Skip to main content Skip to main menu

Interface for Crowd-sourcing Reviews of Accessibility

In the fourth review of the AODA, Rich Donovan states that Ontario will not be fully accessible by 2025. In other words, the provincial government will not meet its own deadline under the AODA. Limited creation, implementation, and enforcement of AODA standards impacts the well-being and safety of Ontarians with disabilities. Therefore, Donovan recommends that the Ontario government should declare this lack of progress on accessibility a crisis. This crisis state should last six (6) months. During this time, the Ontario government should form a crisis committee to implement crucial accessibility improvements in the province. The Premier should act as the chair of this committee, and the Secretary of Cabinet should act as co-chair. Furthermore, Donovan outlines tactical recommendations the province should follow to fulfill its remaining responsibilities in the public sector. One of these tactical recommendations is creation of an interface for crowd-sourcing reviews of accessibility.

Interface for Crowd-sourcing Reviews of Accessibility

The review states that the AODA has few ways to hold organizations accountable. Likewise, there are few examples or role models to show organizations how to welcome and serve people with disabilities. This conclusion aligns with findings in the third review of the AODA that organizations lack consensus on important aspects of AODA compliance, such as the meaning of accessibility. For example, an organization may believe it meets the needs of all people with disabilities, but lack certain features. Organizations need more guidance and feedback about how accessible they are, and specific changes they should make to improve their service to people with disabilities.


Therefore, the review recommends that the accessibility agency should work with third-party partners to develop an interface for crowd-sourcing reviews of accessibility. For example, this interface could be a form of technology, such as a website or an app. People with disabilities would use this interface to review the accessibility of places they visit or services they use.

These reviews would be available to the public, as records showing positive and negative examples. For instance, someone might describe a positive experience when they visited a building with their assistive device or service animal. Other organizations could read about this positive experience and aim to provide a similar level of access. Alternatively, another person may have negative feedback about an organization unable to provide communication supports or accessible formats. This organization would receive a reminder that these formats and supports are required under the AODA’s information and communications standards. Moreover, other organizations would learn not to follow that example. In addition, other people with disabilities who need the same supports or formats would have the knowledge they need to take their business elsewhere. In short, organizations would be accountable in several ways through an interface for crowd-sourcing reviews of accessibility.