Almost twenty years ago Michael Prue voted in favour of the AODA. In 2022, one of Prue’s campaign priorities was, ‘Ensure all town buildings are accessible to facilitate an open and inclusive municipality.’ Then in 2023 he declared in this town we have not brought it into force, while he also was quoted as saying the first dog park opening in Amherstburg, ‘reflects our commitment to creating a vibrant and inclusive community for all residents, including our beloved canine companions.’
Then-MPP Michael Prue stood in the legislature on May 10, 2005 to vote in favour of Bill 118, the AODA. Watch the moment at 4:26 into the video.
Mayor Micheal Prue declared we have not brought it into force during a May 23, 2023 Amherstburg Council Meeting. Listen to the audio.
Unofficial transcript:
2025 we’re going to have to make everything accessible in this town, that’s the law. I was in the legislature 20 something years ago, and I spoke to this issue when the bill was presented in the legislature, and I scoffed at them. I scoffed at the liberals who were standing up waving this piece of paper around, saying we’re going to be accessible, because it could take 25 years to bring it into force. Well, in this town, we have not brought it into force.
The Windsor Star published my letter to the editor about Open Air on December 22, in response to a December 5 article, but it altered and deleted some content.
The article, Amherstburg keeps ‘controversial’ Open Air festival at 14 weekends mentioned that the administrative report “pointed to some businesses and demographics — particularly seniors and those with limited mobility — being heavily impacted by the festival, something highlighted by Pouget and Coun. Molly Allaire.”
The only impact I found mentioned in the report is the economic impact with a separate appendix that lists the economic impact; Total Visitors’ Spending $4,286,991
Comments deleted:
the part where I stated that I couldn’t find any mention in the report of seniors and ‘those with limited mobility’ being heavily impacted, nor could I find it being highlighted by Allaire; it was only Councillor Pouget that addressed the accessibility issue.
The number one complaint in the residents’ survey was accessibility so it’s pointless to tout closed streets as a family event if children with disabilities are excluded from accessing play areas.
Members of council that campaigned in favour of Open Air refuse to change their positions despite the negative impacts on some residents and businesses. I disagree with Mayor Prue that ‘this is a great thing that is happening in the town.’ Prue has bragged that he was in the legislature when the AODA was passed but declared last year that in this town we have not brought it into force. What are we waiting for?
Following the 2022 election, I asked Crain the following questions. He answered. Then at some point he blocked me. I asked him why but didn’t get an answer. Actions do speak louder than words because he hasn’t always remained ‘available to address concerns any resident faces in the Town of Amherstburg.’
of the accessibility information the town provided to you for your campaign, which did you read?
I read all election material provided by the Town throughout my campaign, including any information pertaining to the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.
what trainings have you participated in for accessibility legislation, for example, as an employee, volunteer, etc.?
Both the Town of Amherstburg and the County of Essex members of Council have received training on accessibility. I have also been advised that Administration will be doing a special session on accessibility in the first quarter of 2023.
how will you fulfill the obligation to remove barriers?
Continue an open dialogue with the Town’s Accessibility Advisory Committee.
Follow regulations outlined in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.
Always remain available to address concerns any resident faces in the Town of Amherstburg.
Work closely with Town Administration to establish procedures and measures that ensure those with disabilities have the opportunity to experience all our community has to offer.
Jack Edwards told Councillor Pouget that ‘the majority has to rule on this’ during the Open Air Report discussion at the November 21 Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting.
And we frequently see the 4 votes at council meetings.
The following article is reprinted with permission of the author, Registered Parliamentarian Eli Mina.
Is the majority always right?
During a coffee break at a training session, a newly elected municipal official spoke to me privately and said this: A wise person taught me that with a council of seven members, the most important number is four. With four votes you can change policy. With four votes you can provide exceptional leadership. With four votes you are at liberty to govern however you wish. After all, the majority is always right. What do you think about these words of wisdom?
On the surface, what he said sounded correct. After all, in parliamentary democracies, a basic principle of decision making is that the majority rules. In order to adopt a proposal or enforce a measure, a voting body requires that more members vote yes than vote no. If not, the motion is defeated. With this in mind, the numbers are ultimately the only thing that matter. Right?
Not so fast. Something significant is missing with this logic.
Here is the problem: Have you ever observed an aggressive and impatient majority forcing its will on a helpless minority by cutting off debate prematurely? Ever witnessed a majority being stubbornly entrenched and unwilling to tolerate new data that might lead to enlightened and thoughtful decisions? In such cases, there may very well be enough votes in the affirmative, but this does not change the fact that the decision-making process is flawed; possibly leading to flawed decisions that the majority, the minority, and the community, will regret.
Yes, the numbers are important. But if the group focuses exclusively on the number of votes, it may be making its collective decisions on the basis of ignorance, self interest, and loud and aggressive voices, instead of making them on the basis of objectivity, full knowledge, and a careful analysis of the issues at hand.
With numbers-based democracies, the end—getting enough votes—justifies the means, which may prompt some people to make pre-meeting deals on how they’ll vote. On the other hand, with knowledge-based democracies, members refuse to commit their votes in advance of a meeting. Instead, they arrive at meetings with fully open minds, listen to and learn from everyone, and treat minorities as partners in decision making.
With numbers-based democracies, assertive and persuasive advocates tend to prevail. With knowledge-based democracies, the individuals with the most relevant information and the most astute and compelling analysis are listened to. The group has a culture that promotes learning, inquiry and excellence in decision making.
Ultimately, numbers-based democracies are more likely to produce flawed and risk-prone decisions. On the other hand, knowledge-based democracies are more likely to produce informed decisions that increase opportunities and minimize risks for affected organizations.
Letter to the editor in response to the November 27 RTT articles.
Some of the comments during the delegation, committee and council meetings are appalling.
Carolyn Davies claimed that people can get out and enjoy the event and not be at home isolating from each other, something she said has positive mental health benefits. However, seniors and people with disabilities who can’t equally participate remain socially isolated, which can negatively impact their mental health and well-being.
Although Ms. Davies mentioned that Open Air has been positive for her bed and breakfast, since she confirmed she has no accessible rooms, again, people with disabilities can’t equally participate.
The suggestions that businesses should get creative or just adapt are dismissive and disrespectful; the negative impacts should not be minimalized.
Councillor McArthur stated how families come together, and he didn’t want to take that away from people. Yet children with disabilities that can’t equally access play areas can’t come together with families, so they have that opportunity taken from them.
Deputy Mayor Gibb said it is heartbreaking for him to see council unable to “get away from these entrenched positions” but it’s within his power to change his position. For me, it’s heartbreaking to see barriers in the community perpetuated and not removed so everyone in the community can equally participate in all aspects of community life.
As for the surveys, the number one complaint in the 2023 residents’ survey was accessibility, another concern that was overlooked and will continue every year for fourteen weekends until ingrained attitudes change. No one should claim we are an inclusive community if seniors and people with disabilities remain marginalized.
So much of the enthusiasm seems to be based on what are deemed to be positive impacts while disregarding the negative effects: it’s good for businesses, but not those that endure financial hardships; it’s good for people, but not if they are denied equal opportunities; and it’s good for the economy, but only for the businesses that profit.
Instead of dismissing the so-called ‘naysayers’ that can’t share the hype, council should have drawn up an action plan to alleviate the hardships, exclusion and isolation that Open Air generates.
Concerns that customers of the Salty Dog were impeding sidewalks, including people using assistive devices, were raised at the October 15 council meeting.
Following the meeting, I emailed council members: some of your comments during the October 15 meeting are concerning:
‘it’s good for the residents,’
it’s in the best interest of the town,’
‘it’s AODA compliant because there are no trip hazards’,
‘I am sorry that some people are not getting out of the way when someone comes by with a cane or a walker or a wheelchair, but what difference would it make if there was two cars there instead of the patio?’
‘It’s two parking spots, or maybe a little bit more, there’s definitely not a parking issue downtown.’
there are barriers at the Salty Dog patio and there are trip hazards so if barriers exclude people with disabilities then it’s not good for the residents and it’s not in the best interest of the town. i’ve asked council to create a patio policy to ensure all patios are AODA compliant and i still encourage you to create one.
also, as i’ve pointed out a few times, businesses with barriers may face human rights complaints. in fact, two downtown businesses are currently facing human rights complaints.
thank you Councillor Pouget for acknowledging the right of people with disabilities to equally participate in our community.
As usual, Councillor Pouget was the only one to respond; she thanked me for promoting all accessibility issues in our Town and said she’d do whatever she could to help.
November 4, I emailed a follow up to council and shared one resource: since you’ve not yet enacted a patio policy, like other municipalities, i still urge you to do so. there is an abundance of best practices in other municipalities, along with the AODA standards to address barriers that continue to exist. why are you not addressing them?
for example, at a minimum, the Ontario Traffic Council’s Restaurant Patio Guidelines within the Right of Way‘was created for the benefit of those road authorities who have not developed their own guidelines and as a supplementary resource to those road authorities who have developed their guidelines but are seeking additional guidance on the topics outlined herein.’
‘The intention of applying these guidelines is to ensure that universal accessibility, public safety and the streetscape experience are enhanced and not negatively impacted by the introduction of a patio within the road authorities’ right-of-way.’
7.1 Accessible Routes
Accessible routes must be provided through the patio area, as follows:
1) The pedestrian clearway requires 1.8 metres of space on most sidewalks, with wider sidewalks with higher pedestrian volumes requiring 2.5 metres. 2) To ensure the patio area does not impose a change in the direction of the pedestrian clearway of more than 20 degrees, the patio operator should use a tape measure and something to mark measurement points (pylons, chalk marks, etc.) to verify that this requirement is being adhered to 3) The patio operator must provide accessible access to the patio with a minimum width of 1.8 metres. 4) Accessible access can be achieved through two methods, installation of a temporary platform or a temporary accessibility ramp. It is the patio operator’s responsibility to comply with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) at all times. 5) The patio operator: i) Must not place patio materials in the pedestrian clearway. ii) Must ensure the patio’s perimeter fencing has a solid base that is detectable for someone using a white cane. iii) Must not use the pedestrian clearway to queue patrons awaiting their reservation or table. iv) Must not place A-frame signs or other obstacles in the pedestrian clearway.
Comments by some members of council about accessibility at the Salty Dog patio during the October 15 meeting were concerning.
Councillor McArthur stated, in part, overwhelmingly, people love the Salty Dog patio. They love the environment that it creates in downtown Amherstburg, and it’s good for the economy. It’s good for business, but over and above everything else, it’s good for the residents of Amherstburg and that’s why I support it.
the burg watch: McArthur shouldn’t be supporting it because he’s council’s rep to the accessibility committee and the patio has barriers. Saying it’s good for the residents, while it’s not accessible to some residents with disabilities, is unacceptable.
Councillor Courtney stated, in part, it was AODA compliant, because there was no trip hazards, and was wide enough to get in.
the burg watch: There are trip hazards.
Mayor Prue stated, in part, the Salty Dog acted in good faith and continues to act in good faith. The staff went out and acted in good faith and obeyed every single caveat of the province of Ontario and every single bylaw that we have. I am sorry that some people are not getting out of the way when someone comes by with a cane or a walker or a wheelchair, but what difference would it make if there was two cars there instead of the patio? If they won’t get out of the way on the sidewalk, they won’t get out of the way. And so I think a business case has been made, and I do believe that is in the best interest of the town to be a welcoming and friendly place for people to sit out and have a meal in the sun.
the burg watch: an apology that people are not getting out of the way provides no meaningful action to correct the barriers to people with disabilities. The town cannot be a welcoming and friendly place if people with disabilities are not welcome to equally participate in activities. Thus, it is not in the best interest of the town.
Deputy Mayor Gibb: I mean, I just I don’t understand what the issue is. Two parking spots out of 500 you know what? I don’t think there’s a that big of a problem parking in downtown Amherstburg, the extra revenue, the extra jobs it brings.
the burg watch: I’d recommend more training. the number one complaint in the residents’ Open Air survey was accessibility, followed by parking. Council still needs to address the issue.
Councillor Crain stated, in part, it’s two parking spots, or maybe a little bit more, there’s definitely not a parking issue downtown.
the burg watch: again, the number one complaint in the residents’ Open Air survey was accessibility, followed by parking. Council still needs to address the issue.
The AODA aims to remove barriers. I have asked that council create a patio policy to ensure AODA compliance but no such policy has been implemented yet.
Two residents from the area will delegate at the October 28 council meeting to speak to the issue.
The report to council states, on January 22, 2020 the Town applied for funding toward the reconstruction of the sanitary sewers on George and Seymour Streets through the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP): Green Stream which is a joint federal/provincial grant program. The proposed project involves the full replacement of the clay sanitary sewers and all home connections to the property line on George and Seymour Street between Richmond Street and Simcoe Street as well as some sections of Murray Street. Due to the significant impacts to existing infrastructure that will result from the sewer replacement the Town will also be replacing all the sidewalks, curbs and pavement.
The Town’s Licensing and Enforcement Division was requested to provide notice to homeowners of the upcoming infrastructure project on George and Seymour Streets and has circulated notices to the residents that have elements encroaching on public lands.
The report goes on the mention that while the area would be included in the Heritage Conversation District (HCD), the HCD has not yet been officially designated.
Then the AODA is mentioned, including the requirement to create a 1.5 m sidewalk width to comply, although there are exceptions to the Regulation under the AODA.
Three options are presented, even though administration states, this approach is the approach Administration has been proceeding with up to this point and continues to recommend as the best practice.
RECOMMENDATIONS include:
Delegated authority BE PROVIDED to the Clerk/Risk Manager to approve the insurance requirements of encroachment agreements with regards to non- commercial policy holders in the absence of Certificates of Insurance where indemnification language is deemed to be satisfactory to offset the associated risk; and, Administration BE DIRECTED to bring back the amendments necessary to do so for Council’s approval to the Encroachment By-law, By-law 2023-061, and the Delegation of Authority Policy.
Several months later I found out why, despite my requests that public consultations be held in the spirt and letter of the AODA, there were no public consultations.
BACKGROUND
January 29, 2024 emailed council and urged members “to embrace the spirit of the AODA and consult the public regarding Richmond Street sidewalk repairs even though the report to council does not mention public consultation in accordance with the AODA’s Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation regarding exterior paths of travel, rest areas:
‘Designated public sectors when constructing new or redeveloping existing exterior paths of travel that they intend to maintain, shall consult on the design and placement of rest areas along the exterior path of travel and shall do so in the following manner:
the public and persons with disabilities.
a municipal accessibility advisory committee if one exits.’
The report to council concludes with Financial Matters and admin’s recommendation to use Accessibility Compliance Reserve Funds that are ‘intended for repairs and improvements designed to reduce or remove barriers and promote greater access to public spaces, goods and services.’ Planters may create barriers for people with disabilities who rely on visual cues and space to travel along the sidewalks. Another concern is that there is no mention of what standards will be specified in the tender. Some of you voted to keep the loading/unloading zone on Dalhousie Street for accessibility reasons, so why not commit to accessibility and persons with disabilities in this instance and hold public consultations?”
January 29: Councillor Pouget asked questions at the council meeting and acknowledged receipt of my concerns and question regarding why they are not consulting with the public according to the AODA.
The clerk responded and stated, in part, if they were building a rest area, they would have an obligation to consult with the public of course and mentioned feedback mechanisms. When Councillor Pouget asked how they would reach out to the people in our community to ask them, the clerk’s answer was, in part, so in this case we’re not required to consult with the public. We’re looking at perhaps maybe 20 feet of brick sidewalk that we would lift and reset in the same place where it currently exists. So there’s no requirement in the act to deal with the sidewalk as an exterior route of travel. It’s with regards to rest areas that would be placed along the sidewalk and we’re not impacting a rest area. So this time, the consultations that exist in terms of the committees are all that that is recommended.
May 12 email to council members: I have some concerns about the Richmond Street sidewalk repairs. Shouldn’t rest areas be more important than more planters?
I repeated my January email, I urged council to embrace the spirit of the AODA and consult the public regarding Richmond Street sidewalk repairs even though the report to council did not mention public consultation in accordance with the AODA’s Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation regarding exterior paths of travel, rest areas:
‘Designated public sectors when constructing new or redeveloping existing exterior paths of travel that they intend to maintain, shall consult on the design and placement of rest areas along the exterior path of travel and shall do so in the following manner:
the public and persons with disabilities.
a municipal accessibility advisory committee if one exits.’
May 27 Council Meeting: As a delegate regarding Murray Street: If you plan to redevelop the area, I urge you to hold public consultations for on and off street parking and rest areas. You might decide there’s no requirement to consult the public and people with disabilities. But nothing in the legislation prevents our municipality from exceeding the minimal AODA standards and why wouldn’t you? Last spring Mayor Prue referenced the AODA 2025 deadline and acknowledged in this town we have not brought it into force. Why not? You have an opportunity now to prevent barriers and increase inclusion.
August 29: a reader sent me photos of the Richmond Street rest areas along with some comments: placing a bench on the “repair” by the Scotia bank totally blocks the normal flow of the sidewalk and we have no idea what the “curb” on the repair is for, unless it’s going to be for a bicycle rack. It also slopes downward toward Bathurst now. The repair farther down by the bank on Dalhousie is a bit better, as the bench sits closer to the building and doesn’t impede pedestrian traffic quite as much.
photo 1 by reader of Richmond St. sidewalk repairphoto 2 by reader of Richmond St. sidewalk repairphoto 3 by reader of Richmond St. sidewalk repairphoto 4 by reader of Richmond St. sidewalk repairphoto 5 by reader of Richmond St. sidewalk repair
August 30: emailed council to request an explanation for not consulting the public and people with disabilities regarding the design and placement of rest areas along Richmond Street.
August 30: Councillor Pouget responded that there was probably not any consultation at all. She said she raised the issue at a Council meeting and the clerk explained there was no rest area.
September 20: emailed council: I would still appreciate an answer to my August 30 question to council: what is the explanation for not consulting the public and persons with disabilities regarding the design and placement of rest area along Richmond Street?
September 27: emailed Critchley another week has passed and I would still appreciate answers.
October 2: CAO Critchley emailed, With respect to the rest areas along Richmond Street, these were created while doing a larger construction project that was subject to a timeline which unfortunately did not allow for consultation.
During the October 15 council meeting discussion of a provincial grant, Mayor Prue passed the gavel to speak. Following comments he made about MPP Leardi and Premier Ford which, in my opinion, were unprofessional I reached out to MPP Leardi, who responded.
Unofficial transcript of Prue’s speech: (listen to the audio).
I’m going to pass the gavel because I want to speak to this. I’m going to support this. And I know that some people say, oh, he just wants to spend the money. No, I also want to save the money. If we put in this application now, we are eligible for 50% funding from the province. If we don’t put it in now and we wait, which was suggested, we’re going to get zero. So am I going to say to the people of Amherstburg I said I’m going to, you know, we should just wait and maybe next year or the year after, we can see whether we have enough money at that point and forego the $500,000 from the province of Ontario, absolutely not. It is very difficult and anyone who sat around this table over many years will know it’s very difficult at budget time to try to do all the competing interests. But never once did I ever, in all of my years see a politician refuse provincial or federal money when it was there, and I don’t think we should be just saying cavalierly, no, we’re not going to even apply, because if we don’t do this tonight, we can’t, we can’t even apply. Might as well kiss it goodbye, and I am not going to kiss that money goodbye. It’s difficult enough waiting for Provincial funds. And every year our funding from the province goes down. Every year it gets less and less and less. And somebody sent me something from Facebook, and I was rather appalled so many people in Amherstburg commenting how wonderful Mr. Leardi was making sure we were getting 200 or $2 million from OCIF. That’s the least amount we’ve got in the last 10 years. Every year it goes down. Every year it goes down. And yet there are people who congratulate him for pushing it down. When I went to the to the AMO conference, there’s the Premier up there, big and bold as could possibly be, bragging that in his four years as Premier, he’s never had to raise taxes once, no, because he doesn’t fund things like municipalities anymore. And then we have to turn around and do the best we can. So when this rare opportunity comes for $500,000 I’m going to take it and I’m going to support this tonight so that we can get that 500,000. If we don’t get it, I know what we’re going to have to do instead. I don’t like it, but I want to see that place built right out if it can be done, I’ll take the gavel back.
MPP Leardi’s response was: Thank you for letting me know about Mr. Prue’s comments. I don’t think he has a full understanding of the millions of dollars that Amherstbug gets in infrastructure grants. Below is a breakdown. The infrastructure grants effectively doubled in 2022. In infrastructure grants alone, Amherstburg has received over $16 million from the Ford government.
the burg watch 