Tag Archives: disability

RECAP Accessibility Committee Meeting February 26, 2026

Posted on by
Reply

My defamation lawsuit against the town clerk and town of Amherstburg followed my January 2022 critique of the draft multi-year accessibility plan.

Some of my answers to the multi-year accessibility plan survey questions that I completed in January 2026 are missing from the documents and verbal report on the survey findings.

Memorable Meanderings:

Shirley Prue said she’s intrigued about the federal standards; “took only 20 years but there you go.”

(As I keep pointing out, Mayor Prue stood up in the provincial legislature just over 20 years ago to vote in favour of the AODA. In 2025, he said this town has not been compliant). 

Tony Pietrangelo asked, “where are the definitions as to what a public space is and a private space is? Where is that definition? Is there a standard that’s put out by the Government of Ontario?”

(The Design of Public Spaces Standards under the AODA were enacted on January 1, 2013). 

Centennial Park redevelopment

Council already approved option 1 at its February 23 meeting so Heidi Baillargeon presented a recap on zoom:

  • consultations with the tennis club, sports organizations, and North Star High School. (no mention of mandatory consultation with people with disabilities).
  • two dedicated tennis courts and two basketball courts, with one set of tennis courts fully fenced and the other non-fenced.
  • A multi-use trail, accessible parking spaces, and tree planting are also part of the design, with a focus on maintaining Russell Renaud Hill.
  • The design includes rest stations every 100 meters, with some as close as 50 meters apart, and connections to accessible parking spots near the tennis and basketball courts.

Baillargeon mentioned the intention is to start the build in the winter for a spring completion.

Tony Pietrangelo gave Baillargeon his blessings and asked if the parking lot would be paved. Baillargeon explained only the accessible parking spaces would be paved – the rest will remain gravel.

(So, a million dollars for courts and yet another walking trail but people with disabilities will still encounter barriers trying to navigate through a parking lot. Priorities).

Pietrangelo asked what was budgeted for the project. Councillor Donald McArthur said it was just over a million.

Chris Drew said, I think you guys did a fantastic job. He mentioned some criticism about the trail system, but he thought the people in the area need that. He said a lot of them don’t have any way to get out to the Libro and they don’t have a way to get to the green away trails. 

(The criticism I saw was related to the fact that over a million dollars is being spent on another amenity like a walking trail while infrastructure is crumbling, there are sidewalks to walk on, and sidewalks and roads are in desperate need of repair).

Baillargeon provided more details. The trail length is around 800 meters in total, 2.4 metres wide. Bench station spacing is an average maximum of 100 but the average spacing in this design here is around 75. We have 10 benches in total around the trail, with a cross slope is 2% on the trail. So that’s 2.5 inches in 10 feet. The parking spaces: four type A parking spaces 3.4 metres wide for a van, ten Type B parking spaces 2.4 metres wide for a car with a 1.5 metre wide shared aisle between the spaces.

Prue said we always think about, how do we get onto the trail if we’re in a chair.

(Maybe Prue should spend more time thinking about all the barriers in town that prevent people with disabilities from equally participating. Mayor Prue, her husband, did say in 2025 this town has not been compliant. That’s right – the town failed to meet the January 1, 2025 AODA deadline).

Accessible On-Street Parking Space

Prue said okay, 7.2 accessible on street parking space. What’s that one about?

(The agenda description is an aerial of Briar Ridge. The committee discussed this at the January 22 meeting: create an accessible on-street parking space at Briar Ridge Park, for approximately $500 for paint and signage and conduct public consultations for on street parking. This was to be one of the highlighted projects during National AccessAbility Week).

The committee was advised that the traffic by-law would need to be amended to have parking only on one side.

There seemed to be some confusion about where people would park and if they would be exiting their vehicle onto grass.

Multi-Year Accessibility Draft Plan and Survey Results

Prue said, okay, moving on to 7.3, which is the multi-year Accessibility Plan, draft. What you got?

(Just like her husband, she hands items over to staff. The meetings are for members to discuss items; staff should only be called on for clarification).

Admin said at a high level, the survey was successful in promoting some discourse in the community. 

(I wonder how success was measured. I saw percentages, one document with pie charts and another document with bar graphs. It was later revealed that 17 people participated. Given the approximate 6400 Amherstburg residents with disabilities, that’s a poor result in my opinion).

Admin continued – if results indicate there’s some dissatisfaction there may be further need to refine and focus on those areas to understand what those concerns are. 

(There was plenty of time to refine questions because the multi-year plan wasn’t due until December 2026).

Admin said responses were received from a variety of individuals, including people with disabilities and caregivers, although no breakdown was given.

(There should’ve been a breakdown given because the question was, ‘Do you wish to identify as… a person with a disability. The percentages indicate eight people identified as a person with a disability).

Admin then reviewed the survey questions and answers. 

(Not all the answers; I noticed some of mine were missing).

Do the Town parks, including multi-use paths and trails, playground structures, and other amenities, meet your accessibility needs?

Admin said generally, they seem to be meeting the need for a vast majority of the respondents (11 people) but 25% (4 people) said no. 

Admin said now that they know, they can use that to guide some of the focus of further inquiry on the plan. 

(The questions should’ve been more comprehensive now. Again, there was plenty of time to refine questions because the multi-year plan wasn’t due until December 2026).

Have you encountered barriers at any Town parks, trails, or amenities?

38% (7 people) said yes.

One survey document does not list the barriers.

Another survey document lists top barriers:  

  • Parking
  • Pathways
  • Rest areas

Admin echoed the barriers that were identified were parking, pathways and rest areas. And, since the committee just discussed those items in Centennial Park, the conclusion was, ‘it seems like the committee is focused on the right things in that regard. And what we’re hearing from the respondent survey is that that’s where the attention should lie.’ 

(Should the focus really be based on seven responses?).

Does town recreation programming meet your accessible needs?

Once again, admin said that’s where more refined questions around what sort of programming is missing out. Admin mentioned sledge hockey and the Miracle League.

Do the town sidewalks meet your accessibility needs?

About 24% (4 people) said no. Reasons: the age and design of the infrastructure or maintenance standards. 

Do the transportation options available in Town meet your accessibility needs?

The question about what would enhance the accessibility of transportation options within the Town wasn’t reported on or included in the reports. Again, admin mentioned further future questions to find out more.

A couple of questions about customer service: 12% (2 people) used the accessible customer service kiosk in the past year; of those that use them, 100% (2 people) said that they did meet their accessible needs. Admin said that’s a significant finding, it indicates that the kiosks are currently meeting the need. 

(The kiosks are currently meeting the need of two people; that’s not a significant finding or indication that it’s accessible to the disability community).

How do you access information shared by the Town?

76% (13 people) use the town website, 76% (13 people) use the town social media, and 53% (9 people) word of mouth. 

Pietrangelo asked how many people took the survey.

Admin said 130 people interacted with the talk the burg site, 61 accessed the areas that have the survey, only 17 of them completed the survey.

Pietrangelo emphasized the difference between percentages and real numbers. He wondered why they don’t get more people participating, especially under 18 years old. 

Admin said if a barrier affects one person, they have that same standard to meet it. 

(But the number one complaint in the residents’ OpenAir survey is accessibility and nno meaningful action was taken).

Pietrangelo asked who designed the questions and was told the communications team.

Drew said one thing that bothers him is these open houses are made available, surveys are made available, and people sit at home and don’t bother to do anything, but then they come out of the woodwork later with all kinds of stuff, like the Centennial Park. People are coming out saying, oh, they should be putting a swimming pool in, they should be doing putting a splash pad in, they should be doing this, they should be doing that; they don’t need the walking trails and stuff like that. Where were they when we had these open houses and the surveys for them?

(Drew also complained on my facebook page, saying most people are too lazy or don’t care).

Instead of blaming or shaming, the committee should’ve reviewed where the survey was advertised, how many times, and asked if there were any barriers to participation. I did point out to admin that if surveys can be emailed out, they should be able to email them back instead of having to take them in person to the town hall).

Prue asked if there were any other questions. 

(It would be so refreshing to have decorum at meetings).

Projects and Initiatives in the Accessibility Plan

  • Admin outlined the projects and initiatives in the multi-year accessibility plan, drawn from existing documents: the town’s seven-year capital projects, transportation master plan, and parks master plan.
  • The plan will be open for public feedback and will be revised based on the committee’s input and the survey results.

Admin mentioned the federal standards. Prue said she’s intrigued; took only 20 years but there you go.

(As I keep pointing out, Mayor Prue stood up in the provincial legislature 20 years ago to vote in favour of the AODA. In 2025, he said this town has not been compliant). 

Unfinished Business and New Business

  • Admin provided updates on unfinished business, including the funding for accessible parking spaces at the Libro and Briar Ridge.
  • The committee discussed the donation of a temporary accessible ramp to the Co-An Park Board for use at their stage.
  • The motion to donate the ramp passed, and the committee agreed to review the multi-year accessibility plan and provide feedback at the next meeting.
  • Meeting adjourned.

Defamation And Disability Advocacy

Posted on by

My defamation lawsuit against the town clerk and town of Amherstburg is the result of my disability advocacy four years ago.

In January 2022, I critiqued the draft multi-year accessibility plan council approved in December 2021.

I submitted what I perceived to be deficiencies of the draft plan to council, as I had done for decades.

I conveyed my concerns about the plan, council’s approval of the traditional voting method for 2022 and highlighted some barriers. 

I provided input on the town’s accessibility plans since the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA) 2001 required organizations to create them annually.

The ODA’s purpose was to “improve opportunities for persons with disabilities and to provide for their involvement in the identification, removal and prevention of barriers to their full participation in the life of the province.” 

The ODA mandated plan contents. 

Plans were to include a report on measures taken, measures in place, and the next year’s measures to take to identify, remove and prevent barriers. 

The town was also required to assess, review and list its by-laws, policies, programs, practices and services to identify barriers.

I delegated to council and the accessibility committee; I emailed and wrote letters to the editor to help raise awareness of some barriers.

I had already advocated for ten years for an accessible library, but the town remained silent.

Throughout the decade the town pursued funding for other projects like a marina and arena, despite the provincial government’s grant stipulation that accessibility was the number one priority.

Finally, my human rights complaint against the town was settled and an elevator was installed in the library along with accessible parking spaces.

The town installed a plaque in the library lobby crediting others with my accomplishment.

I reiterated some of the barriers that were either not included in the plans or were not removed when they could have been.

For example, an accessible town website was relegated to year 3 of the town’s first accessibility plan, then listed as a priority for 2005, and then 2006.

A 2007 report informed council that the website was compliant with W3C accessibility standards but it wasn’t, according to an external expert. 

In 2009, a newly designed website was unveiled and problems continued. 

In 2011, I mentioned difficulty navigating the website. 

In 2014, Amherstburg was invited to hire esolutions when Essex County redesigned its site to meet accessibility standards; Leamington and Essex had already hired the company, but Amherstburg declined. 

According to the town’s site, esolutions redesigned Amherstburg’s site in 2016, although it still had issues.

Thousands of dollars and redesigns later, in 2020 administration recommended, and council agreed, to request the province to extend the AODA January 1, 2021 website compliance deadline to at least January 1, 2022 due to COVID-19.

Following the January 1, 2022 deadline extension request, the province agreed the town’s work should be completed prior to December 31, 2024. 

The new website redesign and refresh was not to exceed $70,000, excluding HST.

The AODA 2005 now requires organizations to review their multi-year plans every five years but report annually on barrier removal progress.

Although the town’s plan review is due by December 2026, the town posted a 2026 Multi-Year Accessibility survey on January 26, 2026.

The survey introduction states, “The Town’s Multi-Year Accessibility Plan outlines the outcomes and initiatives that reaffirm the Town’s commitment to an accessible community and to building an equitable and inclusive society that values the contributions of people with disabilities.”

I do not feel like my contributions have been valued – my decades of input parallel decades of barriers.

Despite my repetitive requests for a strong commitment to accessibility, the town failed to meet the 2025 AODA compliance deadline.

In fact, Mayor Prue even declared, ‘this town has not been compliant.’

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Amherstburg Gingerbread House: Accessibility Issues

Posted on by

The Amherstburg Gingerbread House is called a warming house, but it might not be welcoming since it’s not disability inclusive.

Image description: Amherstburg park pavilion building dressed up as a seasonal gingerbread house.

Look! The International wheelchair access symbol sticker is on the door. What makes this accessible? It has a ramp, said the elf. No automatic door, just the second class wait outside for assistance treatment.

The signage might also have accessibility barriers.

Image description: dark brown entrance doors with the international wheelchair access symbol sticker.

Amherstburg is not a disability inclusive community.

Promoting Inclusive Community: A Call to Action for Council Members

Posted on by

My delegation at last night’s council meeting as a person with disabilities, as a representative of residents who reached out to me with their concerns, and on behalf of the Amherstburg Residents Forum, regarding the adverse effect on the disability community of the closing of Murray Street was met with apathy.

Not that it ill have any more effect on council than mentioning, during last night’s delegation, the AODA and the UN Convention On The Rights of Persons With Disabilities, but I emailed council members anyway.

The lack of decorum at last night’s meeting was appalling. I urge you to update the procedural by-law to include a time limit on your speeches, a limit on the number of times you can speak, and a limit on the number of questions to admin. Other municipalities do it and I know you rely on comparators sometimes. Also, a meeting of council is where you, as decision-makers, debate the issues yet admin are invited to participate in debates.

I also urge you to post the council and committee meeting videos to youtube which is a good transparency initiative that other municipalities do.

it’s very disappointing, especially during National AccessAbility Week, that the town is promoting a flag raising or wearing red shirts while votes in favour of closing off yet another public space adversely affects people with disabilities. Shame on you. 

in my opinion, it’s hypocritical to promote anything that may appear as tokenism. we already have plenty of awareness. what we need is a stronger commitment to ensuring we live in an inclusive community, free of discrimination and free of barriers that prevent our human right to equally participate. we need to ensure that we people with disabilities stop encountering attitudinal barriers and ableism. we need elected officials to take a stand and not vote in favour of barriers or spend taxpayer dollars on barriers.

we also need people to realize that input from residents like me, with disabilities, should be welcomed; it should not be met with examples like the attached. chris drew, an accessibility advisory committee member posted this yesterday to the town’s facebook page.

Screenshot

Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee’s Motion vs. Administration Report

Posted on by

Will council agree with its Accessibility Advisory Committee’s (AAAC) motion that this is not just about accessibility or with an administration report to council that accessibility funding should be used?

I shared my concerns with Councillor McArthur, council’s rep to the Committee, and Councillor Pouget who attended the AAAC meeting when the discussion occurred.

  1. Shouldn’t rest areas be more important than more planters?

    In 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: 

  1. the public and persons with disabilities.
  2. a municipal accessibility advisory committee if one exits.’
  3. Why use AODA Compliance Reserve Fund?

The January 29 administration report recommended using funds accrued within the accessibility compliance reserve fund which are intended for repairs and improvements designed to reduce or remove barriers and promote greater access to public spaces, goods and services.

The May 13 administration report states the AODA compliance reserve fund was introduced in 2017 as an annual contribution to the reserves of the town of Amherstburg for municipal building and infrastructure improvements to eliminate barriers with regards to accessibility.

The August 2016 Accessibility Advisory Committee Minutes indicate the motion that administration develop a policy that the committee reviews and edits to ensure the town is promoting accessibility in the strategic plan and ask that $50,000 a year starting in the 2017 annual capital budget be set aside for promoting accessibility in public buildings. 

  • Which recommendation should prevail?

The Accessibility Advisory Committee’s April 10 motion, following concerns that AODA Compliance Funds were to be used for the Richmond St. sidewalk repairs, was that council consider the reconsideration of the funding source for reduction by 50%. 

The clerk advised the committee that his professional recommendation to council would be to use that fund because that is why that fund was created.

  • What type of motion is required?

At the April 10 committee meeting, Councillor McArthur asked, couldn’t council in that very meeting make a motion to reconsider it and then either Council says yes to 50% or no to 50% but it could proceed on the same timeline? 

The clerk answered that yes, if the motion was carefully worded, where it asked for the funding consideration to be reviewed, he didn’t think there would be any reason why they couldn’t be shifted after they were already spent. If for example, it was 31,000 drawn out of the reserve but this recommendation was that it shouldn’t be funded from this reserve then Council could pull the funds from another reserve to replenish that; they do journal entries all the time.

The clerk repeated that if the committee wished to have council look at that and fund it from a different source if it was worded right the project could continue.

Councillor Donald McArthur stated if the committee is comfortable with 50% he’d happily go to council and ask them to reconsider the funding source. 

The May report to council addresses a reconsideration. ‘It is debatable whether such a motion would be permissible though, as portions of the original motion which would be the subject of the reconsideration have already been acted upon, and as such, are not open to be reconsidered. The reconsideration of the funding source would need to be considered outside of the reconsideration on the consultation and/or whether the works should be undertaken. A less procedurally fraught motion would be to cause $16,000 worth of funding to be redirected to the AODA Compliance Reserve fund, from another funding source to offset the associated costs. That said, such a motion is not recommended by Administration as funding this $16,000 from another reserve creates a need to identify $16,000 of unbudgeted and unplanned expense which may have adverse impacts on other projects.’

Didn’t council approve $450,000. of unbudgeted and unplanned expense for pickleball?

Who Are ‘You People’?

Posted on by

Someone started a rant to me with ‘you people just want to complain’ and included ‘wheelers’ in response to a Facebook conversation about inclusivity of an event.

‘You people,’ like ‘those people’ implies, to me, that people with disabilities are a separate segment of society. And, historically, people with disabilities have been disadvantaged, not by disabilities, but by a society where ableism prevailed and the identification, prevention and removal of barriers hasn’t been a priority.

As a person with disabilities, the barrier that I encounter the most is the attitudinal barrier; it’s usually based on stereotypical beliefs that people using wheelchairs make up the majority of the disability community or that people are demanding extra.

Do you know anyone that has or has had cancer? diabetes? arthritis? MS? lung disease? heart disease? dyslexia? low vision? hearing loss? ADHD? depression? anxiety? Then you know someone that has a disability.

While there are legislative definitions of ‘disability,’ there are also various models of disability that describe attitudes toward people with disabilities and I can usually quickly spot and categorize where people fit in.

There is a longer list, but briefly, the medical model where members of the medical community need to ‘fix’ an individual. The charity model; I see photo ops of politicians at charity events where people with disabilities are depicted as victims of tragedy and are pitied. What I sometimes hear are political comments related to costs and how things take time. The social model, and more recently the human rights model, emphasizes that it’s the environmental and attitudinal barriers that prevent people with disabilities from equally participating in communities, even though everyone has the right to equality.

There is also preferable and inclusive language but people still use the outdated ‘handicap’ and other euphemisms.

Ignorance is no excuse in 2024. It’s also unacceptable to personally attack people with disabilities on social media for ‘complaining’ about a lack of access or pointing out attitudinal barriers.