Skip to content

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

Jennifer Thompson

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

Purpose of the Act

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

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

What are the main obligations under the Act?

Those subject to the Act have three key ongoing obligations:

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

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

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

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

How will the Act be enforced?

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

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

Conclusion

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


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

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top