Skip to main content Skip to main menu

More Proof That There Are Accessibility Problems at the New Toronto Courthouse, Planned to Be Built in the Heart of Downtown Toronto

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 aodafeedback@gmail.com Twitter: @aodaalliance

May 23, 2018

SUMMARY

  • 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.

MORE DETAILS

1. Text of the April 9, 2018 Letter to the AODA Alliance from the Attorney General of Ontario, Yasir Naqvi

Attorney General

McMurtry-Scott Building 720 Bay Street 11th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2S9 Tel: 416-326-4000 Fax: 416-326-4016

Procureur général Édifice McMurtry-Scott 720, rue Bay 11e étage Toronto ON M7A 2S9 Tél.: 416-326-4000 Téléc.: 416-326-4016 Our Reference #: MC-2017-7972

Mr. David Lepofsky Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance 1929 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M4G 3E8

Email: david.lepofsky@gmail.com

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.

/2 -2-

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.

Sincerely,

Yasir Naqvi Attorney General

Enclosures

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 Revision History

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

Introduction 1 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 5.4 Ramps6 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 7.9 Lighting13

Introduction

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.
    • 4. Project Co must engage an independent specialist accessibility consultant to advise on the integration of
      universal design into the response to accessibility requirements
    • 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)
    • 2. Site Design and Exterior Accessibility
      There are five (5) items summarizing accessibility requirements in the PSOS for site design and exterior
      accessibility as follows:

      • 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
    • 3. Building Entrance and Lobby
      There are four (4) items summarizing accessibility requirements in the PSOS for building entrances and lobby
      accessibility as follows:

      • 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 3.8.1.3
        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)
      • 4. Ramps:
        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)
    • 6. Miscellaneous Items
      There are nine (9) items summarizing accessibility requirements in the PSOS for miscellaneous or general
      accessibility as follows:

      • 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)
      • 9. Lighting:
        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, 2.2.4.3: “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 Status
      Unobservable
    • 5. Requirement All Lecterns must be accessible with final design to be determined during Design Development.
      Comment -No mention in narrative. Status Unobservable
    • 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
      Status Unobservable
    • 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 Status Unobservable

    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

    Work Environment

    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.
      Status Unobservable
    • 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. Status Unobservable
    • 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
      Status Unobservable
    • 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.
      Status Unobservable
    • 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.
      Status Unobservable
    • 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

    Interior Environment

    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. Status Unobservable
    • 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.
      Status Unobservable
  • 4. Text of the April 18, 2018 Letter to the AODA Alliance from the Attorney General of Ontario Yasir Naqvi

    Attorney General McMurtry-Scott Building 720 Bay Street 11th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2S9 Tel: 416-326-4000 Fax:
    416-326-4016

    Procureur général Édifice McMurtry-Scott 720, rue Bay 11e étage Toronto ON M7A 2S9 Tél.: 416-326-4000 Téléc.:
    416-326-4016

    Our Reference #: MC-2018-2984

    April 18, 2018

    Mr. David Lepofsky Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance 1929 Bayview Avenue Toronto,
    Ontario M4G 3E8

    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.

    Sincerely,

    Yasir Naqvi Attorney General

  • 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 Email:
    aodafeedback@gmail.com Visit: www.aodalliance.org

    May 22, 2018

    To: Dante Pontone, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Via email: dante.pontone@ontario.ca

    Dear Sir,

    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.
      Sincerely,
      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

    Attendees: 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

    ProjectCo:

    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.

    Acronym Guide:

    • 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

    Meeting Summary:

    • 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
      a) Lighting
      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
      b) Interpreters
      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

      Wrap Up
      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:
      http://brainxchange.ca/design

  • 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:

    Slide 1 Presentation Title: NEW TORONTO COURTHOUSE. Accessibility Advisory Group. March 14, 2018.

    Image: 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: www.infrastructureontario.ca ?
    Slide 2 Presentation Title: AFP DBFM Courthouses in Operation.

    Image: 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.

    ? Slide 3 Presentation Title: New Toronto Courthouse.

    Content: 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.

    Image: 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.

    ? Slide 4 Presentation Title: MAG/IO Project Team.

    Content: 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.

    ? Slide 5 Presentation Title: Project Update.

    Content: 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.

    Slide 6 Presentation Title: The MAG Courthouse Vision.

    Content: 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: Objectives, Priorities, Principles (Accessibility), and
    Standards. ?

    Image: 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.

    Slide 7 Presentation Title: Accessible Design Strategy.

    Content: 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.

    Slide 8 Presentation Title: Accessibility Advisory Group: Mandate.

    Content: 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.

    ?

    Slide 9 Presentation Title: Role of Expert Consultants.

    Content: 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

    Slide 10 Presentation Title: Ellis Don Infrastructure. Project Co. to Design, Build, Finance, and Maintain the New
    Toronto Courthouse. ? EllisDon Presentation: Slide 1

    Presentation Title: NEW TORONTO COURTHOUSE. Accessibility Advisory Consultations.

    Content: Renzo Piano Building Workshop. NORR Architects. EllisDon.

    Image: 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.

    Slide 2 Presentation Title: General Introductions.

    Slide 3 Presentation Title: The New Toronto Courthouse.

    Content: 1.0 Architectural Team Presentation 1.1 RPBW 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

    Slide 4 Presentation Title: 1.0 Architectural Team Presentation

    ? Slide 5 Presentation Title: Renzo Piano Building Workshop

    Content: GENOA, PARIS, NEW YORK.

    Image: 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.

    Slide 6

    Image: 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.

    Slide 7

    Image: 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. ? Slide 8

    Image: 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.

    ? Slide 9 Presentation Title: NORR Architects and Engineers.

    Image: 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. ? Slide 10

    Image: 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.

    Slide 11 Presentation Title: Amy Pothier Gensler.

    Content: Accessibility Consultant. 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

    Image: This photo is of Amy Pothier.

    Slide 12 Presentation Title: Leszek Muniak – Muniak Enterprises Inc.

    Content: Building Life and Fire Safety Design Solutions Consultant.

    Project Experience: 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)

    Slide 13 Presentation Title: 2.0 The New Toronto Courthouse

    Content: 2.1 Project Overview

    Image: The slide incorporates a 2d computer drawn image of the New Toronto Courthouse, where the main entrance and
    tower above are viewed.

    ? Slide 14

    Image: 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.

    ? Slide 15 Presentation Title: Urban Context.

    Image: 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. ? Slide 16 Content: An urban vision composed of continuities and porosity that weave
    the NTC into the broader public realm network. Urban vision for the precinct.

    Image: 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.

    ? Slide 17 Presentation Title: 2.0 The New Toronto Courthouse

    Content: 2.2 key Public Spaces. Entries, Ground Floor, Atrium, Public Corridors / Lookouts, and Courtrooms.

    ? Slide 18

    Image: 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. ? Slide 19

    Image: 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.

    ? Slide 20

    Image: 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.

    ? Slide 21

    Image: 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.

    ? Slide 22

    Image: 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.

    ? Slide 23

    Image: 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.

    ? Slide 24

    Image: 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.

    Slide 25 Title: 2.0 The New Toronto Courthouse.

    Content: 2.3 Accessibility Features: Site Access, Typical Floor, Courtrooms, and Washrooms.

    Slide 26 Title: Site Access.

    Content: Level 1.

    Image: 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.

    ? Slide 27 Title: Site Access.

    Content: Level 1. Accessible paths of travel.

    Image: 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. ?
    Slide 28 Title: Site Access.

    Content: Level 1. Accessible paths of travel.

    Image: 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.

    ? Slide 29 Title: Typical Floor.

    Content: Level 9 Courtroom Floor. Accessible paths of travel.

    Image: 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.

    ? Slide 30 Title: Courtrooms.

    Content: 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. Accessible lecterns. Minimum accessible paths of
    travel. Voice lift hearing assistance. Image: 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.

    Slide 31 Title: Washrooms.

    Content: All accessible washrooms are designed to meet Ontario Building (OBC) requirements:

    Image: 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.

    Slide 32 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
    updates@aodaalliance.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 aodafeedback@gmail.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 aodafeedback@gmail.com

    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

    Please “like” our Facebook page and share our updates: https://www.facebook.com/Accessibility-for-Ontarians-with-Disabilities-Act-Alliance-106232039438820/

    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