Public Transit From the Lens of Human Rights

By Maurice Brenner Deputy Mayor/Regional Councillor Ward 1 Pickering On January 1st, those who use Public Transit (DRT) across Durham woke up to a new reality. The under funded service taken for granted by many, implemented a series of cuts and realignment of routes with no consultation with riders, but in the name of efficiencies. This weeks Column will take a deep drive through the lens of Human Rights, and why the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee feels that DRT has violated the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code) and the AODA. On January 17th, as an appointed member to the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee, I presented an overview of the DRT reductions in Service level triggering a wholesome discussion and a powerful statement through a resolution that will be presented to Pickering Council for ratification February 26th. Given the urgency that DRT was commencing a month end review of the impacts of the changes, I felt it was prudent to provide to DRT in advance of the February 7th DRT Executive Committee a copy of the resolution “That the Accessibility Advisory Committee finds the Service Changes implemented by Durham Region Transit implemented on January 1, 2024 to be in contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA); and, That the Accessibility Advisory Committee requests that the Council of the City of Pickering send a letter to the Region of Durham requesting that they reverse the service changes immediately and consult with Pickering residents and key stakeholders; including those with accessibility needs; on any future services changes.” The Committee applied the lens under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the AODA with-in the context that DRT is considered a service provider and while changes may have been made to achieve maximum performance and utilization of existing resources, it failed to look at the impacts the changes would have on a cross section of persons with disabilities. The DRT changes made assumptions that all customers could meet the distance requirement of 800m to a stop when in fact those with mobility issues and invisible disabilities can not. It made assumptions that routes where only a small number of customers were using Transit needed to be cancelled and failed to take into consideration if the cancelation denied persons with a disability access to Transit which factored in the criteria for who qualifies for Specialized Services which further placed the emphasis on the utilization of DRT regular services. Under the Code, service providers have a legal duty to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities who are adversely affected by a requirement, rule or standard. In this instance while not intended this shift has resulted in systemic discrimination. Accommodation is necessary to ensure that people with disabilities have equal opportunities, access and benefits. When the changed to service levels were being considered, it lacked inclusively and failed to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability in a way that promotes integration and full participation. What Is the Duty To Accommodate: The duty to accommodate has both a substantive and a procedural component. The procedure to assess an accommodation (the process) is as important as the substantive content of the accommodation. In a case involving the accommodation of a mental health disability in the workplace, the court said: “a failure to give any thought or consideration to the issue of accommodation, including what, if any, steps could be taken constitutes a failure to satisfy the ‘procedural ’duty to accommodate.” In Ontario, a failure in the procedural duty to accommodate can lead to a finding of a breach of the Code even if there was no substantive accommodation that could have been provided short of undue hardship. Failure to perform either component of the duty is a failure to carry out the duty to accommodate. DRT is a Public Sector organization and can not argue that providing accommodation would cause undue hardship. Having failed to explore accommodations and a failure to take positive steps to ensure that disadvantaged groups benefit equally from services offered to the general public, DRT has contravened the Code. DRT also failed to take into consideration The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Under the AODA, government public service providers are required to comply with accessibility standards in varying degrees relative to an organization’s size and sector. There is an expectation to prevent barriers at the design stage including Policy, organizations should be aware of systemic barriers and should actively identify and seek to remove these existing barriers. Public Participation: This item will be discussed February 7th at 1:30 at the DRT Executive Committee located at Durham Regional Headquarters in the Council Chamber 605 Rossland Rd E, Whitby, ON L1N 0B7 and is open to anyone who wishes to attend.