July 2006
For the past five years, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“the OHRC”) has been working closely with the restaurant industry to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities, older individuals, and families with young children. This is the OHRC’s final public report on this initiative.
Persons with disabilities have a right, under the Ontario Human Rights Code (“the Code”) to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities. This means that they have the right to access premises and services in the same manner as others, with dignity and without impediment. Despite this right, persons with disabilities continue to face daily obstacles in going about their lives, including when they are accessing restaurant services. The OHRC has hoped that, through this initiative, significant change could be effected in the accessibility of the restaurant industry, and a model could be developed for promoting change in other industries.
The purpose of this Report is to:
The Code has prohibited discrimination on the basis of disability for over 20 years. Persons with disabilities have the right to equal treatment in accessing services such as those provided by restaurants, shops, hotels, movie theatres and other public places. Businesses have an obligation to make their facilities accessible. A failure to provide persons with disabilities with equal access to a facility or equal treatment in a service would constitute discrimination under the Code and can be the subject of the human rights complaint to the OHRC. A restaurant would have to demonstrate as a defence to such discrimination that providing access or accommodating services would amount to undue hardship with regard to cost, outside sources of funding, or health and safety.
The OHRC’s Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate (“the Policy”) makes it clear that services and facilities must be built or adapted to accommodate individuals with disabilities in a way that promotes their integration and full participation. When constructing new buildings, undertaking renovations, setting up new policies and procedures, and offering new services, design choices should be made that do not create barriers for persons with disabilities. Where barriers exist, whether physical, attitudinal or systemic, organizations should actively identify and remove them. Where immediate barrier removal would cause undue hardship, interim or next-best measures should be put in place until more ideal solutions can be attained or phased-in, where possible.
With the recent passage of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act[1] (“the AODA”), accessibility issues in Ontario are now governed by three pieces of complementary legislation: the Code, the AODA, and the Ontario Building Code (“OBC”).
The AODA replaces the previous Ontarians with Disabilities Act and is expected to spur significant advances in the accessibility of Ontario’s goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises. As the OHRC, among many others, had advocated for a number of years, the AODA creates a positive mechanism for developing and implementing accessibility standards in both the public and the private sectors. [2] The AODA sets out a process for the development of accessibility standards for specific industries, economic sectors, or classes or persons or organizations. Standards development committees will be established, consisting of persons with disabilities, industry or sector representatives, and representatives of relevant government ministries. These committees will determine long-term accessibility objectives to be achieved by January 1, 2025, and the measures required to meet these objectives. The committees will develop plans for progressive implementation of measures to meet the long-term objectives.
The committees will also develop initial proposed standards, which will set out measures, policies, practices and requirements for the identification and removal of barriers. The proposed standards will be made public, and the public will have the opportunity to submit comments. The finalized standards will then be established by regulations. Objectives, proposed measures, and standards will be reviewed every five years.
An Accessibility Standards Advisory Council will be established to advise the Minister on matters related to the AODA. The majority of the members of the Council must be persons with disabilities. The Accessibility Directorate under the Ministry of Community and Social Services will have the responsibility for advising on the establishment and composition of the standards committees, providing training materials and guidelines for members of the standards committees, examining and reviewing the standards, advising on accessibility reports, and consulting with persons and organizations who have reporting obligations under the Act. The Directorate will make an annual report on the implementation and effectiveness of the Act.
The AODA does not supersede the Code. The AODA states that nothing in it diminishes the legal obligations of the Government or any other person or organization with respect to persons with disabilities that are imposed by law, and that where the AODA or an accessibility standard conflicts with another Act or regulation, the provision providing the highest level of accessibility shall prevail. That is, organizations that provide services, facilities, housing or employment will continue to be required to accommodate persons with disabilities to the point of undue hardship. The AODA does not create a new complaint mechanism for individuals who encounter barriers to accessibility. Persons with disabilities who encounter barriers to services, facilities, housing or employment will continue to be able to file complaints under the Code, and the Code remains the key enforcement mechanism for individuals with disabilities. The OHRC will continue to have a broad mandate, and a vital role to play, in ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities in the province of Ontario.
However, insofar as the Accessibility Directorate will be overseeing the development of accessibility standards and plans, there is an opportunity for the OHRC to re-focus its efforts. For example, rather than taking on sector-specific initiatives encouraging the identification of barriers and the development of plans as it has done with the transit and restaurant sectors, the OHRC may focus its resources on addressing the source causes of inaccessibility. As well, while the OHRC will continue to take an active role in promoting accessibility, it will also be able to place greater emphasis on other issues affecting the disability community.
The OBC sets minimum standards for the construction of buildings, including standards related to accessibility issues. The OHRC has, for a number of years, identified deficiencies with the OBC’s barrier-free requirements that are hindering the development of an accessible built environment. For example,
A comprehensive discussion of the OHRC’s concerns regarding the OBC is set out in its submissions to the 2002 public consultations on building code reform. [3]
The Code has primacy over the OBC, and human rights tribunals have affirmed that compliance with the OBC is no defence to a complaint of discrimination under the Human Rights Code. [4] However, it is the experience of the OHRC that many businesses, even large and sophisticated ones, are under the incorrect impression that by complying with the OBC they are meeting all of their legal obligations. As a result, the barrier-free provisions of the OBC may have the unintended effect of reinforcing existing barriers for persons with disabilities. Indeed, many business owners have expressed to us frustration regarding the confusion caused by the discrepancies between the requirements of the OBC and the Human Rights Code.
The OHRC has publicly expressed its concerns regarding the accessibility provisions of the OBC on a number of occasions over the years, including in its report on age discrimination, A Time For Action; the 2002 submissions on the OBC; the earlier report on accessibility in the restaurant industry, Dining Out Accessibly; and the submissions on strengthening the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. In December 2005, the OHRC wrote to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, reiterating its concerns with the OBC.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has very recently announced amendments to the accessibility provisions of the OBC. The OHRC will review these amendments in light of its previously expressed concerns. The OHRC believes that it is essential that any reform to the OBC bring the provisions of the OBC into harmony with those of the Code and would welcome the opportunity to assist the Ministry in this regard, in keeping with the OHRC’s broad mandate under section 29 of the Code.
[1] S.O. 2005, c. 11. The AODA received Royal Assent and came into force on June 13, 2005
[2] See, for example, the OHRC’s Submission of the OHRC Regarding Consultations to Strengthen the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, March 31, 2005, www.ohrc.on.ca.
[3] Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission Concerning Barrier-Free Access Requirements in the Ontario Building Code, March 2002, www.ohrc.on.ca.
[4] Quesnel v. London Educational Health Centre, (1995), 28 C.H.R.R. D/474 (Ont. Bd. Inq.)
Following the launch of the Policy in March 2001, the OHRC initiated an inquiry under section 29 of the Code into accessibility in the restaurant industry. The objectives of the inquiry were to:
At that time, the OHRC wrote to 29 major restaurant chains requesting information regarding the standards and objectives set for achieving accessibility, and the current level of accessibility in their premises. As well, the OHRC asked how the accessibility of franchised premises was monitored and if this was a part of franchise agreements. Despite a follow-up letter in September 2001, many of the chains failed to respond. As well, when the OHRC reviewed the responses it did receive, it became clear that restaurant chains were setting their standards for accessibility based only on the OBC that was in effect at the time of construction or renovation. It was learned that, for the most part, neither the Code, nor the Policy, nor other available barrier-free design standards were being considered in setting standards for accessibility in restaurants. This has also been the OHRC’s own observation based on inquiries received and complaints filed regarding this issue.
In August 2002, the OHRC engaged an expert consultant on disability issues and barrier-free design to conduct an accessibility audit. The audit focussed on the physical premises and services of seven select restaurant chains of the original 29 restaurants contact. These chains were: McDonald’s, Country Style Donuts, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, Subway, Swiss Chalet and Tim Horton’s. Four locations were audited for each chain, totalling 28 locations across the province.
Completely inaccessible locations were avoided so that the auditors who use wheelchairs could access the premises to complete the balance of the accessibility audit.
A checklist was developed to identify critical accessibility indicators for different disabilities that would provide a quick, reliable and accurate assessment of restaurant facilities based on criteria from CSA Standard B651-M95 “Barrier Free Design” and with the OBC. It was applied only to the public areas of the restaurants audited and did not include areas used only by employees. Persons with disabilities conducted the assessment of sites.
A detailed summary of the results of the audit is set out in the OHRC’s publication, Dining Out Accessibly. Although the locations varied widely in accessibility, all of the restaurant chains audited revealed some accessibility issues. These included
These results were shared with each of the seven chains in June 2003 to ascertain their plans and seek their commitments for achieving and ensuring accessibility in the future.
During the fall of 2003, the OHRC met with each of the seven chains audited. The OHRC asked the chains to commit to the following five steps in order to move towards meeting their obligations under the Code:
In April 2004, the OHRC reported publicly on the results of the audit and the commitments made by the seven chains, in Dining Out Accessibly. At that time, the OHRC itself made the following commitments:
Immediately following the public release of Dining Out Accessibly, the OHRC took steps to share this information with the restaurant industry. In partnership with the Ontario Restaurant, Hotel & Motel Association, copies of the Report were sent out to 109 restaurant businesses.
In June 2004, the OHRC took steps to contact the remainder of the 29 restaurant chains that it initially contacted in May 2001.[6] The OHRC provided these restaurant chains with information about the OHRC’s restaurant initiative and the commitments made by the seven audited restaurant chains. The OHRC requested that these restaurants agree to the five steps agreed to by the seven chains that were audited. Meetings and discussions were held with these restaurant chains over the course of 2004/2005. The OHRC received commitments to the five steps from all but one of the restaurant chains that it contacted. A Commission Initiated Complaint was filed against that chain, which has now entered into a negotiated settlement with the OHRC.
[5] CSA Standard B651-M95 “Barrier Free Design” and CSA Standard B480-02 “Customer Service for People with Disabilities” (www.csa.ca)
[6] The OHRC initially contacted 29 restaurant chains. Seven chains were audited and made commitments in 2003. Nineteen of the original 29 chains were re-contacted in 2004. During the period of this initiative, some of the restaurants initially contacted ceased to operate in a substantial way in Ontario. As well, some of the organizations contacted by the OHRC operate a number of brands, and made commitments for more than the brand initially identified by the OHRC. The numbers of restaurants contacted and making commitments therefore do not add up.
A total of 26 restaurant chains have now committed to the five steps towards accessibility. These restaurants are:
The individual commitments and achievements of each of these restaurant chains are outlined in Appendix 1 to this Report.[7] Some best practices from the various restaurants are highlighted below.
Despite numerous requests and reminders, Java Joe’s failed to provide the OHRC with information regarding the steps it has taken to meet its commitments, providing only a brief letter indicating that it remained committed to accessibility, without further details. The OHRC was gravely disappointed by this response, and will continue to take all necessary steps to ensure that Java Joe’s meets its commitments and takes steps to bring its premises into compliance with the Code.
On the whole, the OHRC was impressed by the commitment that the restaurants it contacted brought to addressing restaurant accessibility. There was, however, a wide range in the extent and nature of the initiatives these restaurants undertook, with some making a much more serious and substantial commitment to the issue than others.
The 26 restaurant chains represent a wide variety of sizes and business models. Some operate in freestanding “build-to-suit” premises, while others operate in leasehold premises. Some are mainly corporate owned, while others are mainly franchised. Some have mostly older locations, which may pose significant accessibility standards, while others are newer. Some are self-serve, others are take-out, and others provide sit-down dining. Some are very large; others are relatively small. All have made commitments to improving accessibility. This range indicates that all businesses can take steps towards improving accessibility, regardless of size or business model, although of course the nature and speed of the changes will vary.
The OHRC is pleased by the positive response it has received from the restaurant industry, and the commitment to real change that these restaurants have demonstrated. The OHRC believes that these initiatives can, over time, make a significant impact on the accessibility of the restaurant industry, and hopes that other restaurant chains that have not been a part of this initiative will follow the leadership of these restaurants and take steps to assess and improve their own accessibility.
[7] Please note that Second Cup is not included in Appendix 1. As Second Cup’s commitments were received late in 2005, Second Cup had not yet had an opportunity, at the time of this Report, to make substantial progress on those commitments.
Many of the restaurants that the OHRC corresponded and met with emphasized that removing barriers for persons with disabilities, older persons, and families with young children was not only a matter of complying with the law, or of corporate social responsibility: it was also good business practice. They emphasized that persons with disabilities, older persons, and families with young children are their customers and their potential customers; they cannot afford to make their services inaccessible or inconvenient to such a significant demographic. The OHRC shares the view that accessible services ultimately benefit everyone, and that we all pay the price when persons with disabilities, older persons, or families with young children are marginalized or excluded.
In reviewing the achievements of the various restaurants that have participated in the Restaurant Accessibility Initiative, the OHRC wishes to draw attention to some of the positive practices that have been adopted and that may be useful as examples or a source of ideas for other restaurants seeking to achieve accessibility. This is not meant as a complete compendium of best practices, or even as a complete list of all of the positive practices adopted by the participating restaurants, but as a sample of ideas.
Some of the restaurants involved in this initiative are relying heavily on staff training, education, and improved customer service to achieve accessibility. It is true that greater awareness of the needs of persons with disabilities, older persons and families with young children , and the accompanying improved service to individuals belonging to these groups are essential to achieving equality. However, it is equally true that education and customer service will not on their own resolve the significant accessibility issues in the restaurant industry, and others like it. Customer service and training will not by themselves remove barriers, ensure equal access, and bring organizations into compliance with the Code. These types of initiatives must be part of a larger commitment to universal design and barrier removal, leading ultimately to barrier-free services.
It is important to reaffirm that, under the Code, the ultimate standard is that of undue hardship. Restaurants, like other service providers, must take steps to the point of undue hardship to ensure that their restaurants are accessible to persons with disabilities. Where services are provided unequally to persons with disabilities because of accessibility barriers, the service provider must show that the barrier could not be removed without incurring undue hardship in terms of costs, health and safety, and outside sources of funding. The undue hardship standard is a high one. As is stated in the Policy, business inconvenience is not a defence to a failure to accommodate. Nor can contractual arrangements act as a bar to providing accommodation.
The restaurants involved in this initiative are ultimately responsible for ensuring that their accessibility plans will bring them into compliance with the Code and are in harmony with the undue hardship standard. It has been the OHRC’s role to educate the restaurant industry about the requirements of the Code and to provide the information and support necessary for the industry to begin moving towards compliance with the Code.
All of the restaurants involved in this initiative must continue to build on their successes, plan for accessibility, and implement and monitor their plans, until all barriers have been removed, or the undue hardship standard has been reached.
The restaurants that have reached voluntary agreements with the OHRC have become leaders in planning for, and moving towards accessible services for all Ontarians. They have demonstrated that accessibility can be achieved, and in a way that is positive both for business owners and operators, and for their customers.
Many of the restaurant owners and managers with whom the OHRC has met over the past few years have emphasized the importance of a “level playing field” – that is, that the restaurant industry must move forward towards accessibility as a whole. The OHRC hopes that others in the restaurant industry will follow in the steps of these restaurants, both as a “best business practice” and in recognition of their legal responsibilities under the Code.
Given these concerns, and the OHRC’s experience with the restaurant industry, it is our belief that this sector will benefit from the development of accessibility standards under the AODA that will build on the work that has been done, and will ensure that the industry moves forward together as a whole.
Restaurant owners and operators who have premises in leased buildings emphasized the difficulties that they face in obtaining cooperation from their landlords in removing accessibility barriers in the landlords’ areas of responsibility and control. This, in their view, creates a significant obstacle in any attempt to achieve full accessibility. Landlords, as providers of services and facilities, have a duty under section 1 of the Code not to discriminate on the basis of disability, and are therefore required to provide barrier-free premises, unless to do so would cause them undue hardship. Landlords who have failed to take a proactive approach to accessibility, and especially those who have been alerted to barriers in their premises and have failed to take steps to assess and remove them, may be in violation of the Code.
The achievement of full accessibility requires a cooperative approach from a number of actors: restaurant owners and franchisees, landlords, architects, the construction industry, and government, including the OHRC.
Restaurant Owners and Operators must follow the lead of these 26 restaurant chains by:
Commercial Landlords must also take responsibility for meeting their obligations under the Code by:
Government must:
The OHRC will:
In closing, the OHRC wishes to extend its thanks to the restaurant service providers that have partnered with us in improving the accessibility of the restaurant industry. The OHRC has appreciated their cooperative and positive approach to improving the accessibility of their services for customers with disabilities. These have provided positive examples of the type of policies progressive organizations can adopt to promote the equality of persons with disabilities, and improve their customer service.
|
COMMITMENTS AND RESULTS |
|
|||
Chain |
Corporate
Accessibility Policy
|
Accessibility Barrier
Identification
|
Standard Accessibility
Plan for Future
Locations
|
Existing Barrier
Removal
|
Notes |
Burger King |
No data provided. |
No data provided. |
Accessibility reviews
mandated on all
remodels, rebuilds, and
new locations.
|
Washrooms enlarged at
one location; added
accessible features at
one other. A wheelchair
lift was also installed in
one location.
|
Most washrooms are
barrier-free and have
braille on the doors and
grab bars.
|
Coffee Time
Donuts
|
Coffee Time monitors
customer complaints for accessibility issues.
|
Conducted a random
audit of locations to find accessibility issues. Most problems
discovered were not under the company’s
control.
|
Reviewed design plan to
ensure that all newly
built location are
complaint with the
Human Rights Code.
|
Will be communicating
with all franchisees
beginning January 2006
on identified barriers that
need to be addressed.
|
Accessibility issues are
an agenda item at the
biannual franchisee
meetings.
|
Country Style |
Working with a disability
consultant to prepare a
corporate accessibility
policy, which will be in place by the end of
2006.
|
Accessibility surveys
completed at 80% of locations.
|
Created a design
committee to review all
store designs for
compliance with the
Building Code and
Human Rights Code.
Will attempt to work with
landlords to promote
accessibility at all leased
locations.
|
Up to 50% of locations
will be renovated during
the next 4 years, during
which time any accessibility problems that can be addressed
economically will be
looked after.
|
Country Style believes
that governments must
find a way to harmonize
Building Code and
Human Rights Code
concerns with other
building permit issues so that all developers are
aware of their
responsibilities in this
area before
construction.
|
Cultures |
Training manual
emphasizes the
importance of assisting
disabled customers.
|
Detailed accessibility
survey carried out for all locations.
|
No data provided. |
No data provided. |
Cultures reports that as
most of their restaurants
are in public locations
(i.e. malls, public
buildings) they do not
have a lot of control over
certain aspects relating
to accessibility (i.e.
parking, entrances,
etc…)
|
Druxy’s |
Accessibility Policy
prepared and shared
with franchisees.
|
Accessibility review
completed; identified
stairways in two
restaurants as potential
problems; one
restaurant has since closed.
|
All new restaurants are
being designed with the
results of the
accessibility review in
mind, including changes
to signage, entrances,
interior routes, and
menu boards.
|
New menu boards and
signage introduced in all
locations with larger font
and better contrast; as
restaurant leases are
renewed and renovations undertaken,
accessibility issues will
be dealt with.
|
Future plans include
creating Braille menus,
as well as the release of
the formal Accessibility
policy to all employees
and staff training.
Druxy’s emphasized the central importance of training for staff and
franchisees as part of its approach.
|
Great Canadian Bagel |
Created a corporate
complaints procedure;
instructed all franchisees
to comply with the overall spirit of OHRC’s
Dining Out Accessibility
checklist.
|
Detailed accessibility
survey carried out for all
locations.
|
The checklist from the
Dining Out Accessibly
Report has been
incorporated into new
site location analysis.
Will address most of the
items identified in survey
in future construction
and renovations.
|
Franchisees notified of
accessibility issues
immediately after audit;
and changes were made
within days for easily
corrected problems.
|
Handheld menus
available for customers
who cannot read
overhead signs; some
additional signage
added for the benefit of
customers in
wheelchairs. Have
increased the size of menu boards, and have
developed a new style for condiment stands.
|
Harvey’s |
Corporate accessibility
policy developed, as well as customer complaints
procedure.
|
Each Ontario location
evaluated as to
accessibility, relying on OHRC Accessibility
Survey to identify
barriers.
|
Developed standard
building plan
incorporating Human
Rights Code and
Building Code
provisions, and require
all new locations to meet
this plan.
|
As location leases
expire, renovations
undertaken as
commercially reasonable
to improve accessibility
and remove barriers, or
location closed and
reconstructed in
accordance with new
building plan.
|
Installed Braille and
other tactile features on
every washroom door;
vertical signs for
designated parking
spaces installed where possible.
|
Java Joe’s |
The Commission has received a letter from Java Joe's reiterating their commitment to accessibility at all existing and new
locations. No further details were provided.
|
||||
Kelsey’s |
Corporate accessibility
policy developed, as well
as customer complaints
procedure.
|
Each Ontario location
evaluated as to
accessibility, relying on OHRC Accessibility
Survey to identify
barriers.
|
Developed standard
building plan
incorporating Human
Rights Code and
Building Code
provisions, and require
all new locations to meet
this plan.
|
As location leases
expire, renovations
undertaken as
commercially reasonable
to improve accessibility
and remove barriers, or
location closed and
reconstructed in
accordance with new
building plan.
|
Installed Braille and other tactile features on
every washroom door;
vertical signs for
designated parking
spaces installed where
possible.
|
KFC |
Corporate accessibility
policy developed, as well
as customer complaints
procedure.
|
Renovation of current
facilities done on the
basis of identifying and
removing barriers.
|
Communication with
franchise partners on
importance of complying
with human rights
legislation when
upgrading facilities.
|
Closes older facilities
that are too costly to
upgrade to meet human
rights standards.
|
|
McDonalds |
Developed a
comprehensive
accessibility plan.
|
Conducted an
accessibility survey of all
Ontario locations.
|
Revised plans to meet
the requirements of
federal / provincial
building codes, US ADA,
and related OHRC
policies and guidelines.
|
Developed a detailed
manual for franchisees
and store managers
showing common
accessibility problems
and their solutions.
|
Accessibility program
will start in Ontario
before expanding across
the country.
|
Montana’s / Milestones |
Corporate accessibility
policy developed, as well
as customer complaints
procedure.
|
Each Ontario location
evaluated as to
accessibility, relying on
OHRC Accessibility
Survey to identify
barriers
|
Developed standard
building plan
incorporating Human
Rights Code and
Building Code
provisions, and require
all new locations to meet
this plan.
|
As location leases
expire, renovations
undertaken as
commercially reasonable
to improve accessibility
and remove barriers, or
location closed and
reconstructed in
accordance with new
building plan.
|
Installed Braille and other tactile features on
every washroom door; vertical signs for designated parking spaces installed where
possible.
|
Mr. Sub |
No data provided. |
No data provided. |
Accessibility concerns
taken into account for
new and renovated
locations. This includes
new designs for
washrooms, seating,
counters and
passageways.
|
No data provided. |
|
Pizza Hut |
No data provided. |
Performed accessibility
review using OHRC
survey for all
restaurants.
|
Issues identified in
accessibility review
categorized into
immediate vs. longerterm fixes
|
Some inaccessible
facilities were closed;
menu boards were
redesigned; working on
renovating a fully
accessible “prototype”
location.
|
Planning to implement
Braille menus.
|
Pizza Pizza |
Restaurant accessibility
policy developed for all
locations, including both
corporate and franchise
locations.
|
Ongoing audit of all
locations to identify
accessibility barriers.
|
All new construction will
consider accessibility
and barrier-free design
concerns.
|
Steps taken to address
problems that can be
addressed costeffectively; others
addressed in phases, in
accordance with the
Code ’s undue hardship
standard.
|
Annual summary of
accessibility
enhancements and
renovations will be
prepared, highlighting
improvements and
establishing new goals
and targets for the
upcoming year.
|
Pizzaville |
No data provided. |
Barrier review
conducted; identified
counter fixtures as a
potential barrier.
|
Amended offers of lease
to include adherance to
Human Rights Code;
r evised designs so
future locations are
larger to accommodate
new accessible fixtures
and washrooms.
|
Two new stores opened
in 2005 included
accessibly designed
counters.
|
Braille menus produced
and distributed; looking at options for a TTY phone system; working on developing a lease
clause mandating
accessibility.
|
Red Lobster |
Complete. Accessibility
issues directed to Facilities Manager for
investigation and
coordination of any
recommended action.
|
Conducts Facility
Standards Audits to
identify accessibility
issues. Audits identified
need to ensure that
pathways are clear and
to address barrier safety
concerns.
|
Plans completed. |
Barrier removal in
parking lots complete at
70% of locations; 7 more
washrooms to be
renovated by May 2006.
Current construction
plan is to continue with
remodelling process,
into next fiscal budget
|
Worked with a thirdparty consultant to
complete and test two
prototype accessible
washrooms.
|
Select Sandwich |
Corporate Accessibility
Policy and accessibility
complaints procedure
developed. Policy and
procedure incorporated
into franchise
agreements
|
Will complete a full
barrier review of all
locations no later than
June 30, 2006. Where
barriers are within
landlord's sole control,
landlord will be
requested to remove
barrier.
|
Accessibility Plan for
future locations
developed, and included
in Franchise
Agreements.
|
Will develop a barrier
removal plan by August
31, 2006. All barriers will
be removed by October
16, 2016, unless it would
be undue hardship to do
so.
|
Amended offer to lease
to include provisions that
lease will adhere to the
Human Rights Code .
Training on Policy,
Procedure, Barrier
Review and Code to be
provided to all
franchisees.
|
Starbucks |
In 2004, Starbucks indicated to the OHRC that it had largely achieved accessibility and that effective procedures were in place for addressing ad hoc issues as they arose. Starbucks therefore did not see a need for additional monitoring or reporting, and elected not to provide any further information to the OHRC for this Report.
|
||||
Subway |
Completed. Continuing
to monitor and respond
to customer comments
regarding accessibility.
|
Accessibility reviews
performed for all stores.
|
Searches out accessible
locations for future
stores; work to include
accessibility language in
future leases; existing
stores continue to be
designed for maximum
accessibility.
|
Equipment and
hardware added to
increase accessibility
(i.e. doorbells); barrier
removal during
renovations; working
with landlords on
common area barriers.
Works with franchisees
to remove barriers
without hardship, such
as reasonable
construction and
modification; remaining
barriers addressed
during mandatory sevenyear re-model.
|
|
Swiss Chalet |
Corporate accessibility
policy developed, as well
as customer complaints
procedure.
|
Each Ontario location
evaluated as to
accessibility, relying on
OHRC Accessibility
Survey to identify
barriers.
|
Developed standard
building plan
incorporating Human
Rights Code and
Building Code
provisions, and require
all new locations to meet
this plan.
|
Approximately 10% of
restaurants were
renovated or replaced in
their entirety to meet
accessibility standards.
|
Installed Braille and other tactile features on
every washroom door; vertical signs for designated parking spaces installed where
possible.
|
Taco Bell |
Corporate accessibility
policy developed, as well
as customer complaints
procedure.
|
Renovation of current
facilities done on the
basis of identifying and
removing barriers.
|
Communication with
franchise partners on
importance of complying
with human rights
legislation when
upgrading facilities.
|
Closes older facilities
that are too costly to
upgrade to meet human
rights standards.
|
|
Tim Hortons |
Developed corporate
accessibility policy
|
Now required as part of
the accessibility plan for
future locations.
|
Plan includes
considerations, within
the context of available
real estate, for automatic
doors, barrier-free
washrooms, curb ramps,
recessed waste
receptacles, more
barrier-free parking
spaces, and training
sessions or front-line
and design staff
|
Braille signage added to
washrooms, increased
interior and exterior
lighting levels, large-print
menus, accessible
complaint card
receptacles, audible and
visual safety alarms,
reduced counter heights,
changed to less-slippery
floor cleaner.
|
Changes to be made
nationally.
|
Timothy's |
No data provided. |
Barrier review conducted
for all locations.
|
Landlord scope of work
in offer to lease
document revised to
include standardized
accessibility features
such as accessible door
entrance hardware and
sloped entrance
thresholds for all main
entries.
|
Major barriers in existing
locations, including
accessibile washrooms,
will be removed as the
leased premises are
renewed. New menu
boards have been
developed, along with
hand out menus. Braille
menus are under
consideration.
|
A new training program
on service standards for
persons with disabilities
has been developed for
all corporate and
franchise staff.
|
Wendy’s |
Internal steering
committee convened to
address accessibility
issues.
|
Sampled 15 locations of
various ages and designs using OHRC
checklist to identify
accessibility issues;
reviewed new store plans for further issues.
|
Accessibility upgrades
are now considered for
all remodelled locations.
|
Regular maintenance
duties will now include
refreshing of disabled
washrooms, as well as
inspection of ramps and
installation of designated
parking spaces.
|
Wendy’s is a partner
with the Canadian
Standards Association in
their “Building
Champions” program;
focussing on
accessibility for people
with disabilities.
|