enforcement in the sectors within its mandate. In health care, a suggestion was made to link AODA compliance to the annual hospital accreditation process. Regarding the Information and Communications standard, there was a proposal to achieve economies of scale by hiring one company to audit all public sector websites. Another suggestion was to send summer students with disabilities to visit business premises to test the accessibility of services. Complaints Process The most frequently mentioned enforcement idea was the introduction of a new tool: a complaints process for the AODA. It was repeatedly observed that no such mechanism now exists, forcing people who encounter barriers to file complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal a cumbersome and time-consuming process. Some participants pointed out that a – complaints system was especially needed because the Government is not doing enough proactive enforcement through audits and inspections. A number of options for a complaints process were put forward. For example: Set up an accessible, toll-free telephone number to report AODA violations, such as the confidential tip line for abuse of the federal Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Empower municipalities or municipal accessibility advisory committees to operate a local complaints process and track and report on complaints. Create an Ombudsman for an Accessible Ontario or give the existing Ombudsman of Ontario the power to investigate complaints of AODA non-compliance. (It was noted that further study would be needed as Ombudsmen generally have the power only to make recommendations and not to impose penalties.) Establish a complaints process in hospitals and other health care facilities to address concerns of patients and families. The most frequently mentioned enforcement idea was the introduction of a new tool a – complaints process. Another alternative was to build on the feedback process that organizations are currently obliged to establish under the Customer Service standard. This would be done by requiring organizations to compile and disclose data on the number and nature of complaints received as well as on their responses. It was also suggested that organizations identify contacts to engage in a dialogue with people concerned about barriers. Contact points were also proposed for customers to obtain information about the accessible services an organization offers, which would be especially helpful for publicly funded services. Compliance and Implementation Support While visible enforcement is a central pillar of the AODA regime, it is only one means to the goal of full compliance with accessibility standards. Another and possibly more effective means to this end is support for the overwhelming majority of obligated organizations that the
enforcement in the sectors within its mandate. In health care, a suggestion was made to link AODA compliance to the annual hospital accreditation process. Regarding the Information and Communications standard, there was a proposal to achieve economies of scale by hiring one company to audit all public sector websites. Another suggestion was to send summer students with disabilities to visit business premises to test the accessibility of services. Complaints Process The most frequently mentioned enforcement idea was the introduction of a new tool: a complaints process for the AODA. It was repeatedly observed that no such mechanism now exists, forcing people who encounter barriers to file complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal – a cumbersome and time-consuming process. Some participants pointed out that a complaints system was especially needed because the Government is not doing enough proactive enforcement through audits and inspections. A number of options for a complaints process were put forward. For example: Set up an accessible, toll-free telephone number to report AODA violations, such as the confidential tip line for abuse of the federal Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Empower municipalities or municipal accessibility advisory committees to operate a local complaints process and track and report on complaints. Create an Ombudsman for an Accessible Ontario or give the existing Ombudsman of Ontario the power to investigate complaints of AODA non-compliance. (It was noted that further study would be needed as Ombudsmen generally have the power only to make recommendations and not to impose penalties.) Establish a complaints process in hospitals and other health care facilities to address concerns of patients and families. The most frequently mentioned enforcement idea was the introduction of a new tool – a complaints process. Another alternative was to build on the feedback process that organizations are currently obliged to establish under the Customer Service standard. This would be done by requiring organizations to compile and disclose data on the number and nature of complaints received as well as on their responses. It was also suggested that organizations identify contacts to engage in a dialogue with people concerned about barriers. Contact points were also proposed for customers to obtain information about the accessible services an organization offers, which would be especially helpful for publicly funded services. Compliance and Implementation Support While visible enforcement is a central pillar of the AODA regime, it is only one means to the goal of full compliance with accessibility standards. Another and possibly more effective means to this end is support for the overwhelming majority of obligated organizations that the
final_report_-_second_legislative_review_of_the_aoda-english.docx