Services regarding whether a physical barrier should be erected in ODSP offices
to prevent contact between ODSP workers and recipients. The Board
determined that the Ministry’s proposal, which did not include physical barriers,
was consistent with the collective agreement and applicable legislation. In
making this determination the Board stated that the creation of a physical barrier
would be inconsistent with the intent of the AODA.^61
Aside from the AODA, several laws exist in Ontario in relation to accessibility
issues; the Blind Persons Rights Act and the Building Code Act are two
examples. The AODA and Accessibility Standards do not replace or change
existing legal obligations under other statutes.
VIII. Conclusion
Despite criticism of the AODA and Accessibility Standards, the legislation has
important symbolic value for Ontario’s disability community. It provides public
recognition of the history of disadvantage and exclusion that Ontarians with
disabilities endured, and makes accessibility an important public policy goal. It is
hoped that the accessibility requirements set out in the Standards will provide
practical tools and guidance for improving accessibility in the public and private
sector.
Lawyers, paralegals and advocates advising persons with disabilities must be
aware that the AODA framework does not create new rights, nor does it provide
for individual relief in the event that an organization or individual has failed to
comply. However, it can be used to provide legal support for requests for
disability accommodation, and may be useful in providing guidance when crafting
human rights remedies.
(^61) Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2008
CanLII 70515 (ON GSB).