respondent argued that a systemic remedy was not needed, since under the
AODA it was required to ensure that its stores were accessible by 2012.^55
The AODA addresses this misperception as follows: section 3 of the Act states
that nothing in the AODA or Accessibility Standards diminishes the legal
obligations imposed by other legislation. The Integrated Standards state that the
requirements set out therein are not a replacement or substitution for the
obligations that exist under the Human Rights Code.^56 Further, section 38 of the
AODA states that where a provision of the AODA or an Accessibility Standard
conflicts with a provision of another Act, the provision that provides the highest
level of accessibility shall prevail. As a result, organizations and individuals who
comply with the AODA and Accessibility Standards still have legal obligations to
accommodate people with disabilities under the Human Rights Code. The AODA
framework has not changed human rights requirements.
The Integrated Accessibility Standards provide that every obligated organization
must ensure that training on the Code is provided to employees, volunteers,
those who participate in developing policies, and all other people who provide
goods, services or facilities on behalf of the organization.^57 In this regard, the
Ontario Human Rights Commission provides a training module which can be
accessed at: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/learning/working-together-ontario-human-
rights-code-and-accessibility-ontarians-disabilities-act.
Organizations that have complied with the AODA may still be in breach of their
human rights obligations. In Palangio v. The Corporation of the Town of
Cochrane the respondent Town submitted that it was in the process of
developing policies, practices and procedures on accommodating people with
disabilities in order to comply with its AODA obligations. Despite this, the Human
(^55) Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2010 HRTO 407 (CanLII). The Tribunal did not rule on this
submission, given that the scope of the application was narrowed to exclude this issue. However,
the case demonstrates the type of arguments respondents may make. 56
57 Integrated Accessibility Standards, supra note 22 at s 1(2).^
Ibid at s 7.