Any Time, You Can Watch Online the Archived Video of the May 21, 2018 Interview on TVO’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin,” Addressing The 2018 Ontario Election’s Disability Accessibility Issues
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities http://www.aodaalliance.org firstname.lastname@example.org Twitter: @aodaalliance
May 23, 2018
1. Get Friends, Relatives, Journalists and Ontario Candidates to Watch Online AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky’s Interview on TVO’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin,” Discussing the 2018 Ontario Election’s Disability Accessibility Issues
At any time, you can now watch online the interview with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and Hamilton-based disability advocate Yvonne Felix, on TVO’s “The Agenda with Steve Paikin.” We understand that this video should have captioning. To watch this video, visit:
https://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/making-progress-on-disability-issues Send this link to your local media. Urge them to cover this election’s disability issues. Send the link as well to candidates running in your riding.
Among other things, this interview addresses new disability barriers that are revealed in the AODA Alliance’s new captioned online video about accessibility problems at new and recently renovated Toronto area public transit stations. We are thrilled that in just one week since we posted that video on line, it has gotten over 1,400 views! You can watch it, and encourage others to do so by visiting:
16 minute version: https://youtu.be/za1UptZq82o
30 minute version: https://youtu.be/2VZLGGfFg1g
2. Use Our New Partial List of All-Candidates’ Debates Around OntarioPress Candidates to Make Strong Commitments on Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities
We’ve just posted online a partial list of all-candidates’ debates around Ontario. Please find a debate near you, and go to it! Press candidates to make strong commitments on accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities. If you cannot find a debate nearby on our list, call your local candidates, and ask them when and where there will be a debate near you.
We thank our amazing volunteers for putting in all the time and effort to compile our online list. If you want to go to a debate that is on our list, double-check with a candidate in that riding to be sure the information we posted is correct. How do you find information to contact your local candidates? Check out our list of all the candidates’ contact information, riding by riding, that our amazing volunteers could find. It’s all on our website!
For ideas on what to ask at the debate, check out our new 2018 Ontario Election Action Kit.
3. Latest News In Our Effort to Address Serious Accessibility Problems in the Design of a Future Huge Courthouse to Be Built in Downtown Toronto
As both the AODA Alliance’s recent video and the interview on The Agenda with Steve Paikin both highlight, one of the important accessibility issues the AODA Alliance is raising in the Ontario election is the need for the Ontario Government to take bold new action to make our built environment become accessible to people with disabilities. We report today on new developments on an important illustration of this problem.
As an obvious step, it is important that public money never be used to create new disability accessibility barriers. Last fall, we made public our serious concerns that the Ontario Government was not properly taking accessibility into account in the design of a huge new courthouse, planned to be built in the heart of downtown Toronto. We have previously reported to you that we wrote the Ontario Government to raise our concerns about this on October 5, 2017, and again on April 6, 2018.
So what’s new? We have since learned that the Ontario Government has received a detailed report from design professionals. It documents a series of accessibility problems and deficiencies in the proposed design of this new courthouse that the Ontario Government has selected. We here make that report public.
This troubling courthouse design came from the successful bidder for this project, the EllisDon company. The Government has written us to say that these deficiencies will be addressed. However, we are left wondering why the Government approved a bid to build this courthouse that included such accessibility deficiencies. The Government has written us to say provide the specific accessibility requirements it has set for this courthouse. However, we have not yet gotten a clarification if these requirements are mandatory, or are just guidelines that EllisDon can disregard if it wishes.
Below we also make public the substantial recent exchange of letters and supporting documents on this issue. Some of you may not want to read it all. However, we want to make it available for anyone who wants to dig into the details. We have said that the Government should be far more open and transparent about these projects. For our part, we are making public and available to you, key information we have received, concerning it.
Below we set out:
* The April 9, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance from the Attorney General of Ontario, Yasir Naqvi. He was belatedly responding five months later, to the AODA Alliance’s October 5, 2017 letter to the Government. His letter to us crossed with our April 6, 2018 letter to him, which we made public last month.
* The first enclosure with the Attorney General’s April 9, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance. This is a list of the accessibility requirements that the Government has set for this courthouse. These are included in the “Project Specific Output Specifications” (PSOS) for this project.
* The second enclosure with the Attorney General’s April 9, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance. This is a report, prepared by design professionals, for the Government, that lists the ways that the EllisDon design for this courthouse, which the Government selected in a competitive bid, falls short of the accessibility requirements that the Government set for this project. We know that this report was prepared at least in part by the DesignAble Environments accessibility consulting firm. We have asked the Government who else, if anyone, took part in this report’s preparation.
* The April 18, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance from the Attorney General for Ontario, Yasir Naqvi. That letter responds to the AODA Alliance’s April 6, 2018 letter to the Attorney General. It tells us to follow up on these issues with Assistant Deputy Attorney General Dante Pontone.
* The AODA Alliance’s May 22, 2018 letter to Assistant Deputy Attorney General Dante Pontone. In this letter, we follow up on this earlier exchange, offer to work with him on this issue, and ask a series of specific questions about all the information the Government has disclosed.
* A summary, prepared for the Ontario Government, of the March 20, 2018 meeting with the Government of the disability sector advisory group, which had been invited to give accessibility feedback on this project. The AODA Alliance is part of that advisory group. This was sent to us by the DesignAble Environments accessibility consulting firm. We have not commented on its contents. The AODA Alliance’s April 6, 2018 letter to the Attorney General of Ontario provides our summary of the major accessibility problems with this courthouse’s design that the disability sector raised at that meeting.
* The text of the PowerPoint which Infrastructure Ontario presented to the disability sector advisory group at its March 20, 2018 meeting.
At the end of this Update, we give you links to key background information, including information on how to sign up for or unsubscribe from these Updates.
1. Text of the April 9, 2018 Letter to the AODA Alliance from the Attorney General of Ontario, Yasir Naqvi
720 Bay Street
Toronto ON M7A 2S9
720, rue Bay
Toronto ON M7A 2S9
Our Reference #: MC-2017-7972
Mr. David Lepofsky
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance
1929 Bayview Avenue
Toronto, ON M4G 3E8
Dear Mr. Lepofsky:
I would like to thank you for your letter of October 5, 2017 concerning accessibility of the new Toronto courthouse. I appreciate your taking the time to write to me.
I understand that Mr. Dante Pontone, Assistant Deputy Attorney General of my ministrys Corporate Services Management Division, has been in touch with you by phone and email on several occasions since October, to keep you updated. I am advised he also committed to providing you with various documents and other information about the project, once the confidential Request for Proposals period had ended. I am pleased to follow up with you now.
On February 22, 2018, the contract to design, build, finance and maintain the new Toronto courthouse was awarded to EllisDon Infrastructure. This includes a requirement for EllisDon to have an accessibility consultant on the project. In addition, Infrastructure Ontario also has an accessibility consultant on board, DesignABLE Environments Incorporated, to provide oversight and to ensure accessibility objectives for the project are met.
In your letter, you requested release of the project-specific output specifications of the new Toronto courthouse in order to review accessibility requirements. As explained by Mr. Pontone, the accessibility components are integrated into the overall document along with all other requirements including some that are confidential. To respond to your request, a separate document with only the accessibility-related material has been created and is attached for your information.
As Mr. Pontone mentioned in his last message to you, from this point on, the ministry will capture accessibility features and requirements of our new courthouse projects in a discrete, standalone report, which can be readily shared.
You also asked about the assessment of the accessibility components of the selected design. Attached please find the assessment of the design by DesignABLE Environment Incorporated, which notes areas where the accessibility requirements for the courthouse have not been met. EllisDon Infrastructure is required to rectify all the areas of non-conformance and to meet all the requirements set out in the attached accessibility specifications report. As the design develops, DesignABLE Environments will continue to monitor conformance.
With all new courthouses, the ministry has included a process to consult with local municipal accessibility advisory committees. At the suggestion of the Ontario Courts Accessibility Committee, the ministry asked that Infrastructure Ontario and its accessibility consultant invite a broader range of representatives of people with disabilities to be consulted for the new Toronto courthouse project. The first consultation session was held on Wednesday, March 14, 2018.
Invitations for a consultation with members of the judiciary with disabilities and disability community expertise are also being arranged. I look forward to the results of this collaboration and engagement process, which will continue as the courthouse design is finalized.
I also want to address another issue you raised regarding the lack of accessible parking at the courthouse. The rigorous security requirements of a courthouse do not allow us to offer parking under the building for the public.
As you know, there are several parking lots with accessible parking in the vicinity, as well as some on-street parking. The ministry is working closely with Infrastructure Ontario and the City of Toronto to increase the number of available accessible parking spots in the vicinity of the courthouse. We are continuing to proactively work with the City of Toronto to ensure that accessible parking spaces are increased in the area to meet the needs of court users with disabilities who must drive. I understand that ministry staff have been in contact with you on this issue. We will be sure to keep you informed of any updated information we receive.
I want to assure you again that my ministry is committed to providing justice services in buildings that are secure, safe, and accessible to all. I believe that the new Toronto courthouse will be the provinces most modern and accessible courthouse.
Once again, I appreciate your taking the time to raise your concerns and to discuss them with us.
2. Enclosure #1: Summary of the Ontario Government’s Accessibility Requirements for the New Toronto Courthouse Program Specific Output Specifications) (PSOS)
NEW TORONTO COURTHOUSE:
Summary of Accessibility Provisions for the New Toronto Courthouse
Prepared by: Kleinfeldt Mychajlowycz and Montgomery Sisam Architects in Joint Venture and DesignABLE Environments Inc.
Prepared for: Infrastructure Ontario
Report Date: October 18, 2017
Report Version: Version 1.1
Version Date Description Author(s)
1.0 Sep. 17, 2017 Summary of NTC Requirements Jordan Wilson (KMA/MSA) and Thea Kurdi (DesignABLE)
1.1 Oct. 18, 2017 Update to format, including the addition of a cover sheet, Revision History, and Table of Contents Jordan Wilson (KMA/MSA)
Table of Contents
1. General Provisions and Background 2
1.1 Assessibility as a Courthouse Design Principle..2 1.2 Referenced Standards….2
1.3 Site Context……2
1.4 Requirement to Engage Specialist Accessibility Consultant….2 2. Parking and Vehicular Access 2
2.1 Public/ Visitor….2
2.2 Judicial and Program Parking….3 2.3 Prisoner Vehicular Sallyport……3 3. Site Design and Exterior Accessibility 3
3.1 Exterior Surfaces and Materials.3 3.2 Exterior Paths of Travel..3 3.3 Exterior Ramps.4
3.4 Curb Ramps..4
3.5 General Design Considerations.4 4. Building Entrance and Lobby 4
4.1 General Design Considerations.5 4.2 Main Entrance..5
4.3 Judicial Entrance..5
4.4 Entries from Parking5
5. Interior Vertical and Horizontal Circulation 5
5.1 General Public and Staff Areas…..5 5.2 Horizontal Circulation……5 5.3 Vertical Circulation…6
5.5 Power Door Operators6
5.6 General Design Considerations.7 6. Courthouse Design 7
6.1 General Public and Staff Areas…..7 6.2 Public Service Counters and Reception Counters.7 6.3 Courtroom Waiting Areas…8
6.4 Courtrooms and Courtroom Millwork….8 6.5 Conference Settlement Rooms.. ………9 6.6 Barrier-Free (Courtroom) Interview Rooms…..9 6.7 Prisoner Handling and Related Areas..9 6.8 Barrier-Free Washrooms..10
6.9 First Aid / Restroom…11
6.10 Areas/Spaces where a Specific Quantity/Proportion are Accessible..11 6.11 Interior Finishes11
7. Miscellaneous Items 12
7.1 Signage ..12
7.2 Electronic Court Docket12
7.3 Self-serve Digital Kiosks…12 7.4 Vending Machines.12
7.5 Mounting Heights…13
7.6 Kitchens/ Kitchenettes..13
7.7 Closets/Coat Rooms.13
7.8 Public Telephones.13
The following report summarizes the accessibility requirements in the Project Specific Output Specifications (PSOS) for the New Toronto Courthouse. These requirements were developed with the accessibility consulting firm of SPH Planning & Consulting Ltd whereas the current PDC team accessibility consulting firm of record is DesignABLE Environments Inc.
This summary document has grouped the requirements under seven headings: 1. General Provisions and Background; 2. Parking and Vehicular Access; 3. Site Design and Exterior Accessibility; 4. Building Entrance and Lobby; 5. Interior Vertical and Horizontal Circulation; 6. Courthouse Design; 7. Miscellaneous Items. All items have been reviewed to indicate if they are more than the OBC and AODA Design of Public Spaces currently require. These items are indicated with (more than code) or words to similar effect stated in green text.
The report excludes a discussion of the Space Layouts in the PSOS which show room sizes, dimensions, layouts and necessary clearances (including barrier-free turning radius, barrier-free T-shaped turning area, mobility aid device maneuvering area, designated barrier-free seating spaces/access) to achieve accessibility.
Note that this report summarizes only those requirements that are written in the NTC PSOS. Some of these requirements are consistent with the referenced codes and standards, others exceed those codes/ standards, and yet others are specific to courthouse design and are not contemplated therein. This report does not and is not intended to summarize the requirements contained in the referenced codes or standards.
1. General Provisions and Background
There are four (4) general items summarizing accessibility requirements in the PSOS as follows:
1. Accessibility is a Courthouse Design Principle: Barrier-free design shall be an integral component of the design of the New Toronto Courthouse. Accessibility will be treated in a universal way and will extend to all areas of the courthouse facility.
2. Referenced Standards include:
a. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005. (Amended 2009)
b. Guidelines for BarrierFree Design of Ontario Government Facilities (OPS), latest edition
c. Ontario Building Code (OBC, 2012), Division B, Part 3, Section 3.8, Barrier-Free Design
d. Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR), Part IV.1, Design of Public Spaces Standards e. City of Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines, latest edition f. CAN/CSA B651 Accessible Design for the Built Environment
3. Site Context (Surrounding Infrastructure with Accessibility Provisions)
a. Three (3) out of the four (4) subway stations located within approximately 500 metres of the NTC site are currently accessible by elevator (Osgood, Dundas, and Queen Subway Stations), and the fourth (St. Patrick Subway Station) is scheduled to be in 2018
b. Various TTC bus routes provide accessible access to the vicinity of the NTC site (#6 Bay St, #5 Avenue Rd, and #142 Express Ave)
c. A number of public parking facilities are located in close proximity to the NTC site. There are nine (9) public parking facilities located within 300 metres of the site with a parking supply of approximately 3,800 spaces. Note: It is unknown if these sites provide accessible parking spaces complying with AODA Design of Public Spaces.
1. Parking and Vehicular Access
There are three (3) items summarizing accessibility requirements in the PSOS for parking and vehicular access as follows:
1. Public/ Visitor:
a. Six (6) accessible parking spaces for visitors (either on west side of Centre Avenue or north side of Armoury St, west of Centre Ave) (more than code)
b. A para-transit (Wheel Trans) pick-up/drop-off area to be designated along Chestnut Street (more than code)
2. Judicial and Program Parking:
a. 5 accessible parking spaces for Judiciary (2 Type A, 3 Type B) b. 2 accessible parking spaces for Staff (1 Type A, 1 Type B)
3. Prisoner Vehicular Sallyport:
a. Accessible circulation space required around all four sides of prisoner transport vehicle (more than code)
b. Accommodates wheelchair accessible vehicle with accessible circulation space to accommodate a ramp extended to the rear or to the side of the vehicle (more than code)
1. Exterior Surfaces and Materials:
a. Firm, stable, and slip resistant
b. Exterior ground surfaces have a high visual contrast between the walkway and adjacent areas, and between benches, bollards and edge protections (more than code)
c. Pedestrian Clearway Surface must be classified as an accessible surface as per the Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act, 2015
d. Gratings and drainage structures to be AODA compliant, with openings no greater than 12mm in dominant direction of travel and oriented with long dimension of openings perpendicular to dominant path of travel (more than AODA)
2. Exterior Paths of Travel:
a. Exterior paths of travel minimum of 1.8m wide (more than code), but may be reduced to 1.2 m wide at the top of curb ramps if required
b. Minimum width of a Pedestrian Clearway is 2.1 m (more than referenced standards and code)
c. Spacing of vehicle barriers (e.g., bollards) to achieve the Standoff distance shall be a minimum of 1200 mm face to face (more than referenced standards and code)
d. All ground surfaces preferably level; Paths of travel with a slope greater than 5% designed as ramps, but may not be steeper than the slope of the adjacent roadway if the path is a pedestrian clearway with a slope greater than 1:20
e. Rest area every 50 m if the running slope of a walkway exceeds 1:20 (5%) (more than code)
f. All changes in level along exterior paths of travel to be provided with an accessible running slope and transition (e.g., curb ramp or bevel) as per AODA IASR requirements
g. Where there is any headroom clearance less than 2100 mm, a cane detectable rail or other protective barrier is provided
3. Exterior Ramps:
a. Maximum running slope of 6.67% (1:15) (more than code; per AODA and OPS)
4. Curb Ramps:
a. Minimum of 1.8m wide (more than referenced standards and code)
b. Minimum clear transition area of 1.8m x 1.8m at top and bottom (more than referenced standards and code) c. Maximum running slope of 1:10 (10%), with cross slope no more than 1:50 (2%)
d. Full width raised tactile walking surface indicators with Luminance Contrast, set back 150 to 200 mm from the curb edge and placed at the bottom of the curb ramp for a depth of at least 610 mm
e. Depressed curbs, where provided, with running slope no steeper than 1:7.5 (13%) (more than referenced standards and code)
5. General Design Considerations:
a. The barrier free route from the pedestrian clearway to the building entry to be apparent (more than referenced standards and code)
b. The transition from the exterior public space to the building entry must accommodate barrier-free travel from all approaches
c. A complete, universally accessible, public pedestrian route shall allow building occupants and visitors to freely move from the on-street accessible parking, drop-off areas, public transit stops and surrounding areas to the main entrance of the building. (more than referenced standards and code) A sensitive design response to site gradients shall facilitate barrier-free access throughout the site
d. Sidewalks shall include curb depressions/cuts as required. Special considerations for wheelchair access and or persons with disability shall be provided for the entire Lands
1. General Design Considerations:
a. The public entrance must be readily identifiable from both the exterior and interior (more than code)
2. Main Entrance:
a. Main entrance doors to be accessible and provided with auto door operator(s)
b. Minimum of one accessible security screening station at the main entrance designed to screen building visitors who are using mobility aids or assistive devices (e.g., manual or powered wheelchair, scooter, walker etc.) (more than code)
3. Judicial Entrance:
a. Judicial entrance vestibule is accessible and includes two accessible swing doors both will open with auto door operator (more than code)
4. Entries from Parking:
a. Elevator access is provided to all below-ground parking areas
b. Any door along the path leading from Judicial parking area to the private elevators is provided with an auto door operator
4. Interior Vertical and Horizontal Circulation
There are six (6) items summarizing accessibility requirements in the PSOS for interior vertical and horizontal circulation as follows:
1. All public and staff areas shall be accessible as required by the most stringent requirements of OBC, AODA Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR), and Guidelines for Barrier-free Design of Ontario Government Facilities
2. Horizontal Circulation:
a. Barrier-free path of travel with a minimum clear width of 1100mm in accordance with OBC Article 126.96.36.199
b. Clearances for manoeuvring of wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility aid devices to OBC and IO requirements c. Clear door width for doors will 865mm (more than code)
d. Clear turning space diameter to be minimum 1500 mm
e. Enhanced manoeuvring space, consisting of a 2000 mm x 2000 mm clear floor space to allow mobility aid device to perform a 180 degree turn, required for private elevator lobbies, open office areas (1 manoeuvring space per continuous open office), meeting rooms, barrier-free interview rooms, and kitchens/ kitchenettes (more than referenced standards and code)
f. All courtroom and public, judicial and staff entrance vestibules require a minimum width of 1500mm plus the width of the door swinging into the space (more than code)
3. Vertical Circulation:
a. Elevators to meet OBC accessible standards including light levels in the cab
b. Public Elevators: All public elevators serve all accessible floors to the public and staff including below-grade levels
c. Where a Component is located on multiple floors, internal communication stairs as well as internal barrier-free access are required. (Note: A Component describes a functional grouping of activities and assigned spaces that are functionally similar.)
d. Private Elevators: private elevators must serve all floors with courtrooms, the Court Services components, the Judiciary components, and the secure judicial parking
e. Prisoner Elevators: Each courtroom requiring prisoner access requires direct prisoner elevator access
f. Escalators: Escalators are provided from the main floor to high volume courts and Court Services public counters, with dedicated up and down direction units between landings, nominal step width of 1015 mm and three horizontal steps at both landings g. Stairs:
i. Open risers prohibited for any interior staircase
ii. Tactile walking surface indicators (TWSIs) required at the top of all stairs
iii. All stairs to have safety and accessibility features, such as Colour Luminance handrails (more than code), Colour Luminance nosing and tactile walking surface indicators iv. All stairs to comply with CAN/CSA B651 (more than code)
a. Landing dimensions, edge protection, tactile warnings, guards, and railings to meet OBC and Infrastructure Ontario standards
b. Encouraged maximum of 1:15 slope over a maximum of 9 meters (more than code) (maximum of 1:12 slope over a maximum 9 meter length where not possible to achieve 1:15)
5. Power Door Operators: auto door operators required at a minimum in the following locations: a. Main entrance
b. Any door leading from Judicial parking area to the private elevators c. Judicial Entrance vestibule: both accessible swing doors
d. All universal washrooms intended for the public
e. All barrier-free washrooms for staff listed in the Accommodation Schedule f. All staff Universal washrooms listed in the Accommodation Schedule g. Accessible Interview Rooms (more than referenced standards and code) h. Building Meeting Room (more than referenced standards and code) i. All department/suite entrances from public corridors (more than code) j. Doors leading to a judicial dais (more than referenced standards and code) k. All courtroom entry vestibules (both doors) (more than code) l. Conference Settlement Room entry vestibules (both doors) (more than code) m. Judicial Officer Entry door in Courtrooms (more than code) n. Food Services Outlet (more than code)
o. 25 additional automatic door operators required to be provided for, to be installed on doors throughout the facility at the discretion of HMQ (more than code)
6. General Design Considerations:
a. The overall layout of the building shall be readily comprehensible to both staff and visitors and promote intuitive or natural wayfinding through design without the need for complex signage and directions (more than code)
5. Courthouse Design
There are eleven (11) items summarizing accessibility requirements in the PSOS for courthouse design as follows:
1. All public and staff areas to be accessible as required by the most stringent of OBC, AODA Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR), and Guidelines for Barrier-free Design of Ontario Government Facilities
2. Public Service Counters and Reception Counters:
a. One barrier free service counter for each type of service provided b. One barrier free reception counter for each department with reception
c. If a single queuing line becomes a part of the design for single or multiple counters, all of the service counters for this area shall accommodate a mobility aid
d. Barrier-free public transaction counter height of maximum 860 mm AFF with clear floor space for an assistive device (more than code)
e. The private side work surface of all counters at a height of 740 mm AFF (more than code)
f. Court Services public seating area designed to integrate wheelchair and mobility aid device seating locations (more than code) g. Queuing System in Court Services:
i. Visual displays adhere to accessibility requirements, including the AODA (Information and Communication Standard) and MAG CWSS
ii. Ticket dispensers located in a position visible to customers and in a location and height accessible to all users (more than code) h. Where queuing-up guides are provided, they shall accommodate: i. a center-to-center width of at least 1550mm (more than code); ii. have a minimum space of 1670mm x 1670mm at changes in direction; iii. be cane-detectable at or below 680mm above the floor; and iv. be colour-contrasted from the floor (more than code)
3. Courtroom Waiting Areas:
a. Integrated 900 x 1525mm clear barrier-free seating spaces where there is one or two-sided access (or 900 x 1220mm with three-sided access) into the overall fixed courtroom waiting area seating design, with at least two spaces placed side-by-side (more than code)
b. Layouts provide the required accessible seating positions without allowing one user of an accessible space to block the exit of another user of any other accessible space (more than code)
c. Where fixed seating is used, at least 3% of the seating spaces shall be provided for people using assistive devices to sit in the waiting area. d. In no case shall there be fewer than one (1) accessible seating space
4. Courtrooms and Courtroom Millwork:
a. All courtrooms must have barrier-free access to the judicial dais (more than code)
b. Public entry doors to courtroom and the Judicial entry door to dais are provided with door operators (more than code)
c. Designated barrier-free seating positions in public gallery of all courtrooms (user of an accessible space not permitted by layout to block the exit of another user of any other accessible space, accessible seating areas located/positioned to ensure shoulder alignment between the user and the adjacent seat) (more than code) d. Minimum 1100 mm wide aisles
e. Dais, court clerk/ reporter desks, counsel tables, lecterns, and witness boxes all barrier-free accessible (more than code)
f. A total of nine (9) barrier-free prisoner boxes required to be shared among all courtrooms (Courthouse specific requirement not code related)
g. Dais and court clerk/ reporter desks to have motorized height adjustable work surface with accessible control switch location (more than code)
h. Lectern to be height adjustable by electric motor with accessible control switch location (more than code)
i. All witness boxes barrier-free via a removable chair platform so as to provide wheelchair access and include an electrically-controlled, height adjustable shelf/front panel (more than code)
j. Court clerk/ reporter desks located such that there is a minimum 1200 mm clear access aisle between the edge of the desk and the dais behind (more than code) k. Accessible Telephone Consultation Rooms (more than code)
l. Accessible Simultaneous Interpretation Rooms (more than code)
m. IR hearing assistance system (more than code in rooms with less than 75 people)
5. Conference Settlement Rooms:
a. All Conference Settlement Rooms to be barrier-free accessible (more than code)
b. Judicial Officer position in Large Conference Settlement Rooms requires motorized height adjustable work surface with accessible control switch location (more than code)
6. Barrier-Free (Courtroom) Interview Rooms:
a. One (1) accessible interview room per eight (8) courtrooms (more than code)
b. Minimum one (1) dedicated accessible interview room per floor (more than code)
c. include an Enhanced Manoeuvring Space (2000 mm by 2000 mm clear floor space for mobility aid device to perform a 180 degree turn) (more than code)
7. Prisoner Handling and Related Areas:
a. Holding Cells:
i. Prisoner Handling Component: 2 barrier-free adult male holding cells, 2 barrier-free adult female holding cells, 1 barrier-free youth boys holding cell, 1 barrier-free youth girls holding cell, 1 accessible mental health unisex dry cell, and 4 accessible dry holding cells in the Prisoner Transport and Receiving element (more than code)
ii. Courtrooms Component: 1 barrier-free holding cell in the MAHS Court element, 1 accessible single dry mental health holding cell (more than code)
iii. Include a 1500mm clear floor area for wheelchair turning radius, as well as a barrier free detention grade combination WC/ lavatory unit b. Lawyer/Prisoner Consulting Cubicles:
i. 2 barrier-free consulting cubicles in Prisoner Handling component on detention level, 1 barrier-free consulting cubicle per 2 courtrooms on courtroom floors (including 1 designated specifically for Drug Treatment Courtroom and 1 designated for MAHS Courtroom) (more than code)
ii. A non-audio means of communication (such as text) to be provided in addition to direct voice communication (more than code)
8. Barrier-Free Washrooms:
a. All single occupant, individual washrooms are barrier-free washrooms (more than code) b. All barrier-free washrooms have a distress call
c. All barrier-free washrooms have an auto door operator
d. Dimensional requirements and design criteria for toilet facilities comply with Guidelines for Barrier-free Design of Ontario Government Facilities
e. Minimum of one unisex barrier-free public washroom is required on each floor accessible to the public, or as governed by OBC requirements
f. Universal Washrooms as defined in the OBC allow persons using wheeled mobility aid devices to perform a 3 point turn, provide a clear transfer space on the open side of the toilet with a width no less than 950mm and a length no less than 1500mm, provide a clear turning diameter of not less than 1700mm, and include an emergency call system i. Emergency call system linked to the BSCR (more than code) ii. Universal Washrooms include an adult change table (more than code)
g. There are two programmed staff Universal washrooms which are not to be used in the public Universal washroom number OBC calculation (more than code)
h. Washroom accessory mounting heights shall meet the optimal accessibility range between 900 and 1100 mm
i. All public BF washrooms and public Universal washrooms include an infant change table, a coin operated diaper dispenser and a waste diaper disposal (more than code)
j. Staff BF washrooms to be located in a manner to ensure that no staff needs to use a public BF washroom or to enter a different component to use a BF Washroom (more than code)
9. First Aid / Restroom: To be barrier-free and to include adult change facilities (more than code)
10. Areas/Spaces where a Specific Quantity/Proportion are Accessible: a. Courtroom Interview Rooms (see above)
b. Lawyer/Prisoner Consulting Cubicles in the Control and Consulting and MAHS Court elements only (all others BF-typical) (see above) c. Holding Cells (see above)
d. Judicial Chambers: 4 of 82 are barrier-free
e. Crown Attorney Offices: 1 of 4 is barrier-free
f. Non-Courtroom Interview Rooms: All non-courtroom interview rooms are barrier free with the following exceptions: Youth Probation Interview Rooms, Protected Witness Interview Room in the MAHS Court element, Police Interview Rooms in Prisoner Handling Holding elements, 3 of the 4 Interview Rooms in the Criminal Duty Counsel element, and the Lobby Security Interview Room g. Interpreter Booths: 1 of 6 is barrier-free (more than code)
h. Showers/Changing Area: 1 of 6 Staff Showers is barrier-free; 1 of 2 Judicial Showers is barrier-free
11. Interior Finishes:
a. Interior design and materials, finishes, texture and colours shall take into consideration the needs of users with vision loss. Throughout the courthouse, there shall be a visual (tonal) contrast between walls and floors, on handrails for ramps and stairs, between doors and door frames and the wall surrounding them, and between the edge of the door and face of the door, for doors with power door operators (more than code)
b. Alternative design strategies to alert users with vision loss to the location of the courtroom entry from the surrounding walls required (more than code)
c. Tactile walking surface indicators (TWSIs) required at the top of all stairs (tactile attention indicators) and barrier-free walkways; doors to hazardous areas with tactile surface indicators
d. High gloss and highly reflective finishes, which may disorient people with visual or mental impairments, prohibited (more than code)
1. Signage to the MAG Courthouse Wayfinding Signage Standards (CWSS):
a. The CWSS thoroughly details technical requirements, including performance standards, for accessible signage
b. Requirements for typefaces, character size and specifications for tactile characters consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA and AODA Information and Communication Standard)
c. Signage program incorporates accommodations for accessibility for a variety of users, including those with mobility and sensory disabilities including but not limited to: mounting heights, tactile displays, light levels and text sizes, audible displays, and braille (more than code)
d. Signage to conform to Standards for Barrier-Free Design of Ontario Government Facilities (more than code)
2. Electronic Court Docket (Main Lobby and at main/public entry to all Courtrooms):
a. Allocation of space/area required for circulation and viewing of the Court Schedule (court dockets) in the lobby to AODA Information and Communication Standard requirements
b. Monitor sizes, formats and mountings based on providing clear and legible information that meets MAG CWSS and AODA Information and Communication Standard
3. Self-serve Digital Kiosks (Three in the Main Lobby and one in the public elevator lobby on each courtroom floor): a. Fitted with capabilities to serve users with physical disabilities
b. The centre of the kiosk display per MAG CWSS and AODA Information and Communication Standard c. Each kiosk contains a microphone for voice capture (more than code)
4. Vending Machines: Vending machines meet current accessibility standards including:
a. All consumer access points such as switches, coin slots, outlets, change return and product retrieval located not higher than 1200 mm and not lower than 400 mm b. Located in an accessible route of travel
c. A clear floor space is provided in front of the vending machines to allow for accessibility
d. Signage on machines in highly contrasting lettering at least 13 mm high (more than code)
5. Mounting Heights:
a. All manual controls (e.g., light switches, card readers, keypads, etc.) mounted between 900 -1100mm AFF to the location of the operable portion of the device, except in prisoner circulation corridors, in which controls are mounted at standing height of escorting officers, and except for thermostats and manual pull stations (e.g., fire alarm pull stations) which shall be mounted at 1200mm maximum
b. Card access, keypads and other safety and security devices in all accessible paths of travel to meet Ontario Guidelines for Barrier Free Design of Ontario Government Facilities standard and to be:
i. mounted adjacent to the door, 600 mm minimum clear from the arc of the door swing
ii. Luminance Contrasted compared to background / mounting surface (more than code)
iii. provided with visible and audible cues to indicate activation/release (more than code)
iv. Where required to be provided with signage, signage to be tactile with characters that are without sharp edges, raised at least 0.8 mm, between 16 mm and 50 mm high, in sans serif, with raised graphics/lettering/text, and accompanied by Grade 2 braille (more than code)
c. Outlets (electrical, data, cable etc.) mounted at a minimum height of 400mm AFF to the base of the outlet (more than code) d. Door handles mounted between 900mm and 1100mm AFF
i. Door handles Luminance Contrasted compared to the doors mounting surface (more than code)
6. Kitchens/ Kitchenettes:
a. All counters required to be barrier free accessible with a uniform counter height (more than code)
b. Microwave to be located at a barrier free height for accessibility (more than code)
c. All associated under-counter appliances to accommodate barrier free requirements (more than code)
7. Closets/Coat Rooms: Provide with a barrier-free rod (more than code)
8. Public Telephones: At least one telephone of each group of public telephones must be barrier free for users in mobility devices, and must include accessible service for the hearing impaired (a group is required in the main lobby and on every floor containing high volume Courtrooms)
a. Glare and hotspots shall be minimized in accordance with barrier free design requirements for the visually impaired (more than code) b. Refer to MAG CWSS for lighting requirements at signage (more than code)
3. Enclosure #2: Accessibility Shortfalls of the Winning EllisDon Design for the New Toronto Courthouse, Identified by a Report to the Ontario Government
Site and Urban Design
Creation of significant exterior public spaces, in the courthouse public plaza, as well as in the extended public realm
1. Requirement – The Courthouse Public Realm shall be designed to be a safe, accessible and welcoming pedestrian environment, including a significant Courthouse Plaza. The improvements surrounding the site shall be extended beyond the existing site boundaries. The NTC site design shall improve the connectivity to the immediate streetscape surrounding Civic Precinct. Comment – Stairs and ramp are not accessible by code or PSOS requirements. Status – Minor Non-Conformance
2. Requirement – It is important that the hierarchy and organization of the Courthouse Plaza and circulation creates a clear visual understanding of the space and provides intuitive wayfinding.
Comment – Visually clear and intuitive wayfinding is not demonstrated along Chestnut where location of the ramp is not obvious and requires travelling away from the building to access. Status – Minor Non-Conformance
3. Requirement – A complete, universally accessible, public pedestrian route shall allow building occupants and visitors to freely move from the on-street accessible parking, drop-off areas, public transit stops and surrounding areas to the main entrance of the building. A sensitive design response to site gradients shall facilitate barrier-free access throughout the site. Comment – Drop off areas not OBC compliant. Missing access aisle and curb cuts. Status – Minor Non-Conformance
4. Requirement – Paths of travel with a slope greater than 5% must be designed as ramps. Where the exterior path is a pedestrian clearway, it can have a slope of greater than 1:20, but it cannot be steeper than the slope of the adjacent roadway. All changes in level along exterior paths of travel shall provide an accessible running slope and transition (e.g., curb ramp or bevel) as per AODA IASR requirements. Where there is any headroom clearance less than 2100 mm, a cane detectable rail or other protective barrier shall be provided. If gates or bollards are required by the design, the minimum clear width shall be 1200 mm face to face. Exterior ramps shall have a maximum running slope of 6.67% (1:15) Comment – SE ramp slope not noted. Handrail not compliant with AODA requirements Status – Minor Non-Conformance
Prominence of public entry
1. Requirement – Within the plaza, a well-proportioned, relatively flat area (not exceeding 2% gradient in any direction) directly outside the main entrance shall be provided to function as an exterior extension of the building lobby and interior public space.
Comment – Not shown on drawings. 00.10.10 Landscape or 00.10.01 Site plan 250. Narrative mentions “un-sloped path” but drainage will be needed so unclear if max 2% provided for slope and cross slope Status – Unobservable
2. Requirement – The transition from the exterior public space to the building entry must accommodate barrier-free travel from all approaches, however this is not intended to preclude the incorporation of steps or series of steps leading up to the entry provided that the design fully integrates barrier free paths of travel. The entry design must be carefully composed, and the building entry shall not be dominated by the presence of ramps or stairs.
Comment – Approach from SE corner is dominated by stairs and a ramp that cuts through the stairs which is a barrier and unsafe. Status – Minor Non-Conformance
Integration of city street improvements and landscaping initiatives (including lighting, surfacing, street furniture etc.)
1. Requirement – The landscape designed shall be governed by the New Toronto Courthouse Urban Design Guidelines. Page 68, item 4.5.5. requires that street trees be planted around all three street frontages.
Comment – There are no trees proposed along the Armoury Street frontage, however there is an extensive soft landscape feature: the Puzzle Garden and tree planting on the south side with the EPR proposal.
At the east drop-off on Chestnut street, Barrier-Free circulation is limited to one ramp, further development is required to provide a more universal design solution. Status – Minor Non-Conformance
2. Requirement – Trees shall be provided in the Public Realm . . . .Openings in tree grates shall be heel proof and meet accessibility requirements..
Comment – 04/L201 Typical tree grate – openings not dimensioned. Unclear if orientation will be compliant with AODA Status – Minor Non-Conformance
Integration of universal design principles and barrier free accessibility into the site design
1. Requirement – Barrier-free design shall be an integral component of the design of the New Toronto Courthouse. Accessibility will be treated in a universal way and will extend to all areas of the court-house facility. Refer to section PART 1 Section 4.9 Interior Accessibility and PART 1 Section 3.6.3 Exterior Accessibility for specific accessibility design requirements.
Comment – Barrier-free design appears to be an integral component of the overall design. The Proponent has provided an accessibility report that concurs that the design solution is conformant. This will have to be demonstrated in more detail in design development and contract documents. Status – Minor Non-Conformance
2. Requirement – The Courthouse Public Realm shall be designed to be a safe, accessible and welcoming pedestrian environment, including a significant Courthouse Plaza. The improvements surrounding the site shall be extended beyond the existing site boundaries. The NTC site design shall improve the connectivity to the immediate streetscape surrounding Civic Precinct.
Comment – The submission is generally conformant. The Proponent has addressed Accessibility concerns, with gentle slopes and Accessible curb cuts where applicable.
Drop off areas meant to help with distance from public accessible parking and at WheelTrans have stairs immediately adjacent to the drop off but require those who cannot use stairs to go out of their way to the south. Not equitable or respectful. This may require the use of directional signage to the accessible route. Status – Minor Non-Conformance
3. Requirement – All exterior ground surfaces shall be firm, stable and slip resistant. Exterior ground surfaces shall have a high visual contrast between the walkway and adjacent areas, and between benches, bollards and edge protections.
Comment – The Proponent has identified that they will be providing visual contrast indicators. The Requirements should continue to be reviewed in subsequent submissions to ensure final solutions meet the intent. Status – Minor Non-Conformance
4. Requirement – The transition from the exterior public space to the building entry must accommodate barrier-free travel from all approaches, however this is not intended to preclude the incorporation of steps or series of steps leading up to the entry provided that the design fully integrates barrier free paths of travel. The entry design must be carefully composed, and the building entry shall not be dominated by the presence of ramps or stairs. Comment – Stairs are tripping hazards because of the varying riser height Status – Minor Non-Conformance
5. Requirement – Formal options for seating as well as informal options shall be provided for people of all ages and abilities. Different seating options shall be provided in a variety of locations to allow users a diverse choice of seating preferences.
Comment – E.g. 90.00.08 Exterior perspective from SW & 00.50.07 Site Details benches missing back or arm rests Status – Minor Non-Conformance
6. Requirement – Trees shall be provided in the Public Realm . . . .Openings in tree grates shall be heel proof and meet accessibility requirements.
Comment – 04/L201 Typical tree grate – openings not dimensioned. Unclear if orientation will be compliant with AODA Status Unobservable
7. Requirement – Drainage structures shall be of high quality, decorative, heel proof, AODA compliant and meet the loading requirements specific to their location. The design of the grates shall keep with the design language of the site.
Comment – 04/L201 Typical tree grate – openings not dimensioned. Unclear if orientation will be compliant with AODA. Slot drainage design not detailed. Status Unobservable
8. Requirement – Drainage structures shall be of high quality, decorative, heel proof, AODA compliant and meet the loading requirements specific to their location. The design of the grates shall keep with the design language of the site.
Comment – 00.50.03 Site Details Piazza South East – Unclear if Slot Drain compliant. Drainage grates should be placed outside of public path of travel and slopes should not exceed 2% in any direction to avoid tipping hazard Status Minor Non-Conformance
9. Requirement – D Six (6) accessible parking spaces are required for the New Toronto Courthouse visitors (outside of the secure parking garage) as per the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 and AODA requirements. Two potential locations are being considered within the areas public parking supply: north side of Armoury Street west of Centre Avenue, and along the west side of Centre Avenue north of Armoury Street. Conversion of available on-street parking supply to six (6) accessible parking spaces shall be discussed with the City of Toronto. The re-designated spaces shall meet the City of Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines for accessible on-street parking.
Comment – Accessibility Diagram 90.30.80 does not show the six required parking spaces, although they are shown on the Site Plan. Diagram does not demonstrate understanding of City of Toronto by-law requirements. Status Minor Non-Conformance
10. Requirement – On-site barrier-free parking within the courthouse surface parking facilities is to be provided in accordance with the Infrastructure Ontario Standards for Barrier-Free Design of Government Facilities 2014. Comment – Provided but not to requirements
Status Minor Non-Conformance
11. Requirement – Whichever barrier free parking requirements are more stringent – the standards listed above, the additional requirements described in this document, or municipal requirements shall apply.
Comment – Judicial parking spaces require accessible parking users to travel along the driveway which is dangerous for those using wheelchairs as it’s harder for cars to see them. Status Minor Non-Conformance
Public Space design
Expression of spatial hierarchy and clarity of interior public spaces and circulation routes
1. Requirement – Visual and tactile changes in wall and flooring material, textures, colours and patterns shall be judiciously and subtly used to provide orientation cues for natural wayfinding and supplement signage. The consistent use of a colour or a range of colours shall be used as means of promoting natural or intuitive wayfinding.
Comment – The proposed flooring design does not identify/ demonstrate any variation that would promote natural wayfinding. Status Minor Non-Conformance
Interior Planning and Functionality
General Interior Planning & Functionality Comments
In general the requirements for the quantity, distribution and integration of accessible seating in courtroom and other waiting areas have not been met. Accessible seating should be distributed evenly throughout the public seating, with at least one accessible seating space per waiting area, and is required to be well-integrated with standard waiting seats so as not to stigmatize or isolate their occupants and such that the spaces do not appear to be gaps when unoccupied. Status Minor Non-Conformance
Resolution of the three major circulation systems public, private and prisoner
1. Requirement – Landing dimensions, edge protection, tactile warnings, guards, and railings shall meet the minimum OBC and Infrastructure Ontario standards; as in all cases, the most stringent requirement applies.
[OPS, 188.8.131.52: “Interior ramps shall have: Level area of at least 1670mm by 1670mm at the top and bottom of the ramp”]
Comment – 1670x1670mm landing area has not been provided at top and bottom of many of the interior ramps. Status Major Non-Conformance
Courtrooms Planning Component
1. Requirement – Integrate 900 x 1525mm clear seating spaces for designated barrier-free provision where there is one or two-sided access (or 900 x 1220mm with three-sided access) into the overall fixed seating design as per PART 2 5.0 Space Layouts. Clear seating spaces shall be fully integrated with the seating design, with at least two of the spaces placed side-by-side, and should not isolate or stigmatize the users of them. However, Public Waiting Seating layouts of seating rows shall be of consistent number of seats in each consecutive beam seating row or configuration so that designated wheelchair spaces, when not occupied, do not appear to be gaps in the beam seating rows. Additionally, adaptable seating should be provided in compliance with the referenced standards
Comment – Barrier-free courtroom public waiting seats are to be integrated with standard courtroom public waiting seating. The current floor plans show barrier-free seating locations isolated from the other seating, hidden behind structural elements, projecting into corridors, drawn over standard seating, etc. Status Major Non-Conformance
2. Requirement 4.3 Courtroom functional Design
Comment – Only 1 of the 2 required BF Staff Washrooms off Private Circulation for the Indigenous and Drug Treatment Courts (1 male and 1 female) is provided. Status Minor Non-Conformance
3. Requirement Interior Accessibility, no wheelchair sitting position may block the access to another sitting position.
Comment – Not mentioned in narrative. Several courtrooms have this as a problem but appear in most cases to have room to fix Status Minor Non-Conformance
4. Requirement Six portable mobile barrier-free prisoners boxes must be provided to be shared among all courtrooms exclusive of the MAHS Courtroom. Comment – Not mentioned in narrative. Space shown on plans
5. Requirement All Lecterns must be accessible with final design to be determined during Design Development. Comment -No mention in narrative.
6. Requirement The [Clerk / Reporters? Desks] desks shall be located such that there is a minimum 1200mm clear access aisle between the edge of the desk and the furthest projecting edge of the dais behind.
Comment – Not mentioned in narrative. Not shown on drawings but appears to have space if use knee space under desk Status Unobservable
7. Requirement The courtroom waiting area furnishings must include not only fixed waiting area seating, and incidental seating at areas where people may congregate, but also public telephone counters, garbage receptacles and recycling containers. Garbage receptacles and recycling containers shall be custom-designed. Public Telephones shall be provided on floors with high-volume courtrooms. Refer to PART 1 – Section 5.18 Public Telephones.
Comment – Telephone, garbage and recycling do not indicate if accessible in design and signage at this point. Public telephones required to provide accessibility features. Not mentioned in narrative Status Minor Non-Conformance
8. Requirement Integrate 900 x 1525mm clear seating spaces for designated barrier-free provision where there is one or two-sided access (or 900 x 1220mm with three-sided access) into the overall fixed seating design as per PART 2 5.0 Space Layouts. Clear seating spaces shall be fully integrated with the seating design and should not isolate or stigmatize the users of them. However, Public Waiting Seating layouts of seating rows shall be of consistent number of seats in each consecutive beam seating row or configuration so that designated wheelchair spaces, when not occupied, do not appear to be gaps in the beam seating rows.
Comment – Clear floor space shown but not dimensioned and appears to be less than required 1525 deep – Will impede seating clearance for others in courtrooms. Status Minor Non-Conformance
Court Services Component
1. Requirement Space Layout 3.12
Comment – The copier room (C1.08) in the Criminal Court Management and Administration element is not barrier-free accessible. Status Minor Non-Conformance
2. Requirement Standing and seated public waiting in Component C – Court Services must be accommodated in the Public Service counter waiting area. Refer to PART 2 Section 3.4 Component C. Court
Services and PART 2 5.0 Space Layouts. Fixed seating shall be provided in multiple banks in a variety of configurations. The automated queuing system (an LED display directing them to specific counter positions) must be visible from the fixed seating area. Refer to PART 3 Section C1039 Queuing Systems.
Comment – Seating details not provided, Not Observable for variety of configurations. Not mentioned in narrative Status Unobservable
3. Requirement In Court Services, provide barrier-free public service counters as per Accommodation Schedule. Each barrier-free counter position shall have a public transaction counter height of no higher than 860mm AFF. The private side work surface shall be 740mm AFF
Comment – Court Services, barrier-free public service counters not mentioned in narrative or identified as BF on drawings Status Unobservable
4. Requirement Counters must be ergonomically designed to incorporate keyboards, display screens, cash drawers, debit/credit card machines, storage, form slots, etc. Security glazing must be provided between staff and the public, and the design for each counter position must include a document pass-through and a speaking cut-out. Comment – Not mentioned in narrative or shown in drawings
5. Requirement All waiting seats in Component C-Court Services waiting areas shall be fixed-multiple system seating with tables provided at a ratio of one table per four seats. As per the accessibility requirements, all fixed public seating areas must be designed to integrate wheelchair and mobility aid device seating locations within the seating area.
Comment – AODA Design of Public Spaces requires min 3% accessible seating. Not shown. E.g. 10.01.16 public corridor – no AODA accessible seating showing, & 10.01.15 B.04.07 Wait – no AODA accessible seating Status Major Non-Conformance
6. Requirement counters, including keyboard trays, IT and electrical device locations, monitors and the associated millwork items such as the form-filling stations, public information pamphlet displays, etc. Comment – Not shown yet or mentioned in narrative
Prisoner Handling Component
1. Requirement Space Layout 5.12
Comment – The In-Custody Video Room (D4.11) located adjacent to the Youth Boys cell cluster is undersized and not barrier-free accessible as required. Status Major Non-Conformance
2. Requirement Communications in the cubicles shall be by direct voice only via an approved steel security speaking port panel which has no pass-through capabilities. Telephones shall be installed. A tamperproof signal light above the prisoner door of each cubicle is required to allow the prisoner to notify the escorting officer via a local tamperproof switch, that the prisoner has completed consultations with the lawyer.
Comment – Unclear if design includes accessible control requirements. Not mentioned in narrative Status Minor Non-Conformance
Crown Attorney Component
1. Requirement Space Layout 3.14v1
Comment – Barrier-free accessibility within a number of Kitchenettes and Photocopier Rooms in the Crown Attorney component still appears to be compromised due room layout or column locations and/or cannot be verified as millwork/FF&E layouts and turning radii are not shown. Status Minor Non-Conformance
Public Services Component
1. Requirement Provide a minimum of eight monitors (minimum 65 diagonal, 16:9 format, with minimum resolution of 3840 by 2160, UHD). The bottom of the monitors is to be 2400 mm above the finished floor and mounted from a wall. Each monitor is to be tilted between 20 degrees and 30 degrees down towards the viewer. The intent is to aim the display for a viewing position of approximately 3 m to 4.5 m from the wall. The monitors are to be mounted in a portrait orientation with mountings to be concealed as much as possible and to be coordinated with the Courthouse Lobby finishes and design.
For clarification and information, the above monitor sizes, formats and mountings are all based on providing clear and legible information that meets MAG CWSS and AODA standards.
Comment – The court docket displays as shown in the renderings of the Lobby do not appear to conform to the requirements for size, orientation, etc. Based on the required display quantity and size, the information desk appears to obstruct access to the display. Sufficient circulation space in front of the docket for accessibility and approachability needs to be demonstrated. Status Minor Non-Conformance
Demonstrated understanding of courthouse accessibility design and issues
1. Requirement All single occupant, individual washrooms shall be barrier-free washrooms with appropriate provisions. Refer to PART 1 Section 5.16 Staff Washrooms and PART 1 Section 5.17 Public Washrooms.
Comment – Not all compliant eg. Public Washroom X0.23 on the B2 level is not barrier-free. Most often transfer space is missing beside the toilet e.g. 10.01.16 – Level 16 – B.01.02 BF Chamber NE corner. Status Minor Non-Conformance
2. Requirement All public waiting areas with fixed seating shall be designed to accommodate and fully integrate wheelchair / mobility aid seating positions within the designated seating area. Care must be taken to not stigmatize or isolate the accessible seating positions. Layouts must provide the required accessible seating positions without allowing one user of an accessible space to block the exit of another user of any other accessible space. Where fixed seating is used, at least 3% of the seating spaces shall be provided for people using assistive devices to sit in the waiting area. In no case shall there be fewer than one (1) accessible seating space.
Comment – Wheelchair / mobility aid seating positions are not integrated in all public waiting areas. Status Minor Non-Conformance
3. Requirement Courtroom layouts must provide the required barrier free seating areas without allowing one user of an accessible space to block the exit of another user of any other accessible space. Access seating areas must be located and positioned to ensure that there is shoulder alignment between the user and the adjacent seat.
Comment – The locations for accessible seating is not compliant in a number of courtrooms (e.g., no shoulder alignment and/or drawn over standard seating). Status Minor Non-Conformance
4. Requirement Six portable mobile barrier-free prisoners boxes must be provided to be shared among all courtrooms exclusive of the MAHS Courtroom.
Comment – It is unclear if there is space in each courtroom to allow for the portable accessible prisoner box as some courtrooms show the clear space for portable prisoner box overlapping with the permanent prisoner box (e.g., courtrooms on floors 11 to 13). Status Minor Non-Conformance
5. Requirement Any open spaces below stairs and escalators that have less than 2100 mm height AFF shall be demarcated with a fixed barrier. Fixed barrier can be a guard, fixed seating or other built fixed elements. Barrier shall be min 600 mm high.
Comment – No cane detectable guards are shown for the overhead stair and escalator hazards in the Lobby. Status Minor Non-Conformance
6. Requirement All barrier-free washrooms shall have a distress call. Comment – Not mentioned in narrative.
7. Requirement Dimensional requirements and design criteria for toilet facilities shall comply with Guidelines for Barrier-free Design of Ontario Government Facilities and are to include an auto door operator to the entrance door of each washroom. Comment – Not mentioned in narrative.
8. Requirement Universal Washrooms as defined in the OBC shall allow persons using wheeled mobility aid devices to perform a 3 point turn. Provide a clear transfer space on the open side of the toilet with a width no less than 950mm and a length no less than 1500mm, and a clear turning diameter of not less than 1700mm. The washroom must also include an emergency call system linked to the BSCR and an adult change table.
Comment – Not shown. Most often transfer space is missing beside the toilet e.g. 10.01.13 Level 13 A.05.20 Staff WC FB enters off ramp and no transfer space (NW corner) & A.05.16 Staff BF WC no transfer space Status Minor Non-Conformance
9. Requirement Barrier Free Public Washrooms shall be as per OBC.
Comment – No accessible urinals. Accessible showers do not show OBC requirements. No accessible stalls provided. Status Minor Non-Conformance
10. Requirement In all Universal washrooms, programed and non-programed, an adult change table shall be provided. Refer to PART 2 6.0 Space Data, and PART 3 Building Statement. Comment – Space for and provision of adult change table not shown. Status Minor Non-Conformance
11. Requirement Accessible vending machine requirements are defined in PART 4 Facility Management Statement under Food Services. Comment – Not mentioned in narrative
12. Requirement Signage and wayfinding at parking lots shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements from MAGs Wayfinding Signage Standard for Ontario Government Facilities. Comment – Signage for parking not included in Wayfinding package Status Unobservable
13. Requirement Adult change facilities shall be accommodated in Court Services First Aid / Restroom. Signage is required to inform the public of the location of this facility. Comment – Not shown within washroom
Status Minor Non-Conformance
14. Requirement Where possible, it is encouraged that the ramps in accessible paths of travel should have a maximum of 1:15 slope over a maximum of 9 meters. Where due to program and/or other design constraints, the latter cannot be achieved, the ramps may be allowed to a maximum of 1:12 slope over a maximum 9 meter length. Landing dimensions, edge protection, tactile warnings, guards, and railings shall meet the minimum OBC and Infrastructure Ontario standards; as in all cases, the most stringent requirement applies.
Comment – Courtroom floors show ramps marked generally as 1:12 with the only 1:15 along the corridor at the north side of the building. Concern: Some of the ramps do not note the slope. Unclear if this is a drafting error or if the 1:12 slope is not be committed to in these locations. Status Unobservable
15. Requirement The following additional prisoners box components shall be supplied and stored in the appropriate courtroom storage rooms: three (3) Barrier free single occupancy prisoner boxes
Comment – Not Observable – Unclear if space provided in courtroom storage areas. Not mentioned in narrative. Not shown. Status Unobservable
16. Requirement A total of six (6) accessible (barrier free) parking spaces shall be provided. Barrier free parking spaces shall comply with Guidelines for Barrier free Design of Ontario Government Facilities.
Comment – A corridor door opens into one of the accessible spaces (L2.02) in the program parking area. Status Minor Non-Conformance
17. Requirement Feature Stair: Have a comfortable shallow rise and long run with intermediate landings spaced not more than 2750mm vertically, to encourage use. Comment – No stair details in drawings and not mentioned in narrative. Status Unobservable
18. Requirement For the feature stair, required safety or accessibility features, such as tactile indicators, must be custom designed and fully integrated into the design of the stair. Off-the-shelf applied products are not acceptable for the feature stair. Comment – Not mentioned in narrative or shown in drawings.
19. Requirement The Component C – Court Services public service counters must be contiguous and define a public area to accommodate the various functions. This public area must be clearly visible from the principal public circulation through a provision of a separating glazed screen, and be capable of being closed-off by glazed doors when Court Services counters are not open to the public.
Comment – 10.01.03 – Level 3 None indicated as accessible in plans or renders. Glass barrier does not indicate speaking port or assistive listening. Not mentioned in narrative. Status Unobservable
20. Requirement The principles of Universal Design shall be employed to increase accessibility of information. Comment – Not mentioned in narrative.
21. Requirement Sudden changes in lighting levels shall be avoided between areas containing signs and adjacent areas. Shading devices shall be provided as necessary to prevent glare and reflectivity on sign surfaces. Glare, reflections and sudden changes in light level are disorienting for people with visual and mental impairments. Utilize high level of lighting in the parking garage. Provide minimum 200 lux at every sign.
Comment – E2B2A Parking level and E102 Site Plan Photometric Calculations significantly lower than 100 lux and 50 lux. Unknown what lighting on signage is as not mentioned in narrative. Status Minor Non-Conformance
22. Requirement The signage program, including information displays, must incorporate accommodations for accessibility for a variety of users, including those with mobility and sensory disabilities This includes, but is not limited to: mounting heights, tactile displays, light levels and text sizes, and audible displays. Braille is a requirement for the New Toronto Courthouse; refer to the CWSS for further detail on these requirements.
Comment – 2.2.8 NTC Wayfinding – width to height, san serif, forward motion symbol. Problems – list grade 2 braille but should be unconstructed (formerly known as grade 1) for short text and contracted (or UEB formerly known as grade 2) for short paragraphs of text. Unclear if White acrylic is glare free. Symbols outline not solid black. Outlines too narrow to be useful as colour contrast. Building Directory – no braille, unclear if tactile text and text placed too high and too low. No tactile and braille alternative shown e.g. AV-015 Court in Session signs and electronic docket screen panel Status Minor Non-Conformance
23. Requirement Card access, keypads and other safety and security devices in all accessible paths of travel shall meet Ontario Guidelines for Barrier Free Design of Ontario Government Facilities standard and shall be Comment – Security and other devices not mentioned in narrative. Status Minor Non-Conformance
24. Requirement Clearances for maneuvering of wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility aid devices shall follow OBC and IO requirements. Unless otherwise noted, the clear turning space diameter shall be a minimum1500 mm. Comment – Not shown outside of washrooms but appears to have space. Status Unobservable
25. Requirement Provide tactile walking surface indicators (twsis) at the top of all stairs, doors to hazardous areas and barrier-free walkways. The flooring design, material and colour of the detectable warning system must be appropriate for its specific application and must not detract from the dignity of the courthouse. Special consideration is required for any feature stair. Standard safety products are not acceptable to meet this requirement for any feature stair. A design and detailing based solution must be provided.
Comment – TWSI not observable at stairs and escalators, and no directional show on barrier-free walkways e.g. drop off to entrance, entrance through security, security to information desk in lobby. Not mentioned in narrative. Status Minor Non-Conformance
26. Requirement At least one service counter shall accommodate a mobility aid for each type of service that is provided and shall be clearly identified with signage where there are multiple queuing lines and service counters. Refer to PART 2 4.0 Accommodation Schedule for dedicated barrier-free public service counters for Court Services with a public transaction counter. The standard public transaction counter height shall be 860mm AFF. The barrier-free public transaction counter height shall be 740mm AFF with clear floor space for an assistive device. At each departments reception and/or public service counters, provide a minimum of one barrier free public transaction counter also at a height of 740mm AFF. If a single queuing line becomes a part of the design for single or multiple counters, all of the service counters for this area shall accommodate a mobility aid.
Comment – Service counters designed to be accessible not observable. Render does not show AODA required knee space at information counter. Render does not show accessible signage or TWSI to accessible counter. Status Minor Non-Conformance
27. Requirement Kitchenette and Kitchen design requirements shall have all countertops be of consistent height. Countertops segmented into differing heights in order to achieve barrier-free knee space clearances or reach requirements are not acceptable.
Comment – Not mentioned in narrative e.g. 1.2 Architectural Response or Barrier Free Compliance Statement. Status Unobservable
28. Requirement Interior Stairs: Open risers shall not be used as part of the design of any interior staircase. Comment – Open risers are shown for the feature stair in the main lobby Status Minor Non-Conformance
29. Requirement The overall layout of the building shall be readily comprehensible to both staff and visitors and promote intuitive or natural wayfinding through design. It should be easy for visitors and staff to determine where they need to go for specific purposes without the need for complex signage and directions. In particular, the public entrance must be readily identifiable from both the exterior and interior.
Comment – W-101,Court Signs and Directory, Directional missing braille. No mention of tactile or non-glare Status Unobservable
Appropriateness of quality in design and finishes in specific key public and administrative functional areas
1. Requirement Interior Finishes – luminescence contrast between floor and wall
Comment – Not shown around exterior walls in renders. Low colour contrast only shown in most other renders e.g. Courtrooms (not 50-70% which is industry standard for effective contrast). Status Minor Non-Conformance
2. Requirement Interior design and materials, finishes, texture and colours shall take into consideration the needs of users with vision loss. Throughout the courthouse, there shall be a visual (tonal) contrast between walls and floors, on handrails for ramps and stairs, between doors and door frames and the wall surrounding them, and between the edge of the door and face of the door, for doors with power door operators. Courtroom entries are excluded from these requirements. Alternative design strategies to alert users with vision loss to the location of the courtroom entry from the surrounding walls must be provided. Comment – Not mentioned in narrative. Not shown in renders.
3. Requirement High gloss and highly reflective finishes, which may disorient people with visual or mental impairments, shall not be used. Eggshell and matte finish is required on walls where paint is an approved finish, and satin finish for metal doors and trim.
Comment – Renders show floor gloss. Signage and narrative do not mention matte finish Status Minor Non-Conformance
4. Requirement Visual and tactile changes in wall and flooring material, textures, colours and patterns shall be judiciously and subtly used to provide orientation cues for natural wayfinding and supplement signage. The consistent use of a colour or a range of colours shall be used as means of promoting natural or intuitive wayfinding.
Comment – Not mentioned in narrative or shown in renders. No changes in flooring treatment are apparent. Status Minor Non-Conformance
5. Requirement Where feature wall finishes are applied, such as stone and wood, building system devices, including but not limited to, thermostats, light switches, security devices, receptacles et cetera, shall be discreetly and logically located so that they do not detract from the feature wall finish design. Devices located on feature wall finishes shall have feature/ premium cover plate finishes that are coordinated and complementary. Comment – Not mentioned in narrative and not shown in renders. Status Unobservable
6. Requirement Areas of interior glazing (transparent doors and panels) must be designed so that their presence is readily apparent, and to meet all governing codes and regulations regarding safety and accessibility. Comment – Vision banding not shown.
4. Text of the April 18, 2018 Letter to the AODA Alliance from the Attorney General of Ontario Yasir Naqvi
720 Bay Street
Toronto ON M7A 2S9
720, rue Bay
Toronto ON M7A 2S9
Our Reference #: MC-2018-2984
April 18, 2018
Mr. David Lepofsky
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance
1929 Bayview Avenue
Dear Mr. Lepofsky:
Thank you for your letter of April 6, 2018, outlining further concerns about the accessibility of the new Toronto courthouse. I trust you received the interim communications from Assistant Deputy Attorney General and Chief Administrative Officer Dante Pontone through the past fall and winter regarding the issues raised in your October letter, as well as my April 9, 2018 response to you.
Our ministry is strongly committed to creating equal access to people with disabilities in the new Toronto courthouse. We are also committed to working with you and the AODA Alliance to discuss your concerns in support of improving the accessibility of the new courthouse.
As the senior ministry executive responsible for the courthouse project, Dante will remain your main point of contact as we continue to work together. I understand that he is currently on vacation, and that staff in his office have already reached out to you about the issues you have raised in your April 6th letter. Dante will be able to provide you with the most up-to-date information as the project progresses. Please feel free to be in touch with him as needed.
Thank you again for writing.
5. May 22, 2018 Letter from the AODA Alliance to Assistant Deputy Attorney General Dante Pontone
ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE
1929 Bayview Avenue
Toronto, Ontario M4G 3E8
May 22, 2018
To: Dante Pontone, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Via email: email@example.com
Re: Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse
Thank you for speaking to me by phone on Friday April 20, 2018 about the AODA Alliances concerns regarding accessibility at the New Toronto Courthouse and at other future Ontario courthouse projects. I understand from the most recent April 18, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance from the Attorney General of Ontario that we are to follow up on this issue directly with you.
Therefore, building on our April 20, 2018 telephone call, we ask you the following:
1. Can you please answer all the various questions that we presented in our April 6, 2018 letter to the Attorney General, which he appears to have delegated to you. We list a few key points, but this is not meant to drop any other questions that we set out in that letter.
2. We are very frustrated at the slow progress towards developing a Ministry of the Attorney General accessibility standard for new courts. Several years ago, we discovered serious accessibility problems at the new Durham Courthouse. Some time after that, also years ago, you had told me that no new courthouses were then in the works, but when the next opportunity comes along to build a new courthouse, you planned to ensure it was done right from an accessibility perspective. Yet here we are, years later, with the New Toronto courthouse already well underway, with years of planning already completed. Even then, serious accessibility problems were easily identified by our disability consultation group within a short few minutes after starting to examine the project design. Moreover, as the Government’s own experts have confirmed, the design which the Ontario Government has approved for the New Toronto Courthouse, by EllisDon, the winning bidder, has a series of accessibility problems.
I urged you to personally attend the next meeting of this disability sector consultation group. It is great that you have agreed to do so. This needs your personal and close oversight.
3. Ministry staff have told the Ontario Courts Accessibility Committee more than once that there now exists an accessibility standard for courthouses i.e. that an updated one has been created. This appears to be incorrect. The architect for EllisDon, the successful bidder for the New Toronto Courthouse, told us that they used a 1999 courthouse standard. The DesignAble CEO said at the March 20, 2018 disability sector consultation meeting that his firm is working on a new courthouse accessibility standard for the Government.
We therefore wish to know the following:
a) Who else, if anyone, is working with DesignAble Environments on designing this new courthouse accessibility standard? What expertise do they have on accessibility? We know of DesignAble’s expertise in this area.
b) We would like to see a draft of that standard, even if it is a work in progress. We also ask to be consulted on it, along with the broader disability sector.
c) When will that accessibility standard be finalized? Will it be mandatory for all future courts? Will this include the new courthouse that the Government is planning for Peel?
d) Why is the Government now developing a courthouse accessibility standard, after it has already gone so far in designing the New Toronto Courthouse? I had understood from you years ago that the plan was to ensure that this was to be addressed back then, when there were no new courthouses even on the drawing board.
5. We have now had a chance to make a very preliminary review of the Program Specific Output Specifications (PSOS) for the New Toronto courthouse on accessibility, and the accessibility-based analysis of Ellis Don’s design for this courthouse the design that the Government has already chosen for this courthouse. These accessibility deficiencies give rise to some serious questions:
a) We still do not understand why the accessibility PSOS had to be kept secret until the bid competition was completed. There is nothing secret in them. This information should have been made public much earlier. We would have critiqued them as raising serious accessibility concerns. That could have been addressed before bidders were bidding on the project.
b) It is clear (at least in one case) that EllisDon, the successful bidder, presented a project design that directly violates the PSOS accessibility requirements. The Government’s PSOS do not allow for stairs with open risers. Open risers are a tripping hazard.
Yet successful bidder EllisDon presented a bid that includes open risers in feature stairs, going up two floors from the main lobby. These feature stairs are not hidden in the building’s inner recesses.
This shows that the successful bidder flatly ignored an accessibility requirement in the PSOS. That of itself reflects a worrisome attitude towards accessibility on the part of that company. Even worse, the Government approved this as the successful bid. This suggests that accessibility was not being treated as a sufficient priority when the Government selected the successful bidder in this competition. The signal is clear that bidders need not take accessibility more seriously when they design projects for the Ontario Government.
Why did the Government select as a successful bid a design that transparently violates an accessibility PSOS requirement here? We have not had time to closely study these documents, to see if other accessibility PSOS requirements were also ignored by the successful bidder and/or the Ontario Government.
6. The Attorney General has also helpfully provided to us an analysis of the successful bid, from an accessibility perspective. It lists a significant and troubling number of accessibility problems with that design.
Which organizations took part in the preparation or finalization of the electronic document which had the file name “EllisDon” and that sets out the accessibility deficiencies in the final successful bid design, relative to the PSOS? Who had final word on its contents?
b) That document describes quite a number of accessibility deficiencies with the New Toronto Courthouse and characterizes the severity of each. A good number of them are judged to be a mere “Minor Non-Conformance”. Yet a good number of the deficiencies that are judged to be “minor” in that document are, to us, more serious.
For example, the critique labels the use of open risers on the main lobby feature stairs as a “minor” variance. The critique states:
“28. Requirement Interior Stairs: Open risers shall not be used as part of the design of any interior staircase. Comment – Open risers are shown for the feature stair in the main lobby Status Minor Non-Conformance”
This is a total violation of the PSOS requirement, which constitutes a tripping hazard. Surely a total violation that is also safety concern is not “minor”.
Please tell us who decided whether a non-conformance was major or minor, and based on what criteria?
7. You have committed that you will endeavour to have fixed as many of the accessibility problems as possible with the New Toronto Courthouse. We appreciate that commitment. Can you let us know the plan of action for doing this? Can we be assured that this will be an open process, so that we know who is deciding on action at each step?
8. We appreciate your commitment that in courthouse projects after this, the PSOS requirements on accessibility will be written in a separate section of the PSOS document, so that they can be easily excerpted and made public before a competitive bid process. Can you commit that these will in fact be made public for all future courthouse competitive bid processes, and that this will be early enough so that the disability community can have input before they are finalized?
9. Even though the PSOS contain accessibility items, we do not know which of these are treated as mandatory, and which are just presented to the successful bidder as preferred, or as guidelines. Can you please advise us which of these specifications are set as mandatory, and let us know in which documents this is specified for the successful bidder. We would welcome a copy of that document or documents.
We look forward to working with you on this issue, and hope that the approach to accessibility on this project can be rapidly and effectively re-directed onto the right path.
David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont
Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance
6. Summary Prepared by DesignAble Environments of the March 20, 2018 Meeting of the Disability Sector Advisory Group on the New Toronto Courthouse
Accessibility User Group Meeting #1
Date: March 14, 2018
Location: Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, room OW225
Accessibility advisory group participants in attendance:
Debbie Gillespie, Canadian National Institute for the Blind
Bill Phung, BALANCE for Blind Adults
Barry McMahon, Council of Canadians with Disabilities (by phone) Lorin MacDonald, Lawyer OCAC representative of the OBA
Anne Abbott, Communication Disabilities Access Canada (by phone) Frances Morton-Chang, BrainXchange Design & Dementia, AdvantAGE Ontario Iris Kirby-McIntosh, Ontario Autism Coalition
Laura Kirby-McIntosh, Ontario Autism Coalition
David Lepofsky, AODA Alliance
Kathryn Sykanda, Legal Aid Ontarios lead on Accessibility
Accessibility advisory group participants not in attendance:
Kathy Chau, Canadian Mental Health Association, Toronto Oksana Romanov, Learning disabilities Association Toronto District Jo-Ann Bentley, Canadian Hearing Society
Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of the Attorney General:
Reza Asadikia, Project Director, Infrastructure Ontario
Natalie Waddington, Senior Project Coordinator, Infrastructure Ontario James Kuo, AFP Architect, MAG
Planning, Design and Compliance (PDC):
Jason Witalis, Kleinfeldt Mychajlowycz Architects (KMA) Inc. Kat Granovsky, Montgomery Sisam Architects (MSA) Inc.
Bob Topping, Senior Accessibility Specialist, DesignABLE Environments (DE) Inc. Sarah Libera, Accessibility Specialist, DE
David Clusiau, Vice-President, Architectural Design Canada, NORR Don Squires, Project Manager, NORR
Scott Hunter, Construction Manager, Ellis Don
Terry Petrie, Project Manager, EllisDon
Larissa Pietersen, Project Manager, EllisDon
Andrew Leung, EllisDon
Amy Pothier, Accessibility Consultant, Gensler
Leszek Muniak, Building Life and Fire Safety Design Solutions Consultant, Muniak Enterprises Inc.
1. AFP Alternative Financial Procurement (formerly known as Public-Private partnerships (P3)) 2. DBFM Design Build Finance Manage
3. IO Infrastructure Ontario
4. MAG Ministry of the Attorney General
5. NTC New Toronto Courthouse
6. PSOS Project Specific Output Specifications
7. RFP Request for Proposals
8. PDC Planning, Design and Compliance
1. Introduction by Infrastructure Ontario
a) IO introduction to previous AFP courthouses
b) IO introducing the New Toronto Courthouse which will amalgamate several courts from around Toronto into one state-of-the-art facility c) The New Toronto Courthouse is being delivered using the AFP DBFM model
d) Meeting topics included 8 items: Project Update, Mandate of the Group, Site Feedback, Atrium Feedback, Elevators Feedback, Judges Dais Feedback, Courtroom Feedback, and General Comments Feedback
2. Project Update:
a) RFP phase is now complete
b) EllisDon Infrastructure was awarded the project on February 22, 2018
c) Project is currently in the Design Development stage (Design Development is the period when all the issues left unresolved at the end of early design are worked out, and at a scale that minimizes the possibility of major modifications during the Construction Documents phase. It is also the period in which the design itself achieves the refinement and coordination necessary) d) Project is scheduled to achieve substantial completion in 2022
3. Mandate of the Group:
a) To provide recommendations, expertise and practical knowledge to Infrastructure Ontario (IO) and the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) on how to make New Toronto Courthouse more accessible.
b) To establish that the proposed design will provide a suitable level of accessibility for various persons with disabilities, and, if not, make recommendations on how the design might be improved to be more accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities.
c) The recommendations provided by this Advisory Group will be considered for implementation in various projects, including NTC.
d) MAG and IO remain committed to pursue enhanced accessibility features at the new Toronto courthouse
4. Site Feedback:
a) Wayfinding throughout the site, open space is counter to wayfinding
o its about knowing where youre going but also knowing when youre not going in the right direction. How is this being addressed on the site? b) The distance from the entrance to drop-offs
o Wheel-Trans drop-off is located further from the entrance and requires using a ramp
* This Wheel-Trans location was selected during pre-zoning/approval before the building had been designed. Discussions are ongoing with the City to try and get it placed on the other side of the site. o Uber, taxi, media vehicles often block accessible drop-off area
o Group noted that people waiting areas should be provided in proximity to accessible drop off areas. The waiting area should be heated, conveniently located to minimize travel distance and be visible from the drop off area.
c) Parking issues only having three municipal accessible parking spots on either side of the courthouse is not enough especially because they are not courthouse specific.
d) Question raised about the distance of travel for using the stairs vs. the ramp
o Walking vs. wheelchair routes should be a similar distance request for a compered measurement e) Promote multiple access routes to the main entrance
f) Public accessible routes should be reviewed from the two closest TTC Subway stations to / from the entry of the courthouse
5. Atrium Feedback:
a) Full panel glazing
o The large area of glass is challenging for people with vision loss, due to brightness, light adjustment time and glare.
o Concern was raised about people walking into the glass (low vision, dementia, someone not paying attention) o Adjustment from light to dark spaces is much slower for people with low vision b) Ceiling Heights
o People with autism can have challenges in rooms with tall ceilings and rooms that are overly stimulating, such as this atrium. o Will there be a smaller room off of the atrium where people can decompress? c) Open riser stairs
o They are disorienting, can drop things through risers, and they are a tripping hazard. Group strongly advised not to use them in the design. o Question was raised about whether the stairs were overhead obstruction/hazard? d) Wayfinding in open spaces like an atrium can be challenging
e) Suggested making an obvious location where someone can go directly for information and/or assistance
6. Elevators Feedback:
a) Destination dispatch elevators are challenging because:
o Must learn new/unique configuration for the building (what lift goes where) o Must be able to hear direction of recorded voice
o Controls are often challenging to locate and often not accessible
o Do not have flexibility to allow any lift to go to any floor, or room for error if wrong floor selected
b) Elevator configuration:
o Elevators on opposing walls are challenging for people with hearing loss who cannot quickly identify which elevator will be bringing them up or down, often making them miss the elevator.
o Having elevators on opposing walls is difficult for wayfinding for people who are blind. c) Elevator controls:
o Suggestion that elevator controls should show negative and positives, negatives for floors below ground and positives for above ground Elevator floor numbering button should follow CSA B651 Design Standard
7. Courtroom Feedback
o Dais – The natural backlighting behind the dais will hinder lip reading.
o The light behind the judge would also be distracting to someone with autism, which would make it hard to focus on the judge. o Backlighting bounces off laptops/PCs
o For people who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing it is important to have stable lighting throughout the day, clear sightlines and avoid silhouettes o Having too much light can be overwhelming for a person with autism
o For people with hearing loss visual clutter can be distracting, for example the light behind the judge could be distracting if shadows were cast from people walking in the corridor behind the dais. o Glass on prisoner box causes glare
o Lighting for sign language interpreters? Where would sign language interpreters go? Someone who is deaf and blind needs an interpreter that touches their hand
o Question about if the courtrooms are large enough to accommodate a sign language interpreter who may need to move around the courtroom depending on where the person is sitting. Comment raised that there may be two people requiring sign language interpreters in the same courtroom c) Mobility
o Question about seating for people with mobility devices in courtroom. o Concern raised that witness box appears hard to get into
8. General Comments Feedback:
a) Consider accessibility in public and staff areas
b) Decorative aspect of the whole building
o To avoid sensory overload avoid high ceilings, prefer small spaces o With flooring avoid patterns and use no-glare materials
o Consider choosing the right level of contrast of finishing materials to assist visually impaired in orientation, but not overwhelm people with cognitive disabilities. c) Renderings do not have any people with disabilities depicted
d) Once past security, guide dogs may require an animal relief area, will there be one past security? e) Use universal design principles as guiding principles in the design f) Atrium concerns:
o Atriums are an acoustic challenge, issues with vertigo, problems for those who are hard of hearing and people with autism
o Concerns about atrium in a courthouse where people are angry, it could be an easy danger unless there is a barrier up to the ceiling
g) Concerned about number of elevators in the courthouse and that there are not enough for the amount of people expected to be at the courthouse everyday h) Suggested that there should be a universal washroom provided on every floor
i) Suggested that there should be drive up approaches on all three sides of the building j) Concerned about the lack of accessible parking
k) Question about why arent all interview rooms accessible, but only one per floor
l) Each floor should have the same layout and have straight corridors. Tactile wayfinding should be provided on the floor to find it (courtrooms and other features).
m) Make sure braille is readable and that the braille on elevator buttons corresponds to the text and voice annunciations.
n) Braille need to correspond to print signage and be consistent, recommend utilizing CNIB translator for braille building signage text
o) Waiting area for Wheel Trans often have to wait at least 30 minutes. Group indicated a waiting area should be provided and should contain the following: o Views from interior to transit stop
o Seating and other amenities
o Waiting area must be close to wheeltrans stop due to travel time and distance, being able to see the vehicle o Be heated
p) Please provide materials to the participants before the meetings to help them and also to help the CART services
q) Recommended that animal relief and watering areas are provided throughout the building r) Concern about food allergies, if food vendors are in large open areas
Infrastructure Ontario thanked everyone and emphasized that this will be an ongoing process, agenda and information to be discussed will be sent to participants in an accessible format prior to future meetings
References provided from attendees:
7. Text of the Infrastructure Ontario PowerPoint for March 20, 2018 Meeting of the Disability Sector Advisory Group on the New Toronto Courthouse
Infrastructure Ontario Presentation:
Presentation Title: NEW TORONTO COURTHOUSE. Accessibility Advisory Group. March 14, 2018.
The slide incorporates two photographs of downtown Toronto taken at birds-eye view. The first photo shows Queens Park looking South from Queens Park to the lake and the CN Tower. The second photograp shows the location of the site in orange of the New Toronto Courthouse North West of City Hall. The slide also incorporates the logos for Infrastructure Ontario and Ontarios Ministry of the Attorney General. Typical Footer:
Presentation Title: AFP DBFM Courthouses in Operation.
The slide shows five exterior photographs and a timeline of different courthouses in Ontario that were developed in the AFP process. Starting in the top left corner is the Durham Region Courthouse which opened in November 2009, to the right is the Waterloo Region Courthouse which opened in January 2013, then in the top right corner is the Quinte Courthouse which opened in July 2013, the bottom right corner has the Elgin County Courthouse which opened in February 2014, and the bottom right corner shows the Thunder Bay Courthouse which opened in February 2014.
Presentation Title: New Toronto Courthouse.
The new courthouse will bring together under one roof several of Torontos courts currently operating out of several locations.
Amalgamating several courts into one state-of-the-art facility will reduce costs, make operations more efficient and effective, provide for equal access to services, and will ensure the provinces real estate portfolio is sustainable, accessible, and efficient.
NTC will be located at 10 Armoury Street, with close proximity to Torontos City Hall. To be delivered using the AFP Design, Finance, and Maintain (DBFM) model. As a high-rise courthouse, NTC will be the first of its kind in Ontario.
The photo shows the site of the New Toronto Courthouse, taken at aerial/birds-eye view, in relation to City Hall which is to the South East.
Presentation Title: MAG/IO Project Team.
IOs Accessibility Consultant:
Bob Topping: DesignABLE Environments Inc., Lead Accessibility Consultant. IOs Planning Design and Compliance Consultants:
Prime Consultant: KMA/MSA JV.
Roman Mychajlowycz Team Lead.
Ministry of the Attorney General and Infrastructure Ontario: Anthony Lue Tam MAG, Manager.
Erik Andersen MAG, Project Lead.
James Kuo MAG, Project Coordinator.
Reza Asadikia IO, Director.
Natalie Waddington IO, Senior Project Coordinator.
Presentation Title: Project Update.
The RFP phase of the project is now complete.
The contract to design, build, finance, and maintain NTC was awarded to EllisDon Infrastructure on February 22, 2018. Project is currently in the Design Development stage.
Design for NTC can now be shared with the Accessibility Advisory Group for feedback. Project is anticipated to be completed in 2022.
Presentation Title: The MAG Courthouse Vision.
Design plays a vital role in every project and MAG is implementing its Design Excellence vision into all courthouse projects. Design Excellence is defined by:
Principles (Accessibility), and
The slide shows five images. The top left corner shows a courthouse lobby with tall ceilings and floor to ceiling glass windows. The top middle photo shows a courthouses site which shows raised planters and a weathered sheltered entrance. The top right photo shows a lobby with curved walls and floor to ceiling glass. The bottom right image shows the façade of a courthouse with a large grass area in front of it. The bottom middle shows the glass façade of the Durham Courthouse with a paved path leading to the entrance.
Presentation Title: Accessible Design Strategy.
Ministry Commitment *
The Ministry of the Attorney General is committed to providing equal access to justice for all Ontarians. We are working to ensure that people with disabilities can access, use, and benefit from our goods, services, programs, and facilities equally and free from discrimination.
The Ministry is also working to demonstrate leadership on improving accessibility of our facilities.
* Note: Excerpt from Ministry of Attorney General Accessible Built Environment Strategy Status Update of September 26, 2016 to OCAC.
Presentation Title: Accessibility Advisory Group: Mandate.
To provide recommendations, expertise, and practical knowledge to Infrastructure Ontario (IO) and the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) to make New Toronto Courthouse more accessible.
To establish that the proposed design will provide a suitable level of accessibility for persons with disabilities and, if not, make recommendations on how the design might be improved to provide more appropriate solutions to achieve an accessible environment.
The advice provided by this Advisory Group will be considered for implementation by the project design team (IO/MAG & PDC).
MAG and IO remain committed to pursue enhanced accessibility features at the New Toronto Courthouse.
Presentation Title: Role of Expert Consultants.
PDCs Accessibility Consultant:
Developed the Project Specific Output Specifications (PSOS) which includes the current project requirements for Accessibility.
Will moderate and facilitate discussions for the Accessibility Advisory Group, including recording recommendations for use in New Toronto Courthouse or any other public infrastructure.
Will monitor the design development submittals for compliance with the project requirements.
Will monitor the construction of the facility for compliance with the project requirements. EllisDons Accessibility Consultant:
Provide design solution to meet or exceed project requirements
To bring an innovative vision to address feedback from the Accessibility Advisory Group
To monitor and review construction of the facility to ensure adherence to design
Presentation Title: Ellis Don Infrastructure. Project Co. to Design, Build, Finance, and Maintain the New Toronto Courthouse. ?
Presentation Title: NEW TORONTO COURTHOUSE. Accessibility Advisory Consultations.
Renzo Piano Building Workshop.
The slide incorporates a brainstorming sketch of the New Toronto Courthouse. The slide also incorporates the logos for Infrastructure Ontario and Ontarios Ministry of the Attorney General. Typical Footer:
Accessibility Advisory Consultations. March 2016.
New Toronto Courthouse. RPBW / NORR / ELLISDON.
Presentation Title: General Introductions.
The New Toronto Courthouse.
1.0 Architectural Team Presentation
1.2 NORR Architects & Engineers
1.3 Amy Pothier Gensler
1.4 Leszek Muniak Muniak Enterprises Inc.
2.0 New Toronto Courthouse
2.1 Project Overview
2.2 Key Public Spaces
2.3 Accessibility Features
3.0 Accessibility Discussion
Presentation Title: 1.0 Architectural Team Presentation
Presentation Title: Renzo Piano Building Workshop
GENOA, PARIS, NEW YORK.
The slide incorporates four photographs of Renzo Piano Building Workshops (RBPW). The top left of the slide shows the interior of the Genoa RBPW which has plants, people working at desks and skylights. The top middle photo shows the interior office of RPBW in Paris which has people working at desks and bookshelves behind them. The top right image shows RPBWs New York office interior which has a tree, posters on the wall and people working. The fourth image along the bottom of the slide shows a group image of the staff from the Renzo Piano Building Workshops.
This photo shows a workshop space. A long wooden work bench is installed against a wooden wall. Various workshop utensils and measuring tools are hung on this wall. A wooden cabinet system is installed along the underside of the work bench.
The slide incorporates a photograph of designers and architects brainstorming ideas in a meeting room. This room is filled with architectural site models, sketches, drawings, and rendered images of buildings. ?
The slide incorporates two 3D rendered images of the glass covered courthouse in Paris, which was designed by Renzo Piano Building Workshop. The left photo is a computer generated image of the courthouse image is an exterior city view where we see the building at a distance framed by other office towers. The right computer generated image we see the courthouse as four different tiers made up of several floors in each, that starts from a large base rectangle, with each higher tier smaller in size.
Presentation Title: NORR Architects and Engineers.
This collage of eight photos is meant to demonstrate the extent of NORRs courthouse and design experience. Images include exterior and interior photographs of these buildings. ?
This slide shows three images from the Pan Am Aquatics Centre, the Field House and the Canadian Sport Institute Ontario, which was designed by NORR. The image on the left shows an exterior shot of the building in the distance with trees and a grass field in front of it. The top right photo shows a three storey rock climbing wall. The bottom right image shows a gym with wheelchair basketball being played.
Presentation Title: Amy Pothier Gensler.
Relevant Project Experience:
Pan Am/Parapan American Athletes Village Accessibility Compliance. Milton Velodrome Accessibility Compliance.
Tim Hortons Field Accessibility Compliance.
AODA Costing Study for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
(on-going) Ministry of Attorney General 25 Grosvenor Adjudicative Tribunal Co-Location. ?
Relevant Committee Experience:
Committee Member Toronto 2015 Pan Am/Parapan Am Games Accessibility Advisory Committee
Committee Member, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Technical Advisory Committee to OBC 3.8. Committee Member, AODA Design of Public Spaces Illustrated Guide
This photo is of Amy Pothier.
Presentation Title: Leszek Muniak – Muniak Enterprises Inc.
Building Life and Fire Safety Design Solutions Consultant.
Over 35 years providing quality assurance for the application of building codes, fire codes and life safety standards to complex building projects. Relevant Project Experience:
Thunder Bay Courthouse Building Code Compliance
St. Thomas Courthouse Building Code Compliance
St Lawrence Hall North Courthouse Building Code Compliance Waypoint Mental Health Hospital Building Code Compliance Bloorview Childrens Hospital Building Code
Achievements and Awards:
Appointed by Order in Council to serve on the Ontario Building Code Commission 2016.
Developed the Building Code Tutor, web-based, e-training course for Part 3 of the Canadian building codes.
Louis S. Tregra Award by the National Council for Interior Design Qualification, (NCIDQ) Washington D.C. for contributions to the development of knowledge in building codes, fire and life safety. (2004)
2010 Leader Award by Interior Designers of Canada (IDC) and International Interior Design Association (IIDA)
Presentation Title: 2.0 The New Toronto Courthouse
2.1 Project Overview
The slide incorporates a 2d computer drawn image of the New Toronto Courthouse, where the main entrance and tower above are viewed.
The slide incorporates a 3-dimensional computer generated image of the New Toronto Courthouse, viewed from street-level with other city buildings surrounding it. The image shows glass walls that appear to rise nearly four storeys from street level with another thirteen storey tall tower above. Silhouettes of people are shown walking through the space.
Presentation Title: Urban Context.
The slide incorporates a coloured aerial photograph again illustrating the buildings location within the citys footprint. An additional six smaller images have been placed along the side showing the buildings that will surround the new courthouse. ?
An urban vision composed of continuities and porosity that weave the NTC into the broader public realm network. Urban vision for the precinct.
The image shows a coloured sketch, of the site plan. The sketch uses colours and arrows to illustrate the pedestrian path of travel, the main entrance and the walking-distance relationship Nathan Philips Square and the New Toronto Courthouse.
Presentation Title: 2.0 The New Toronto Courthouse
2.2 key Public Spaces.
Public Corridors / Lookouts, and
The image shows a coloured site plan view of the site and the ground floor level of the courthouse. There is a height difference at the South East corner that continues along the East side of the building, the image shows that there are stairs along the south side and the east side beside the drop-off area. A switchback ramp that winds through stairs is show. on the east side near the drop-off area. Near the west side drop-off area there appears to be a height change between the site sidewalk and the site bike parking and plaza. A peace garden is located at the South East Corner of the site. Arrows indicate where the main entrance is and pedestrian traffic flow through security. ?
The image shows a ground floor plan of the courthouse. An arrow pointed towards the North-West side of the facility indicates the judges entry access. Red arrows at the south-side of the facility show the public entry/exit access point. This entry/exit is followed by a security screening booth. After security and towards the centre of the floorplan an information desk and kiosks are shown. An atrium is shown in the South-East corner of the facility. An indigenous learning centre is labelled on the North-East side of the facility.
The slide incorporates a three-dimensional computer generated image of the New Toronto Courthouses main entrance, viewed at street-level. Three flags, including Canadas, is mounted on the left-side of the entrance. The image shows a weather protected entrance with the use of a canopy and a sign under the canopy reading Toronto Court of Justice Ontario. Silhouettes of people are shown walking throughout the exterior and interior spaces of the facility.
The image shows a three-dimensional computer generated image of New Toronto Courthouses open atrium on the ground floor. The atrium shows a high-ceiling that reaches up to the fourth floor. The surrounding walls, columns, ceilings, floor, stairs, and escalators carry a light-coloured finish. A bright yellow wall contrasts against the light finishes. This yellow wall wraps around the main elevators of the facility. Silhouettes of people can be seen navigating throughout the open space.
The images shows a floor plan of the main elevator bank and corridor, which is intended to show traffic flow throughout the corridor. A public seating space is provided next to the elevators.
The image shows a three-dimensional computer generated image of a corridor at a corner of the building. The image shows floor to ceiling windows. The walls and furniture all have a white finish, and the ceiling incorporates a wooden panelling finishes. White pendant lamps slightly hang from the ceiling. A few silhouettes of individuals can be seen using the space.
The slide shows two images of three-dimensional computer generated images of a typical courthouse room. The left image shows the courtroom from the publics point of entry, directly viewing the judges dais. Which has a rectangle of windows highlighting the judges area. The walls, tables, and stands have a light wooden finish. The ceiling is wrapped by a wooden finish along the edges of the room. The image to the right shows the typical courtroom viewed from the judges stand. This angle shows a clear view of the courtroom seats, and a double door. The door has the same wooden finish as the surrounding walls, and vision panels are installed for both doors.
Title: 2.0 The New Toronto Courthouse.
2.3 Accessibility Features:
Title: Site Access.
The image shows the site plan, with areas of interest highlighted in red. A total of six accessible parking spaces are provided on the West and East side of the facility, opposite of the designated drop-off areas. The drop off/pick up zone is provided on the West side of the facility. A note states that Tactile Warning Strips are installed at curbs cuts. Additionally, a dedicated wheel-trans drop off/pick up zone is provided on the East side of the facility. The ramp is also highlighted on the South-East corner of the site, located near the Wheel-Trans drop off area.
Title: Site Access.
Level 1. Accessible paths of travel.
The image shows an identical image of the site plan from the previous slide. Multiple green arrows demonstrate the typical path of travel from various points of the site, all leading towards the main entrance of the facility. This path of travel also includes the use of the ramp located on the South-East corner of the site. ?
Title: Site Access.
Level 1. Accessible paths of travel.
The slide shows an identical image of the site plan from the previous slides. The ground floor plan is also shown with areas of interest highlighted in red. The entry and exit of the facility is highlighted on the plan, with arrows leading to and from rooms and areas on the ground floor. A typical accessible courtroom layout is highlighted on this floor plan and an accessible interview room is shown adjacent to this courtroom. An accessible public washroom and a public universal washroom are shown on this floorplan.
Title: Typical Floor.
Level 9 Courtroom Floor. Accessible paths of travel.
The slide incorporates shows an image of a typical courtroom floor plan, with various areas of interest highlighted. Multiple arrows demonstrate the path of travel from the elevators to these rooms. Accessible seating spaces are shown in all the designated waiting areas. Accessible public washrooms and public universal washrooms are provided in the middle of the floor plan. Accessible public counters are provided in support suites. An accessible conference settlement room is provided on the West side of the facility. All criminal courtrooms and specialty courts on this typical floor are shown with an accessible layout. An accessible interview room is shown on the North-side of the facility and an accessible witness waiting room are shown on the East-side of the facility, which both note that they are typical on each courtroom floor.
All courtrooms are designed to the following accessibility requirements: Accessible judicial dais with ramp.
Designated accessible public seating.
Accessible witness box.
Accessible mobile prisoner boxes.
Accessible clerk/reporter desks.
Accessible simultaneous interpretation rooms.
Minimum accessible paths of travel.
Voice lift hearing assistance.
The image shows a detailed room layout of a typical accessible courtroom. The courtroom size is 11,900 millimeters deep and 8,800 millimeters wide. The room incorporates multiple side entry and exit doors beyond the public seating space. An accessible path of travel is highlighted in red dashed lines, starting from the entry and separates throughout various points of the courthouse. The 1,100 millimeter minimum width is highlighted throughout this accessible path of travel.
From the entrance, a public seating space is provided with two wheelchair seating spaces on both sides of the courtroom. Beyond the seating space enclosure is an accessible motorized lectern, with accessible clear floor spaces for the advocates and prosecutions benches. On the left is an accessible prisoner box, and in front is an accessible court clerk/reporter desk. At the back of the room is the accessible judicial dais.
All accessible washrooms are designed to meet Ontario Building (OBC) requirements:
The slide incorporates three detailed images of accessible washrooms floor plans, each with unique configurations. These slides are intended to demonstrate the various accessible washroom layouts that will be used within the courthouse including the universal washroom floorplan. All washroom configurations incorporate a 1500 millimeter turn circle, a toilet with a clear transfer space of 920 millimeters wide by 1500 millimeters deep, and a sink with a clear floor space of 920 millimeters wide and 1370 millimeters deep. The universal washroom has a 1700mm turn circle. Additionally, rear and L-shaped grab bars are provided. Accessories include a recessed soap dispenser, recessed paper towel dispenser, recessed hand dryer, recessed automatic door operators, and an emergency call button.
Title: Accessibility Discussion.
8. More Information About the AODA Alliance
Learn about the 2018 Ontario election’s disability accessibility issues by visiting: www.aodaalliance.org/vote2018
Learn about our campaign to win the enactment of a strong Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, by visiting:
https://www.aodaalliance.org/category/built-environment/ We are now using a new email server.
Please take steps to ensure you can receive our AODA Alliance Updates. Put firstname.lastname@example.org in your contact list. Check your spam filter so it does not treat our emails from that new email address as spam.
To sign up for or unsubscribe from Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Updates, send your request to us at email@example.com In late December 2017, our email list for these Updates unfortunately crashed. We have rebuilt it. In case you fell off the list but want to return, just email to ask us to sign you up. In case you had wanted to be removed from the list, but were accidentally restored to it, just email us to ask to be removed! Sorry for any inconvenience.
You can always send your feedback to us on any AODA and accessibility issue at firstname.lastname@example.org
Have you taken part in our Picture Our Barriers campaign? If not, please join in! You can get all the information you need about our Picture Our Barriers campaign by visiting www.aodaalliance.org/2016
We encourage you to use the Governments toll-free number for reporting AODA violations. We fought long and hard to get the Government to promise this, and later to deliver on that promise. If you encounter any accessibility problems at any large retail establishments, it will be especially important to report them to the Government via that toll-free number. Call 1-866-515-2025.
Please pass on our email Updates to your family and friends.
Check out our new and expanded collection of online videos about the history, strategies and accomplishments of Ontario’s non-partisan grassroots accessibility campaign, available at:
https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/the-aoda-alliance-launches-part-2-of-its-series-of-online-videos-on-the-campaign-for-accessibility-to-mark-the-23rd-anniversary-of-ontarios-grassroots-campaign-for-disability-accessibility/ Why not subscribe to the AODA Alliances YouTube channel, so you can get immediate alerts when we post new videos on our accessibility campaign. https://www.youtube.com/user/aodaalliance
Follow us on Twitter. Get others to follow us. And please re-tweet our tweets!! @AODAAlliance
Learn all about our campaign for a fully accessible Ontario by visiting http://www.aodaalliance.org
© 2018, Best Brothers Group. All rights reserved.