mistassini, Kuujjuaq, Lévis, Magog, Saguenay, Sherbrooke, Terrebonne, and Trois-Rivières.

A-4 Ontario: Municipal- and Community-Level Documentsfootnote 12
Brampton, ON

Brantford, ON

Burlington, ON

Clarington, ON

Cambridge, ON

Guelph, ON

Hamilton, ON

Kapuskasing, ON (NC)

Kingston, ON

Kitchener, ON

London, ON

Markham, ON

Mississauga, ON

Niagara Falls, ON

Oshawa, ON

Ottawa, ON

Thunder Bay, ON

Toronto, ON

Waterloo, ON

Windsor, ON

Note : No documents were identified for the following eight municipalities and communities in Ontario: Barrie, Dryden (NC), Fort Frances (NC), Greater Sudbury, Peterborough, St. Catharines, Vaughan, Welland, and Whitby.

A-5 The Prairies: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Airdrie, AB

Calgary, AB

Edmonton, AB

Winnipeg, MB

Regina, SK

Note : No documents were identified for the following 14 municipalities and communities in the Prairies: Brandon, MB; Grand Prairie, AB; Spruce Grove, AB; St. Albert, AB; Strathcona County, AB; Wood Buffalo, AB; Flin Flon, MB; Springfield, MB; The Pas, MB; Thompson, MB; Lloydminster (Part), SK; Meadow Lake, SK; Nipawin, SK; Prince Albert, SK; and Saskatoon, SK.

A-6 British Columbia: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Prince George, BC

Vancouver, BC

Victoria, BC

Note : No documents were identified for the following nine municipalities and communities in British Columbia: Abbotsford, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Fort St. John, Kelowna, Prince Rupert, Richmond, Saanich, and Surrey.

Appendix B – Customer Service, Program Delivery, and Procurement of Goods, Services, and Facilities: Accessibility Regulations, Standards, and Guidelines
Note : No documents were identified for municipalities and communities in the following regions: Atlantic Canada, Québec, and the Territories.
B-1 National-Level Documents

B-2 Provincial- and Territorial-Level Documents
Manitoba

Ontario

Québec

Note : No documents were identified for the following 10 provinces and territories: Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and Yukon.

B-3 Ontario: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents footnote 13
Barrie, ON

Brampton, ON

Brantford, ON

Burlington, ON

Clarington, ON

Fort Frances, ON (NC)

Guelph, ON

Kapuskasing, ON (NC)

Kitchener, ON

London, ON

Markham, ON

Mississauga, ON

Niagara Falls, ON

Oshawa, ON

Ottawa, ON

Peterborough, ON

Thunder Bay, ON

Toronto, ON

Vaughan, ON

Welland, ON

Windsor, ON

Note : No documents were identified for the following eight municipalities and communities in Ontario: Cambridge, Dryden, Greater Sudbury, Hamilton, Kingston, St. Catharines, Waterloo, and Whitby.

B-4 The Prairies: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Brandon, MB

Thompson, MB

Note : No documents were identified for the following 18 municipalities and communities in the Prairies: Airdrie, AB; Calgary, AB; Edmonton, AB; Grand Prairie, AB; Spruce Grove, AB; St. Albert, AB; Strathcona County, AB; Wood Buffalo, AB; Flin Flon, MB; Springfield, MB; The Pas, MB; Winnipeg, MB; Lloydminster (Part), SK; Meadow Lake, SK; Nipawin, SK; Prince Albert, SK; Regina, SK; and Saskatoon, SK.

B-5 British Columbia: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Burnaby, BC

Note : No documents were identified for the following 11 municipalities and communities in British Columbia: Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Fort St. John, Kelowna, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Richmond, Saanich, Surrey, Vancouver, and Victoria.

Appendix C – Employment: Accessibility regulations, standards, and guidelines
Note : No documents were identified for municipalities and communities in the following region: Atlantic Canada, Québec, the Prairies, and the Territories.
C-1 National-Level Documents

C-2 Provincial- and Territorial-Level Documents
Manitoba

Ontario

Québec

Note :No documents were identified for the following nine provinces and territories: Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia footnote 14, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and Yukon.

C-3 Ontario: Municipal- and Community-Level Documentsfootnote 15
Brampton, ON

Brantford, ON

Burlington, ON

Fort Frances, ON (NC)

Guelph, ON

Kapuskasing, ON (NC)

Kitchener, ON

London, ON

Markham, ON

Mississauga, ON

Niagara Falls, ON

Oshawa, ON

Ottawa, ON

Thunder Bay, ON

Toronto, ON

Vaughan, ON

Welland, ON

Note : No documents were identified for the following 12 municipalities in communities in Ontario: Barrie, Clarington, Cambridge, Dryden, Greater Sudbury, Hamilton, Kingston, Peterborough, St. Catharines, Waterloo, Whitby, and Windsor.

C-4 British Columbia: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Burnaby, BC

Note : No documents were identified for the following 11 municipalities and communities in British Columbia: Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Fort St. John, Kelowna, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Richmond, Saanich, Surrey, Vancouver, and Victoria.

Appendix D – Information and Communications Standards and Technology: Accessibility Regulations, Standards, and Guidelines
D-1 National-Level Documents

D-2 Provincial- and Territorial-Level Documents
Manitoba

Newfoundland and Labrador

Newfoundland and Labrador

Northwest Territories

  • (Referencing) WCAG (version unknown), W3C, last updated 2018-06-22
Ontario

  • (Referencing) WCAG, W3C, 2008-12-11

Prince Edward Island

Saskatchewan

Québec

  • (Referencing) WCAG 2.0, W3C, 2008-12-11

  • (Referencing) WCAG 2.0, W3C, 2008-12-11

Note : No documents were identified for the following five provinces/territories: Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotiafootnote 17, and Yukon.

D-3 Atlantic Canada: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Moncton, NB

St. John’s, NL

Halifax, NS

Note : No documents were identified for the following 10 municipalities and communities in Atlantic Canada: Fredericton, NB; Saint John, NB; Conception Bay South, NL; Mount Pearl, NL; Cape Breton, NS; Lunenburg, NS; Wolfville, NS; Charlottetown, PEI; Stratford, PEI; and Summerside, PEI.

D-4 Québec: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Lévis, QC

Longueuil, QC

Québec (City), QC

  • (Referencing) WCAG 2.0, W3C, 2008-12-11
Note : No documents were identified for the following 12 municipalities and communities in Québec: Gatineau, Chibougamau (NC), Dolbeau-Mistassini (NC), Kuujjuaq (NC), Laval, Magog, Montreal, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Saguenay, Sherbrooke, Terrebonne, and Trois-Rivières.
D-5 Ontario: Municipal- and Community-Level Documentsfootnote 18
Brampton, ON

  • (Referencing) WCAG 2.0 Level AA, W3C, last updated 2018-06-22
Brantford, ON

Burlington, ON

  • (Referencing) WCAG 2.0, W3C, last updated 2018-06-22
Clarington, ON

  • (Referencing) WCAG 2.0, W3C, last updated 2018-06-22
Fort Frances, ON (NC)

  • WCAG 2.1 City of Greater Sudbury, 2018-06-05

Guelph, ON

Hamilton, ON

Kapuskasing, ON (NC)

  • (Referencing) WCAG 2.0, W3C, 2008-12-11
Kingston, ON

Kitchener, ON

London, ON

  • (Referencing) WCAG 2.0, W3C, 2008-12-11
Markham, ON

Mississauga, ON

Niagara Falls, ON

  • (Referencing) WCAG 2.0, W3C, 2008-12-11

Oshawa, ON

Ottawa, ON

Peterborough, ON

Thunder Bay, ON

  • (Referencing) WCAG 2.0, W3C, 2008-12-11
Toronto, ON

Vaughan, ON

Waterloo, ON

  • (Referencing) WCAG 2.0, W3C, 2008-12-11
Welland, ON

Whitby, ON

Windsor, ON

Note : No documents were identified for the following four municipalities and communities in Ontario: Barrie, Cambridge, Dryden, and St. Catharines. 

D-6 The Prairies: Municipal- and community-level documents
St. Albert, AB

Strathcona County, AB

  • (Referencing) WCAG 2.0, W3C, 2008-12-11
Thompson, MB

Regina, SK

  • (Referencing) WCAG 2.0, W3C, 2008-12-11
Note : No documents were identified for the following 16 municipalities and communities in the Prairies: Airdrie, AB; Calgary, AB; Edmonton, AB; Grand Prairie, AB; Spruce Grove, AB; Wood Buffalo, AB; Brandon, MB; Flin Flon, MB; Springfield, MB; The Pas, MB; Winnipeg, MB; Lloydminster (Part), SK; Meadow Lake, SK; Nipawin, SK; Prince Albert, SK; and Saskatoon, SK.
D-7 British Columbia: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Abbotsford, BC

Note : No documents were identified for the following 11 municipalities and communities in British Columbia: Burnaby, Coquitlam, Fort St. John, Kelowna, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Richmond, Saanich, Surrey, Vancouver, and Victoria.
D-8 The Territories: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Whitehorse, YT

Note : No documents were identified for the following 11 municipalities and communities in the Territories: Fort Smith, NT; Hay River, NT; Inuvik, NT; Yellowknife, NT; Baker Lake, NU; Cambridge Bay, NU; Iqaluit, NU; Pond Inlet, NU; Dawson, YT; Marsh Lake, YT; and Watson Lake, YT.

Appendix E - Transportation: Accessibility Regulations, Standards, and Guidelines
E-1 National-Level Documents

E-2 Provincial- and Territorial-Level Documents
British Columbia

Ontario

Québec

Note : No documents were identified for the following eight provinces and territories: Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and Yukon.

E-3 Atlantic Canada: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Fredericton, NB

Halifax, NS

Note : No documents were identified for the following 11 municipalities and communities in Atlantic Canada: Moncton, NB; Saint John, NB; Conception Bay South, NL; St. John’s, NL; Mount Pearl, NL; Cape Breton, NL; Lunenburg, NS; Wolfville, NS; Charlottetown, PEI; Stratford, PEI; and Summerside, PEI.

E-4 Québec: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Gatineau, QC

Montréal, QC

Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC

Saguenay, QC

Note : No documents were identified for the following 11 municipalities and communities in Québec: Chibougamau (NC), Dolbeau-Mistassini (NC), Kuujjuaq (NC), Laval, Lévis, Longueil, Magog, Sherbrooke, Terrebonne, Trois-Rivières, and Québec (City).

E-5 Ontario: Municipal- and Community-Level Documentsfootnote 24

Brampton, ON

Brantford, ON

Burlington, ON

Cambridge, ON

Fort Frances, ON (NC)

Guelph, ON

Kapuskasing, ON (NC)

Kingston, ON

Kitchener, ON

London, ON

Markham, ON

Mississauga, ON

Niagara Falls, ON

Oshawa, ON

Ottawa, ON

Thunder Bay, ON

Toronto, ON

Vaughan, ON

Waterloo, ON

Welland, ON

Note : No documents were identified for the following eight municipalities and communities in Ontario: Clarington, Dryden, Greater Sudbury, Hamilton, Peterborough, St. Catharines, Whitby, and Windsor

E-6 The Prairies: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Airdrie, AB

Edmonton, AB

Brandon, MB

Winnipeg, MB

Saskatoon, SB

Note : No documents were identified for the following 15 municipalities and communities in the Prairies: Calgary, AB; Grand Prairie, AB; Spruce Grove, AB; St. Albert, AB; Strathcona County, AB; Wood Buffalo, AB; Flin Flon, MB; Springfield, MB; The Pas, MB; Thompson, MB; Lloydminster (Part), SK; Meadow Lake, SK; Nipawin, SK; Prince Albert, SK; and Regina, SK.

E-7 British Columbia: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Note : No documents were identified for the following 11 municipalities and communities in British Columbia: Abbotsford, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Fort St. John, Kelowna, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Richmond, Saanich, Vancouver, and Victoria.
E-8 The Territories: Municipal- and Community-Level Documents
Whitehorse, YT

Note : No documents were identified for the following 11 municipalities and communities in the Territories: Fort Smith, NT; Hay River, NT; Inuvik, NT; Yellowknife, NT; Baker Lake, NU; Cambridge Bay, NU; Iqaluit, NU; Pond Inlet, NU; Dawson, YT; Marsh Lake, YT; and Watson Lake, YT.

Appendix F – Other Areas: Accessibility Regulations, Standards, and Guidelines
Note : No documents were identified for municipalities and communities in the following regions: Atlantic Canada, Québec, the Prairies, British Columbia, and the Territories.
F-1 National-Level Documents
There were no national documents identified in other areas.
F-2 Provincial- and Territorial-Level Documents
Ontario

Québec

F-3 Ontario: Municipal- and Community-Level Documentsfootnote 25
Fort Frances, ON (NC)

Note : No documents were identified for the following 27 municipalities and communities in Ontario: Barrie, Brampton, Brantford, Burlington, Clarington, Cambridge, Dryden (NC), Greater Sudbury, Guelph, Hamilton, Kapuskasing, Kingston, Kitchener, London, Markham, Mississauga, Niagara Falls, Oshawa, Ottawa, Peterborough, St. Catharines, Thunder Bay, Toronto, Vaughan, Waterloo, Welland, Whitby, and Windsor.

Appendix G - List of Organizational Websites included in the Search Strategy for Rapid Review of Grey Literature
G-1 List of Websites for National Organizations

  1. Active Living Alliance For Canadians with a Disability
  2. Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
  3. Alzheimer Society of Canada
  4. Autism Foundation Canada
  5. Canadian Abilities Foundation
  6. Canadian Accessibility Network
  7. Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health
  8. Canadian Association for Supported Employment
  9. Canadian Association of the Deaf – Association des Sourds du Canada (CAD-ASC)
  10. Canadian Centre for Transportation Data
  11. Canadian Centre on Disability Studies
  12. Canadian Coalition for Seniors' Mental Health
  13. Canadian Council of the Blind
  14. Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work
  15. Canadian Deafblind Association
  16. Canadian Disability Policy Alliance
  17. Canadian Down Syndrome Society
  18. Canadian Federation of the Blind
  19. Canadian Foundation for Physically Disabled Persons
  20. Canadian Hard of Hearing Association
  21. Canadian Hearing Society
  22. Canadian Human Rights Commission
  23. Canadian Mental Health Association
  24. Canadian National Institute of the Blind (CNIB)
  25. Canadian Pain Society
  26. Centre for ADHD Awareness Canada
  27. Cerebral Palsy Network Canada
  28. Charity Village
  29. Chronic Pain Association of Canada
  30. Communication Disabilities Access Canada
  31. Council of Canadians with Disabilities
  32. Easter Seals Canada
  33. Employment and Social Development Canada
  34. Epilepsy Canada
  35. Include-Me.ca
  36. Inclusion Canada
  37. Inclusive Design Research Centre, OCAD University
  38. Learning Disabilities Association of Canada
  39. March of Dimes
  40. Media Access Canada
  41. Mental Health Commission of Canada
  42. Multiple Sclerosis Canada
  43. National Education Association of Disabled Students (NEADS)
  44. Native Women's Association of Canada
  45. Neil Squire Society
  46. Parkinson Canada
  47. People First of Canada
  48. Rick Hansen Foundation
  49. Spinal Cord Injury Canada
  50. Statistics Canada
  51. ViewsON

G-2 List of Websites for Provincial and Territorial Organizations

  1. Voice of Albertans with Disabilities, AB
  2. British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, BC
  3. Developmental Disabilities Association, BC
  4. Disability Alliance BC, BC
  5. Disability Foundation, BC
  6. Mood Disorders of British Columbia, BC
  7. People in Pain Network, BC
  8. Barrier-Free Manitoba, MB
  9. Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities, MB
  10. Coalition of Persons with Disabilities Newfoundland and Labrador, NL
  11. NWT Disabilities Council, NT
  12. Disability Rights Coalition of Nova Scotia, NS
  13. Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre, NU
  14. Ontario Association for Families of Children with Communication Disorders, ON
  15. Ontario Association on Developmental Disabilities, ON
  16. Ontario Federation for Cerebral Palsy, ON
  17. PEI Council of People with Disabilities, PEI
  18. Québec Accessible, QC
  19. Kéroul, QC
  20. Association Québécoise de la douleur chronique, QC
  21. Quebec Intellectual Disability Society, QC
  22. Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec, QC
  23. Alliance québécoise des regroupements régionaux pour l’intégration des personnes handicapées, QC
  24. Miriam Foundation, QC
  25. SaskAbilities, SK
  26. Saskatchewan Aids to Independent Living, SK
  27. LDAY Centre for Learning, YT
  28. Yukon Council on Disability, YT

Note : There were no organizations from New Brunswick.

Appendix H – List of Websites for National and Provincial/Territorial Transportation Operators, Database, and Agency Included in the Rapid Review Search Strategy
H-1 National Transit Operators, Database, and Agency

  1. Canadian Centre for Transportation Data
  2. Canadian Transportation Agency
  3.  Via Rail Canada
  4. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

H-2 Provincial and Territorial Transit Operators

  1. Alberta Transportation and Utilities
  2. BC Transit
  3. Metrolinx

Contact Standards Research

Are you interested in learning more about our research? Email us at [email protected].

Join the Research Community

Join the CSA Community today so you can keep informed about research that is critical to standards development

When you join the CSA Community, you’ll gain access to the CSA Group Research Space. You can learn about current studies, get the latest information on upcoming programs, ask questions, andget involved in future research.