Accessible Canada Regulations: SOR/2021-241

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 155, Number 26

Registration
SOR/2021-241 December 13, 2021

ACCESSIBLE CANADA ACT

P.C. 2021-999 December 9, 2021

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Employment and Social Development, pursuant to subsections 91(1) and 117(1) of the Accessible Canada Actfootnote a, makes the annexed Accessible Canada Regulations.

Accessible Canada Regulations

Interpretation

Definitions

1 (1) The following definitions apply in these Regulations.

Act
means the Accessible Canada Act. (Loi)
band
has the same meaning as in subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act. (bande)
employee
means any person employed by a regulated entity described in paragraph 7(1)(e) or (f) of the Act and includes a dependent contractor as defined in subsection 3(1) of the Canada Labour Code, but excludes
  • (a) a person employed under a program designated by the employer as a student employment program; and
  • (b) a student employed solely during the student’s vacation periods. (employé)
planning and reporting cycle
means a period of three consecutive years the first year of which is a year in which there is a date by which a regulated entity is required to publish a version of an accessibility plan under section 47, 56, 65 or 69 of the Act, as the case may be and in which the second and third years are years in which there is a date by which a regulated entity is required to publish a progress report under section 49, 58, 67 or 71 of the Act, as the case may be. (cycle de planification)
WCAG
means the most recent version that is available in both English and French of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, published by the World Wide Web Consortium. (WCAG)
year
means a calendar year. (année)

Average number of employees — year

(2) For the purposes of these Regulations, the average number of employees during a year is the sum of the number of employees at the time in each month during that year when the number of employees is the greatest, divided by 12 and rounded to the nearest whole number or, if the value is equidistant between two whole numbers, rounded up to the nearest whole number.

Average number of employees — planning and reporting cycle

(3) For the purposes of these Regulations, the average number of employees during a planning and reporting cycle is the sum of the average number of employees during each year of the planning and reporting cycle, divided by three and rounded to the nearest whole number or, if the value is equidistant between two whole numbers, rounded up to the nearest whole number.

Exemption

Band

2 With respect to a band, the following entities and persons are exempted from the application of sections 47 to 49, 56 to 58, 65 to 67 and 69 to 71 of the Act and sections 3 to 19 of these Regulations until the day before the fifth anniversary of the day on which these Regulations come into force:

PART 1

Planning, Feedback and Reporting

Exemptions

Fewer than 10 employees — year

3 (1) A regulated entity described in paragraph 7(1)(e) or (f) of the Act is exempt from the application of sections 47 to 49, 56 to 58, 65 to 67 and 69 to 71 of the Act if that entity has an average of fewer than 10 employees during the later of

Fewer than 10 employees — planning and reporting cycle

(2) A regulated entity described in paragraph 7(1)(e) or (f) of the Act that has an average of fewer than 10 employees during a planning and reporting cycle is exempt from the application of sections 47 to 49, 56 to 58, 65 to 67 and 69 to 71 of the Act, effective the last day of the planning and reporting cycle.

Cessation of exemption

(3) An exemption under subsection (1) or (2) ceases to have effect during any year in which the regulated entity has an average of 10 employees or more.

Accessibility Plans

Dates for Preparation, Publication and Updates

Initial accessibility plan

4 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), for the purposes of subsections 47(1), 56(1), 65(1) and 69(1) of the Act, the fixed day is

New regulated entity

(2) If a regulated entity is established or becomes subject to the Act during any year after the year in which these Regulations come into force, the fixed day for that entity is June 1 of the year following the year in which the entity is established or becomes subject to the Act, as the case may be.

Entity no longer exempt

(3) If a regulated entity ceases to be exempt in accordance with subsection 3(3) and has never prepared and published an initial accessibility plan under subsection 47(1), 56(1), 65(1) or 69(1) of the Act, the fixed day for that entity is the later of

Updated accessibility plan

(4) Subject to subsection (5), for the purposes of subsections 47(2), 56(2), 65(2) and 69(2) of the Act, the applicable period is 36 months beginning on the date by which the plan was last required to be published.

Entity no longer exempt

(5) The applicable period for a regulated entity that has ceased to be exempt in accordance with subsection 3(3) and that, before becoming exempt, had completed at least one planning and reporting cycle is 12 months after June 1 of the first year in which the entity has an average of 10 employees or more after the year in which it has ceased to be exempted.

Form

Language and headings

5 (1) An accessibility plan that is required by subsection 47(1) or (2), 56(1) or (2), 65(1) or (2), or 69(1) or (2) of the Act must be written in simple, clear and concise language and must include the following headings:

“General” heading

(2) The information that is contained under the heading “General” must include the position title of the person designated to receive feedback on behalf of the regulated entity and the manner and information by which the public can communicate with the regulated entity, including the mailing address of its publicly accessible businesses, a telephone number and an email address in order to

“Consultations” heading

(3) The information that is contained under the heading “Consultations” is the information referred to in subsection 47(5), 56(5), 65(5) or 69(5) of the Act, as the case may be.

Publication

6 (1) An accessibility plan that is required by subsection 47(1) or (2), 56(1) or (2), 65(1) or (2) or 69(1) or (2) of the Act must be published

No digital platform accessible to public

(2) A regulated entity that does not have a digital platform that is made available to the public must publish its accessibility plan by displaying a printed copy of the plan in a location where it is clearly visible and accessible to the public in the reception area or entrance of each of its places of business.

Notice to Accessibility Commissioner

7 For the purposes of subsections 47(3), 56(3), 65(3) and 69(3) of the Act, within 48 hours after a version of the accessibility plan is published, a regulated entity must notify the Accessibility Commissioner of the publication by email or other electronic means and provide in the notice to the Accessibility Commissioner either the URL address of the plan, the hyperlink to that URL address or the mailing addresses of the places of business where that version of the plan is published.

Manner of request

8 (1) A request for an accessibility plan referred to in subsection 47(8), 56(8), 65(8) or 69(8) of the Act must be made by mail, telephone, email or by any other means the regulated entity uses to communicate with the public.

Format

(2) A person may make a request under subsection 47(7), 56(7), 65(7) or 69(7) of the Act that a regulated entity make its accessibility plan available to them in print, large print, Braille, audio format or an electronic format that is compatible with adaptive technology that is intended to assist persons with disabilities.

Deadlines — accessibility plan

(3) For the purposes of subsections 47(7), 56(7), 65(7) and 69(7) of the Act, the accessibility plan must be made available to the person making a request as soon as feasible but, at the latest,

Feedback Process

Designated person to receive feedback

9 (1) When establishing a feedback process under subsection 48(1), 57(1), 66(1) or 70(1) of the Act, a regulated entity must designate a person responsible for receiving feedback on behalf of the entity and provide the position title of that person.

Anonymous feedback

(2) The regulated entity must ensure that feedback process allows a person to provide feedback anonymously.

Feedback — means

(3) The regulated entity must ensure that feedback process allows a person to provide feedback by mail, telephone, email and by any other means the regulated entity uses to communicate with the public.

Acknowledgment of feedback

(4) The regulated entity must ensure that acknowledgment of receipt is included in the feedback process, unless the feedback is received anonymously, in the same means by which it is received.

Format

(5) A person may request that a regulated entity make the description of its feedback process referred to in section 48, 57, 66 or 70 of the Act available to them in print, large print, Braille, audio format or an electronic format that is compatible with adaptive technology that assists persons with disabilities.

Deadlines — description of feedback process

(6) The regulated entity must make the description of its feedback process available to the person in the requested format as soon as feasible but, at the latest,

Publication

10 (1) For the purposes of subsections 48(2), 57(2), 66(2) and 70(2) of the Act, the description of the feedback process must be published

No digital platform accessible to public

(2) A regulated entity that does not have a digital platform that is made available to the public must publish a description of its feedback process by displaying a printed copy of the description together with its accessibility plan.

Amendment of feedback process

11 If a regulated entity amends its feedback process established under subsection 48(1), 57(1), 66(1) or 70(1) of the Act, it must publish a description of the new version of the process in accordance with section 10 other than paragraph 10(1)(e), as soon as feasible.

Notice to Accessibility Commissioner

12 For the purposes of subsections 48(3), 57(3), 66(3) and 70(3) of the Act, within 48 hours after a description of a version of its feedback process is published, a regulated entity must notify the Accessibility Commissioner of the publication by email or other electronic means and provide in the notice to the Accessibility Commissioner either the URL address of the description, the hyperlink to that URL address or the mailing addresses of the places of business where the description of that version of the process is published.

Progress Reports

Timeline

13 An entity must publish a progress report referred to in subsection 49(1), 58(1), 67(1) or 71(1) of the Act, as the case may be, by the anniversary of the date by which the accessibility plan was last required to be published for each year in which there is no date by which a version of the accessibility plan is required to be published.

Language and headings

14 (1) A progress report that is required by subsection 49(1), 58(1), 67(1) or 71(1) of the Act must be written in simple, clear and concise language and must include the following headings:

“General” heading

(2) The information that is contained under the heading “General” must include the position title of the person designated to receive feedback on behalf of the regulated entity and the manner and information by which the public can communicate with the regulated entity, including the mailing address of its publicly accessible businesses, a telephone number and an email address in order to

“Consultations” heading

(3) The information that is contained under the heading “Consultations” is the information referred to in subsection 49(4), 58(4), 67(4) or 71(4) of the Act, as the case may be.

“Feedback” heading

(4) The information that is contained under the heading “Feedback” is the information referred to in subsection 49(5), 58(5), 67(5) or 71(5) of the Act, as the case may be.

Publication

15 (1) A progress report that is required by subsection 49(1), 58(1), 67(1) or 71(1) of the Act must be published

No digital platform accessible to public

(2) A regulated entity that does not have a digital platform that is made available to the public must publish each of its progress reports by displaying a printed copy of the report in a location where it is clearly visible and accessible to the public in the reception area or entrance of each of its places of business.

Notice to Accessibility Commissioner

16 For the purposes of subsections 49(2), 58(2), 67(2) and 71(2) of the Act, within 48 hours after its progress report is published, a regulated entity must notify the Accessibility Commissioner of the publication by email or other electronic means and provide in the notice to the Accessibility Commissioner either the URL address of the report, the hyperlink to that URL address or the mailing addresses of the places of business where the report is published.

Manner of request

17 (1) A request for a progress report referred to in subsection 49(7), 58(7), 67(7) or 71(7) of the Act must be made by mail, telephone, email or by any other means the regulated entity uses to communicate with the public.

Format

(2) A person may make a request under 49(6), 58(6), 67(6) or 71(6) of the Act that a regulated entity make its progress report available to them in print, large print, Braille, audio format or an electronic format that is compatible with adaptive technology that is intended to assist persons with disabilities.

Deadlines — progress report

(3) For the purposes of subsections 49(6), 58(6), 67(6) and 71(6) of the Act, the progress report must be made available to the person making a request as soon as feasible but, at the latest,

Document Retention

Plan and report

18 (1) If a regulated entity has prepared and published a version of an accessibility plan under section 47, 56, 65 or 69 of the Act or a progress report under section 49, 58, 67 or 71 of the Act and it has a digital platform that is accessible to the public, the regulated entity must retain that version of the plan or that report, as the case may be, on the platform for a period of seven years beginning on the date by which that version of the plan or that report, as the case may be, was required to be published.

No digital platform accessible to public

(2) If a regulated entity has prepared and published a version of an accessibility plan under section 47, 56, 65 or 69 of the Act or a progress report under section 49, 58, 67 or 71 of the Act and it does not have a digital platform that is accessible to the public, the regulated entity must retain an electronic or print copy of that version of the plan or of the report, as the case may be, in such a manner that it is accessible to the public for a period of seven years beginning on the date by which that version of the plan or that report, as the case may be, was required to be published.

Description

(3) If a regulated entity has published a description of its feedback process under subsection 48(2), 57(2), 66(2) or 70(2) of the Act and it has a digital platform that is accessible to the public, the regulated entity must retain the most recent version of the description on the platform for a period of seven years beginning on the day on which the description is published or, if it is longer, for a period beginning on the day on which the description is published and ending on the day on which a new description of the feedback process is published.

No digital platform accessible to public

(4) If a regulated entity has published a description of its feedback process under subsection 48(2), 57(2), 66(2) or 70(2) of the Act and it does not have a digital platform that is accessible to the public, the regulated entity must retain an electronic or print copy of the most recent version of the description in such a manner that it is accessible to the public for a period of seven years beginning on the day on which the description is published or, if it is longer, for a period beginning on the day of its publication and ending on the day on which a new description of the feedback process is published.

Feedback

19 A regulated entity must retain an electronic copy or print copy of any feedback it receives under section 9 for a period of seven years beginning on the day on which it is received.

PART 2

Service of Documents

Service — individual

20 Service of any notice or order made under the Act on an individual named in the notice or order may be made

Service — regulated entity

21 Service of any notice or order made under the Act on a regulated entity named in the notice or order may be made by

Date of service — signature

22 (1) If a certificate of service of a notice or order on a regulated entity or individual named in the certificate states the means of service, the individual who signs the certificate is deemed to have served the notice or order on the date that is determined under subsection (2).

Date of deemed service

(2) A notice or order served in accordance with section 20 or 21 is deemed to have been served

PART 3

Administrative Monetary Penalties

Definition of small business

23 For the purposes of this Part and Schedule 2, small business means a regulated entity referred to in paragraph 7(1)(e) or (f) of the Act that has an average of fewer than 100 employees during the year before the year in which it is served with a notice of violation under the Act or, if the regulated entity has been established for less than one year, an average of fewer than 100 employees on the day on which the notice of violation is issued.

Classification

24 A violation of a provision that is set out in column 1 of a Part of Schedule 1 is classified as a minor, serious or very serious violation as set out in column 2 of that Part.

Penalty range

25 (1) The range of penalties in respect of a violation within a classification set out in column 1 of a Part of Schedule 2 that is committed by a person other than a regulated entity, a small business or a regulated entity that is not a small business is set out in column 2 of that Part for a first violation, in column 3 for a second violation, in column 4 for a third violation and in column 5 for a fourth or subsequent violation.

Prior violations

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), only prior violations that the regulated entity or person is deemed or determined to have committed during the five years before the day on which the notice of violation is served are taken into account.

Determining penalty amount

26 (1) The amount of the penalty is determined by the formula

((A – B) × C ÷ 28) + B
where
A
is the maximum amount in the applicable range of penalties set out in column 2, 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be, of the applicable Part of Schedule 2;
B
is the minimum amount in the applicable range of penalties set out in column 2, 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be, of the applicable Part of Schedule 2; and
C
is the gravity value.

Gravity value

(2) Subject to subsection (3), for the purpose of subsection (1), the gravity value is the sum of the values from the gravity scale set out in column 2 of the table to this subsection that are ascribed to each of the applicable criteria set out in column 1. A lower or negative gravity value reflects a mitigating factor, while a higher or positive gravity value reflects an aggravating factor.

TABLE
Item

Column 1

Criteria

Column 2

Gravity Scale
1 The degree of negligence of the regulated entity or person 0 to 4
2 The degree of harm that resulted or could have resulted from the violation 0 to 4
3 The degree to which the regulated entity or person derived any competitive or economic benefit from the violation 0 to 4
4 The level of effort made by the regulated entity or person to change the corporate culture or behaviour with respect to accessibility -2 to 4
5 The level of effort made by the regulated entity or person to mitigate or nullify the violation’s negative effects -2 to 4
6 The manner in which the violation was brought to the attention of the Accessibility Commissioner -2 to 4
7 The degree of assistance that the regulated entity or person provided to the Accessibility Commissioner -2 to 4

Zero gravity value

(3) If the gravity value would, but for this subsection, be a negative amount, it is deemed to be zero.

Lesser amount

27 (1) For the purposes of subparagraph 79(1)(b)(iii) of the Act, the lesser amount is an amount equal to 90% of the penalty and the time period for the payment is 15 days after the day on which the notice of violation is served.

Day of payment

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), an amount is deemed to be paid

PART 4

Coming into Force

Registration

28 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

SCHEDULE 1

(Section 24)

Classification of Violations

PART 1

Accessible Canada Act
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Classification
1 47(1) Minor
2 47(2) Minor
3 47(3) Minor
4 47(4) Minor
5 47(7) Minor
6 48(1) Minor
7 48(2) Minor
8 48(3) Minor
9 49(1) Minor
10 49(2) Minor
11 49(3) Minor
12 49(6) Minor
13 56(1) Minor
14 56(2) Minor
15 56(3) Minor
16 56(4) Minor
17 56(7) Minor
18 57(1) Minor
19 57(2) Minor
20 57(3) Minor
21 58(1) Minor
22 58(2) Minor
23 58(3) Minor
24 58(6) Minor
25 65(1) Minor
26 65(2) Minor
27 65(3) Minor
28 65(4) Minor
29 65(7) Minor
30 66(1) Minor
31 66(2) Minor
32 66(3) Minor
33 67(1) Minor
34 67(2) Minor
35 67(3) Minor
36 67(6) Minor
37 69(1) Minor
38 69(2) Minor
39 69(3) Minor
40 69(4) Minor
41 69(7) Minor
42 70(1) Minor
43 70(2) Minor
44 70(3) Minor
45 71(1) Minor
46 71(2) Minor
47 71(3) Minor
48 71(6) Minor
49 73(8) Serious
50 124 Very serious
51 125 Very serious
52 126 Very serious

PART 2

Orders Made or Amended Under the Accessible Canada Act
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Classification
1 73(2)(i) Serious
2 73(2)(j) Serious
3 73(2)(k) Serious
4 73(2)(l) Serious
5 74 Serious
6 75(1) Serious
7 76(4) Serious

PART 3

Accessible Canada Regulations
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Classification
1 9(1) Minor
2 9(2) Minor
3 9(3) Minor
4 9(4) Minor
5 9(6) Minor
6 18(1) Minor
7 18(2) Minor
8 18(3) Minor
9 18(4) Minor
10 19 Minor

SCHEDULE 2

(Section 23 and subsections 25(1) and 26(1))

Penalties

PART 1

Range of Penalties — Person other than a regulated entity
Item

Column 1

Classification

Column 2

Range of Penalties ($): First Violation

Column 3

Range of Penalties ($): Second Violation

Column 4

Range of Penalties ($): Third Violation

Column 5

Range of Penalties ($): Fourth violation or Subsequent Violation
1 Minor 250 to 2,500 2,500 to 6,250 6,250 to 12,500 12,500 to 18,750
2 Serious 2,500 to 6,250 6,250 to 12,500 12,500 to 25,000 25,000 to 37,500
3 Very serious 6,250 to 12,500 12,500 to 25,000 25,000 to 37,500 37,500 to 62,500

PART 2

Range of Penalties — Small Business
Item

Column 1

Classification

Column 2

Range of Penalties ($): First Violation

Column 3

Range of Penalties ($): Second Violation

Column 4

Range of Penalties ($): Third Violation

Column 5

Range of Penalties ($): Fourth violation or Subsequent Violation
1 Minor 500 to 5,000 5,000 to 12,500 12,500 to 25,000 25,000 to 37,500
2 Serious 5,000 to 12,500 12,500 to 25,000 25,000 to 50,000 50,000 to 75,000
3 Very serious 12,500 to 25,000 25,000 to 50,000 50,000 to 75,000 75,000 to 125,000

PART 3

Range of Penalties — Regulated Entity other than a Small Business
Item

Column 1

Classification

Column 2

Range of Penalties ($): First Violation

Column 3

Range of Penalties ($): Second Violation

Column 4

Range of Penalties ($): Third Violation

Column 5

Range of Penalties ($): Fourth violation or Subsequent Violation
1 Minor 1,000 to 10,000 10,000 to 25,000 25,000 to 50,000 50,000 to 75,000
2 Serious 10,000 to 25,000 25,000 to 50,000 50,000 to 100,000 100,000 to 150,000
3 Very serious 25,000 to 50,000 50,000 to 100,000 100,000 to 150,000 150,000 to 250,000

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: It is estimated that 6.2 million Canadians have a disability, and this number is expected to grow. Therefore, the need to identify, remove and prevent accessibility barriers in Canada has never been greater. These barriers include physical obstacles, such as buildings without access ramps, as well as non-physical barriers, such as employment practices and hiring processes that can hinder the full participation of Canadians with disabilities in their communities.

To address these gaps, in 2019, Parliament enacted the Accessible Canada Act (ACA). The purpose of The ACA is to realize a Canada without barriers by 2040, particularly by the identification and removal of existing barriers, and the prevention of new barriers, in specific areas. Under the ACA, federally regulated entities must report to the public on their policies and practices in relation to the identification and removal of barriers by publishing their accessibility plans, feedback processes, and progress reports (“planning and reporting requirements”). The ACA also outlines the scope of the actions that the Accessibility Commissioner may take to ensure that federally regulated entities are meeting their accessibility obligations.

Description: The Accessible Canada Regulations (the Regulations) operationalize the planning and reporting requirements in the ACA and establish a framework to promote compliance with accessibility requirements under the ACA.

The Regulations apply to entities under federal jurisdiction, including federal departments and agencies; parliamentary entities; Crown corporations; the Canadian Forces; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; federally regulated private sector entities; and First Nations band councils (collectively referred to herein as “entities”). The Regulations establish specific criteria for the development and publication of accessibility plans, progress reports and feedback processes, and for determining the details of the administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) framework designed to promote compliance with the ACA.

Rationale: The Regulations are necessary to give effect to the accessibility planning and reporting requirements of the ACA by fixing deadlines by which accessibility plans must be published, requiring entities to begin planning about how to improve accessibility. They also set accessibility requirements for entities’ planning and reporting processes. Therefore, this regulatory package is key to implementing the ACA and working toward the realization of a Canada without barriers by 2040.

Taking no regulatory action would not be an option as it would leave key provisions of the ACA unimplemented. Specifically, federally regulated entities are not required to publish their first accessibility plans until after a date set by regulations. If such a date was not set in regulations, entities would never have to prepare and publish accessibility plans. In other words, the Regulations are necessary to require entities to meet their planning and reporting requirements under the ACA.

In addition, while the ACA allows the Accessibility Commissioner to use AMPs as a tool to promote compliance, under the authority of the ACA, regulations determining penalty amounts for violations must be made to operationalize this compliance and enforcement tool. Without the Regulations, the Accessibility Commissioner would not be able to issue AMPs, leaving the Commissioner without the strongest compliance and enforcement tool.

While the administrative and compliance costs that would result from the Regulations are considered significant, the benefits are expected to outweigh the costs. Based on the 10-year projected time frame (2022 to 2031), the expected total present value of the costs to entities is projected to be approximately $23.2 million, with an annualized average cost of $3.3 million. The expected total present value of benefits is projected to be approximately $73.7 million, with an annualized average benefit of $10.5 million.

Subtracting the present value of costs from the present value of benefits ($73.7 million less $23.2 million) results in an expected net present value of approximately $50.5 million, with an annualized average net benefit of $7.2 million.

The Regulations are expected to primarily benefit clients, employers and employees:

  • Benefits to clients: The expected benefits are time savings in obtaining information about accessibility as a result of having this information in an alternate format and increased quality of life and social participation.
  • Benefits to employers and employees: The expected benefit to employers is more efficient use of employees’ time as a result of having accessibility information in alternate formats. The expected benefits to employees are increased job satisfaction and reduced anxiety, which improves the quality of life and social participation of people with disabilities.

Issues

According to the 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability, it is estimated that 6.2 million Canadians aged 15 and over (22% of the population) have a disability, and it is estimated that the actual numbers are likely higher.footnote 1

As a result of the physical, administrative, institutional, technological, and attitudinal barriers that exist in the workplace, persons with disabilities are underrepresented in the Canadian labour force. Only 59% of Canadians with disabilities aged 25 to 64 are employed, compared to 80% of Canadians without disabilities.footnote 2 Canadians with disabilities earn less than Canadians without disabilities (12% less for those with milder disabilities and 51% less for those with more severe disabilities) and are more likely to live in poverty.footnote 3 It is estimated that increases in output and productivity associated with a higher level of labour-force participation and associated earnings of persons with disabilities could raise Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP) by up to 3.2%.footnote 4

Persons with disabilities also represent a significant potential client base for businesses. As the number of persons living with a physical disability is expected to rise from 2.9 million to 3.6 million over the next 13 years,footnote 5 nearly double the pace of the population as a whole, their real spending is expected to rise from 14 to 21% of the total consumer market. Removing barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from purchasing goods and services (e.g. financial services) is critical to both improving their quality of life and growing the Canadian economy.

To help address this issue, the Accessible Canada Act (ACA), which came into force on July 11, 2019, requires federally regulated entities to report on their policies and practices in relation to identifying and removing existing barriers, and preventing any new barriers in their organizations. Federally regulated sectors include entities that provide everyday services to many Canadians, for example, banking, telecommunications, transportation, as well as federal government organizations. Federally regulated sectors also include many major employers: it’s estimated that 1.54 million individuals (approximately 8.1% of all individuals employed in Canada) are employed by an estimated 13 800 federally regulated entities.footnote 6

However, for the ACA to work as intended, regulations are required to establish certain requirements regarding accessibility plans, feedback processes and progress reports and to establish details of the administrative monetary penalties framework.

Background

In 2016, the Government of Canada began consultations with Canadians with the purpose of developing new federal accessibility legislation. In 2018, the Government introduced An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada (the Accessible Canada Act), which came into force on July 11, 2019. The ACA takes a proactive and inclusive approach to the identification and elimination of barriers in the federal jurisdiction. It includes seven areas for action:

The ACA provides the Governor in Council with the authority to make regulations in a number of areas, including

The ACA applies to sectors and industries within the federal jurisdiction, such as banking, telecommunications, transportation, as well as federal government organizations. The ACA also establishes compliance and enforcement measures, as well as a mechanism for addressing complaints.

The ACA uses a sectoral approach that builds upon existing accessibility mandates. Therefore, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) continue to be responsible for accessibility within their respective jurisdictions. Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) is responsible for developing regulations for the sectors which are outside of the jurisdiction of the CTA or CRTC. These include

Under the ACA, the Governor in Council may also make regulations for specific priority areas for sectors that fall under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA).

For telecommunications and broadcasting sectors, these include

For transportation sectors these include

Planning and reporting requirements of the ACA

The ACA requires that regulated entities prepare and publish their accessibility plans, descriptions of their feedback processes, and progress reports, but leaves it to regulations to specify how and when they are to be published.

ACA requirements for accessibility plans

The ACA states that accessibility plans must be published and updated no later than every three years, in consultation with persons with disabilities. Initial plans must be published within a year from the day set in regulations. Accessibility plans must indicate the regulated entities’ policies, programs, and practices in relation to the identification and removal of accessibility barriers and the prevention of new barriers.

ACA requirements for feedback processes

Regulated entities must establish a process for receiving and dealing with feedback from persons with disabilities regarding the implementation of their accessibility plans and the barriers encountered by the regulated entity’s employees and other persons that deal with the entity.

ACA requirements for progress reports

Under the ACA, regulated entities must prepare and publish progress reports, which update the public on the implementation of their accessibility plan. The progress reports must include information on the feedback received from persons with disabilities and how that feedback was taken into consideration. As with accessibility plans, entities must consult persons with disabilities every time they prepare a progress report. The report must include a description of the manner in which they consulted persons with disabilities.

ACA requirements for publication and notification

The ACA requires that entities notify the Accessibility Commissioner of the publication of all planning and reporting documents (i.e. accessibility plans, progress reports, and descriptions of feedback processes).

Compliance and enforcement

Accessibility Commissioner

To help ensure compliance with its requirements, the ACA provides for the appointment of an Accessibility Commissioner within the Canada Human Rights Commission (CHRC) who will be responsible for proactive compliance and enforcement and dealing with complaints.

Administrative monetary penalties

The ACA provides the Accessibility Commissioner with a range of enforcement tools to verify, promote, and enforce compliance with the ACA and its regulations, including the power to conduct inspections and issue orders and notices of violation, including with penalties, and enter into compliance agreements. However, it leaves specific details around administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) to regulations.

The ACA gives the Governor in Council the authority to make regulations related to compliance and enforcement. Regulations would be needed to operationalize components of the AMPs regime of the ACA.

Under the ACA, AMPs do not apply to Parliament. Parliamentary entities that contravene relevant portions of the ACA may request to enter into compliance agreements. The Speaker of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Commons must table, in the respective House, every notice of default of a compliance agreement and every compliance order that has not been complied with.

Objective

The objective of the Accessible Canada Regulations (the Regulations) is to contribute to the realization of a barrier-free Canada by 2040 by operationalizing the components of the ACA that promote compliance and require regulated entities to plan and report on preventing, identifying and removing existing and future barriers within their organization.

Description

The Regulations operationalize sections of the ACA related to

Planning and reporting requirements

Application

The Regulations require all federal departments, agencies, and Crown corporations regardless of their size, as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Canadian Forces and parliamentary entities, and private sector entities that have an average of 10 or more employees to begin a planning and reporting cycle by preparing and publishing an initial accessibility plan.

A planning and reporting cycle lasts three calendar years. It consists of an accessibility plan in the first calendar year followed by a progress report in each of the subsequent two calendar years. After a cycle is completed, a federally regulated entity begins a new cycle by publishing an updated accessibility plan, as long as it continues to have an average of 10 or more employees. The new planning and reporting cycle begins the calendar year the entity publishes its updated plan. Table 1 provides an overview of two planning and reporting cycles for an entity whose initial accessibility plan is due on June 1, 2023.

Table 1: Overview of two planning and reporting cycles
Year Planning and reporting cycle Required deliverable Due date
2023 Cycle 1 Accessibility plan June 1, 2023
2024 Cycle 1 First progress report June 1, 2024
2025 Cycle 1 Second progress report June 1, 2025
2026 Cycle 2 (Updated) Accessibility plan June 1, 2026
2027 Cycle 2 First progress report June 1, 2027
2028 Cycle 2 Second progress report June 1, 2028

After a regulated entity has published an accessibility plan, the Regulations require it to complete the planning and reporting cycle, even if its average number of employees falls below 10 employees in any subsequent year of that planning and reporting cycle.

Timing of the initial accessibility plan

The ACA requires that entities prepare and publish their initial accessibility plan within 12 months of the date set in the Regulations. The dates set in the Regulations are

As a result, the deadlines by which entities are required to publish their initial accessibility plans are

First Nations (FN) band councils are exempted from the planning and reporting requirements of the Regulations for a period of five years starting from the date when the Regulations come into force.

If after the year the Regulations come into force, an entity is no longer exempted from the planning and reporting requirements or it is an entity newly subject to the ACA, its plan is due by June 1 of the second year following the year in which the entity has an average of 10 or more employees or becomes subject to the ACA.

Form of the accessibility plan

The Regulations require that accessibility plans include the following headings and information:

Progress reports

The Regulations require entities to publish a progress report during every year of a planning and reporting cycle where they are not required to publish an accessibility plan, and within 12 months of when the previous accessibility plan or progress report was required to be published. Entities must publish progress reports even if their average number of employees falls below 10. This means that an entity that publishes an accessibility plan must always publish two progress reports in the subsequent two years after the year in which the plan is published.

For example, if an entity is required to publish its initial accessibility plan by June 1, 2023, its first progress report must be published by June 1, 2024, and its second progress report must be published by June 1, 2025. The entity must then publish its updated accessibility plan by June 1, 2026, so long as it had an average of 10 or more employees in the previous calendar year (2025).

Form of the progress report

The Regulations require that progress reports include the following headers and information:

Publication and notification of accessibility plans, progress reports and description of feedback processes

The Regulations require that regulated entities notify the Accessibility Commissioner by email or other electronic means within 48 hours of the publication of their accessibility plans, progress reports and descriptions of feedback processes. The notification must include information on where their plan, report, or description can be found (i.e. web link or physical address of the business where the document is posted). As per section 26 of the Interpretation Act, if a deadline would fall on a statutory holiday, it instead falls on the next day that is not a statutory holiday.

The Regulations also require that accessibility plans, progress reports and descriptions of feedback processes are written in simple, clear and concise language. This means that grammar should be simple, and technical words should be avoided where possible, such that the text is easily understandable. Further information regarding this requirement will be included in guidance materials.

Accessibility plans, progress reports and descriptions of feedback processes must also be published on the main digital platform that is owned, operated or controlled by the regulated entity that it uses to communicate with the public, and in a manner that makes it accessible on the digital platform either through a hyperlink or directly on the home screen or home page.

Accessibility plans, progress reports and descriptions of feedback processes that are published on the entity’s main digital platform, as previously described, must be published in a format that is compliant with Level AA of the most recent version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) available in both English and French. The version of the WCAG currently available in both French and English is WCAG 2.0.

If an entity does not have a digital platform such as a website or social media page, it must display printed copies of its plans, reports, and descriptions of feedback processes in each of its places of business. Entities must also provide their plans, reports and descriptions of feedback processes to members of the public upon request.

Entities must also publish the description of their feedback process at the same time as they publish their initial accessibility plan, and they must publish an updated description of their feedback process every time their feedback process changes.

Alternate formats

The Regulations require that, on request, plans and reports and descriptions of feedback processes must be provided in print, large print, braille, audio format, and an electronic format that is compatible with adaptive technology and is intended to assist persons with disabilities.

For all federal government entities regardless of size, as well as private sector entities with 100 or more employees, the Regulations require that alternate formats of plans and reports (with the exception of braille and audio format) be provided to people who request them within 15 days of the request. Smaller private sector entities, those with 99 or fewer employees, are required to provide alternate formats of plans and reports (with the exception of braille and audio format) to people who request them within 20 days of the request.

To allow for the additional time required to procure braille and audio format, all regulated entities have up to 45 days to provide those formats.

Feedback process

The Regulations require that entities establish a process to obtain feedback by mail, telephone, and email, as well as via any other means the entity uses to communicate with the public. The Regulations also require that entities ensure that their feedback process allows persons to provide feedback anonymously. Entities must also designate a person that is responsible for receiving feedback on behalf of the entity and provide the position title of that person. Entities are required to acknowledge the receipt of the feedback if it was not provided anonymously.

If feedback processes are updated, regulated entities would have to publish a simple, clear and concise description of their updated process. They would also need to notify the Accessibility Commissioner, within 48 hours of publication, that the description of their feedback process was updated and provide information on where the update can be found (i.e. web link or physical addresses of the businesses where the document is posted). As per Section 26 of the Interpretation Act, if a deadline would fall on a statutory holiday, it instead falls on the next day that is not a statutory holiday.

Document retention

The Regulations require that entities keep their published accessibility plans and progress reports on their digital platform for seven years from the day they were required to be published. Entities must also retain the most recent version of the description of their feedback process on their digital platform until they update their feedback process and for at least seven years from when it was published.

If an entity does not use a digital platform, it would need to retain a print or electronic copy of its plans and reports for seven years from the date they were required to be published in a manner that is accessible to the public, and continue to keep them posted in its places of business. Again, entities must also retain the print or electronic copy of the most recent version of the description of their feedback process in a manner that is accessible to the public until they update their feedback process and for at least seven years from when it was published.

Regulated entities also must keep a copy of any feedback received for seven years after they receive it.

Service of documents

The Regulations require that the service of any notice or order referred to in the ACA or its associated regulations be made by

The notice or order is deemed to be served on the date it was left with the individual or regulated entity; the 10th day after the document was sent by courier or registered mail; or on the date it was sent by fax, email, or other electronic means.

Administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) framework

The Regulations classify violations as “minor,” “serious” or “very serious” and specify the monetary penalty ranges for these classifications. The Regulations also establish under which circumstances penalties could be decreased.

Monetary penalties have been established for each classification using a graduated enforcement approach: penalties increase or decrease based on an entity’s five-year compliance history and the assessment by the Accessibility Commissioner.

Identification and classification of violations

The classifications of violations are based on the following factors:

Generally, a violation of an administrative requirement is classified as “minor”; contravening a production or compliance order is classified as “serious”; and obstructing, or knowingly making any false or misleading statement to the Accessibility Commissioner or their delegate is classified as “very serious.”

Only designated violations can be subject to an AMP.

Determining penalty amounts

The Regulations establish a range of penalties for each classification of violation. The penalty amounts for violations are calculated based on

The term “small business” is defined as a private sector entity with an average of fewer than 100 employees during the year that occurs before the year in which the entity is served with a notice of violation or, if the entity has been in operation for less than one year, on the day the notice is issued.

For example, if an entity is served with a notice of violation for failing to publish their initial accessibility plan by the date required in the regulations, this would be considered a “minor” violation under the AMPs regime. The Regulations establish, for minor violations, a penalty range of $1,000 to $10,000 for the first violation within a five-year period for a regulated entity that is not a small business. The specific amount for this violation would depend on seven criteria, such as the harm caused (or that could have been caused) by non-compliance and, the benefit of non-compliance to the non-compliant entity (see Table 2 below for all criteria). In this example, the entity would be penalized somewhere within that $1,000 to $10,000 range, depending on the circumstances.

Formula for penalty determination

The amount of an AMP would be set through the following factors:

The criteria are designed to promote certain behaviours such as prompt voluntary reporting and undertaking mitigation activities quickly, and to deter behaviours such as negligence, and financial gain from a violation.

The total gravity value is determined by summing the gravity values assessed based on available evidence for each criterion. A total gravity value of zero would result in the minimum AMP amount for the range, whereas the maximum total gravity value of 28 would result in the maximum AMP amount for the range. Enforcement policy will set out how values will be determined based upon the facts of a violation.

Table 2: Summary of criteria and associated gravity value ranges
Note: Should the total gravity value be determined to be a negative amount, it is deemed to be zero which would result in a penalty amount equal to the lowest amount within the range.
Criterion Gravity scale
The degree of negligence of the regulated entity or person 0 to 4
The harm that resulted or could have resulted from the violation 0 to 4
The degree to which the regulated entity or person derived any competitive or economic benefit from the violation 0 to 4
The level of effort that the regulated entity or person has made towards changing its culture and attitude toward accessibility −2 to 4
The level of effort that the regulated entity or person made to mitigate or reverse the violation’s effects −2 to 4
The manner in which the violation is brought to the attention of the Accessibility Commissioner −2 to 4
The degree of assistance that the regulated entity or person provided to the Accessibility Commissioner −2 to 4
Penalty range
Table 3.1: Range of penalties for a person other than a regulated entity
Classification First violation Second violation Third violation Fourth or subsequent violation
Minor $250 to $2,500 $2,500 to $6,250 $6,250 to $12,500 $12,500 to $18,750
Serious $2,500 to $6,250 $6,250 to $12,500 $12,500 to $25,000 $25,000 to $37,500
Very serious $6,250 to 12,500 $12,500 to $25,000 $25,000 to $37,500 $37,500 to $62,500
Table 3.2: Range of penalties for a small business
Classification First violation Second violation Third violation Fourth or subsequent violation
Minor $500 to $5,000 $5,000 to $12,500 $12,500 to $25,000 $25,000 to $37,500
Serious $5,000 to $12,500 $12,500 to $25,000 $25,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000
Very serious $12,500 to $25,000 $25,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $125,000
Table 3.3: Range of penalties for a regulated entity that is not a small business
Classification First violation Second violation Third violation Fourth or subsequent violation
Minor $1,000 to $10,000 $10,000 to $25,000 $25,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000
Serious $10,000 to $25,000 $25,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000
Very serious $25,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $250,000
Reducing penalties

The ACA provides the Accessibility Commissioner the authority to establish the amount of time an entity has to pay a penalty. To encourage early payment, the Regulations reduce any penalty amount by 10% if the penalty is paid within 15 days after the day the notice of violation is served.

Regulatory development

Consultation

In early 2019, ESDC received input and comments from over 30 stakeholders on the development of the first set of regulations under the ACA. These stakeholders, representing thousands of those most impacted by the ACA, include the following:

Engagement on the regulations began in February 2019 with a meeting between ESDC, People First of Canada and Communication Disabilities Access Canada. Given the very technical nature of the content and process, officials worked with these organizations to ensure that future engagement processes would be accessible to stakeholders with intellectual, cognitive and communication disabilities. ESDC then held the following engagement sessions:

ESDC provided stakeholders with illustrative examples of similar reporting requirements in other laws and jurisdictions, as well as examples of regulations pertaining to administrative monetary penalties. Stakeholders provided their views on the accessibility reporting related to the shared examples, and what they would like to see in the accessibility plans, progress reports, and feedback processes of the ACA. They also provided their views on monetary penalties. ESDC received 25 submissions.

With regard to planning and reporting, these comments included the following:

Many of the comments were incorporated into the Regulations. The Regulations require that accessibility plans, progress reports and descriptions of feedback processes be written in simple, clear and concise language.

Accessibility plans and progress reports for private-sector entities are due on June 1 of every year, the same day when reports are due under the Employment Equity Act.

Feedback received on administrative monetary penalties was also incorporated into the Regulations, including the following:

However, not all stakeholder views could be incorporated into the Regulations, and the decision about what to incorporate often came down to balancing the views of the different stakeholder groups, as well as the limits of regulatory authorities provided by the ACA. The ACA, for example, provides authority to regulate the form in which plans and reports are to be prepared and the manner in which they are to be published. As well, the ACA does not provide authority to regulate how entities must consult persons with disabilities. While some disability community advocates wanted regulations to include templates and lists of requirements for planning and reporting requirements like accessibility plans, industry wanted the flexibility to develop their own templates and requirements. Given limits on regulatory authority under the ACA, the Regulations balance these two viewpoints, requiring headers in plans and reports while providing entities the flexibility to develop plans and reports which respect their individual circumstances.

Consultations during COVID-19

The Government of Canada recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the day-to-day lives of Canadians, businesses and organizations and has caused economic, social and health impacts. In particular, there has been a disproportionate impact on persons with disabilities, including their capacity to respond to requests to participate in regulatory consultations.

In late summer 2020, a decision was taken to delay the prepublication of the Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I, until disability stakeholders and industry were better positioned to provide their comments. Stakeholders did not raise concerns about the delay.

Additional stakeholder input

In addition to the above-mentioned items, ESDC considered feedback received during other relevant stakeholders engagements, including consultations undertaken by the CTA and spring 2020 consultations undertaken by the CRTC.

The development of the Regulations was also informed by input and feedback received from the more than 6 000 individuals and over 100 organizations that participated in the Accessible Canada consultations, held between June 2016 and February 2017, and from stakeholders during the parliamentary process for the ACA. For more information on those consultations, please refer to the What We Learned report.

Prepublication in Part I of the Canada Gazette

On February 13, 2021, proposed Regulations were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for a 65-day comment period. ESDC hosted five technical briefings in February and early March with approximately 200 participants from government, industry, and disability organizations. ESDC received 33 official submissions containing comments. The main comments received from each stakeholder group, and the responses, are outlined below under seven key themes.

Theme 1: Feedback processes

Disability stakeholders asked that the Regulations give individuals more options for how they can provide feedback to entities. Some stakeholders said that entities should be required to respond directly to every instance of feedback they received regarding how it will be addressed. They also indicated that entities should be required to designate and publicly identify an employee responsible for receiving feedback.

Industry stakeholders in contrast indicated that businesses should be able to choose the most cost-effective way to receive feedback and should be free to consolidate the reporting requirements of multiple brands, subsidiaries, or affiliates into one report.

In response to comments from disability stakeholders, the Regulations now include a new requirement that entities must designate a person responsible for receiving feedback on behalf of the entity, and provide information identifying the person’s position in their accessibility plans and progress reports. This will provide for greater transparency in the feedback process and help to ensure that feedback is properly and efficiently received by entities and is not lost.

The regulatory proposal published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, required entities to accept feedback by any means they use to communicate with the public. To address concerns raised by the disability community, the Regulations provide more options for submitting feedback, by requiring that regulated entities accept feedback by mail, telephone, email, as well as by any other means the entity uses to communicate with the public. This amendment is in line with the principles of the ACA, notably that all persons must have barrier-free access to full and equal participation in society and that all persons must have meaningful options and be free to make their own choices. Allowing individuals to provide feedback to entities by means of the telephone will allow individuals to provide feedback in ASL or LSQ via telephone using video relay services. These services are available to all Canadians at no cost.

Theme 2: Requirements for accessibility plans, progress reports and consultations

Disability stakeholders asked that the Regulations should contain specific requirements regarding the content of accessibility plans and progress reports, and that the Accessibility Commissioner should be responsible for ensuring that organizations follow though on what they commit to in their plans. They also requested that the Regulations set out requirements about how entities must carry out consultations with persons with disabilities when preparing plans and reports. In addition, disability stakeholders proposed that plans, reports and descriptions of feedback processes be written according to an established plain language standard.

Industry stakeholders were generally supportive of the approach in the Regulations, which provides flexibility to adapt the content of plans and reports to each entity’s specific context and realities.

Private sector labour stakeholders requested that entities be required to consult employees with disabilities, and their bargaining agents when applicable, during the preparation of accessibility plans.

Federal government stakeholders were primarily concerned with guidance material for complying with the ACA and the Regulations. They wanted practical information and best practices on what should be included in plans and reports, how to consult persons with disabilities and obtain feedback and what to expect in the event of an inspection.

Public sector labour stakeholders requested that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat have a greater role in providing guidance, direction and oversight to federal government departments regarding accessibility planning.

The framework for accessibility planning and reporting created by the ACA provides for public transparency in entities’ accessibility planning and reporting processes and requires entities to consult persons with disabilities when preparing plans and reports. This framework also considers the very different contexts and realities of federally regulated industries, and therefore provides entities the flexibility to adapt their plans, reports and consultation processes to their individual circumstances, instead of imposing a “one size fits all” approach to how all entities must consult, and what content must be included in every accessibility plan. These Regulations build upon on the framework established by the ACA by providing flexibility and accessibility for individuals when dealing with entities’ planning and reporting processes. Overall, these Regulations provide for an approach that responds to the concerns of the disability community, within the legislative framework of the ACA, and which considers the views of industry stakeholders.

At this time, the Regulations require that plans, reports and descriptions of feedback processes be drafted in “simple, clear and concise” language. This approach is used in other federal statutes and provides an initial requirement that could be built upon in the future.

ESDC will also publish resources, such as guidance materials, recommendations and best practices, to help entities better understand how to develop accessibility plans, to conduct consultations and to develop their planning and reporting documents in “simple, clear and concise” language.

Theme 3: Alternate formats

Disability stakeholders asked that, in addition to accessibility plans and progress reports, entities be required to provide the description of their feedback process in alternate formats. They also believed that the means by which people can request alternate formats of plans, reports and descriptions of feedback processes should be expanded, such as allowing people to request them in person. Disability stakeholders submitted that timelines for entities to provide accessibility documentation in alternate formats should be reduced, and that ASL and LSQ should be added to the list of required alternate formats for these documents.

Industry stakeholders requested that businesses be able to choose the most cost-effective way to receive requests for alternate formats of planning and reporting documents.

In response to concerns raised by the disability community, the Regulations now require entities to provide the description of their feedback process, on request, in the same alternate formats required for accessibility plans and progress reports. In this same vein, the Regulations were also amended to expand the means by which people can request alternate formats of planning and reporting documents (i.e. accessibility plans, progress reports and descriptions of feedback processes). This includes requiring that regulated entities accept requests for alternate formats at a minimum by mail, telephone and email, as well as via any other means the entity uses to communicate with the public. These changes are in line with the principles of the ACA as they remove potential barriers individuals might face in accessing the description of an entity’s feedback process, and they also allow individuals to communicate in ASL or LSQ with entities via telephone using video relay services to request alternate formats.

Regarding adding ASL and LSQ to the list of required alternate formats for planning and reporting documents, an estimated 5 900 entities will be subject to the Regulations when they are fully implemented. As a result, it is unclear if sufficient ASL and LSQ interpretation capacity exists to address the increase in demand for ASL and LSQ interpretation services should they be added to the list of required alternate formats. As well, the increase in demand for ASL/LSQ interpretation services could impact the availability of these interpretation services in critical areas. Such a change would also be expected to increase compliance costs from the current $23.2 million to an estimated $155 million, an increase of approximately 670%. Furthermore, a large proportion of these costs would be born by small businesses (who account for 81% of regulated entities), which have reduced operational and fiscal capacity to comply with such a requirement. Accordingly, this requirement was not added to the Regulations.

Theme 4: Publication of planning and reporting documents

Industry stakeholders, particularly those who serve the general public, indicated that the requirement to post direct hyperlinks to accessibility plans, progress reports and descriptions of feedback processes from the home page of the entity’s main digital platform could create operational challenges. This is because space on the entity’s home page is very limited.

As such, the Regulations were amended to allow entities to have a single hyperlink from their home page that would take the user to a separate web page containing all of the entity’s accessibility plans and progress reports, as well as the description of the entity’s feedback process.

Theme 5: Exemptions

Some disability stakeholders indicated that the exemptions for private sector entities with fewer than 10 employees, or for First Nations band councils, should be reduced in scope.

The exemption for private sector entities with fewer than 10 employees recognizes that these businesses generally have the least operational and fiscal capacity to comply with the planning and reporting requirements of the ACA. As well, the benefits of including federally regulated private sector entities with fewer than 10 employees are limited as these entities account for approximately 2.5% of employees in federally regulated sectors. The five-year exemption for First Nations band councils provides time for the Government to complete its commitment to an engagement process with Indigenous communities on a potential tailored application of the ACA.

Theme 6: Timelines specified in the Regulations

Some disability stakeholders recommended that timelines for entities to prepare and publish their initial accessibility plans, as well as to provide accessibility planning and reporting documents in alternate formats, be reduced.

Generally, industry stakeholders requested that the timelines to publish their initial accessibility plans be extended, and that they should be provided with additional flexibility regarding deadlines in order for them to provide alternate formats of accessibility planning and reporting documents.

Overall, the timelines identified in the Regulations for publishing initial accessibility plans and for providing alternate formats of accessibility planning and reporting documents balance the views of different stakeholders. Federal government entities have until December 31, 2022, to publish their initial accessibility plans. Private sector entities have additional time to prepare and publish their initial plans. The deadline for large private sector entities (100 or more employees) is June 1, 2023, and the deadlines for small businesses (10 to 99 employees) is June 1, 2024. This takes into account the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and differences in capacity between large and small private sector entities. The deadlines for entities to provide alternate formats of planning and reporting documents similarly recognize differences in capacity. This is why small businesses are provided with additional time to provide certain alternate formats of planning and reporting documentation.

Theme 7: Administrative monetary penalties (AMPs)

Some disability stakeholders indicated that the framework for determining AMPs in the Regulations should be made more severe. For example, penalties for violations could be increased and the decrease in penalty amounts for early payment could be reduced.

Some industry stakeholders said that the severity of the AMPs framework should be reduced. For example, in their view, AMPs should not apply until an entity has completed at least one planning and reporting cycle (i.e. a moratorium on AMPs), and penalty amounts should take into account efforts made by the entity to mitigate the effects of the violation, as well as whether a violation was accidental versus a case of intentional non-compliance.

Overall, the Regulations balance the views of disability stakeholders and industry. The framework assigns penalty amounts up to the maximum provided by the ACA: $250,000. The framework also includes criteria which consider whether an entity attempted to mitigate the negative effects of non-compliance, and whether the non-compliance was accidental or the result of negligence.

The proposed AMPs framework is based on the principle of proportionality. According to this principle, a penalty amount is aligned with the seriousness of the violation and takes into account the specific aggravating and mitigating factors related to the violation. In doing so, the AMPs framework respects the principle of the ACA — that AMPs are to promote compliance and not to punish.

Compliance and enforcement is a continuum that starts with outreach and education to prevent or address non-compliance before notices of violation are issued. As well, the ACA provides the Accessibility Commissioner with the authority to enter into a compliance agreement with an entity after a penalty has been issued. If an entity addresses issues of non-compliance, and thus satisfies the requirements of a compliance agreement, this might allow the Accessibility Commissioner to reduce or waive a penalty amount. These mechanisms could be particularly relevant for entities during the initial years of the implementation of the ACA and Regulations. As such, a moratorium on AMPs over an entity’s first planning and reporting cycle is unnecessary and would also leave the Accessibility Commissioner without an important compliance and enforcement tool.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

The ACA applies to any entity that operates a work or carries on an undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament.

A First Nations band council, when acting in its core functions, is generally considered to be operating a work or carrying on an undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament. An organization created by a band council may also be considered to fall within this category depending on the nature of the organization, operations and habitual activities. Therefore, the ACA applies to First Nations band councils, and potentially certain organizations created by them.

Indigenous consultation

During the Accessible Canada consultations in 2016–2017, funding was provided to three Indigenous organizations to engage their members and communities on accessibility legislation. In addition, modern treaty holders were informed of the intention of the Government to develop legislation. Government officials met in person with 11 Yukon modern treaty holders, and reached out to all 28 modern treaty holders by letter.

When the ACA was being developed, the Government of Canada committed that the ACA would not immediately be applied to First Nations band councils in order to engage them on the application of the ACA.

In spring 2019, ESDC partnered with three Indigenous organizations on an engagement process on the potential tailoring of the ACA. Grant funding was provided through the Disability component of the Social Development Partnerships Program to support the efforts of these organizations to engage with their members at the national, regional and community levels.

In recognition of this ongoing engagement process and to respect the Government’s commitment to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship, First Nations band councils are exempted from the planning and reporting requirements until the fifth anniversary of the day on which they come into force. This exemption does not apply to businesses operated for or on behalf of First Nations band councils or on the band’s reserve lands. This five-year exemption provides the time to complete meaningful engagement, to assess the results of the engagement, and to move forward with the next steps, such as proposing amendments to the ACA or its associated regulations.

Over the next couple of years, ESDC is planning to communicate with modern treaty holders to discuss the ACA, accessibility and inclusion within their communities.

Instrument choice

The ACA limits the instrument choices available to regulators as it requires regulations be made to operationalize, or put into practice, many of its provisions. For example, regulations are needed to set the time period by which regulated entities must prepare and publish their initial accessibility plan. Therefore, taking no regulatory action would not be an option as important provisions of the ACA would not be implemented. Alternative instruments to regulations, such as codes of practice, were not appropriate as they are only voluntary.

ESDC examined two separate options to implement the planning and reporting requirements of the ACA: (1) full application in year one; and (2) the approach adopted by the Regulations, which includes a staggered implementation, an exemption for private sector entities with fewer than 10 employees, and a five-year exemption for First Nations band councils.

Staggered implementation timelines recognize capacity constraints of smaller entities, as well as the impact on the disability community’s capacity, who will be consulted during the preparation of plans and reports. It also allows time for private sector entities to learn from best practices in the federal government.

The proposal to exempt private sector entities with fewer than 10 employees was based on a concern from industry stakeholders that planning and reporting requirements would likely overburden those smallest businesses. It is also consistent with the threshold for federally regulated private sector employers under the Pay Equity Act. This decision exempts approximately 60% of private entities representing 2.5% of all employees working for a federally regulated private sector entity — most exempted entities would fall within road transportation (trucking).

Options considered related to the AMP framework

Section 91 of the ACA provides the authority to make AMP regulations, which are required for the Accessibility Commissioner to fix penalty amounts. Non-regulatory options would not fulfill this requirement and were therefore not considered. However, the ACA provides some flexibility in the regulatory authority in respect to the setting of penalty amounts by allowing for fixed penalty amounts or a range of penalties. A range of penalties was chosen as it takes into account proportionality of the penalty to the harm or risk of a violation.

To ensure consistency in the application and transparency, the Regulations set the formula and associated criteria to calculate AMPs in regulations. The formula and criteria chosen are similar to those in other AMP frameworks and take into account the importance of having penalties that align with the threat and risk/harm. They also provide the Accessibility Commissioner with the opportunity to weigh the merits of each case individually based on evidence collected.

ESDC considered proposing a single penalty range table for all entities. However, considering the economic impact a higher penalty amount could have on persons and small businesses, the Regulations reduce penalties by 50% for small businesses and by 75% for persons.

Regulatory analysis

Scope and application of the Regulations

The Regulations apply to all regulated entities. First Nations band councils and businesses with fewer than 10 employees are exempted from the planning and reporting requirements of the Regulations (the former for five years and the latter so long as they continue to have 9 or fewer employees). In particular, they apply to entities in sectors that are outside of the jurisdiction of the CTA or the CRTC, which include the following:

The Regulations apply to federally regulated entities that fall under the jurisdiction of the CTA and the CRTC, but only in certain ACA areas (see “Background” section for more information).

According to administrative data from the Labour Program Labour Application 2000 database (November 2019), there are approximately 13 800 federally regulated entities in Canada with approximately 1.54 million employees.

Benefits and costsfootnote 7

The costs associated with the proposal for regulated entities include both administrative and compliance costs, along with enforcement costs for the federal government. While the administrative and compliance costs that would result from the Regulations are significant, the benefits are estimated to outweigh the costs.

Based on the 10-year projected time frame (2022 to 2031), the present value of the costs to entities is expected to total approximately $23.2 million, with an annualized average cost of $3.3 million. The expected total benefits are projected to be approximately $73.7 million, with an annualized average benefit of $10.5 million.

Subtracting the present value of costs from the present value of benefits ($73.7 million less $23.2 million) leaves an expected present value net benefit of approximately $50.5 million, with an annualized average net benefit of $7.2 million.

The costs to businesses to pay for AMPs, as well as the revenue to the Government of Canada generated through AMPs, are not considered costs nor benefits within the scope of the regulatory analysis since they are outside the normal course of business, occurring only in instances of non-compliance with the ACA or its regulations. The implementation of the AMP regime is motivated by improving compliance; it is not intended nor expected to generate a significant stream of revenue for the fiscal framework. This treatment of AMP costs and revenue is consistent with the analyses of other federal organizations that established AMP systems over the past several years.

The potential costs and benefits that arise from the ACA itself, although real, are considered out of scope. Only the costs and benefits arising from regulatory requirements are considered in the cost-benefit analysis.

The costs and benefits associated with the Regulations were estimated under two possible scenarios with different implementation schedules and potential exemptions. The scenarios are the following:

Under the Regulations, it is assumed that entities would be affected differently based on size, whether they also fall under the authority of the CTA or the CRTC and whether they are a public entity.

The analysis assumes costs and benefits of the planning and reporting requirements over a 10-year period (2022–2031). In addition, a 7% discount rate is used.

A copy of the full cost-benefit analysis report is available upon request. Individuals can request the report by emailing accessible.canada.directorate-direction.canada.accessible@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca.

Costs

The Regulations are expected to result in approximately $23.2 million in additional costs. These costs would be carried by federal government departments, agencies, Crown corporations, the Canadian Forces, parliamentary entities and federally regulated private sector entities. These costs would be in relation to the following activities:

Administrative costs

Administrative costs are costs associated with demonstrating that the regulated entity has complied with the regulation, including the collecting, processing, reporting, and retaining of information and the completing of forms. In the context of the Regulations, the administrative costs will be associated with the requirement for entities to notify the Accessibility Commissioner within 48 hours of publishing their accessibility plans, progress reports and description of feedback processes by electronic means, including the location of the document. The administrative costs are also associated with the requirement to retain accessibility plans, progress reports, descriptions of feedback processes and feedback received for seven years.

The analysis assumes that it will take a senior manager in the regulated entity 20 minutes to make the notification to the Accessibility Commissioner and that the work of retaining accessibility plans, progress report and feedback would be minimal and incorporated as part of the individual’s regular work. The cost is estimated by multiplying the time it takes to make the notification by the employee’s wage rate, which includes a 25% overhead.

It is estimated that notifying the Accessibility Commissioner and retaining documents under the base scenario would cost entities $2,210,000 in net present value (NPV) [2019$ CAD] and under the actual scenario would cost entities $585,000 NPV (2019$ CAD) over the 10-year period.

Compliance costs

Compliance costs are costs that regulated entities will incur when complying with the regulations. In this case, the Regulations require businesses to complete a second progress report two years after the publishing of their first accessibility plan (see planning and reporting cycle below), setup feedback acknowledgement responses, acknowledge any feedback they receive that isn’t provided anonymously, and also make available their accessibility plans, progress reports and descriptions of feedback processes in alternate formats.

Table 4: Accessibility planning and reporting cycle
Note: This table is for illustration purposes only.
  Planning and reporting requirement
Year 1 Initial accessibility plan
Year 2 Progress report 1
Year 3 Progress report 2
Year 4 Accessibility plan
Year 5 Progress report 1
Year 6 Progress report 2

Compliance costs associated with a second progress report

The ACA states that a regulated entity must prepare and publish a progress report respecting implementation of its accessibility plan. The Regulations require that a progress report be published by the first and second anniversaries of the day of publication of an accessibility plan. In the table above, progress report 1 is a requirement of the ACA, and, therefore, the costs associated with its preparation are not considered an incremental cost. However, progress report 2 is a requirement of the Regulations.

It is assumed that the second progress report would take half the time of the first progress report to produce, for an average time of 18.75 hours, with the work undertaken by a manager.

It was also assumed that the different size of the entities will influence the length of the report and the associated time that it would take for them to prepare the second progress report. The assumed time factor for the progress report would be as follows:

The total cost was calculated by multiplying the time to prepare progress report 2 by the average wage rate of a manager across all sectors as reported by Statistics Canada, including a 25% overhead ($56.46 per hour). This amount was then adjusted based on the size of the entity.

The total cost of all entities for producing progress report 2 is estimated to be $19,520,000 NPV (2019$ CAD) under the base scenario and $5,153,000 NPV (2019$ CAD) under the actual scenario over the 10-year period.

Compliance costs associated with setting up feedback acknowledgement responses and acknowledging feedback

Regulated entities will be required to accept and acknowledge feedback through the same means by which it is received. It is assumed that the main forms of communication used by entities to communicate with the public are telephone, mail, email, and any other means of communication by which the public can directly communicate with the entity, which is assumed for costing purposes to primarily constitute social media.

It is expected that regulated entities will incur an initial one-time cost to set up an acknowledgement response for the feedback they receive. It is assumed that the acknowledgement of receipt will be one page in length, will require one hour of an employee’s time to prepare, and the same acknowledgement will be used for all platforms of communications. It is also assumed that entities will use available auto-acknowledgement features offered by communications platforms. The overall ongoing cost is calculated by multiplying the number of entities by an employee’s time, the appropriate wage rate, and the number of weeks in a year. It is therefore estimated that the incremental cost for entities to set up a feedback acknowledgement response will be $543,000 NPV (2019$ CAD) under the base scenario and $236,000 NPV (2019$ CAD) under the actual scenario over the 10-year period.

While many entities will make use of auto-acknowledgement features, a range of approaches to acknowledging feedback with varying degrees of human involvement are available. It is expected that each entity will choose the approach that best addresses their specific circumstances. As such, regulated entities will incur additional ongoing costs to acknowledge any feedback they receive. For federal government entities and private sector entities with 100 or more employees, it is assumed that one employee would spend between 10 and 30 minutes per week acknowledging feedback received by the entity. For private sector entities (including First Nations band councils) with 10 to 99 employees, is assumed that one employee would spend between 2.5 and 7.5 minutes per week acknowledging feedback — one quarter the time compared to federal government and large private sector entities. This is because a large proportion of small private sector entities (at least 66%) are in sectors whose primary customers are other businesses and therefore have limited contact with the general public, for example trucking, other road transport, grain elevators, flour and seed mills and shipping/harbour activities. The overall ongoing cost is calculated by multiplying the number of entities by an employee’s time, the appropriate wage rate (including overhead), and the number of weeks in a year. It is therefore estimated that the incremental cost for entities to acknowledge feedback will be between $7,825,000 and $23,476,000 NPV (2019$ CAD) under the base scenario and $2,640,000 and $7,919,000 NPV (2019$ CAD) under the actual scenario over the 10-year period. The averages of these ranges, $15,651,000 under the base scenario, and $5,279,000 under the actual scenario, are the estimated costs associated with acknowledging receipt of feedback.

Compliance costs associated with alternate formats

The Regulations require regulated entities, upon request, to provide their accessibility plans, progress reports, and the descriptions of their feedback process in print, large print, braille, audio format and an electronic format that is compatible with adaptive technology and is intended to assist persons with disabilities (i.e. accessible PDF tagged, DAISY, e-text, etc.). This analysis does not assess the cost of potential requests for regular print formats of the required documents as it is assumed that minimal requests will be made for this format.

The calculation of the estimated compliance costs associated with alternate formats includes the assumptions stated hereafter.

The cost per page of producing the alternate formats is described in Table 5.

Table 5: Cost of producing alternate formats (per page)
Alternate format type Cost per page: first "master" copy Cost per page: additional printed copy Cost per CD
Large print $10.50 $0.30 N/A
Braille $10.50 $1.20 N/A
Audio format $87.50 $87.50 N/A
Accessible PDF tagged $10.00 N/A $5.00
DAISY $7.00 N/A $5.00
E-text $6.00 N/A $5.00

For the calculations of average cost, the following components were included:

This results in an average cost per page of $49.57 in 2019 dollars.

It is assumed the length of the accessibility plans and progress reports will be as described in Table 6.

Table 6: Estimated length of deliverables (in pages)
Entity size Estimated length: accessibility plan Estimated length: progress report Estimated length: description of feedback process
Private sector (non-CTA or non-CRTC) 1 to 99 10 7 0.5
Private sector (non-CTA or non-CRTC) 100 or more 15 10 0.5
CTA and CRTC regulated firms 5 4 0.5
Departments and agencies 30 20 0.5

Entities that are under the jurisdiction of the CTA (e.g. airlines, marine transportation) are subject to the Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (ATPDR) under the Canada Transportation Act. The ATPDR already requires these entities to produce documents for persons with disabilities in alternate formats. Therefore, costs to these entities of providing alternate formats are not attributable to these regulations.

The costs for producing accessibility plans and progress reports in alternate formats are estimated in Table 7.

Table 7: Estimated cost of producing deliverables
Entity size Estimated document cost: accessibility plan Estimated document cost: progress report Estimated cost: description of feedback process
Private sector (non-CTA or non-CRTC) 1 to 99 $495.73 $347.01 $24.79
Private sector (non-CTA or non-CRTC) 100 or more $743.59 $495.73 $24.79
CTA and CRTC regulated firms $247.86 $198.29 $24.79
Departments and agencies $1,487.18 $991.45 $24.79

In addition, the Regulations require entities to publish required documents on the main public digital platform they own, operate or control and that they use to communicate information to the public, and in a manner that makes the document accessible on the digital platform or by way of a hyperlink, in an accessible format that is compliant with Level AA conformance with the last bilingual version of WCAG. Since these WCAG standards are well established in the web designer community, it is expected that the cost to adopt these standards, especially after an e-text version is prepared, would be modest.

The estimated costs for producing alternate formats increased following prepublication of the draft Regulations, as they now include the cost associated with providing the description of the entity’s feedback process in alternate formats. The total cost for alternate formats over the 10-year period is estimated to be $35,027,000 NPV (2019$ CAD) under the base scenario and $9,932,000 NPV (2019$ CAD) under the actual scenario.

The combined compliance costs of the second progress report, setup of feedback acknowledgement, acknowledging feedback, and providing planning and reporting documents in alternate formats over the 10-year period are estimated to be $70,740,000 NPV (2019$ CAD) under the base scenario and $20,600,000 NPV (2019$ CAD) under the actual scenario.

Enforcement costs

Enforcement costs are costs incurred by the Government of Canada in enforcing the Regulations. To ensure that federally regulated entities comply with accessibility requirements, the ACA provides for an Accessibility Commissioner within the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) who is responsible for compliance and enforcement. Within its jurisdiction, the Accessibility Commissioner is able to investigate whether entities are complying with the ACA and its regulations. As the majority of the enforcement mechanisms and planning and reporting requirements are detailed in the ACA, the costing outlined below does not encompass the CHRC costs to inspect against and enforce compliance with the ACA. It is also assumed that the CHRC has appropriate compliance and enforcement infrastructure in place, both in terms of human resources and technological infrastructure.

The resources allocated for enforcement activities, beginning in the first year, would be equivalent to 3.5 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) annually for the first four years. This would decline to 2.5 FTEs after the fourth year. This change in the number of required employees is due to the need for additional resources for education and promotion activities in the initial years of the Regulations (i.e. the first cycle of accessibility plans and progress reports). This requirement will decrease as more and more regulated entities prepare and publish their initial accessibility plans and progress reports, requiring only approximately 2.5 FTEs by the fourth year who would be responsible for education and monitoring of compliance of over 5 000 entities. It is assumed that this work would be accomplished by a PM-05, a CS-02 and an EC-04.

Based on these assumptions, the cost of enforcement and education under the base scenario is estimated at $2,320,000 NPV (2019$ CAD) and $2,036,000 NPV (2019$ CAD) under the actual scenario — both over the 10-year period.

Total costs

The following tables outline the present values of estimated costs for the private sector, First Nations and the federal government.

Table 8.1: Estimated costs — Private sector
Activity Base scenario table c5 note a Actual scenario table c5 note b
Notification and retention $2,020 $525
Second progress report $17,161 $4,135
Feedback acknowledgement response setup $485 $206
Feedback acknowledgement $13,922 $4,602
Alternate formats $30,275 $7,765
Total private sector $63,862 $17,233

Table c5 note(s)

Table c5 note a

Full application of planning and reporting requirements of the Regulations to all entities immediately after they come into force, with no exemptions.

Return to table c5 note a referrer

Table c5 note b

Exemption for businesses with nine employees or less, five-year exemption for First Nations band councils, and staggered implementation schedule for initial accessibility plans.

Return to table c5 note b referrer
Table 8.2: Estimated costs — First Nations
Activity Base scenario table c6 note a Actual scenario table c6 note b
Notification and retention $161 $34
Second progress report $1,574 $285
Feedback acknowledgement response setup $49 $22
Feedback acknowledgement $1,226 $245
Alternate formats $3,029 $686
Total First Nations $6,040 $1,271

Table c6 note(s)

Table c6 note a

Full application of planning and reporting requirements of the Regulations to all entities immediately after they come into force, with no exemptions.

Return to table c6 note a referrer

Table c6 note b

Exemption for businesses with nine employees or less, five-year exemption for First Nations band councils, and staggered implementation schedule for initial accessibility plans.

Return to table c6 note b referrer
Table 8.3: Estimated costs — Federal government
Activity Base scenario table c7 note a Actual scenario table c7 note b
Notification and retention $29 $26
Second progress report $785 $734
Feedback acknowledgement response setup $9 $8
Feedback acknowledgement $503 $432
Alternate formats $1,722 $1,480
Enforcement costs $2,320 $2,036
Total federal government $5,368 $4,717

Table c7 note(s)

Table c7 note a

Full application of planning and reporting requirements of the Regulations to all entities immediately after they come into force, with no exemptions.

Return to table c7 note a referrer

Table c7 note b

Exemption for businesses with nine employees or less, five-year exemption for First Nations band councils, and staggered implementation schedule for initial accessibility plans.

Return to table c7 note b referrer
Table 8.4: Estimated costs — All sectors
Activity Base scenario table c8 note a Actual scenario table c8 note b
Notification and retention $2,210 $585
Second progress report $19,520 $5,153
Feedback acknowledgement response setup $543 $236
Feedback acknowledgement $15,651 $5,279
Alternate formats $35,027 $9,932
Enforcement costs $2,320 $2,036
Total all sectors $75,270 $23,221

Table c8 note(s)

Table c8 note a

Full application of planning and reporting requirements of the Regulations to all entities immediately after they come into force, with no exemptions.

Return to table c8 note a referrer

Table c8 note b

Exemption for businesses with nine employees or less, five-year exemption for First Nations band councils, and staggered implementation schedule for initial accessibility plans.

Return to table c8 note b referrer
Benefits

The Regulations ease access to information for persons with disabilities in various ways and are therefore expected to produce benefits to the federally regulated entities and the broader Canadian society.

Benefits of the Regulations are characterized separately for different affected stakeholders:

Benefits to clients

By having access to accessibility plans and reports in a format amenable to their specific disability (as described in the “Costs” section), persons with disabilities save time in reading and understanding those documents. Recognizing the broad range of disabilities and prescribed formats, it is estimated that approximately 50% of persons with disabilities over the age of 15 will benefit from this provision. Therefore, approximately 3.7 million persons with disabilities per year would experience time savings, which is estimated at $67.7 million NPV (2019$ CAD), or an annualized average benefit of $9.6 million.

In addition to the direct benefits accrued to persons with disabilities from the time saved reviewing plans and reports in a format of their choice, persons with disabilities would also experience a reduction in the anxiety that exists with not having access to documents in accessible formats.

This benefit is estimated to be $67,664,000 NPV (2019$ CAD), an annualized average benefit of $9,634,000.

In addition, the increased amount of information in an accessible format will enable people with disabilities to better plan their activities ahead of time and provide them with a better sense of control over the situation. Studies have shown that this increased sense of control leads to better physical and psychological health. The Regulations also increase the convenience at which clients with disabilities may access information, which has always been a significant barrier to clients with disabilities.

Benefits to employers

Employees with disabilities usually spend a portion of their paid working time obtaining information in a format that works for them. By having access to accessibility plans and reports in a format amenable to their specific disability (as described in the “Costs” section), persons with disabilities save time in reading and understanding those documents. It is assumed that 3.3% of private sector employees and 5.4% of public sector employees in the federally regulated labour force have disabilities. Therefore, approximately 70 000 employees with disabilities per year would experience time savings. These time savings are expected to be realized as a benefit for employers in terms of increased employee productivity. The value of this work to the employer is estimated at $5,827,000 NPV (2019$ CAD), or an annualized average benefit of $830,000.

Benefits to employees from anxiety reduction

Apart from the direct benefits accrued to employers from the time saved by employees reviewing plans and reports in a format of their choice, persons with disabilities would also experience a reduction in the anxiety that exists with not having access to documents in accessible formats. The Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) reported that employees with disabilities consistently have higher levels of stress at work than their colleagues (PSES, 2018; TBS, 2018). Along with the result of this study, several studies have been published with similar results. In a study by the Mental Health Foundation entitled Living with Anxiety (PDF), it is suggested that anxiety levels for persons with disabilities are four times higher than that of non-disabled persons on average. The reduction in anxiety is estimated to generate $233,000 NPV (2019$ CAD), an annualized average benefit of $23,000. It is also anticipated that the Regulations would produce intangible benefits in terms of anxiety reduction from the fact that employees with disabilities would be kept up to date on the implementation of their employer’s accessibility plan, as their employer is required to publish a progress report every year for which an accessibility plan is not required to be published.

Benefits to employers associated with increased job satisfaction

It is anticipated that the Regulations will also enhance the job satisfaction of employees with disabilities. Provision of information on accessibility plans of a regulated entity in a format that is accessible to persons with disabilities and an ability to provide feedback in a manner that is accessible offers equal opportunity to employees with disabilities and reduces the feeling of discrimination. Although recognized as a benefit, it is difficult to quantify the associated savings; therefore, this is not monetized and is left as a qualitative benefit.

Cost-benefit statement

Overall, the Regulations under the actual scenario are expected to produce net benefit to the regulated entities and the broader Canadian society. Even if the costs were 2.8 times higher under the actual scenario than the estimated value, the Regulations would still be beneficial. If only one category of benefits to employees (i.e. reduced anxiety) or employers (i.e. employee time saved or increased engagement, increased satisfaction) is realized, the benefits of the Regulations would still exceed the estimated costs, and result in an overall benefit. A copy of the full cost-benefit analysis report is available upon request.

In summary, as demonstrated in the following tables, the Regulations are expected to impose $23,221,000 in total cost equivalent to $3,306,000 in annualized costs. In terms of benefits, they are expected to provide $73,724,000 in total benefit, equivalent to $10,497,000 in annualized benefits. Therefore, the Regulations are expected to provide $50,503,000 in net benefit equivalent to $7,191,000 in annualized net benefits over the 10-year period after their implementation. These estimates are based on the mid-range scenario of the sensitivity analysis. It assumes 5 minutes per week of one employee’s time to acknowledge feedback for private sector entities with 10 to 99 employees and 20 minutes per week for private sector entities with 100 or more employees as well as the federal government.

Cost-benefit statement summary
Table 9.1: Summary of costs — Private sector
Description of costs Year 2 (2023) Yearly average (2024 to 2032) Year 10 (2031) Present value
(all 10 years)		 Annualized average
Notification and retention $0 $116 $116 $525 $75
Progress report 2 $0 $1,123 $0 $4,135 $589
Feedback acknowledgement response setup $0 $48 $0 $206 $29
Feedback acknowledgement $0 $1,050 $1,155 $4,602 $655
Alternate formats $0 $1,645 $1,909 $7,765 $1,106
Total private sector $0 $3,982 $3,180 $17,233 $2,454
Table 9.2: Summary of costs — First Nations
Description of costs Year 2 (2023) Yearly average (2024 to 2032) Year 10 (2031) Present value
(all 10 years)		 Annualized average
Notification and retention $0 $8 $15 $34 $5
Progress report 2 $0 $87 $0 $285 $41
Feedback acknowledgement response setup $0 $6 $0 $22 $3
Feedback acknowledgement $0 $50 $150 $245 $35
Alternate formats $0 $143 $354 $686 $98
Total First Nations $0 $294 $519 $1,271 $181
Table 9.3: Summary of costs — Federal government
Description of costs Year 2 (2023) Yearly average (2024 to 2032) Year 10 (2031) Present value
(all 10 years)		 Annualized average
Notification and retention $4 $4 $4 $26 $4
Progress report 2 $0 $129 $387 $734 $104
Feedback acknowledgement response setup $0 $0 $0 $8 $1
Feedback acknowledgement $0 $83 $83 $432 $62
Alternate formats $277 $241 $226 $1,480 $211
Enforcement $388 $314 $277 $2,036 $290
Total federal government $668 $772 $978 $4,717 $672
Table 9.4: Summary of costs — All sectors
Description of costs Year 2 (2023) Yearly average (2024 to 2032) Year 10 (2031) Present value
(all 10 years)		 Annualized average
Notification and retention $4 $127 $135 $585 $83
Second progress report $0 $1,339 $387 $5,153 $734
Feedback acknowledgement response setup $0 $54 $0 $236 $34
Feedback acknowledgement $0 $1,184 $1,389 $5,279 $752
Alternate formats $277 $2,030 $2,489 $9,932 $1,414
Enforcement costs $388 $314 $277 $2,036 $290
Total costs $668 $5,048 $4,678 $23,221 $3,306

Monetized benefits

Table 10.1: Summary of benefits — Private sector
Description of benefits Year 2 (2023) Yearly average (2024 to 2030) Year 10 (2031) Present value
(all 10 years)		 Annualized average
Benefits to employers from time saved $0 $722 $1,483 $3,782 $539
Benefits to employees from reduced anxiety $0 $29 $59 $151 $22
Benefits to clients from time saved $0 $6,706 $12,486 $34,551 $4,919
Total private sector $0 $7,457 $14,028 $38,485 $5,479
Table 10.2: Summary of benefits — First Nations
Description of benefits Year 2 (2023) Yearly average (2024 to 2030) Year 10 (2031) Present value
(all 10 years)		 Annualized average
Benefits to employers from time saved $0 $0 $42 $21 $3
Benefits to employees from reduced anxiety $0 $0 $2 $1 $0
Benefits to clients from time saved $0 $0 $800 $407 $58
Total First Nations $0 $0 $843 $429 $61
Table 10.3: Summary of benefits — Federal government
Description of benefits Year 2 (2023) Yearly average (2024 to 2030) Year 10 (2031) Present value
(all 10 years)		 Annualized average
Benefits to employers from time saved $0 $394 $605 $2,024 $288
Benefits to employees from reduced anxiety $0 $16 $24 $81 $12
Benefits to clients from time saved $0 $6,404 $9,243 $32,706 $4,657
Total federal government $0 $6,814 $9,873 $34,811 $4,956
Table 10.4: Summary of benefits — All sectors
Description of benefits Year 2 (2023) Yearly average (2024 to 2030) Year 10 (2031) Present value (all 10 years) Annualized average
Benefits to employers from time saved $0 $1,116 $2,130 $5,827 $830
Benefits to employees from reduced anxiety $0 $45 $85 $233 $33
Benefits to clients from time saved $0 $13,110 $22,529 $67,664 $9,634
Total benefits $0 $14,270 $24,744 $73,724 $10,497

Summary of monetized costs and benefits

Table 11: Summary of monetized costs and benefits
  Year 2 (2023) Yearly average (2024 to 2030) Year 10 (2031) Present value (all 10 years) Annualized average
Total costs $668 $5,048 $4,676 $23,221 $3,306
Total benefits $0 $14,270 $24,744 $73,724 $10,497
Net benefits −$668 $9,223 $20,068 $50,503 $7,191
Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis (see Table 12 below) was conducted to demonstrate how estimated net benefits under the actual scenario would change with the different estimates for the time that entities spend to acknowledge feedback. The low range scenario involves 2.5 minutes per week of one employee’s time to acknowledge feedback for private sector entities with 10 to 99 employees, and 10 minutes per week for private sector entities with 100 or more employees as well as the federal government. The mid-range scenario involves 5 and 20 minutes, respectively, and the high range involves 7.5 and 30 minutes, respectively. Values in the table are total present value expressed in 2019 constant dollars over the 10-year period.

Table 12: Results of sensitivity analysis
Low range Mid range High range
Cost of feedback acknowledgement $2,640,000 $5,279,000 $7,919,000
Total costs $20,582,000 $23,221,000 $25,861,000
Total benefits $73,724,000 $73,724,000 $73,724,000
Net benefits $53,142,000 $50,503,000 $47,863,000

This analysis estimates a net present value benefit of between $47.5 million and $52.1 million (2019$ CAD) dependent on how much time entities spend acknowledging the feedback they receive.

Small business lens

The analysis under the small business lens concluded that the Regulations will impact small businesses. The Regulations would impact up to 12 571 federally regulated private sector and First Nations entities that meet the definition of “small business” in the Policy on Limiting Regulatory Burden on Business.

Costs to these entities include both administrative costs associated with notifying the Accessibility Commissioner, as well as retention of records. They also include compliance costs related to the preparation of a second progress report two years after the publishing of their first accessibility plan, setting up feedback acknowledgement responses, acknowledging feedback when it is received and providing alternate formats of their accessibility plans, progress reports, and descriptions of feedback processes.

As such, the Regulations have been designed to mitigate the impacts that the new requirements would have on small businesses. Private sector entities with fewer than 10 employees (7 845 in total) are exempted from planning and reporting requirements, which reduces the number of impacted small businesses from 12 571 to 4 726. As well, private sector entities with between 10 and 99 employees will receive a delay in the implementation of the planning and reporting requirements. This will temporarily defer implementation costs for these entities and provide additional time from them to develop and publish their initial accessibility plans. Lastly, all small businesses will have additional time to provide certain alternate formats (i.e. print, large print and electronic versions) of accessibility plans, progress reports and descriptions of feedback processes. No alternative compliance options have been provided to small businesses as the proposed exemption and delayed implementation will sufficiently address the impacts on small businesses.

Small business lens summary
Table 13.1: Compliance costs
Activity Annualized value Present value
Second progress report $495,492 $3,480,126
Feedback acknowledgement setup $26,512 $186,206
Feedback acknowledgement $345,387 $2,425,855
Alternate formats $930,869 $6,538,034
Total compliance cost $1,798,259 $12,630,221
Table 13.2: Administrative costs
Activity Annualized value Present value
Notification and Retention $63,985 $449,402
Total administrative cost $63,985 $449,402
Table 13.3: Total compliance and administrative costs
Totals Annualized value Present value
Total cost (all small businesses) $1,862,244 $13,079,623
Cost per small business $148 $1,040

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies since there is an incremental increase in administrative burden on business, and a new regulatory title (title in) is introduced. These administrative costs are related to the notification, retention, and reporting requirements of the regulations.

The estimated annualized administrative costs imposed on a total of 5 709 private sector entities (including First Nations entities) with 10 or more employees would be $44,294 (in 2012 dollars) and the annualized administration cost per business would be $7.76 (in 2012 dollars). While the estimated administrative cost figure previously provided in Canada Gazette, Part I ($44,294) was correct (as it corresponded to private sector entities with more than 10 employees subject to the Regulations), the figure previously provided for the number of entities subject to administrative burden under the one-for-one rule (13 554) was incorrect as it corresponded to all private sector entities subject to the Regulations. The estimated cost per business (now $7.76) has been corrected from the figure previously provided in Canada Gazette, Part I ($3.27) since the $44,294 amount is divided by 5 709 (number of private sector entities with 10 or more employees) rather than by 13 554 (all private sector entities).

The estimated costs of the administrative burden were based on examining estimates from analysis of similar regulatory requirements (notification, retention, alternate formats) from different federal departments and subject matter expertise. Incremental administrative costs relate to the time spent on notifying the Accessibility Commissioner, as well as time spent by employees on activities related to the retention of records.

One-for-one rule summary
Table 14: One-for-one rule cost summary
Totals Annualized value
Administrative costs $44,294
Administrative costs per business $7.76

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

Other regulators under the Accessible Canada Act

The Regulations were developed in collaboration with CTA and CRTC, the other two regulators under the ACA. This collaboration will ensure that the Regulations on planning and reporting requirements from all three regulators align to the extent possible. Aligning the three sets of regulations means consistent requirements, to the extent possible, for all regulated entities, regardless of sector, and a simpler compliance regime, particularly for those who fall under more than one regulator. In addition, all three regulators, as well as the CHRC, are working to ensure that future enforcement of the ACA and its associated regulations is consistent.

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005

The Regulations create an approach to implementing the ACA that is compatible with requirements under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA). Of note, the regulations under the AODA use a higher threshold for differentiating based on the size of organizations, with more than 50 employees versus more than 10 employees, respectively.

The Regulations also stagger the timeline for the publication of initial accessibility plans based on the sector and size of organizations in a similar manner to the AODA. Like the AODA, public sector entities (federal government) would be the first entities that are required to publish their initial accessibility plans (by December 31, 2022), followed by private sector entities in later years (i.e. by June 1, 2023, and June 1, 2024).

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in March 2010 and acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Convention in 2018. By operationalizing provisions of the ACA, the Regulations bring the legislation into closer alignment with Canada’s obligations as a State Party to the UNCRPD and strengthens its position as a global leader on accessibility.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus

To inform the development of the Regulations, members of the disability community, industry, and government were consulted in the late spring / early summer of 2019. These consultations included participants from different gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) segments of society representing numerous disabilities.

As many Canadians with disabilities are also members of other traditionally marginalized groups, including women, Indigenous people, visible minorities and the LGBTQ2 community, consideration was given to how the Regulations reflect the reality that Canadians have multiple identity factors that intersect and make them who they are. This intersection of identities impacts a person’s experience with their government and their community — a person with a disability who is also a member of a visible minority group may find themselves further marginalized than someone who has the same disability but does not have those other identities.

The Regulations require entities to publish accessibility plans and progress reports on their digital platforms in conformance with WCAG Level AA standards, and in simple, clear and concise language. This would allow plans and reports to be accessed by most members of the disability community, regardless of their disability.

However, not all members of the disability community will be able to access accessibility plans, reports and descriptions of feedback processes that are WCAG Level AA compliant, either because of barriers to accessing the Internet or because this standard does not address their specific accessibility needs. Therefore, the Regulations require regulated entities to provide copies of their plans, reports and descriptions of feedback processes in the following alternate formats on request: print, large print, e-version, braille and audio format. Although these alternate formats will be available, regulated entities are not required to provide all of them within the same period. This recognizes that entities will require additional time to prepare and disseminate certain alternate formats.

The Regulations also require regulated entities to establish mechanisms to receive feedback anonymously, as persons with disabilities may have privacy concerns, particularly when they are providing feedback to their employer.

The following GBA+ considerations related to Canadians with disabilities were identified:

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

These regulations come into force when they are registered. Under the ACA, regulated entities must publish their initial accessibility plan within one year of the date established by regulations. Recognizing the burden associated with meeting the planning and reporting requirements under the ACA, the Regulations provide for a staggered implementation schedule.

In recognition of the continued engagement between the Government of Canada and Indigenous governments and organizations on the application of the ACA, First Nations band councils are exempted from the planning and reporting requirements of the Regulations and related planning and reporting provisions of the ACA until the fifth anniversary of the day in which they come into force.

Implementation of the Regulations will be supported by guidance materials, as well as communication tools, to help Canadians, employers, and employees understand their rights and obligations under the Regulations. The guidance materials will include templates, examples, guidelines and best practices that will support entities’ ability to implement the ACA and the Regulations. ESDC has begun consultations with stakeholders on proposed guidance materials. Further consultations are anticipated.

Compliance and enforcement

Under the ACA, the Accessibility Commissioner, once appointed within the CHRC, would be responsible for compliance and enforcement activities for regulated entities and areas not within the purview of the CRTC or the CTA. The CRTC and the CTA will establish their own compliance and enforcement regimes.

The ACA empowers the Accessibility Commissioner to undertake various activities to verify compliance with ACA provisions and regulations and provides options for enforcement, including the following:

As part of the compliance and enforcement regime, CHRC will develop policies and guidance materials that will be posted online so entities understand which actions can be taken by enforcement officers to address non-compliance.

These Regulations ensure that the Accessibility Commissioner has the full suite of tools they need to complete their compliance and enforcement program before the first accessibility plans are required to be published. The purpose of these tools is to promote compliance, rather than punish non-compliance.

In each case where a notice of violation with a penalty is issued, a person or regulated entity would have the opportunity to request to enter into a compliance agreement with the Accessibility Commissioner. The Accessibility Commissioner may enter into a compliance agreement with any terms that they consider appropriate, including providing for the reduction in whole or in part of the penalty.

An entity or person can request that the Accessibility Commissioner conduct a review of compliance orders and notices of violation with a warning or penalties.

Contact

Marzieh Tafaghod
Director
Programs and Regulations Division
Accessible Canada Directorate
Employment and Social Development Canada
105 De l’Hôtel-de-Ville Street
Gatineau, Quebec
J8X 4H7
Email: accessible.canada.directorate-direction.canada.accessible@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca