Getting from Point A to Point B (Disability Issues)

Every day, millions of Canadians board a plane, train, bus or subway car. Yet for people with disabilities, the lack of accessible transportation has long been a flashpoint. Leaving aside the inability to freely visit friends and family, this barrier has consistently been identified in the research literature as a key factor in the high rate of unemployment among people with disabilities.

Despite  the  expense  and  time  it  consumes, many  individuals  and  advocacy  groups  have turned to courts and tribunals for redress. What follows is a summary of  three such cases that have all been adjudicated in the past year.

In March 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned an earlier Federal Court of Appeal decision and  ruled  that VIA Rail’s purchase of $130 million worth of inaccessible passenger rail cars  was  contrary  to  the  protections  afforded under applicable  human rights provisions. The cars had  been  found,  among  other  things, to lack accessible washrooms,  appropriate wheelchair tie-downs, sufficiently wide doorways, and adequate  space  for  service dogs.  The  plaintiff in this case was the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

In July 2007, disability rights champion David Lepofsky won his case against the Toronto Transit Commission. The adjudicator for the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled that all stops on surface routes must now be  announced for the benefit  of  transit  patrons  with  visual  impairments. Two years earlier, after a 10-year  battle, Mr. Lepofsky had forced the TTC to implement a system to call out the names of subway stops. Finally, this January an important ruling was issued by the Canadian Transportation Agency. The CTA ordered that Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz, and WestJet may no longer charge additional fares for a passenger who requires the presence of a personal attendant  during  flight. The complaint had been brought by two individual plaintiffs, and by the Council  of Canadians with Disabilities.

One of  the more interesting aspects of  this case  was  financial.  The  airlines  were  unable to demonstrate to  the CTA that such a policy would constitute an “undue hardship.” The CTA estimated that the cost of implementation would equal only 0.09 percent of Air Canada’s annual passenger revenues.

In  any  number  of  successful  human  rights complaints, the circle of beneficiaries extends far beyond individuals with disabilities. Principles of universal design come into play in many of these cases. For example, having subway and bus stops announced assists not only individuals who are blind, but also those who are visitors or newcomers, or who are unable to read the signage, or who are simply fatigued after a long day.

The   individuals   and   organizations   that launched these  fights should  never have  been forced to do so. Unfortunately, we have not yet reached the point at which our laws are sufficiently proactive. It is also too early to predict the effect the full implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act will have. In the meantime, we all move forward when decisions such as these are made.